TheRPGSite

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.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;378702But 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.

Ok. That still doesn't make CCGs or amateur acting troupes RPGs, whether "story" games are or not. What I wonder is why some folks who enjoy "story" games (and I mean real "story" games, not just RPGs with action/hero/luck points) have such a need to be labelled as RPGs. They may very well be, I have little interest in them, and so I'm not that familiar with them. I still wonder why there's such a fight over it. I would not consider what the free-form roleplaying folks do online as RPGing (the game is missing), but that hardly diminishes the value of such activities for folks that enjoy them. If "story" games depart so much from what RPGs are, why not create their own niche? We don't call RPGs "wargames", despite the hobby's origins in wargaming.

Quote from: Sigmund;378708Ok. That still doesn't make CCGs or amateur acting troupes RPGs, whether "story" games are or not. What I wonder is why some folks who enjoy "story" games (and I mean real "story" games, not just RPGs with action/hero/luck points) have such a need to be labelled as RPGs. They may very well be, I have little interest in them, and so I'm not that familiar with them. I still wonder why there's such a fight over it. I would not consider what the free-form roleplaying folks do online as RPGing (the game is missing), but that hardly diminishes the value of such activities for folks that enjoy them. If "story" games depart so much from what RPGs are, why not create their own niche? We don't call RPGs "wargames", despite the hobby's origins in wargaming.

There is a fight about it because normal gamers would never, on their own, make up a special name for role playing games that are about story instead of immersion. Calling certain RPGs "story games" is just an internet thing.

I've played plenty of D&D where the GM told a story and the dice didn't matter. You don't need a special game for that and it is still an rpg.

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 water is and shall remain muddy, as one would expect in a format so flexible, mutable, and adaptable.  I decry maneuvers to reduce this.  The evolution you speak of comes directly from the marriage of RPGs to other like mediums (some people seem to like LotR RPGs and Elric RPGs and Amber RPGs) especially such as the novels that inspire much of the RPG market.  

Story arcs and plots are the substructure and foundations for the longest running succesful RPG games.  This is not all an RPG is, but it is certainly a useful tool, as are most of your 'list of Naught'.

Getting on with them and pushing the evolution.maturation of the RPG hobby is merely a removal of small mindedness.  Increase the dialogue and respect.  Let me be heretical here, my friend.

Stop trying to make them 'only games'.  You want them to stand on themselves as a medium?  Then allow them the stature of the other mediums.  Every moron who propogates the 'it's just a game' attitude is condemning it to the second class status, the 'Bastard Child' status.
You can't have it both ways.  RPGs are games, they are fun, they can be casual, the same way that pulps and paper backs and bad campy moves are fun and lighthearded.
But RPGs can be socially relevant, they can change people and be mature, they can produce emotion, they have flexibility.  They can be art.  

Only when you allow them the freedom to be fun and serious, only when you allow them to be goofy and intellectual, only when you allow them to incorporate eveything on your 'Naught' list will they evolve into being an equal to movies and literature and performance.  

Only when they become equal in our minds will they stop being sublimated to other things.  You want RPGs to be treated as such, to stop endlessly comparing them to other things?  Treat them as equals to what they are being copmared to, and then it will happen.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;378705Because 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.

But you are missing the key benefit of just calling an RPG a game.  When those icky elitist types show up with their skewed views at your table.  You can tell them to 'shut the fuck up and play the game.'

If they don't like it send'em packing.

Quote from: Cranewings;378713There is a fight about it because normal gamers would never, on their own, make up a special name for role playing games that are about story instead of immersion. Calling certain RPGs "story games" is just an internet thing.

I've played plenty of D&D where the GM told a story and the dice didn't matter. You don't need a special game for that and it is still an rpg.

If the dice didn't matter, was there some other type of randomizer or method of task resolution? If so, how was it still D&D? I'd still call it an RPG, but not D&D, which uses dice for mechanics. If no dice or randomizer was used, then no, it's not an RPG, because the G is missing. If it's just a session that happened to not have contained anything that required engaging of the mechanics then bringing it up isn't even relevant.

If a game is about "story" rather than "immersion", where is the roleplaying? Does each player assume the role of one or more characters, and through those characters interact with a setting of some sort through game mechanics? If so, then I'd call it a RPG, although I'd also argue that some level of "immersion" is taking place (it's a spectrum, not a duality). If not, I wouldn't. I would say that, personal tastes aside, any game that has a player assuming the role of one or more characters and using game mechanics to interact with some sort of setting is a RPG, no matter what the stated goals of the game are. The vast majority of us game to be entertained, not for the goal of creating some sort of "story", but these ends don't define the thing IMO, it's the method that's used to achieve these goals that define the thing. Hell, it's right in the name... Role Playing Game.

To me RPGs are about friends getting together and having fun using their imaginations. Methods and nomenclature are just trappings.

Having fun? Great. Design. Play. Not having fun? Then jog on. No need to try to find the true Scotsman.

Quote from: SigmundIf a game is about "story" rather than "immersion", where is the roleplaying? ...Hell, it's right in the name... Role Playing Game

I love this.  Just saying...

I expect you to correct everyone who ever says "Kleenex" in place of tissue in front of you.

That said, a lot of indie games are using "story game" in place of RPG.

Quote from: Peregrin;378724I expect you to correct everyone who ever says "Kleenex" in place of tissue in front of you.

What for?

QuoteThat said, a lot of indie games are using "story game" in place of RPG.

So even they have decided that the game is better described by the label "story game" than by the label "roleplaying game". Nothing wrong with that at all.

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....

You see, why ?

Who cares is a bunch of weird Finnish guys want to play an improv live action game about working in a modern hospital and call it an RPG? Why do I care is a CCG is produced in which you play a famous swashbuckler from fiction and some one calls it an RPG?

Subdivisions might be useful doe discussive purposes, I play LARPs, or I play Tabletop RPGs, or I play Computer RPGS and you might get down to a point where you are expressing your own lives and dislikes with I like Immersive Tabletop roleplaying or I like tactical tabletop roleplaying or whatever but these are only useful terms when you are describing a thing or expressing an opinion.

I really can't think of why you would want to exclude stuff from the RPG label except as a way to create a clic for some reason.

Guy: Yeah I love role-playing games
Girl : Wow me too
Guy: You serious?
Girl: Yeah I love 'em
Guy: Okay I'll get my D&D books.
Girl: Oh I was thinking of you, me my cousin Tina and some nuns' outfits.
Guy: Right, that sounds so much better, I'll get my +3 birch of thrashing
Girl: Now your talking ....

Quote from: jibbajibba;378727You see, why ?

In order to understand what the hell we are talking to each other about without having to make the first step spending an hour defining terms. We could play RPGs and call it "cooking", but then someone looking to talk about broiling some BBQ ribs would get a bit confused.

QuoteWho cares is a bunch of weird Finnish guys want to play an improv live action game about working in a modern hospital and call it an RPG? Why do I care is a CCG is produced in which you play a famous swashbuckler from fiction and some one calls it an RPG?

Not I. If they are indeed playing a game, and playing roles in the game, then RPGing is what they're doing. Now if people start talking about going to see RPGs performed on Broadway I might complain a bit.

QuoteSubdivisions might be useful doe discussive purposes, I play LARPs, or I play Tabletop RPGs, or I play Computer RPGS and you might get down to a point where you are expressing your own lives and dislikes with I like Immersive Tabletop roleplaying or I like tactical tabletop roleplaying or whatever but these are only useful terms when you are describing a thing or expressing an opinion.

I agree with you mostly, but I would add that if you're playing a "tactical" game that doesn't actually contain any roleplaying, then you're not actually RPGing, you're wargaming. Really, this shit ain't rocket science. RPGs contain two things, playing a role, and using game mechanics. If ya got those, it's a RPG. After that is where your subdivisions come into play, and those are varied and mutable.

