Note. this argument is based upon the definitions of people like Greg Costikyan & Chris Crawford. (Their definition of games/ toys). ------------ Are roleplaying (pen & paper + dm etc) games really Games? I believe that they are in fact Toys. The difference being that in a game you have Goals which you work towards ie. win / lose beat other player / or achieve your goals. Whereas toys have properties and can be played with, but they do not have inbuilt goals built in their rules Ie. A sandpit. Where you can make sandcastles etc. The toy user may choose their own goals to give toys the semblance of a game. SO ?! Thus roleplaying games do not really have "goals" they are toys where the users try to play as characters and interact with the world as described to them for mutual enjoyment. They don't have goals beyond the ones chosen (survive, change the political regime) etc. But you could get some fun strategic "roleplaying" based experiences, ie. Sim Antiques dealer.. you get to manage a company which sells antiques, you can deal with haggling with customers, special orders etc. But there are many ways to deal with things.. which supplier? are they legitimate - or theives? what is your relationship with the local law? Do you get forgeries done to satisfy certain special orders that you get .. or risk losing the job if you can't get hold of it at auction? etc. Edited by - Ketchaval on March 13, 2001 12:30:53 PM

Nice... Do you mind if I make a bit of... erm... fun about this?

First thing you learn with retorica, is to know what you are talking about. I can say with almost no doubt in my mind that you don''t. You just look if a few parameters are the same, and then say two things are the same...

A dog has two legs. A cow has two legs. So, is a dog a cow? You got a head. A worm has got a head too. So, you are a worm

Now, back to the topic... For a change, I will try to prove you that RPG is a game... According to you, a game has to have set goals. That is just about the only difference you make between a game and a toy. Well, RPG''s are no toys. They are real games. In my opinion, what defines a game is the amount of fun, not the goals. But even from your point of view, an RPG is a game. It has set goals allright. Stay alive. That is just about the first one. Second one: do what you want. The ultimate goal is to get your character where you want him to be. Your character is a reflection of you. Say you would like nothing better then becoming the President of the United States. The goal for your character would no doubt be to become king over your own country.

Wheter you are smart enough to decide your own goals in a game, or need someone to think some up for you, a goal is a goal.

But, if an RPG is a toy, so are many other ''games''. Take Risk (if you know it...). You could off course say that the goal is in the mission that you randomly choose. Well, it isn''t always. Say, you are playing against someone you dont really like. Your goal might then be to eliminate him/her from the game. You made that goal yourself. So it is a toy, not a game, because it didnt give you your goal...

And perhaps a last thing: according to you, life is either a toy or a game

When you have a goal in your life, life is a game, because you have a set-goal: to live. Not? Do you not have a set goal in life? Did you make up your own goal? Well, too bad... Life is just like one big pile of sand, just a toy

Philisophy Poll: is live either a toy or a game? There are no other options, just these two... Decide... For me, life is a game. For you?

Life is a toy:
Life is like a sandbox --> do what you want with it.
:-p

Nils

RPG''s are games. There is not a single RPG i''ve played where the DM didn''t set up a goal for the game... "Save the Princess" "Find the ruby" whatever, it is clearly a game.

Also, most RPG''s have a numerical status system and a playing field...

RPG''s are basically extremely flexible boardgames.

Live Action RPG''s like White Wolf''s games are a little more "Dress-up" than game, but they almost allways still keep the game aspect alive...

Well what an nonsensual argument.

All RPG''s I''ve played have goals. There is usually a goal to improve. I can''t personally think of any role playing game that does not have a goal.

quote: Original post by Luna Zerana

Nice... Do you mind if I make a bit of... erm... fun about this?

First thing you learn with retorica, is to know what you are talking about. I can say with almost no doubt in my mind that you don''t.

Luna, have you read Chris Crawford or Greg Costikyan''s work? Consider reading "I Have No Words And I Must Design" before you dismiss Ketchaval so easily. He has an interesting point.

According to their (excellently written) work, a game has to have: goals, decision making, opposition, resources, and game tokens. RPGs pretty much satisfy these conditions: The token is their character; the resources their equipment and health such; the oppositon comes directly from the plot or world situation; the decision making is definitely obvious every step of the way (esp. if the GM is good at non-linear plotlines); and the goals come directly from the overall and minute to minute decisions you make as you play.

Usually, it''s a bad game when there''s no overarching situation to address. This produces meandering, pointless games that (unfortunately) some GMs don''t know how to avoid. Many I''ve played with, though, run their campaigns in a mission / quest based fashion. Heck, even the store bought modules ooze goals.

So I do, too, think that RPGs have goals.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

I''m really interested in the the intersection between RPG and sim.

At what point does an RPG stop being an RPG and become a sim?

As I play Fallout 2, I keep wanting a lot of things that aren''t in the game. Sometimes I''m thinking I want a sim but one with a plot.

For instance, I want survival pressures out in the wastelands. While I don''t want to stop and drink water every few hours, I do want the game to care whether or not I''ve strode out into the blazing desert without a single thing to drink. I''d like the game to need me to rest, and find appropriate shelter before doing so (or risk bandits or monsters out in the open). I''d like the terrain to mean something and be a threat: for instance, I''d like to either have to risk climbing a rock face or find another way around.

Am I looking for a sim instead of an RPG? This is tricky, because under the right circumstances what I describe (the "Oregon Trail" type stuff) could be either.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

What''s with people always trying to my concrete definitions for things that are inherently abstract and up for interpretation.

I think RPGs are games as well. Just because the goals are often created by the players themselves, it doesn''t mean there are no goals.

Wav,
Well, you know how I feel about genres, but I do believe the combination of Sim & RPG could be incredible. All those things you suggested are things I''d love to see in a game too.


Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Because, Domini, if we don''t have a common language, we can''t communicate with each other. Take the term RPG for example. I say I want to make an RPG, and want people to help me. So a few guys come into the project, and they find out I want to make a Diablo-style RPG. 1 guy thought I wanted to make something like Legend of Zelda, and another guy was thinking Final Fantasy, while another was thinking D&D based board game. So everyone comes in with different notions.

You could argue that everyone should ask before they get involved but wouldn''t it be easier if I could just say 1 word and everyone knew what I meant? It''s not impossible, we just have to develop a language for game development. It''s part of the maturing process.

Since the terms have so much ambiguity, it''s difficulty to talk about them. A game vs toy vs sim is no different. Until we explicitly state what each of these terms mean, there is going to be constant confusion of symantics.

Ut