What I suspect about most of these "Let's settle on a formal definition of X" discussions is that no matter what the original intent is, it gets used later as a rhetorical weapon.

In the past couple of years we've seen words like 'Fun', 'Story', 'Roleplaying', etc, given this treatment. And then inevitably some group (well, the same group every time) will attempt to take ownership of the term and deny it to everyone else.

Quote from: StuartLARPing is big in Europe, especially Scandinavia.

And I'm a Finn myself: sorry to say this, but every single LARP I've attended would have to fall solidly into the category of "games". There are experimental "art LARPs" which might not, but those are an exception, not the rule.

Quote from: SosthenesWhat does "template" have to do with popularity?

Well, if your game isn't based off of the D&D template then you have to pay double the XPs to purchase the Popularity feat, that's all.   It's not that it's impossible, it's just not good minimaxing.

Quote from: SpikeYou're stupid Levi...


Any fool could see this belongs in the Craft forum!

Yea, why do people act like there is only one folder in this forum?  Are they uncapable of navigating a forum or just don't think rules apply to them because they're they are rude bastards?  This should really be in the theory folder.

(This thread should be moved to the Theory section)

Quote from: GrimGentAnd I'm a Finn myself: sorry to say this, but every single LARP I've attended would have to fall solidly into the category of "games". There are experimental "art LARPs" which might not, but those are an exception, not the rule.

Then it sounds like every single LARP you've attended would be a game, and thus, a Roleplaying game.  But if you can accept that there are non-game LARPs, either:
1) Those "art LARPs" are not LARPs; or
2) Not all LARPs are games.

That's really pretty straightforward.  I'll say that any Traditional style RPG that is also not a game (eg. Railroading in the Extreme) is also not a Roleplaying Game.  It's Roleplaying, but not a game.

And really, this is all just semantics.  If you want to think of whatever activity you're doing for fun as a "game" you're not wrong.

There are two ways you could define a game:
1) an amusement or pastime. eg. children's "games".
2) a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.  eg. formalized games, of the type discussed in the article I wrote

So if you want "Roleplaying Game" to mean: "An amusement or pastime involving Roleplaying"  You're absolutely correct!

But that really doesn't help anyone design new Roleplaying Games -- of the type this sites seems to be about, and the type most of the people here seem interested in creating and playing.

So, I'll stick with the second definition of game, and use that as a starting point for thinking about how to make better Roleplaying Games.

Quote from: Stuart2) a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.  eg. formalized games, of the type discussed in the article I wrote

Competitive? That's debatable, as I wouldn't necessarily call even tabletop RPGs that. The rules, however, are very much a requirement, and I've never been involved in a LARP which didn't feature a resolution mechanic of one sort or another, often with broad attributes that demand as little OOC consultation as possible.

QuoteCompetitive? That's debatable, as I wouldn't necessarily call even tabletop RPGs that. The rules, however, are very much a requirement, and I've never been involved in a LARP which didn't feature a resolution mechanic of one sort or another, often with broad attributes that demand as little OOC consultation as possible.

I don't think there's really any debate. That doesn't mean the players have to play competitively against each other.  They can play competitively against the system of the game.  They can even play collaboratively against the system -- but there's still competition in that respect.  If there's no competition against ANYTHING, then it's not a game.

A resolution mechanic is certainly a rule, but whether it's related to the actual game itself cam sometimes be misleading.

For example, here's a game:

We roll d6 to see who goes first. Highest roller gets a 10 second head start.
We race to the end of the block, making sure to stop and clap our hands at each lamp post.  The winner of the race gets the red cape, while the loser of the race gets the blue cape.  We spin in circles until we fall down.  Then the nice lady flips a coin.  If it's "heads" the player in the red cape gets a glass of lemoade.  If it's "tails" the player in the blue cape gets the lemonade instead.

What are the rules of this lemonade winning game?

Flip a coin.  Winner gets lemonade.

Everything else is actually irrelevant to that game.  It's all based on one coin toss.  The dice roll, the running, clapping, spinning -- it could all be fun -- but it's not actually part of the game.  It doesn't matter what you roll.  Doesn't matter how fast you run, how many times you clap or how hard, or how much spinning you do before falling down.  You can just go through the motions of all of that.  Only the coin toss matters in the winning of the lemonade.

I think there are probably a lot of LARPs and tabletop RPGs that are like that as well.  Lots of rules, but some of them have no bearing on the actual game itself.