Quotereally can't think of why you would want to exclude stuff from the RPG label except as a way to create a clic for some reason.

Guy: Yeah I love role-playing games
Girl : Wow me too
Guy: You serious?
Girl: Yeah I love 'em
Guy: Okay I'll get my D&D books.
Girl: Oh I was thinking of you, me my cousin Tina and some nuns' outfits.
Guy: Right, that sounds so much better, I'll get my +3 birch of thrashing
Girl: Now your talking ....

You do know there's a difference between RPGs and just roleplaying, right? Actors play roles too, but I doubt they'd describe themselves as playing RPGs when they are working. I sometimes put on my flip-flops, cowboy hat, a pair of shorts, and a t-shirt and go pedalling around on my Specialized Carmel, but I'd hardly call that bike racing.

Quote from: Sigmund;378725What for?

Because it's just semantics.  Worldplay.  Cultural definitions being applied with broad strokes, which happens all the time.  We still call certain types of video-games RPGs, but I don't see anyone throwing fits over that.

They couldn't even decide on what to call RPGs for the first few years they were out, and a few other terms got bandied around.  They just kind of picked RPG because it "stuck", not because it's some super-clear objective definition. Trying to assign a strict universal definition for the term now is just a reactionary method of exclusion of games or ideas people don't like.

To paraphrase Unknown Armies, the closer you are to something, the more stressed the subjective divides become because of personal ideologies.

Quote from: Sigmund;378728You do know there's a difference between RPGs and just roleplaying, right? Actors play roles too, but I doubt they'd describe themselves as playing RPGs when they are working. I sometimes put on my flip-flops, cowboy hat, a pair of shorts, and a t-shirt and go pedalling around on my Specialized Carmel, but I'd hardly call that bike racing.

Depends, if there were two of you and the one that was faster got a prize ...

Take kids kids play games that have few rules, no mechanics and they are still games by general definition. If I play a game of 'pirates' with my daughter we are pirates, we are playing a game....
Now you might argue that that doesn't fit into your definition of a game but who cares?

Its fairly obvious when we are talking on a forum like this what we are talking about. If someone was discusing say LARPing they woudl state that from the off as its obviously not the theme of this site.

Now if you are proposing to write an academic paper on 'The form and Proto-generation of Roleplaying games and their socio-economic impact on Western democratic societies' then you may need to define your terms reasonable tightly. 'For the purposes of this essay I intent to define the term role-playing game to mean ... blah blah blah.... I understand that this excludes activities such as blah blah which some count under the banner of RPGs but I am ...blah blah' .

But for general chat and consideration on forums like this who cares. You have the centre which is basically D&D and you have things that are not D&D but are still RPGs. Whatever floats your boat.

Like Clash says the centre is pretty clear the edges get increasingly bizaare and corner-case but there is no need for us to bother about defining them cos only 3 people care.

Quote from: Peregrin;378730Because it's just semantics.  Worldplay.  Cultural definitions being applied with broad strokes, which happens all the time.  We still call certain types of video-games RPGs, but I don't see anyone throwing fits over that.

They couldn't even decide on what to call RPGs for the first few years they were out, and a few other terms got bandied around.  They just kind of picked RPG because it "stuck", not because it's some super-clear objective definition. Trying to assign a strict universal definition for the term now is just a reactionary method of exclusion of games or ideas people don't like.

To paraphrase Unknown Armies, the closer you are to something, the more stressed the subjective divides become because of personal ideologies.

Anytime you open your mouth (or run your typing fingers) it's semantics, so what?

Certain types of video games are RPGs. You assume the role of a character and interact with the game world through computer-governed mechanics.

Maybe they couldn't decide what to call them the first few years, but they've since made the decision. We call them RPGs because they are games in which we play roles. Pretty simple really. So I still maintain that if you're not playing a role, or not playing a game, you're not playing a RPG. Would you describe Poker as a RPG? How about baseball? Hide and seek? How about stage acting? Opera? Interpretive dance? Improv comedy? Piloting an ultralight aircraft? Waterskiing?

In order for the term "roleplaying game" to have any kind of usefulness, there needs to be some things it doesn't describe. Where would you set the boundaries, and why?

Quote from: jibbajibba;378734Depends, if there were two of you and the one that was faster got a prize ...

Then I would have mentioned there were two of us and that some sort of prize was involved.

QuoteTake kids kids play games that have few rules, no mechanics and they are still games by general definition. If I play a game of 'pirates' with my daughter we are pirates, we are playing a game....
Now you might argue that that doesn't fit into your definition of a game but who cares?

Firstly, I care. You might not, but then according to you why should I care if you care, right? Second, rules are mechanics, so if kids are playing a game (which has rules/mechanics) that involves playing roles, then by all means, call it a RPG. That's what it is. Now if you're just pretending, and no rules are involved, just exercising imagination, then that's called "pretending", and there's nothing wrong with that (and a whole lot right). It's fun, no matter what ya call it. But, if I'm talking to my buddy about getting together for some RPGing, it's not going to be about playing "let's pretend" about pirates.

QuoteIts fairly obvious when we are talking on a forum like this what we are talking about. If someone was discusing say LARPing they woudl state that from the off as its obviously not the theme of this site.

I agree

QuoteNow if you are proposing to write an academic paper on 'The form and Proto-generation of Roleplaying games and their socio-economic impact on Western democratic societies' then you may need to define your terms reasonable tightly. 'For the purposes of this essay I intent to define the term role-playing game to mean ... blah blah blah.... I understand that this excludes activities such as blah blah which some count under the banner of RPGs but I am ...blah blah' .

I agree here too, and for more than just to define "roleplaying game" itself, but to define which game and what kind of RPGing it is (refer to your subdivisions).

QuoteBut for general chat and consideration on forums like this who cares. You have the centre which is basically D&D and you have things that are not D&D but are still RPGs. Whatever floats your boat.

I care, but otherwise I agree with you. Are you honestly finding my description of RPGing too narrowly defined for you? Is the problem that not all roleplaying is included under the mantle of RPGing? Are all games included under RPGing? We all know they're not, so why should all forms of roleplaying be?

QuoteLike Clash says the centre is pretty clear the edges get increasingly bizaare and corner-case but there is no need for us to bother about defining them cos only 3 people care.

I don't agree. The edges are just as clear as the center. If it's a game that includes playing a role, it's a RPG. It's right in the name.

Quote from: jibbajibba;378734Take kids kids play games that have few rules, no mechanics and they are still games by general definition. If I play a game of 'pirates' with my daughter we are pirates, we are playing a game....
Now you might argue that that doesn't fit into your definition of a game but who cares?

Truer words have never been spoken.   The first roleplaying game I played was pretending I was a ninja turtle on the kindergarten playground, we called it "the ninja turtle game."

Quote from: theuglyknight;378741Truer words have never been spoken.   The first roleplaying game I played was pretending I was a ninja turtle on the kindergarten playground, we called it "the ninja turtle game."

Bunch of diceless storygaming swine!

When I was a kid I never thought of playing cops/robbers, cowboys/indians, pimps/hos as 'games'... it was just 'play'. Games were things with a win/lose outcome.
The only reason I want the 'game' in RPG is to resolve those tired, "Bang! you're dead!" "No I'm not!" arguments.


I didn't so much take Benoist's OP as directed at the debate over what is/isn't an RPG...
Instead I took it to be about insecure designers that are trying to make their rules 'emulate' other, more 'legitimate' mediums... movies, books, MMOs.

Recently I was looking at a Final Fantasy RPG... I just wanted the setting stuff but what the rules instead concentrated on was recreating the video game play experience on the tabletop... it's a lot less sweat, and more to the point, to play the damn video game.
I'm not saying such a thing wouldn't be an RPG... but it's an RPG trying to be a video game... which just seems dumb to me... and kind of insecure about what the inherent strengths of RPGs are, trusting them to provide a great, unique style of experience all their own.

