Let's start with a definition for a game:
"A game is a structured or semi-structured, contrived recreational activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment (although sometimes for physical or vocational training). A goal that the players try to reach and a set of rules concerning what the players can or cannot do create the challenge and structure in a game, and are thus central to its definition." (via Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game))
I'm going to build on this by stating:
All games involve at minimum: Chance or Challenge (mental or physical)
All games are covered by this definition - including gambling and sports. Activities without goals, a set of rules, and chance or challenge -- are not games. For example, according to Will Wright, his Sim City is not a game at all, but a toy. Running around outside is not a game. Tag is a game.
Now, let's look at Roleplaying games. How many are actually games, and how many are something else entirely. Which do you consider to have all the requirements for a game -- goals, rules, and chance or challenge? Which do you think are not games at all, but rather toys or play, with which you might be able to play a game.*
* This of course transfers the need for creating goals and rules to others, such as the group playing the "game".
Interestingly enough, when you look at Wizards of the Coast's What is D&D (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/whatisdnd) page... it's not entirely clear what the goal is. Does this mean it's not a game at all? :)
So... which are the roleplaying games... and which are just roleplaying? :)
While bearing in mind the arbitariness and often hidden agendas involved in definitions, I have to say that I like seeing most RPGs as toys, not games.
The way we used to play D&D, I mean back in the 70's, and TFT, was pretty much as a game, though. I'm thinking that within the useful toy-game dichotomy, there's really a sliding scale. Original D&D was an open-ended game over the long term, but within a given situation, especially at the table, you had reasonably circumscribed arena for challenge, in which you staked your character against the hope that you'd end up with a more powerful character. In this sense it could be compared to gambling: sitting at the poker table, you're playing a game using your money. But that doesn't turn all your poker games into one big game, even though "your money" is always involved in them. It also doesn't turn everything else you might do with your money into an extension of your poker game.
Quote from: StuartInterestingly enough, when you look at Wizards of the Coast's What is D&D (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/whatisdnd) page... it's not entirely clear what the goal is. Does this mean it's not a game at all? :)
So... which are the roleplaying games... and which are just roleplaying? :)
I'm going to call this one. If it's something with rules which you play for fun, then it's reasonable to call it a game. At least, people will not be confused by calling it a game -- which is the mark of good communication.
The moment you throw a die, deal a card, consult a chart, compare numbers, shake your fists for rock/paper/scissors or do anything beyond "let's pretend," then it's a game.
If you just sit in your chair, pretending to be other people, dialoguing back and forth (or even get up and put on costumes and run around a hotel freaking out the other guests), you're "just" roleplaying.
Honestly, I thought that was pretty self-evident... ;)
The way I see it, a game needs at least one rule.
Quote from: VellorianThe moment you throw a die, deal a card, consult a chart, compare numbers, shake your fists for rock/paper/scissors or do anything beyond "let's pretend," then it's a game.
If you just sit in your chair, pretending to be other people, dialoguing back and forth (or even get up and put on costumes and run around a hotel freaking out the other guests), you're "just" roleplaying.
Honestly, I thought that was pretty self-evident... ;)
Yeah.
I'm down with this.
No, it's obviously not a game. *sarcasm*
Let's say that all games involve goals, rules, and chance or challenge (mental or physical). (I'm pretty confident that's true) Let's also say that every group of people sitting down to play an RPG is playing a game. (I'm also confident people wouldn't sit around a table and roleplay without any purpose)
What I'm wondering is -- where did the goal come from? How many RPGs have a clearly stated goal, and how many are more like a toolkit to create multiple types of games? And if they're toolkits -- do they support all types of goals evenly, or are some goals better supported that others.
Quote from: StuartLet's say that all games involve goals, rules, and chance or challenge (mental or physical). (I'm pretty confident that's true) Let's also say that every group of people sitting down to play an RPG is playing a game. (I'm also confident people wouldn't sit around a table and roleplay without any purpose)
What I'm wondering is -- where did the goal come from? How many RPGs have a clearly stated goal, and how many are more like a toolkit to create multiple types of games? And if they're toolkits -- do they support all types of goals evenly, or are some goals better supported that others.
I don't know of any RPGs that I have played in that have a clearly stated goal, and I would have it no other way. The goal is something that is decided by the group (or some elements of said group).
Quote from: StuartLet's say that all games involve goals, rules, and chance or challenge (mental or physical). (I'm pretty confident that's true) Let's also say that every group of people sitting down to play an RPG is playing a game. (I'm also confident people wouldn't sit around a table and roleplay without any purpose)
What I'm wondering is -- where did the goal come from? How many RPGs have a clearly stated goal, and how many are more like a toolkit to create multiple types of games? And if they're toolkits -- do they support all types of goals evenly, or are some goals better supported that others.
:hmm:
Well some RPGs do have a specific goal. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that a good recent example of this would be Burning Empires. It is a competative game where a specific scenario (defending against or successfully starting an invasion) uses the rules and the people at the table to give it variety, but there seems to be a definite flow of events leading to a discrete endgame.
Most games however I think are toolkits whose focus varies by the designer's motives, though if you agree with The Landmarks, supporting a wide variety of goals is probably for the best.
Well, I've done psychodrama which is a therapeutic role-playing technique. It's *not* what I think most people would think of as a game--but it does have rules and a facilitator (GM?).
I think the line is blurry. Games are used for enjoyment. Storytelling is a skill that is used in a lot of RPG-play (but not all of it and it varies as to whether it is the primary purpose from group to group).
I think ultimately there is no line--just a gray-area around the edges (D&D: definitely a game. A round-robin story-telling exercise around a campfire where one person puts the character in a tough situation and the next gets him out and repeats? Maybe not so much a game ...).
-Marco
QuoteI think ultimately there is no line--just a gray-area around the edges (D&D: definitely a game. A round-robin story-telling exercise around a campfire where one person puts the character in a tough situation and the next gets him out and repeats? Maybe not so much a game ...).
They're all games -- but some need the players to choose a goal before beginning... while others have the goal stated as part of the game itself.
In that context, it's not so gray -- and easier for us to discuss. :)
(The campire storytelling game is a game -- just a more simple one that when you're playing a game of D&D).