Quote from: StuartFrom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_roleplaying_game



If there are rules, it could be a game.  If there are NO RULES, it could be a ton of fun, but it's not a game. Not in the same way Baseball, Blackjack, or D&D are games.  It's only a game in the way that "Let's pretend we're Cowboys!" is a game.  Under that definition, any childhood activity is also a game... and thus, there's virtually no point trying to discuss / define anything relating to games.

Okay, I've played in plenty of freeform LARPs in the UK and pretty much all of them have rules, and many of them have pre-generated characters with specified character goals you are meant to work towards.

In fact, I'd say that - at least in my experience - freeforms which lack rules and goals entirely (and thus no longer fit your definition of a game by any stretch) are vanishingly rare, and also freeform LARPs are very much a niche of a niche of a niche - freeform LARPs get a fraction of the interest that more structured LARPs get, which in turn get only a fraction of the interest that tabletop RPGs get. As such, holding up (occasional, exceptional) freeforms as evidence that LARPs are not games is like holding up a Forge product as evidence that tabletop RPGs are not games.

Quote from: StuartI don't think there's really any debate. That doesn't mean the players have to play competitively against each other.  They can play competitively against the system of the game.  They can even play collaboratively against the system -- but there's still competition in that respect.  If there's no competition against ANYTHING, then it's not a game.

Yes, my next question would have been to ask how co-op board games such as Arkham Horror fit into that defnition, or any non-multiplayer computer games, for that matter. "Competition" is a word I'd usually associate with trying to triumph over other persons or groups rather than some more abstract opposition.

Out of curiosity, for those of you playing LARPs in Europe / UK that are NOT based on commercial products, as articulated in this quote:

QuoteThere are commercial larp products. "Minds Eye Theatre" and "Cthulhu live!" are larp versions of popular roleplaying game products. They are sold as rulebooks, books of advice, and scenarios (ready-to-play larps). Their being tied-in with the original products and their publishers fear of liability have led to these systems being extremely heavy on impractical rules, and many people allready familiar with an independent larp tradition scorn them as the plague. "Host your own murder mystery" books are also commercial larps, aimed for the market of burgeoise adults who seek to spice up their dinner parties with some roleplaying.

...for those players -- what IS the challenge of the game, and what is the reward?

Quote from: StuartOut of curiosity, for those of you playing LARPs in Europe / UK that are NOT based on commercial products, as articulated in this quote:

...for those players -- what IS the challenge of the game, and what is the reward?

That depends on the nature of the LARP and the goals of your character, of course, just as in any RPG. It might range from simply surviving through the night while monsters roam the dark hallways to convincing the bureaucrats to grant you political asylum to assassinating an entire noble family without being caught.

Quote from: StuartThen it sounds like every single LARP you've attended would be a game, and thus, a Roleplaying game.  But if you can accept that there are non-game LARPs, either:
1) Those "art LARPs" are not LARPs; or
2) Not all LARPs are games.

Would you at least concede - given the arguments presented in this thread - that most LARPs ARE games, just as most tabletop roleplaying thingummies are games?

PS: Interesting corollary: I hear tell that some of the Scandanavian LARPs push the "art LARP" story solely to get funding for their activities from their nation's equivalent of the Arts Council. As such, I suspect you'll find that if you sift past the fluff most "art LARPs" will have game elements, even if it's on the level of saying "here is your pregenerated character, here are your character's goals, talk to one of the organisers if you want to do anything more complex than talking to people and we'll decide if it works".

I mean really specifically.  At the last LARP you were at, what was the actual challenge of the gameplay -- not the setting or back story -- the game you were playing, what was the challenge, and reward for overcoming that challenge?  Is the reward you receive based on your ability to overcome the challenge, or do all players get the reward regardless of their general effort / ability?

No snark.  An honest question.

Quote from: Stuart...for those players -- what IS the challenge of the game, and what is the reward?

The challenge is using negotiation, diplomacy, treachery, and whatever resources and abilities the system gives you to get what you want out of the other players, any NPCs played by the GMs, and the setting.

The reward would be achieving your character's IC goals (which might be brewed up by the GM if the game uses pregenerated characters, or could have been decided by you at game start, or could be something you come up with partway through the game), just like every other RPG. Most of the games tend to be one-shots and hence lack an XP system, but multi-session campaigns do exist - in this case, the reward of success would be getting out of problems you began the game with, or increasing your character's IC resources/power/influence.

Quote from: WarthurPS: Interesting corollary: I hear tell that some of the Scandanavian LARPs push the "art LARP" story solely to get funding for their activities from their nation's equivalent of the Arts Council.

'Tis Nordic, properly, not Scandinavian... And yes, major LARP events are eligible for goverment grants and other forms of financial support. Whether those occasions could also be called "games" is incidental.