Quote from: Simlasa;378746When I was a kid I never thought of playing cops/robbers, cowboys/indians, pimps/hos as 'games'... it was just 'play'. Games were things with a win/lose outcome.
The only reason I want the 'game' in RPG is to resolve those tired, "Bang! you're dead!" "No I'm not!" arguments.

Same here.

QuoteI didn't so much take Benoist's OP as directed at the debate over what is/isn't an RPG...
Instead I took it to be about insecure designers that are trying to make their rules 'emulate' other, more 'legitimate' mediums... movies, books, MMOs.

Me too, I've just been participating in going off on a tangent. If Benny wants I'll stop, pretty much said my piece anyway. Hopefully my position is kinda hard to accidentally misinterpret.

QuoteRecently I was looking at a Final Fantasy RPG... I just wanted the setting stuff but what the rules instead concentrated on was recreating the video game play experience on the tabletop... it's a lot less sweat, and more to the point, to play the damn video game.
I'm not saying such a thing wouldn't be an RPG... but it's an RPG trying to be a video game... which just seems dumb to me... and kind of insecure about what the inherent strengths of RPGs are, trusting them to provide a great, unique style of experience all their own.

Once again, I agree. That's what I don't like about the EQ RPG. I love EQ's setting and backstory, but trying to translate the MMO gameplay to the TT is folly IMO. Use the setting, use the history, then make a RPG with it, that stands on it's own merits and provides decent gameplay of it's own.

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James Nicoll

Alternatively: what does roleplaying have in common with pro wrestling and jazz?

I'm with several others that beyond a pretty basic definition, RPGs should cast a wide net. LordVreeg and jibbajabba have both hit it  on the head. RPGs don't have to be stories, video games, board games, or experiments--those things aren't essential to RPGs in any way, but neither do I think being those things necessarily excludes any specific activity from also being a RPG.

It's well and good to define from the center, but it's at the edges that you nail down precisely what makes RPGs and what makes them not. I don't think improv theatre is a roleplaying game, but I do think murder mystery dinner games are. Sussing out the reasons why I think so, and making a definition that excludes the one and includes the other helps me understand what is the essential activity of a role-playing game.

Personally, I resist the storygames label at this site for a couple of reasons:

1) the distinction between the two is very small. If me and my buddies play Grey Ranks one night and then Dark Heresy the next, what is going on around the table on those nights contains far more similarities than difference. I'd be happy to talk about storygames as a technical distinction except...

2) there is so much bullshit polemic around it at this site. It has been a term that people have used in the process of being clicquey, elitist pricks.

Very interesting feedback. Thanks everyone!

Just a bunch of disclaimers at this point: I'm not claiming to stand above the fray in this. I may not think of RPGs in terms of stories, say, but I might think about them in terms of wargames, for instance. I think that's something we pretty much all do, subconsciously or not.

I'm not trying to claim that RPGs are "just games" either. The question of what an RPG is and is not is central to this topic, and I deliberately avoided any attempt at a definition. If there is such a thing, it is what remains once you strip RPGs from any reference to other media, in my mind. What that would be, is a good question indeed. I'm not sure I have an answer to that.

The OP keeps referring to "the problem". What problem?

The only problem I see is that, ever since there have been roleplaying games there has been a bunch of roleplayers who feel it's their duty to tell all the other rolepalyers that they are doing it wrong.

Unsurprisingly that doesn't actually work and people carry on doing what they want to do. How annoying is that?

Quote from: Soylent Green;378755Unsurprisingly that doesn't actually work and people carry on doing what they want to do. How annoying is that?

It's not annoying. Not even surprising, actually.

It seems to me we are looking at it from the inside and not from the general approach.  If we, generally speaking a group of people who know a lot about the subject try and define it.  We are putting our bias on the term.

But to the outside world Roleplaying Games (well ok Dungeons and Dragons) are a collective unit.  They don't see or care about the distinction.  They are all a bunch of games where you have a character you tell some story and you roll dice.  That's about as specific as they could get (if they even knew that much).  We can further dissect that for our own uses because we may only want to talk about this play style vs that.  But that's for our needs alone.

It's no different then a lay person being told to go buy some wood and a master carpenter raging into the night about specifics depending on his exacting needs.

Quote from: Sigmund;378736In order for the term "roleplaying game" to have any kind of usefulness, there needs to be some things it doesn't describe. Where would you set the boundaries, and why?

IMO, any game in which you play a role, regardless of any meta constructs or agendas in place.

I prefer using the term in a broad, inclusive manner.

Quote from: Thanlis;378751"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James Nicoll

Alternatively: what does roleplaying have in common with pro wrestling and jazz?

Well Pro-wrestling is easy... there are these guys and they are all playing a role ...

Jazz well ...nice

Quote from: jibbajibba;378772Well Pro-wrestling is easy... there are these guys and they are all playing a role ...

Jazz well ...nice

Two great wrestlers can be just like Jazz, with the improv and all...but I suppose you have to have a certain mindset in order to appreciate that.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;378773Two great wrestlers can be just like Jazz, with the improv and all...but I suppose you have to have a certain mindset in order to appreciate that.

I don't think anyone could ever find a Jazz musician who would appreciate that.  :)

Quote from: jeff37923;378775I don't think anyone could ever find a Jazz musician who would appreciate that.  :)

Actually...one of the athletic commissioners here in Oklahoma who covers most of our shows is a Jazz musician on the side and a huge fan of wrestling.  I believe he just might.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;378776Actually...one of the athletic commissioners here in Oklahoma who covers most of our shows is a Jazz musician on the side and a huge fan of wrestling.  I believe he just might.

Well, shut my mouth then! :)

Quote from: jeff37923;378777Well, shut my mouth then! :)

Contrary to popular stereotypes, you can dig out an amazing cross-section of people among wrestlers and wrestling fans, even in little podunk towns in Oklahoma...=)

Just among the wrestlers we have whiny emo kids, loan officers, school coaches, die hard comic geeks, right wing wackos, left wing loons, video store managers, comic book writers, guys with too much money and a little too much time, devoted family men, homosexuals, lecherous "lady's men", gold diggers and more...and the only things we've ever kicked out are thieves and child molesters.

Anyway, I'll back off of this thread derailment...sorry guys...=)

Benoist posted the same thing over at tBP (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=513448). Hilarity ensued.

Quote from: Darren MacLennan

Quote from: Benoist Poire;12116571YOU DOING IT WRONG

No, I'm not.

Admit it, man. You did for the lulz.

What are you, the last ballsy Frenchman? :p

Weak, weak sauce.

RPGs are not altogether crows, nor moles, nor buzzards, nor ants, nor decomposed human beings, nor something I cannot and must not rec--

JESUS CHRIST IT'S A BYAKHEE GET IN THE CAR

Quote from: two_fishes;378752It's well and good to define from the center, but it's at the edges that you nail down precisely what makes RPGs and what makes them not. I don't think improv theatre is a roleplaying game, but I do think murder mystery dinner games are. Sussing out the reasons why I think so, and making a definition that excludes the one and includes the other helps me understand what is the essential activity of a role-playing game.

I agree. I would also call a murder mystery dinner game a RPG.

Quote from: The Butcher;378780Admit it, man. You did for the lulz.

What are you, the last ballsy Frenchman? :p

Nope. :)

Quote from: Peregrin;378763IMO, any game in which you play a role, regardless of any meta constructs or agendas in place.

I prefer using the term in a broad, inclusive manner.

If that's how you define "a broad, inclusive manner", then I completely agree with you. A RPG is any game in which you play a role. That's exactly what I've been saying.

BTW, posted it on ENWorld, and the Haven too.

