RPGs are not "tales".
RPGs are not "novels".
RPGs are not "stories".

RPGs are not "wargames".
RPGs are not "board games".
RPGs are not "video games".
RPGs are not "card games".

RPGs are not "movies".
RPGs are not "thesis".
RPGs are not "studies".
RPGs are not "experiments".

RPGs are not "campaigns".
RPGs are not "chronicles".
RPGs are not "modules".
RPGs are not "books".

RPGs are not made of "chapters".
Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".

I think that RPGs are just that: Role Playing Games.

Comparing RPGs to something else some people might better understand to get them to play a game? Seems only natural.

Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become.

I think we have a problem as gamers, and as designers too, in that we just can't help but compare RPGs to other things which are not RPGs, and can't help but modify RPGs to better fit the expecations of this or that other medium. And in the end? RPGs just remain bastard products, not a medium of their own.

If we want to change this, we need to treat role playing games as such. We need to stop endlessly comparing them to other things and try to shape them into something, anything, that they ultimately are not. This has been done time and time again, sometimes with pleasant results, and sometimes with not so pleasant ones. Regardless of these results, I think we need to get beyond this stage, somehow, and let RPGs be RPGs, and evolve as such.

This is not a question vocabulary, structures and design only. It's a problem of mindset and culture.

I don't know if we ever will. I sure wish we would, though.

Discuss.

There is no "RPG as such". There is nothing "as such". Comparison and forming analogies is the standard way of thinking. You can't just stop it. (Certain ontological theories may disagree. Usually, though, the thing "as such" would be God.)

RPGs are not god. They are limited and thus exist as such and can be viewed as such.Kant disagrees with you!

As he does with all nihilists.

Quote from: Settembrini;378674RPGs are not god. They are limited and thus exist as such and can be viewed as such.Kant disagrees with you!

As he does with all nihilists.

Quote from: 1of3;378673There is no "RPG as such". There is nothing "as such". Comparison and forming analogies is the standard way of thinking. You can't just stop it. (Certain ontological theories may disagree. Usually, though, the thing "as such" would be God.)

It's great to be 20, studying  cool post-structuralist guys like Foucault and discovering absinthe! Let's go online while high and everyone else will acknowledge their sad state of bourgeois inferiority.

Yeah... I'm pretty much done with all the games trying to mimic/compete with 'cinematic' or 'literary' experiences.
For me a really great movie is one that can only be a movie... couldn't really be made into a book without drastic alteration. The same for great books... shouldn't be written as thinly disguised screenplays.
So... yeah, RPGs should focus on the stuff that ONLY RPGs can do... rather than shit that other mediums do better.

Quote from: Benoist;378672RPGs are not "tales".
RPGs are not "novels".
RPGs are not "stories".

RPGs are not "wargames".
RPGs are not "board games".
RPGs are not "video games".
RPGs are not "card games".

RPGs are not "movies".
RPGs are not "thesis".
RPGs are not "studies".
RPGs are not "experiments".

RPGs are not "campaigns".
RPGs are not "chronicles".
RPGs are not "modules".
RPGs are not "books".

RPGs are not made of "chapters".
Or "scenes". Or "story arcs". Or "plots".

I think that RPGs are just that: Role Playing Games.

Comparing RPGs to something else some people might better understand to get them to play a game? Seems only natural.

Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become.

I think we have a problem as gamers, and as designers too, in that we just can't help but compare RPGs to other things which are not RPGs, and can't help but modify RPGs to better fit the expecations of this or that other medium. And in the end? RPGs just remain bastard products, not a medium of their own.

If we want to change this, we need to treat role playing games as such. We need to stop endlessly comparing them to other things and try to shape them into something, anything, that they ultimately are not. This has been done time and time again, sometimes with pleasant results, and sometimes with not so pleasant ones. Regardless of these results, I think we need to get beyond this stage, somehow, and let RPGs be RPGs, and evolve as such.

This is not a question vocabulary, structures and design only. It's a problem of mindset and culture.

I don't know if we ever will. I sure wish we would, though.

Discuss.

The more narrowly you define something the smaller the number of people that participate in it.
RPGs should be a broad church that encompasses everythign from free form theatre groups to boardgames where you take on the 'role' of a character or creature.
The wider you spread the RPG net the more players you catch. If someone gets into D&D because they played MtG or if someone gets into Traveller because they loved participating in fanfiction blogs about the Stainless Steel Rat then great.

