When you get tired of a toy you throw it away (or maybe stuff it away in a closet), do you throw your life away when you get tired of it? No, you do something about it. I do at least. In a game you try to win and survive, if you take it seriously. So I would say life is like a game, even if you don''t take the game seriously.. if you don''t, you lose. The same applies to real life.

-Benny-

Role Playing Games (Pen and Paper) are definatly a game, not a toy. You got set goals in a campaign (perhaps they might change a bit, but they are there). You are always on a quest, for a goal.

What''s the G in RPG stand for? Game.

Seriously though, a RPG is a game, at least to me.

Dictionary.com defines a game as..
"An activity providing entertainment or amusement"

So RPGs are in fact games, as long as you get entertainment or amusement from them.

I guess everyone is going to have their own definition of ''game'' though..

If you define an objective as something a game requires, then many RPG''s aren''t games. "Staying alive" may be a goal, but it''s not an objective. An objective is a definite attainable conclusion or a condition state , such as winning in checkers: at some single point in time it becomes obvious that one person has definitely won and the other has lost.
- Many games today base their appeal almost totally on their cosmetic appearance; the gameplay itself is actually very simple and quickly gets boring.
- Also, the common way used classify games is based on cosmetics, and has nothing to do with the way the game is actually played. - Lubb

IT really depends on the RPG, but dnd 3rd ed, the most widely played pape and dice RPG, is clearly a game. Theres all sorts of tactical combat/ability use choices to make -- very strategic. Also, approaching problems with various solutions is pretty game-like (i.e. how do I deal with the orcs in teh cave, how do I climb the wall, should I open the treasure chest, etc)

Its certainly not a "tightly bound" game but its a game nonetheless.

I think some CPRGs and console RPGS tend towards non-gameness, particuarly some of the more recent final fantasies, but in general, theres a lot of choice making to be done, and choice making for the sake of fun = game.

Who cares?

Seriously, why does this matter? Call it whatever name you want to call it...and...?

quote: Seriously, why does this matter? Call it whatever name you want to call it...and...?

Because, if you had a logically-solid system for classifying the types and orders of play involved in any game, you could identify popular traits, as well as exploit traits that have not been used. - Lubb

I agree with both sides of the naming camp:

Being anal about having a ''correct'' name for everything can be harmful, mainly to the thought process (eg. people who say "RPG means hit points, armour class, etc). It creates a ''box'' that people start to think within. I don''t think arguing over whether Diablo is an RPG or not (for example) is very useful.

On the other hand, without a decent term to describe something, it is difficult to consider or discuss. And to re-use the analogy, without defining what ''the box'' is, how can we make an effort to think outside it? It would be nice to be able to abandon the ''useless'' terms such as RPG and invent new ones that are more specific, less loaded with connotations (''RPG'' has several connotations that are interpreted a certain way depending on who is trying to prove a point), and let everyone know what we mean.

I think it''s useful to have some unambiguous terms that allow us to discuss things succinctly. Game design jargon, if you will. Right now, we''re largely stuck with marketing terms (MMORPG!), terms taken from other types of game or entertainment (RPG), or occasionally programming terms. Of course, not all jargon is unique to its own field, but game design lacks many clear definitions. And probably holds us back when discussing it.

And naming different genres is, I believe, a useful abstraction. You can say "a racing game" rather than "a game like Gran Turismo" or whatever... without a frame of reference, it''s unlikely that someone would come up with the idea in the first place. At least it''s a more general concept than "like Game X except with feature Y". Maybe if you''re into ''art'' then you hate the idea of building on previous ideas, but if you''re more of a ''science'' type of person, then taking an existing game or genre and changing bits is valuable evolution (even if the resulting game is not worth the selling price for the minor amount of evolution it provides...) And the best design will be a bit of both, I believe.

quote: Dictionary.com defines a game as..
"An activity providing entertainment or amusement"

So RPGs are in fact games, as long as you get entertainment or amusement from them.

I think part of the idea is that it isn''t the RPG which is the game, but more that what you do with it is the game. A tennis ball is not a game, yet tennis is a game, which is played with a tennis ball.

A string of 1s and 0s on a disk is not a game. The game comes with the interaction between the player(s) and the toy. A person might decide to play a different game with an "RPG", they might want to try and get the game to crash. This isn''t the game the designer intended for them to play, but it is still a game. So going by this, the RPG is more like a toy.

Trying is the first step towards failure.

The game vs. toy argument is a pretty stupid one. The term computer or video game has been extended to encompass a variety of games, toys, storys, simulations, etc.