For me its easier than most of you.  I play DnD. That's it. I don't play other rpg's, nor am I interested in any.  I never have played any other one, other than a few sessions of the lord of the rings one in the 80's (MERPS).   I don't play card games, whether poker or MtG type.  I don't play board games.  I'm not a gamer.  I'm not a rpg'er. I'm just a guy who plays DnD, preferably older versions or a newer version hacked down to run like an older version.  If you play waht I call a RPG or a toilet seat, it doesn't matter.  I just play DnD regardless of how its categorized.

Quote from: Sigmund;378717If the dice didn't matter, was there some other type of randomizer or method of task resolution? If so, how was it still D&D? I'd still call it an RPG, but not D&D, which uses dice for mechanics. If no dice or randomizer was used, then no, it's not an RPG, because the G is missing. If it's just a session that happened to not have contained anything that required engaging of the mechanics then bringing it up isn't even relevant.

If a game is about "story" rather than "immersion", where is the roleplaying? Does each player assume the role of one or more characters, and through those characters interact with a setting of some sort through game mechanics? If so, then I'd call it a RPG, although I'd also argue that some level of "immersion" is taking place (it's a spectrum, not a duality). If not, I wouldn't. I would say that, personal tastes aside, any game that has a player assuming the role of one or more characters and using game mechanics to interact with some sort of setting is a RPG, no matter what the stated goals of the game are. The vast majority of us game to be entertained, not for the goal of creating some sort of "story", but these ends don't define the thing IMO, it's the method that's used to achieve these goals that define the thing. Hell, it's right in the name... Role Playing Game.

I think that is the same kind of logic that leads Baptists to say other denominations aren't really Christian.

You can roll dice and have it not matter. If you go left or right at the fork, you still meet the same NPC. If the NPC needs a power or magic item, he pulls it out of his ass. If your plan works, something unexpected foils it or changes it. If you die in combat, somehow you still live and win.

You still roll dice, but story always prevails over dice because no one can see behind the screen. I think it is still dungeons and dragons.

I never would have guessed, Joe. ;)

Quote from: One Horse Town;378808I never would have guessed, Joe. ;)

What can I say, I'm a one trick pony, one horse town.  :)

Quote from: Sigmund;378797A RPG is any game in which you play a role.

I'd go along with that too... it's nice and simple.

Quote from: Cranewings;378807I think that is the same kind of logic that leads Baptists to say other denominations aren't really Christian.

You thinking it doesn't make it true.

QuoteYou can roll dice and have it not matter. If you go left or right at the fork, you still meet the same NPC. If the NPC needs a power or magic item, he pulls it out of his ass. If your plan works, something unexpected foils it or changes it. If you die in combat, somehow you still live and win.

You still roll dice, but story always prevails over dice because no one can see behind the screen. I think it is still dungeons and dragons.

If you sit the D&D book in front of you, and talk about D&D characters, but never open the books, or roll any dice, you're not playing D&D, you're talking about it. D&D is a game that has rules that make use of occasional random outcomes. As long as you're engaging with some or all of the rules of the D&D game, then sure... you're playing D&D. If you're just sitting around a table making up stories using fluff from D&D books you're not playing D&D, because you're not using any of the game's rules.

This all seems rather ambiguous to me.

I would find it helpful to know what rpg's do that other entertainment mediums do not.

What experience do rpg's provide that is wholly unique to this hobby?

Quote from: Sigmund;378814You thinking it doesn't make it true.



If you sit the D&D book in front of you, and talk about D&D characters, but never open the books, or roll any dice, you're not playing D&D, you're talking about it. D&D is a game that has rules that make use of occasional random outcomes. As long as you're engaging with some or all of the rules of the D&D game, then sure... you're playing D&D. If you're just sitting around a table making up stories using fluff from D&D books you're not playing D&D, because you're not using any of the game's rules.

A very specific and extreme example. What is they made PCs from a point build system and narrated their actions in a diceless method by stat comparison moderated by GM fiat? Still D&D? Still an RPG?
The real point is why does it matter. If some guys want to play a narative story game based on D&D tropes and call it an RPG why should we care?

I guess the point I am trying to make , albeit in a rather clumsy way, is that by defining what an RPG is you exclude stuff you haven't thought of. The defintion you use of it's a game in which you play a role is fine except that I suspect that for you a 'game' is a specific thing with a set of rules and mechanical resolutions and this might exclude some stuff that other people call a game. Even the term role is open to interpretation. In Chess are you playing the role of a general leading his army? In a game with a troupe approach where you play multiple characters in different aspects of game play are you playing a role or multiple roles?
When I play Escape from Colditz each one of my little wooden men has a name and a personality. Polowski is a bit crazy and always goes on do or die missions or tries to grap the generals staff car, Captian Winger is a tunnel guy careful and methodical etc etc ... is that a roleplaying game ? Does it matter?

So what is this definition of an RPG for? Is it for discussion here on the boards? Is it an academic description which will need to be well defined but will be filled with exceptions outside a narrow academic focus? Is it a design tool? If so then you are better off sayign this is a design tool for immersive table top RPGS because the parameters between even that which you woudl define as an RPG vary largely.

Quote from: jibbajibba;378881A very specific and extreme example. What is they made PCs from a point build system and narrated their actions in a diceless method by stat comparison moderated by GM fiat? Still D&D? Still an RPG?
The real point is why does it matter. If some guys want to play a narative story game based on D&D tropes and call it an RPG why should we care?

I guess the point I am trying to make , albeit in a rather clumsy way, is that by defining what an RPG is you exclude stuff you haven't thought of. The defintion you use of it's a game in which you play a role is fine except that I suspect that for you a 'game' is a specific thing with a set of rules and mechanical resolutions and this might exclude some stuff that other people call a game. Even the term role is open to interpretation. In Chess are you playing the role of a general leading his army? In a game with a troupe approach where you play multiple characters in different aspects of game play are you playing a role or multiple roles?
When I play Escape from Colditz each one of my little wooden men has a name and a personality. Polowski is a bit crazy and always goes on do or die missions or tries to grap the generals staff car, Captian Winger is a tunnel guy careful and methodical etc etc ... is that a roleplaying game ? Does it matter?

So what is this definition of an RPG for? Is it for discussion here on the boards? Is it an academic description which will need to be well defined but will be filled with exceptions outside a narrow academic focus? Is it a design tool? If so then you are better off sayign this is a design tool for immersive table top RPGS because the parameters between even that which you woudl define as an RPG vary largely.

If you're completely abandoning the D&D rules then no, of course you're not playing  D&D, you're playing your own game based on or inspired by D&D, and of course it's an RPG. It's a game where you're playing a role. Simple as that. Nothing wrong with playing your own game based on D&D, that's what most folks do with OD&D to a greater or lesser extent anyway.  If it rocks for you guys then cool.

I completely disagree about the alleged consequences you put forth for defining RPGs. RPGs are self-defined anyway, and any specific thing that fails to be defined by the term RPG suffers in no way at all. Free-form roleplaying is just fine, and can easily be enjoyed by it's participants, without being labelled as "a roleplaying game". The FFRP folks can even also enjoy RPGing freely and without restriction if they choose, or really anything else they want to pursue as a hobby. Same goes for board gaming, wargaming, poker players, CCGers, race car drivers, etc.

Oh, and just giving names to playing pieces doesn't equate to playing their role. Let me ask you this, if you don't define "roleplaying game", how do you recognise one when you see it? When you talk to other folks about roleplaying gaming, do you find yourself having to be specific about which game or games you're referring too because you feel the definition must be left so broad as to be completely useless in conversation?

I'm not sure I find your basing your argument on your own unfounded suspicions on how I define "game" or even "role" to be very helpful. If you don't know what I mean, do you not perhaps think it'd be more useful to ask me before telling me how wrong I am? Would considering murder mystery dinner games or LARPs as being RPGs, but not board games, still be too restrictive for you?