Your definition is elitist and effectively says if you do not play RPGs like I want you to play RPGs you are not playing RPGs. Its just the badwrongfun argument stated in another way.

I'm happy with story arcs in RPGs - provided they are player driven. And with a bunch of other stuff here on your list (campaigns etc).

That...was pretty melodramatic.

"Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become."

They're just games, and will ever only be games...and it doesn't really matter what anyone actually calls them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;378677The more narrowly you define something the smaller the number of people that participate in it.
RPGs should be a broad church that encompasses everythign from free form theatre groups to boardgames where you take on the 'role' of a character or creature.
The wider you spread the RPG net the more players you catch. If someone gets into D&D because they played MtG or if someone gets into Traveller because they loved participating in fanfiction blogs about the Stainless Steel Rat then great.

Your definition is elitist and effectively says if you do not play RPGs like I want you to play RPGs you are not playing RPGs. Its just the badwrongfun argument stated in another way.

The problem with this is that if you don't narrow the definition somewhat, it becomes useless. No matter what you call them I'd guess most of us here would have very little in common with the free form theatre group you mention. They wouldn't be using RPG books, funny shaped dice, miniatures, GM screens, etc. How is that roleplaying gaming? Same with MtG. It's ok for what it is, but it's not a roleplaying game. It's ok if it's not a roleplaying game, it has it's own hobby to belong to, and there's nothing that says a given individual cannot participate in both hobbies (or indeed a whole plethora).

I get what Benny's saying I think. It's not about including or excluding any specific games from the RPG hobby, it's how we think and talk about RPGs.  I agree with 1of3 to an extent, comparisons will be made. The problem is when the comparison is taken too far and begins to inform both designs and expectations. No matter how hard I try, or how bad I want it, no RPG I play is going to provide me the same experience as watching a movie. If it did, I'd no longer be playing a RPG, I'd be watching a movie. RPGs have vaguely similar elements to movies and books and even video games in that a "story" can arise out of the experience, but then that's true of all human experience. The difference is that at best those mediums provide a very limited interaction, otherwise no interaction at all. I see RPGs as a "virtual reality" of sorts, providing me a guided daydream about living in the worlds, and the times of my characters. The vast majority of folks I've gamed with seemed to approach the game the same way.

So unless I'm mistaken, no, it's not about Benny talking about the "badwrongfun" bullshit. It's about allowing RPGs to be RPGs.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;378683That...was pretty melodramatic.

"Anything beyond that just seems to bring more and more noise to the hobby, muddies the waters, and ultimately, changes role playing games into what they never were, should not be, and must not become."

They're just games, and will ever only be games...and it doesn't really matter what anyone actually calls them.

Thank you, Tommy! I prefer to define things by center rather than by edge, by exclusion. Thus Roleplaying Games are games where you play a role - that's the center. Where you put the edges are your own business.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;378687Thank you, Tommy! I prefer to define things by center rather than by edge, by exclusion. Thus Roleplaying Games are games where you play a role - that's the center. Where you put the edges are your own business.

-clash

I agree as well, but then I keep seeing folks who complain because we're not considering CCGs or "free form theatre groups" as RPGs. We have to survey the borders as being somewhere....

Roleplaying is a method used for whathaveyou. RPGs are a historically grown set of applications of this method to peculior things used for leasiure. The peculiar things can be talked about, but moving methodolically outwards creates new applications of the method aka other hobbies.

It´s all very simple. No black magic, nihilism or sophistry needed.

Quote from: Sigmund;378689I agree as well, but then I keep seeing folks who complain because we're not considering CCGs or "free form theatre groups" as RPGs. We have to survey the borders as being somewhere....

But to the opposite extreme, we have had people on this very board complain that games with Action Points/Drama Points/Bennies/What Have You are no longer RPGs but "story games" or some other nonsense.

RPG's are games.  Why does it have to get more complicated then that?

Quote from: kryyst;378703RPG's are games.  Why does it have to get more complicated then that?

Because then those icky storygamers might wanna sit at our table, or those awful, elitist Forgers or Swine or whatever they're called, I can't keep up with the geek on geek name-calling anymore.