rpg theory
xechnao:
Hi!
I have not posted over here for a long time -not that my posts were anything relatively important really- but I felt revisiting the "particular" wisdom of this place, a wisdom about analyzing the particulars of roleplaying games and sharing theory regarding their nature.
Intrigued by the event of the new edition of d&d I have been posting at the Enworld forums. Intrigued mostly by any potential shifts in the market of our hobby and the hobby itself. Nevertheless I made a post over there about some personal thoughts regarding roleplaying and I would like to share them over here as well so that I can check your feedback and see if such a point of view has been already examined over here and if you have any helpful insights to give.
I will copy paste the original post and a couple of generated replies by the discussion that has followed.
me:
"title: "tabletop rpgs-are they really games? or rather a "fun" interactive experience"
A game, traditionally, is an endeavor of unknown conclusion but of known possible outcomes. This means that any game has a clear goal. In their most simple implementation you can either achieve the goal or fail. Win or lose. This definition about games is even valid for team based games where each member has to achieve on what goals its team role dictates. And it seems that a game and a race in theory are the same thing. Where they differ is the fact that in a race it is more clear the progress of the endeavor and its most probable outcome while been undertaken.
But what about tabletop rpgs? Can we say that they have clear game goals? Their nature is one of a team and each member assumes a role but does this role have the clear goals as in a team based game?
If so why the need of adventure? Because no reflection of the need of exploration and discovery in one's team role may very well create incompatibility problematics here. So the question since it seems rather more appropriate if clear game goals are established to be done with adventuring.
In case you are not convinced about potential incompatibility problems think of how team adventuring works in principle. It is clear that one needs a way to play with an ever evolving dynamic ground that offers the needed dimension for such an endeavor of exploration to be played. Such a way is the simulationism that many tabletop roleplaying games offer. And it becomes clear that any gaming goals one's team role has, they will influence or weight on the dimension of exploration because even in this dimension the gameplay is team based. So follow one's clear team role or try to reflect on ways to explore and make new discoveries?
I tend to choose the second answer of the last question. I believe traditional rpgs are more interactive experiences than traditional games. So the question in the title. What do you think?"
poster1: He does not agree with the above definition of "game" as the traditional one. He asks for further elaboration and points out that context of discussion is important.
me: "Consider the "traditionally" characterization a mistake and lets not confuse the term with what the word entertainment is generally about but rather try to be more specific on some context as you say. Lets place our context on what a tabletop rpg is about -how it is supposed to work in contrast with other activities officially acclaimed as games. From olympic games to video games to board games to scientific roleplaying games (and make it clear that while films and toys entertain for example they are not considered games).
I would also like to see your insight on the incompatibility thesis among game serving "gamism" and simulationism (adventuring) serving "gamism". I use the term "gamism" since I can not say if we finally agree or disagree to consider it appropriate for our context."
poster1: He makes a point about the marketing functionality of the word and thinks it was firstly used for this reason by D&D. The three word phrase "role-playing-game" is pretty powerful from a marketing point of view for the product.
poster1 further expanding by poster2: Poster1 says that besides simulationism, narrativism is necessary to provide the "adventuring" process I am talking about. Then he talks about the necessary mechanical limits of roleplaying games in contrast to our imagination and thus the limited scope or focus of each roleplaying game. Poster2 directly replies to the question posed in the original message: I am quoting him here (hope that's ok with him -if it is not I will come back and edit):
"In a traditional RPG, you have a field, basically the time and place the world is set in and some parameters concerning what you are going to game about. Then you proceed through the game, with two overall goals in mind: decision, and narration. Decision means the player makes a decision about the desired outcome. Narration means resolving a challenge or question and then describing it in story terms.
Thus, "role-playing game" is exactly what it sounds like, it is a game in which you play a role. The meta-goal is an exciting experience that mimics our responses to real life. The process is immersion."
me:
"I can accept "decision" as a valid goal. A "decision" is something we understand as the input in cases where such input is a matter of how we value their outcome. If the way we value the outcome is indifferent to such input then there is no "decision". So our goal is to create a solid ground where we can value its outcomes based on our input to it. But such a solid ground can be nothing else but socializing on some common ground, be it our neighborhood or our roleplaying game. So, our roleplaying game mechanically must be nothing else but some common ground in perpetuity. You spoke about a field of a "world" so this can very well be it, I guess.
What about "narration"? How can we understand "narration" as a goal? Do we need to establish a set of guidelines or rules so we can value "narration"? Right now I am thinking about these contests where you have judges valuing performance by various parameters such as technique, synthesis and overall form. But are roleplaying games something such as this? I think not. So how do we understand "narration" as a goal? Well, we can try to see this in the most simple way possible. One either manages to narrate or he does not. Going even further this could be: one either expresses himself or he does not. But isn't this a necessary and integral condition so that the "decision" game analyzed in the previous paragraph takes place? If so we could eventually say that narration is just a tool that reflects decision. At this point can we say that narration is an actual goal of the game? I would not say so.
In the end, the only important mechanical thing seems to be the creation of an understandable and acceptable common world with no end in sight other than our meaningful input. This means that we need to be able to value such input -or, that such input can be valued- by the known value of things in our real life. This means that we need to be able to reflect the various possibilities of inputs with the value of things in our real life. Hence the fundamental importance of simulationism I was talking about."
The discussion has gone so far (till now). The thread is found here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/250706-tabletop-rpgs-they-really-games-rather-fun-interactive-experience.html
I would like to see your thoughts.
CKNIGHT:
Interesting subject,
You could compare it to
What is dance?
Is the robot a dance?
What about line dancing?
When dancers compete is it a game?
xechnao:
Quote from: CKNIGHT on February 17, 2009, 08:49:45 AM
When dancers compete is it a game?
First of all you will need to establish clear rules for the competition. Now if one's dancing influences his competitor's dancing I could call it a game. If not, I would rather call it a race.
Ron Edwards:
Guys! This topic may not continue in its current form.
1. First Thoughts is about ideas for game design, and sometimes some introductory material.
2. The Forge does not exist in order to reinforce or extend discussions being held elsewhere. They belong where they started.
3. All discussions of how role-playing works or what it is must be held in the Actual Play forum and conform to its specific requirements.
To folks who've replied, when someone posts in a way which isn't obeying the forum topics, do not reply to them. It's your job as well as mine to preserved this site's focus and structure.
Xechnao, I will permit this discussion to continue only if you post regarding an actual play experience which raises your points. It may do so in any way. If you do that, then I will move this thread into the Actual Play forum. Otherwise, it must stop here.
No one else may post until Xechnao replies.
Best, Ron
mjbauer:
Quote from: xechnao on February 17, 2009, 09:05:53 AM
First of all you will need to establish clear rules for the competition. Now if one's dancing influences his competitor's dancing I could call it a game. If not, I would rather call it a race.
The first one to finish the dance wins?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page