Oh, and to answer your question about troupe play, if you're assuming the role of a group of characters then of course it's RPGing. I'm as much a fan of Ars Magica as I am of D&D. Have 4th and 5th editions.

The definition of RPG is self-defined, and is there for whatever purpose you put to any word or term in any language.

Quote from: Shazbot79;378880This all seems rather ambiguous to me.

I would find it helpful to know what rpg's do that other entertainment mediums do not.

What experience do rpg's provide that is wholly unique to this hobby?

RPGs allow you to sit around a table with some friends and/or like-minded folks and pretend to be people you're not in a more or less structured manner. Other mediums don't do that.

Quote from: Sigmund;378814You thinking it doesn't make it true.



If you sit the D&D book in front of you, and talk about D&D characters, but never open the books, or roll any dice, you're not playing D&D, you're talking about it. D&D is a game that has rules that make use of occasional random outcomes. As long as you're engaging with some or all of the rules of the D&D game, then sure... you're playing D&D. If you're just sitting around a table making up stories using fluff from D&D books you're not playing D&D, because you're not using any of the game's rules.

What if you use the rules right up until the GM decides he doesn't like what is happening, and breaks away from his notes or lies about dice rolls so that their outcomes don't matter. If you lose a fight but some special event or person outside of PC control steps in and saves he story, is it still d&d? The dice don't matter but you were still rolling them.

I think it is definitely dungeons and dragons, even if the dice are a formality.

Quote from: Sigmund;378891Oh, and just giving names to playing pieces doesn't equate to playing their role. Let me ask you this, if you don't define "roleplaying game", how do you recognise one when you see it? When you talk to other folks about roleplaying gaming, do you find yourself having to be specific about which game or games you're referring too because you feel the definition must be left so broad as to be completely useless in conversation?

But you have to define things using your definition as well. If you are talking about RPGS and some guy says he loves Fallout3 or Larping you have to say no I mean tabletop RPGs. You have already narrowed your defintion. Then when he says well I tried Heroquest you have to narrow your defintion still further. Basically you always need to narrow your scope to the specifics its a given so why narrow the scope at the outset?

Quote from: Cranewings;378898What if you use the rules right up until the GM decides he doesn't like what is happening, and breaks away from his notes or lies about dice rolls so that their outcomes don't matter. If you lose a fight but some special event or person outside of PC control steps in and saves he story, is it still d&d? The dice don't matter but you were still rolling them.

I think it is definitely dungeons and dragons, even if the dice are a formality.

Deus Ex Machina has been used in D&D many times, so sure, why not. But I'm sure if you try hard enough you can come up with an extreme enough example to get me to say no, that's not D&D anymore if you try hard enough. It's simple, if you're using the rules from D&D to play, you're playing D&D. If you're not, you're not. If you break out a Monopoly game, use the dice to make moves around the board, but throw out the money, the whole idea of buying property, and just race each other around the board for 10 laps, are you still playing Monopoly, or are you just using the Monopoly junk to play your own game?

Quote from: jibbajibba;378902But you have to define things using your definition as well. If you are talking about RPGS and some guy says he loves Fallout3 or Larping you have to say no I mean tabletop RPGs. You have already narrowed your defintion. Then when he says well I tried Heroquest you have to narrow your defintion still further. Basically you always need to narrow your scope to the specifics its a given so why narrow the scope at the outset?

You can't help but narrow the scope. The only way to not be narrowing the scope is to define the term "roleplaying game" to include everything in the universe. Othewise, you're narrowing it in some way. I narrow it in a way that allows the words "role", "playing", and "game" to be included in the objects/activities to which I'm referring when I use the term. That way, when I'm talking to someone they understand right away that I'm talking about games, and more specifically, types of games that involve playing roles. Then we can discuss specifics if we want or need to. Similarly, when I mention that I like cars, people get an idea, but I then narrow it down to sports cars, specifically small, British-style 2-seat roadster type sports cars, usually convertible. When I mention my passion for photography, you might not be immediately aware that I prefer macro, wildlife, and scenic photography, but I'm sure if we care to discuss it further we'll get to that. I honestly don't understand the difficulty in understanding this concept.

Quote from: Sigmund;378892RPGs allow you to sit around a table with some friends and/or like-minded folks and pretend to be people you're not in a more or less structured manner. Other mediums don't do that.

So what about D&D games that are played via forum, google wave or MUD?

Are these not roleplaying games?

Quote from: Shazbot79;378912So what about D&D games that are played via forum, google wave or MUD?

Are these not roleplaying games?

I'm not sure what part is confusing ya. On these fora, waves, or MUDs, are you assuming a role while playing a game? If you are then yes, it's RPGing. I'm playing in Werekoala's pbp game on this forum right now in fact, and it's very much RPGing. We're using rules and playing roles... simple as that. If the table's virtual, then so be it. I'm having a hard time believing your post specifically isn't a troll. If you can't tell the difference between RPGing and reading a book or watching a movie, then I'm not sure what you're even doing here because it would be obvious to me you've never RPged before. You can nitpick and bring up more and more extreme examples until we reach the point where my answer will change I'm quite sure, but I not convinced that would be for any other purpose than to satisfy some kind of need to be argumentative. I'm not in the mood to indulge that, so I'll end my participation with you here.

Quote from: Sigmund;378919I'm not sure what part is confusing ya. On these fora, waves, or MUDs, are you assuming a role while playing a game? If you are then yes, it's RPGing. I'm playing in Werekoala's pbp game on this forum right now in fact, and it's very much RPGing. We're using rules and playing roles... simple as that. If the table's virtual, then so be it. I'm having a hard time believing your post specifically isn't a troll. If you can't tell the difference between RPGing and reading a book or watching a movie, then I'm not sure what you're even doing here because it would be obvious to me you've never RPged before. You can nitpick and bring up more and more extreme examples until we reach the point where my answer will change I'm quite sure, but I not convinced that would be for any other purpose than to satisfy some kind of need to be argumentative. I'm not in the mood to indulge that, so I'll end my participation with you here.

Sorry...but the OP spent so much time defining what a role playing game ISN'T without regard to define exactly what it IS.

I suspect that Benoist's rant has more to do with defining the medium according to his playstyle rather than as a whole...which entices me to argue.

So this leads me to wonder, what are the specific games that advertise themselves as rpg's but are actually something else entirely?

Quote from: Shazbot79;378922Sorry...but the OP spent so much time defining what a role playing game ISN'T without regard to define exactly what it IS.

I suspect that Benoist's rant has more to do with defining the medium according to his playstyle rather than as a whole...which entices me to argue.

So this leads me to wonder, what are the specific games that advertise themselves as rpg's but are actually something else entirely?

You'll have to ask Benny.

Quote from: Shazbot79;378922Sorry...but the OP spent so much time defining what a role playing game ISN'T without regard to define exactly what it IS.

I suspect that Benoist's rant has more to do with defining the medium according to his playstyle rather than as a whole...which entices me to argue.

So this leads me to wonder, what are the specific games that advertise themselves as rpg's but are actually something else entirely?

I didn't define a Role Playing Game on purpose.

Think about it that way: strip an RPG of all references to anything else. What do you think does remain?

Quote from: Benoist;378931I didn't define a Role Playing Game on purpose.

Think about it that way: strip an RPG of all references to anything else. What do you think does remain?

Randomness.

Quote from: Benoist;378931I didn't define a Role Playing Game on purpose.

Think about it that way: strip an RPG of all references to anything else. What do you think does remain?

Hm, well since you specify:

Quote from: Benoist;378672RPGs are not "wargames".
RPGs are not "board games".
RPGs are not "video games".
RPGs are not "card games".

