Computer game designer Chris Crawford attempted to define the term game using a series of dichotomies.  What I'm interested in hearing your feedback on, is where do you think a "Roleplaying Game" sits on this spectrum?  Do they all sit at the same place?  Is the "game" as published the same thing as the "game" as actually played?  Is an RPG a single "game" or a series of different types of "games" at various levels (as described below):

A) Creative expression made for its own beauty can create art and entertainment.  
B) Non-interactive art and entertainment includes movies and books.  
C) If a piece of entertainment is interactive, it is a plaything such as a toy, or an element that can be used in a game .  
D) If there is a challenge associated with this plaything, it becomes a challenge.  
E) If this challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete" it is a puzzle.  
F) If the challenge has an "active agent against whom you compete" it is a conflict.
G) If in a conflict a player can outperform an opponent in a challenge, but not directly affect their opponent's performance, the conflict is a competition.
H) If in a conflict a player can directly affect their opponent's performance, the conflict is a collision.

*Please* try not to get hung-up on the specific words Chris has used for the various steps.  Ultimately, they don't matter at all.  I took out "Game" to help us avoid arguing about that kind of thing.  I don't want anyone to think this discussion would lead to anyone suggesting your favourite game will be called a Roleplaying Puzzle.  I don't think an argument on what word to use will ultimately be helpful to anyone.  Let's agree at the outset that all the things on the list above are games -- just different types of games.

I thought Crawford's point was that toys (for example) are not necessarily games?

Let's agree that RPGs are special types of games.  What game (or not game) things are they most like from the list?

RPGs have enough breadth that there is some example of all of these steps, somewhere under the RPG umbrella.  So all of the purely positive definitions (collision, conflict, challenge) apply.  All of the ones that are predicated on negatives ("If it is X but not Y" ... competition and puzzle) don't apply.

Individual games, and particularly individual sessions of a particular game with a particular group may fall into any of the categories.

How does that work for you?

That does kind of work for me, but I think RPGs are toys by that definition.

I don't mind that, either.

Quote from: TonyLBHow does that work for you?

That's a good start.

Some of the things this makes me think about...

Is an RPG, the book you buy in a store, is that just C) an element you can use in a game?  Does the book/RPG/game itself come with challenges associated with it -- or are those all determined by the people at the table?  If different instances of that RPG being played have very different challenges, that could be the case.

Is there an active agent against whom the players are competing?  Is that the GM?  Is it the other players?  In what way are they competing? If there isn't an active agent you compete against, is an RPG more like a puzzle?

While RPGs are "collaborative" are the players working together in every respect?  Are they trying to outperform each other at all?  Do they affect each other's performance?  

Is the GM a referee in the conflict against the game system?  Is the GM playing an inter-dependent game?  What kind of game is that?

Quote from: StuartIs an RPG, the book you buy in a store, is that just C) an element you can use in a game?  Does the book/RPG/game itself come with challenges associated with it -- or are those all determined by the people at the table?  If different instances of that RPG being played have very different challenges, that could be the case.

I've been thinking a lot about this as a result of reading the threads here recently, and I'm leaning toward a similar idea, myself.  I haven't worked it all out in my head, but if anyone cares to know what I've got so far:

The RPG manuals we purchase contain rules systems, they don't necessarily contain a game (more recent RPGs with a limited focus might be an exception).  The actual game is made when the GM or the whole group or whatever actually creates a scenario that makes use of the rule system.

I think the specifics of a scenario answer your follow-up questions.

I kind of got this idea from wargaming.  Squad Leader, one of my favorite wargames, advertised itself as "a game system, rather than a game": a framework of rules which could be used to create a scenario (read "adventure" when applied to RPGs) that depicted a specific action.  Special rules for a scenario could be devised to reflect the unique aspects of the situation being simulated.

I really think RPGs follow this model.  A campaign is a series of linked scenarios.  Each of these scenarios can be treated as a game unto itself, and can differ in type or focus from other scenarios using the same rules.

An RPG rules manual itself does not contain the traditional elements we associate with a game: conflict, goals, etc.  Setting fluff might go some way toward suggesting the kinds of conflicts and situations you can set up, but the "G" in RPG comes out when you look at it on the level of the individual scenario.

...

I'm pressed a bit at work today and I'm not sure I can express everything I'm thinking of yet without a lot more thought.  But I just wanted to maybe see if someone else had thoughts along similar lines.

Like joewolz, I also think of RPGs as toys. I certainly prefer them to be toys as published. This allows the group to use them as "any of the above". But also in terms of actual play, I also prefer to use them as toys, a sort of "structure of play" that the participants use to create new structures, in a continuous, recursive fashion. Like the evolution of a microculture.

Gahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
We need about 50 more threads like this one.
Oh wait, we've already got them.

Quote from: joewolzThat does kind of work for me, but I think RPGs are toys by that definition.

I don't mind that, either.

Remember: He who dies with the most toys wins.

Quote from: droogRemember: He who dies with the most toys wins.

I thought it was : He who dies knowing that most folks like the toys you like, wins

Regards,
David R

I like toys:mischief: