I think a role-playing game is roughly what the wikipedia entry tells me it is.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079606I think a role-playing game is roughly what the wikipedia entry tells me it is.

Haha that's a good one!

Well, for the above stated reasons I prefer an extensional definition.

Quote from: Omega;1079567And you've just expanded the term into "everything on earth" and made it a totally useless term.

Playing in a LARP is role playing. Acting in a movie is not. Reading a book, even a COYA is not.

So you could narrow it a bit by including "Game" in the requirement, as Itachi did. Acting on a movie set is probably not a game, depending on how you want to define that word. A COYA book is not a game, again, depending on the definition of the word. However, I would contend that Lone Wolf books would actually be games because of the random number chart (or a D10) and thus are a type of RPG. One even involving pen-and-paper, but not a Tabletop RPG probably.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079606I think a role-playing game is roughly what the wikipedia entry tells me it is.

Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081216Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

I gave a carefully worded response yesterday to a query from a London Evening Standard journalist about this story. One thing I said was not to rely on Wikipedia definitions!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081216Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

Being aware of a potential agenda of people crafting definitions is always useful to have at the back of your head. However, if we want a rough definition of what a TTRPG is, this page seems to be sufficient for an extensive definition (though that's admittedly not a succinct way of defining it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_role-playing_games

And whether Fiasco is a role-playing game or a storygame is largely irrelevant semantics to me. When clustering data points, you'll always have outliers and fringe cases about which there can be endless, pointless debates. What matters to me is that a term is well-enough understood at its core in most contexts. For fringe cases, you got to explicitly spell out each and every time whether you let that case fall under a given umbrella or not. And you can even let it sometimes fall under that umbrella while you don't in different contexts.

And that's it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081216Considering that wikipedia is edited and controlled by partisan propagandists, that's something you shouldn't really do.

That's like saying that Wikipedia's definition of Addition is flawed because the (edit: articles) on politics have a partisan slant.

It's a remarkably high level of paranoia over issues aren't really in dispute instead of the ones that are. And a very blatant ad hominem.

All games tell a story, some do this poorly.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081246That's like saying that Wikipedia's definition of Addition is flawed because the (edit: articles) on politics have a partisan slant.

It's a remarkably high level of paranoia over issues aren't really in dispute instead of the ones that are. And a very blatant ad hominem.

Actually... A few years ago Storygamers did edit Wikipedia's entry on RPGs to meet their narrative of what an RPG is.

Quote from: Quadrante;1081248All games tell a story, some do this poorly.

False.

You can make up a story from anything. But that in no way means that thing told a story as it were.

I have a meteorite sitting on my desk. I can quite easily make up a story about said meteorite. The space rock did not tell a story. But it did inspire one. Same with playing chess, tic-tac-toe or anything else, even RPGs can be so to some.

Quote from: Omega;1081249Actually... A few years ago Storygamers did edit Wikipedia's entry on RPGs to meet their narrative of what an RPG is.

And, having never actually seen their narrative, what was wrong with it and why didn't it fit the definition of an RPG?

Quote from: Omega;1081250You can make up a story from anything. But that in no way means that thing told a story as it were.

Everything tells a story. The question is whether or not you are listening.

QuoteI have a meteorite sitting on my desk.

Neat!

QuoteI can quite easily make up a story about said meteorite. The space rock did not tell a story.

The space rock also tells a story to certain fields. There may be some guess work and some reconstruction, but parts of that story can be reasonably inferred to not be made up by the person but are beyond a reasonable doubt the rock's "own words" because to believe otherwise would be to doubt what is verifiable.

QuoteSame with playing chess, tic-tac-toe or anything else, even RPGs can be so to some.

Chess tells a story of strategy and wit. Tic-tac-toe tells a similar story, and a story of number theory.

A different take ... (I think, I scanned the 14 pages)

There's some line between game and story. The milestone (and, I would argue, pure killing=xp) games seem to be in Story mode. But the players have very little control over themselves, unlike in a traditional Story game. The Gold for XP systems seem more like a game. I would almost say adversarial, between them and the DM ... except the DM is a neutral party. I can't really get ahold of the core concept I'm trying to reate, which is why I'm posting.

Hmmm, and maybe some relatioship to a killing=xp game as well, where you're playing against the game world, at least in a campaign where the DM isn't explicitly telling a story?

You need victory points and you work as a group to get them. Through gold=xp or  killing=xp. This stands in contract to modern Pathfinder/5e where you sit in a chair bored while the Giovanni-light unfolds around you. Boredom relieved, you level. Even a traditional story game gives you more control.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081287Chess tells a story of strategy and wit. Tic-tac-toe tells a similar story, and a story of number theory.

Only in the sense that it is an account of connected events.

Or do you think that chess players set out to create a narrative work?

That the fundamental question that needs to be answered, what is the intention of the group for this activity.

If it is to compete or cooperate using a rules of game to beat some victory conditions then it is a wargame.

If it is to pretend to be character interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee using the rules of a game then it is tabletop roleplaying.

If it is to collaborative on creating a fictional narrative by using the rules of a game then it is a story game.

It can be confusing because the same set of rules can be used for all three activities. Generally the differences in focus leads to different elements of the rules being emphasized or additional mechanics added.

Keep in mind that the only recognizable major difference between Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign and the other detailed wargame campaigns being run at the time was Dave didn't say no when the players wanted to ignore the overall scenario to pursue their own goal. Which specifically was not dealing with the attack on Castle Blackmoor by the Egg of Coot in favor of exploring dungeons.