That almost seems to strip out the "game" aspect. If you strip out from the definition of role-playing games the things it has in common with war/board/video/card games in the same way you want to strip out the story-telling aspects from any definition, then what kind of game is left? The only sorts of rules that would fit would have to be directly related to enforcing, guiding or encouraging the playing of a role. In slightly more concrete terms, the most roleplaying-ly rules of all might be those that enforced setting, or character boundaries, things like Sanity rules in CoC, or the Virtues and Passions of Pendragon. Things that deepen the player's understanding of the role they are playing. Does that make any sense?

QuoteAnything 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.

This is where I part ways from the OP. Why shouldn't RPGs go in a wide variety of directions, adopts forms from all over the place to suit specific roleplaying desires?

Quote from: two_fishes;378947This is where I part ways from the OP. Why shouldn't RPGs go in a wide variety of directions, adopts forms from all over the place to suit specific roleplaying desires?

Because then you wind up with a bunch of Murky crap games - and no one really wants that (Except maybe Angsty artsy-fartsy types that never got out of a College Sophomore Philosophy class way of thinking...)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;378948Because then you wind up with a bunch of Murky crap games - and no one really wants that (Except maybe Angsty artsy-fartsy types that never got out of a College Sophomore Philosophy class way of thinking...)

Yeah I guess we should all be happy with the same boring retreads of stuff that's already been done to death until the end of time, right Ed?

Quote from: Koltar;378948Because then you wind up with a bunch of Murky crap games - and no one really wants that (Except maybe Angsty artsy-fartsy types that never got out of a College Sophomore Philosophy class way of thinking...)

Nobody's making you play all of them. The relevant question is, why shouldn't RPGs be varied enough to provide enjoyable play experiences to a variety of people with different play preferences? Why should all RPGs be similar to each other?

Quote from: two_fishes;378947Hm, well since you specify:



That almost seems to strip out the "game" aspect. If you strip out from the definition of role-playing games the things it has in common with war/board/video/card games in the same way you want to strip out the story-telling aspects from any definition, then what kind of game is left? The only sorts of rules that would fit would have to be directly related to enforcing, guiding or encouraging the playing of a role. In slightly more concrete terms, the most roleplaying-ly rules of all might be those that enforced setting, or character boundaries, things like Sanity rules in CoC, or the Virtues and Passions of Pendragon. Things that deepen the player's understanding of the role they are playing. Does that make any sense?



This is where I part ways from the OP. Why shouldn't RPGs go in a wide variety of directions, adopts forms from all over the place to suit specific roleplaying desires?

I don't see where Benny wrote that RPGs shouldn't go in a wide variety of directions. All I see him saying in the OP is that RPGs are not those things he mentioned. Ya know what, they're not. TTRPGs are not capable of providing an identical experience as a MMO, or a novel, or a movie. If folks try to make them provide such an experience it's most likely going to be less than successful. They can provide similar experiences, they can inspire similar feelings of enjoyment, and more. They are not, however, the same. I was disappointed when I read the EQ RPG for this reason. As much as I loved playing EQ, the EQ RPG was never going to feel the same for me. I believe that what Benny is saying is that designing and playing RPGs to try to recreate the experiences of other forms of entertainment and/or experience is most likely going to be disappointing.

At least that's what I get from the OP, he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote from: Sigmund;378957I don't see where Benny wrote that RPGs shouldn't go in a wide variety of directions. All I see him saying in the OP is that RPGs are not those things he mentioned. Ya know what, they're not.

Well after listing all the things they are not, he wrote what I quoted:

Quote from: Benoist;378672Anything 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.

Which seems, to my reading that he is saying it's a bad thing to bring influences from board games, war games, story-telling, experiments, movies, etc into RPGS; that RPGs should remain "pure" of being influenced by other media and should not try to do things that fall on the edges of being a RPG.

This idea of purity of form is something I deeply disagree with. In general, I think playing around with form is a good thing. It can lead to failures, but it can also lead to exciting new ways of doing things. You can also find tricks and techniques in other forms that actually work. For a specific example, I've found that describing scenes in play in terms of film scripts, like camera angles and movement, wide shots, medium shots, etc, can be very useful for providing detail and a sense of place. Or, playing around with the form can reveal new aspects of the "essence" of the form.

QuoteTTRPGs are not capable of providing an identical experience as a MMO, or a novel, or a movie. If folks try to make them provide such an experience it's most likely going to be less than successful. They can provide similar experiences, they can inspire similar feelings of enjoyment, and more. They are not, however, the same. I was disappointed when I read the EQ RPG for this reason. As much as I loved playing EQ, the EQ RPG was never going to feel the same for me. I believe that what Benny is saying is that designing and playing RPGs to try to recreate the experiences of other forms of entertainment and/or experience is most likely going to be disappointing.

Obviously, TTRPGs can never provide the exact experience of other mediums of play or entertainment, but they can be enhanced by adopting and re-interpreting ideas from other forms.

Quote from: Shazbot79;378935Randomness.

Can't agree there. Amber is an RPG.

And I think RPGs can be all of these things. Or none of them. I simply prefer to not limit myself or others.

Quote from: two_fishes;378960Which seems, to my reading that he is saying it's a bad thing to bring influences from board games, war games, story-telling, experiments, movies, etc into RPGS; that RPGs should remain "pure" of being influenced by other media and should not try to do things that fall on the edges of being a RPG.

We'll have to ask him what he meant then. I don't think that's what he was saying... hell, the hobby's founders were influenced by those things when they created the hobby. It'd be silly to desire no influence from other media, and I don't think Benny's that silly.

QuoteThis idea of purity of form is something I deeply disagree with. In general, I think playing around with form is a good thing. It can lead to failures, but it can also lead to exciting new ways of doing things. You can also find tricks and techniques in other forms that actually work. For a specific example, I've found that describing scenes in play in terms of film scripts, like camera angles and movement, wide shots, medium shots, etc, can be very useful for providing detail and a sense of place. Or, playing around with the form can reveal new aspects of the "essence" of the form.

Somehow, I don't think what you're describing is what was being objected to. Benny'd hafta weigh in on this. I think it's impossible for RPGs to strive for "purity of form", because they arose out of other "forms". I think what Benny is referring to, at least what I'm reading into it, is trying to create a game that mimics other media too exactly, or focuses too much on things that work better in moderation.

QuoteObviously, TTRPGs can never provide the exact experience of other mediums of play or entertainment, but they can be enhanced by adopting and re-interpreting ideas from other forms.

They can also be enhanced by eschewing ideas from other forms. It all depends on what you wanna do with it, or what your tastes run towards. I once again don't think the OP is calling for an all-out ban on outside influence. I think it's simply trying to say that it's ok for an RPG to be an RPG. It's a game, not a self-help tool, or some high-falutin' art form, or literary masterpiece, or slick eye-candy. The best games are ones that are meant to be played and enjoyed for what they are. If they end up also being aesthetically pleasing and pinnacles of creativity then that's just a bonus.

By the OP, and how I percieve it (and how I have already once answered), Benoist's 'List of Naught' seems to be more of an 'anti-incorporation' rant, an appeal to stop trying to take RPG's under the umbrella of other art forms, to allow it to stand on it's own.
It is not a request for purity; many of the games we create are directly inspired from the 'List of Naught', like literature or movies or crpgs.  It is an affirmation of independence and status.

Quote from: BenoistIf 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.

Quote from: VreegGetting on with them and pushing the evolution.maturation of the RPG hobby is merely a removal of small mindedness. Increase the dialogue and respect. Let me be heretical here, my friend.

Stop trying to make them 'only games'. You want them to stand on themselves as a medium? Then allow them the stature of the other mediums. Every moron who propogates the 'it's just a game' attitude is condemning it to the second class status, the 'Bastard Child' status.
You can't have it both ways. RPGs are games, they are fun, they can be casual, the same way that pulps and paper backs and bad campy moves are fun and lighthearded.
But RPGs can be socially relevant, they can change people and be mature, they can produce emotion, they have flexibility. They can be art.

Only when you allow them the freedom to be fun and serious, only when you allow them to be goofy and intellectual, only when you allow them to incorporate eveything on your 'Naught' list will they evolve into being an equal to movies and literature and performance.

Only when they become equal in our minds will they stop being sublimated to other things. You want RPGs to be treated as such, to stop endlessly comparing them to other things? Treat them as equals to what they are being compared to, and then it will happen.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378991By the OP, and how I percieve it (and how I have already once answered), Benoist's 'List of Naught' seems to be more of an 'anti-incorporation' rant, an appeal to stop trying to take RPG's under the umbrella of other art forms, to allow it to stand on it's own.
It is not a request for purity; many of the games we create are directly inspired from the 'List of Naught', like literature or movies or crpgs.  It is an affirmation of independence and status.

I agree. That's how I read it too.

Quote from: LordVreeg;378991By the OP, and how I percieve it (and how I have already once answered), Benoist's 'List of Naught' seems to be more of an 'anti-incorporation' rant, an appeal to stop trying to take RPG's under the umbrella of other art forms, to allow it to stand on it's own.
It is not a request for purity; many of the games we create are directly inspired from the 'List of Naught', like literature or movies or crpgs.  It is an affirmation of independence and status.

You got it. :)

Quote from: Sigmund;379045I agree. That's how I read it too.

You too. :D

tl;dr RPGs are their own thing.

I am doing it right?

Quote from: The Butcher;379144tl;dr RPGs are their own thing.

I am doing it right?

Or at least, they could be, maybe, if we tried.

As for doing it right, I don't know: Are you playing the game RAW or not? For some people, playing RAW is doing it right, others think that not playing RAW is doing it right, ah... what the fuck. Just more muddied water in the end.

Quote from: Benoist;378672I think that RPGs are just that: Role Playing Games.
[...]
Discuss.

I agree with your definition. But what is the point of the discussion?

What purpose does a definition of "rpg" serve? So that when someone invites us to a session we know what we're in for? Not really - invite someone, they don't ask if it'll be an rpg or not, they ask if it'll be D&D, if they can play a drowlesbianstripperninja, where is the game and can someone give them a lift, and so on.

I have gamed with over 500 people in 27 years, and never once has anyone got up from the table saying, "this is not a roleplaying game!" They might complain about the GM railroading them, or not having enough character points to build their character concept, or the system being stupid, or someone else eating all the snacks, but no-one says, "this isn't an rpg!"

So we have a working definition which is agreed on by unspoken consensus. There's no mystery about it. We like to pretend there's a mystery so we can say, "this is an rpg, but this is not - by an amazing coincidence, every game I like is an rpg, and every game I dislike is not." Thus, "rpg" becomes another way of saying "what I like."

But in practice at the game table away from semantic discussions, people agree and know what they're doing is an rpg. So again I ask: what purpose would a more rigorous definition serve?

I'm not saying that any game that would use the term "campaign", or "story" is not an RPG. By that definition, no edition of D&D, and no iteration of Vampire, could possibly be RPGs. That is not what I'm saying.

I am saying that an RPG is not a "campaign", and is not a "story".

There is an important nuance. What I'm advocating is for RPGs to have their own cultural identity, to be more of their own thing, and not just a mish-mash of other media, and build on this.

The only time in recent memory that I saw a player walk in a huff - it had nothing to do with gaming. One woman felt the other had been short or rude with her, while the other felt that her choice and style of piercings had been insulted or slighted.

Since I was the GM I had to play peracemaker. People made phone calls and e-mails - a month later they were both back at the same table gaming together again.


- Ed C.

Quote from: The Butcher;379144tl;dr RPGs are their own thing.

I am doing it right?

Yes.  The water got muddied a bit, the proper answer is that you are on the right track.

I think the actual issue is what concrete thing the OP is in reaction to.  

There are many RPGs and/or supplements that draw inspiration from and/or imitate other media.  The obvious are adaptations like WEG's Star Wars RPG, Marvel Superheroes, or Amber Diceless.  These are trying to emulate specific non-RPG source material - and their advice often has suggestions for making the game more like that source material.  

Is that a bad thing?  

If not, then what is the bad thing that we're talking about?

Quote from: jhkim;379219Is that a bad thing?

Well. Is it, in your opinion?

Quote from: jhkim;379219If not, then what is the bad thing that we're talking about?

That there might be an untapped potential for RPGs to explore new directions by trying to not endlessly emulate other media. Is there?

Quote from: Benoist;379220Well. Is it, in your opinion?

In my opinion, no.  I like Star Wars D6, Marvel Superheroes, and Amber Diceless.  I think they're all commendable RPGs, including their advice.  

In the same way, I like a lot of movies that are adapted from books.  The Graduate, The Maltese Falcon, High Fidelity, The Princess Bride, the Lord of the Rings films, The Silence of the Lambs, and many others.  

Quote from: Benoist;379220That there might be an untapped potential for RPGs to explore new directions by trying to not endlessly emulate other media. Is there?

There absolutely is such potential.  There is nothing wrong and plenty right with doing RPGs that aren't adapted from or inspired by books/movies/etc.  There's no conflict.  We can have great RPGs that draw on books/movies/etc. - and we can have great RPGs that do their own thing.  

I think that Paranoia is a good example of an RPG that is its own thing.  It has a very strong and definite feel, yet isn't adapted from any particular work or genre.   More recently, I just wrapped up a Lacuna campaign - which I think is also rather original, drawing on elements of role-playing.

In the context of the whole GNS debate, I think the problem a lot of people have with RPGs serving some kind of cathartic "literary" function isn't a matter of whether it emulates the style of other media so much as GNS-advocates have an overly narrow conception of "literature." I do think RPGs serve a kind of "literary" function for a lot of roleplayers and world-builders; it's just not the one that GNSers care about.

To be purposefully condescending, GNS-advocates adhere to what I would call the "AP English" view of literature as necessarily consisting of elements of actual life being turned into symbols to express broad, moral themes. This is what "literature" is for many people, but in reality, literature has a much broader scope, especially when you consider both realist and post-structuralist literary works.

To be less condescending but equally harsh, implicit in the GNS view that "simulationists" can't create meaningful fiction is the idea that abstract concepts and themes really only exist as abstract concepts and themes. They are not really present in life. Life, just like simulationist gaming, is a mish-mash of events that only take on literary or thematic significance when "edited" down to a more coherent sequence of events after the fact. This "editing", of course, is guided by an idea that selects only those scenes that serve its purposes.

The problem for me (and others who dislike heavy-handed symbolism in their art) is that this robs the ideas of both their cathartic and intellectual value. The ideas don't really have any relation to the world. They only use elements of the world to express themselves. The world itself is a meaningless heap of raw material consisting mostly of aimless drudgery.

In this sense, there's an element of nihilism (in the Nietzschean sense) to the GNS Narrativist. The world lacks value and importance until it is crammed into some higher form that can't actually be found within it. But if "narrative" is just intellectual wankery that uses elements of a world to symbolically express ultimately unrelated concepts... who the heck cares?

And this is precisely why a lot of 19th/20th/21st century literature doesn't use the theme-symbol model. Rather, it depicts "organic" worlds and characters in a naturalistic way to learn something about the nuances and conflicts within the chaotic mess of life. These works consciously refuse to present clearly defined "narratives" and moral positions, but they are often more emotionally and intellectually satisfying to the extent that they immerse us in something that primarily reflects actual life, not an abstract idea. A "story" still emerges, but it is often an inconclusive one; however, this inconclusiveness does not preclude any sort of "dramatic satisfaction." It's the difference between something like "The Grapes of Wrath" (a moralistic, symbol-laden travel story that focuses on ideas) and "The Road" (an ambiguous, naturalistic travel story that focuses on world and character).

And this is what I think really divides GNS-ers from people like me. It's not a question of whether "simulation" or "narrative" has more literary, emotional and intellectual merit. It's a question of whether you think a living, breathing world bears more significance and relevance than abstract ideas. It's a conflict between world-first and idea-first, or to be an even bigger pretentious ass than Ron Edwards, it's a matter of sand-boxers being existentialists at heart and story-gamers being Platonists at heart.

With that said, as a disclaimer, I don't play RPGs to glean insight into the nature of life and humanity. I play to explore worlds, and sometimes, this play yields something surprisingly interesting in the non-geekfest sense. At its best, I find free-form world exploration to be a richer and more vibrant experience than the ritualistic expression of abstract ideas found in "narrativist" play. At its worst, killing a kobold is still more fun than listening to some geek cry about some banal moral concepts.

Welcome, Emboldened Navigator. :)

In the context of the whole GNS debate, I think the problem a lot of people have with RPGs serving some kind of cathartic "literary" function isn't a matter of whether it emulates the style of other media so much as GNS-advocates have an overly narrow conception of "literature."

To be purposefully condescending, GNS-advocates adhere to what I would call the "AP English" view of literature as necessarily consisting of elements of actual life being turned into symbols to express broad, moral themes. This is what "literature" is for many people, but in reality, literature has a much broader scope, especially when you consider both realist and post-structuralist literary works.

To be less condescending but equally harsh, implicit in the GNS view that "simulationists" can't create meaningful fiction is the idea that abstract concepts and themes really only exist as abstract concepts and themes. They are not really present in life. Life, just like simulationist gaming, is a mish-mash of events that only take on literary or thematic significance when "edited" down to a more coherent sequence of events after the fact. This "editing", of course, is guided by an idea that selects only those scenes that serve its purposes.

The problem for me (and others who dislike heavy-handed symbolism in their art) is that this robs the ideas of both their cathartic and intellectual value. The ideas don't really have any relation to the world. They only use elements of the world to express themselves. The world itself is a meaningless heap of raw material consisting mostly of boring drudgery.

In this sense, there's an element of nihilism (in the Nietzschean sense) to the GNS Narrativist. The world lacks value and importance until it is crammed into some higher form that can't actually be found within it. But if "narrative" is just intellectual wankery that uses elements of a world to express ultimately unrelated symbols... who the heck cares?

And this is precisely why a lot of 19th/20th/21st century literature doesn't use the theme-symbol model. Rather, it depicts "organic" worlds and characters in a naturalistic way to learn something about the nuances and conflict within the chaotic mess of life. These works consciously don't churn out clearly defined "narratives" and moral positions, but they are often more emotionally and intellectually satisfying to the extent that we are immersed in something that primarily reflects actual life, not an abstract idea. A "story" still emerges, but it is often an inconclusive one; however, this inconclusiveness does not preclude any sort of "dramatic satisfaction." It's the difference between something like "The Grapes of Wrath" (a moralistic, symbol-laden travel story that focuses on ideas) and "The Road" (an ambiguous, naturalistic travel story that focuses on world and character).

And this is what I think really divides GNS-ers from people like me. It's not a question of whether "simulation" or "narrative" has more literary, emotional and intellectual merit. It's a question of whether you think a living, breathing world bears more significance and relevance than abstract ideas. It's a conflict between world-first and idea-first, or to be an even bigger pretentious ass than Ron Edwards, it's a matter of sand-boxers being existentialists at heart.

With that said, as a disclaimer, I don't play RPGs to glean insight into the nature of life and humanity. I play to explore worlds. At its best, I find free-form world exploration to be a richer experience than the ritualistic expression of abstract ideas. At its worst, killing a kobold is still more fun than listening to some geek cry about some banal moral concepts.

I've never ever met a storygamer I'd describe as a "platonist". Pretty much every one of them I've ever met has been a post-modernist relativist. In other words, an intellectual degenerate.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;379954I've never ever met a storygamer I'd describe as a "platonist". Pretty much every one of them I've ever met has been a post-modernist relativist. In other words, an intellectual degenerate.

RPGPundit

Well, implicit in my rant above is that story-gamers aren't as "edgy" or "revolutionary" as they fancy themselves to be. They may embrace artsy-sounding rhetoric and make classically Romantic forays into the "darkness of the human psyche blah blah," but fundamentally, they're actually hardened traditionalists trading in abstract cultural symbols as if they represented a higher truth than life as its actually experienced.

A genuinely "post-modern" game would consciously reject any kind of defined narrative structure or coherent, "stable" themes... the very essence of story-gaming. The only things I can think of that might qualify would be like Munchkin RPG or maybe something like "Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist Trying to Play Two Different Editions of GURPS at the Same Time: The RPG."

Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;380037Well, implicit in my rant above is that story-gamers aren't as "edgy" or "revolutionary" as they fancy themselves to be. They may embrace artsy-sounding rhetoric and make classically Romantic forays into the "darkness of the human psyche blah blah," but fundamentally, they're actually hardened traditionalists trading in abstract concepts as higher truths.

I think you're really on to something here.

I do agree with the fundamental essence of the point; that they're hypocrites who are full of shit.

But traditionalists? I don't know, particularly when many of them want to destroy the very foundations RPGs are based on.
I suppose, yes, that they want to replace them with their own new hierarchies, so their deal isn't about some kind of post-modernist freedom-from-framework but rather a kind of maoist plan to destroy the old gods and put themselves in their place as tyrants.
That wouldn't make them "traditionalists", then; they may not be exactly post-modernists, and their claims to relativism are a lie (as are almost everyone's who claims to be a relativist), but they certainly want to destroy the existing concept of the RPG as we know it.

RPGPundit

Yeah, that's an important distinction. They're not "old school" in any RPG sense, but they're not quite avant garde revolutionaries either.

They're more like stuffy, Victorian colonialists looking to civilize the heathen "natives" of the hobby.

Quote from: EmboldenedNavigator;380318They're more like stuffy, Victorian colonialists looking to civilize the heathen "natives" of the hobby.

Pretty good comparison in that they might come from different types of media, look at RPGs while holding their noses, and try to "reeducate" gamers to make them "progress" on their way to "civilization". Yeah. Good comparison.

Quote from: RPGPundit;380300That wouldn't make them "traditionalists", then; they may not be exactly post-modernists, and their claims to relativism are a lie (as are almost everyone's who claims to be a relativist), but they certainly want to destroy the existing concept of the RPG as we know it.

I think that's the gist of what Emboldened Navigator was saying. The "traditionalist" label is a literary one, in that the "Story Now" cultists are actually advocating a very traditional narrative structure, as opposed to modernist and postmodernist writers (who did not necessarily adhere to any given model of narrative structure, and often wrote with no clear rhyme or reason).

Quote from: The Butcher;380335I think that's the gist of what Emboldened Navigator was saying. The "traditionalist" label is a literary one, in that the "Story Now" cultists are actually advocating a very traditional narrative structure, as opposed to modernist and postmodernist writers (who did not necessarily adhere to any given model of narrative structure, and often wrote with no clear rhyme or reason).

Except that RPGs are not literature... ;)

Quote from: Benoist;380336Except that RPGs are not literature... ;)

OH CRAP, are you going to tell us what RPGs are not, yet again?

Quote from: Benoist;380336Except that RPGs are not literature... ;)

Touché.

I was just borrowing from another field, for analogy's sake, is that OK?

Pretty please? :o

Quote from: LordVreeg;380340OH CRAP, are you going to tell us what RPGs are not, yet again?

LOL Be afraid. Be very afraid. :D

Quote from: The Butcher;380342Touché.

I was just borrowing from another field, for analogy's sake, is that OK?

Pretty please? :o

:hmm: hmmm.

Okay.

This time, I'll let it pass. ;)