332 réponses à ce sujet

[Wozearly]

Filament wrote...

How people feel about it is not irrelevant to the definition though. You may feel they're wrong in defining an RPG as a game because you think RPGs don't have winning conditions, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people playing the game do see a "winning condition"-- when you beat the game and the credits roll. Even if you're right that this isn't something inherent to an RPG, you can see that people are imbuing it with the qualities of a game anyway, thus making it a game for them.

We can make a game out of anything we want.

Whether an RPG has winning conditions or not is irrelevant, unless you're proposing an argument that any game without explicit winning conditions cannot be a game (which would raises some interesting questions about what you would call games from the Elder Scrolls series, Fallout series, Elite series, Test Drive Unlimited series and pretty much everything Paradox has ever made...)

The lack of explicit winning conditions tends to reflect how much freedom the player has to determine their own course of action, which is much more common in open world games (which, incidentally, are also more likely to include progression mechanics similar to RPGs or, frankly, *are* RPGs).

That freedom of influence to mould your character (or equivalent) and shape the world around you are long-term staples of the WRPG genre. They understandably suit roleplaying games because anyone intending to roleplay it is given the significant freedom with which to do so, even if there is a main story lurking in there as well. This is one of the reasons the games are intentionally designed in this way.

That's not to say that someone with no interest in roleplaying can't enjoy the game, play the character as themselves and focus on the main quest only to beat the game and get to the credits. Full play to you. In many cases, the designers catered for this option and made sure it would be possible because they know you exist, they know that's how you'll play the game and they really don't mind.

But the game isn't made for that - it was designed with people who value and can use the additional space and freedom. That's why Skyrim has oodles of land which you never have to set foot in to 'beat' the game. Its why the Fallout games have quirky traits which, actually, don't necessarily confer as strong an advantage as others. Its why Mount and Blade doesn't even have victory conditions.

All of the above would be pointless wastes of time and money in coding if the game was designed for players who are primarily interested in the end, rather than the journey.

There are also RPGs that don't confer the same levels of freedom and have explicit winning criteria, like the Dragon Age series. They also have a lot of minor sub-quests, skippable dialogue and scattered codex entries - again, it doesn't block the 'rush to the end' player from doing what he wants, but also provides the additional space and depth of content for others, accepting that not everyone will see all of it....and that this really doesn't matter.

Modifié par Wozearly, 20 août 2012 - 07:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not denying that many Roleplaying Games can be played as games.  That's also not relevant to my point.

My point is that when they can and are played as games by the majority of the people who play them, then the definition of RPGs can be 'changed' to accomodate the reality of how RPGs are actually played.

How they are played has never been relevant to the definition.  Why would it be now?

Though, since my assertion is that roleplaying games are only roleplaying games when they allow roleplaying, I'll concede that roleplaying games are also games whenever they allow being played like games.

But that only permits some roleplaying games to be games, not all.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Filament wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm not denying that many Roleplaying Games can be played as games.  That's also not relevant to my point.

My point is that when they can and are played as games by the majority of the people who play them, then the definition of RPGs can be 'changed' to accomodate the reality of how RPGs are actually played.

How they are played has never been relevant to the definition.  Why would it be now?

Though, since my assertion is that roleplaying games are only roleplaying games when they allow roleplaying, I'll concede that roleplaying games are also games whenever they allow being played like games.

But that only permits some roleplaying games to be games, not all.

Here's where I'll seemingly backpeddle a bit on earlier assurtions, but I put forth it's a matter of nuance and not retraction.

If a sizable enough group of people continue to use something for a purpose that said something was not made to be used for, that does often become a common use and therefore a definition of said something would grow to include said originally unintended use.

This happens all the time, whether it be with language or with items.

So if pie-tins started being tossed around for fun and that created the frisbee, you know... or people kept using Skin So Soft for insect repellent so much that Avon started marketing it as such... or Kleenex goes from being a make-up remover to being a disposable handkerchief... or ain't enters the dictionary... or gang banger suddenly means hooligans instead of... well... you get the idea.

A few people using something for an unintended purpose doesn't change the purpose of the thing. A significant portion, however, and certainly if you have a majority... well, most of the time then the item's purpose changes to include the originally unintended use.

I'd argue that the majority of people play RPG's as games.  Vast majority. 

That said, I'd also wager good money that there's not a company producing RPG's that wouldn't call them games. 

Hence, intended use and majority of use greatly overrides whatever quibbles you may have with calling RPG's games, Sylvius.  If the dictionary, the creators, and the users all call them games... like Pzykozis, you cannot say a definition is wrong simply by your own personal fiat.

Modifié par MerinTB, 20 août 2012 - 10:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I disagree. Using your example, the same device could be both a pie-tin and a frisbee, but the defition of pie-tin never changed. A pie-tin is still a shallow dish for baking pies.

Any given title might be both a roleplaying game and a game, but that doesn't mean that roleplaying games are games, as that removes from the definition of roleplaying games any titles that didn't satisfy the criteria to count as games.

If the vast majority of people (or even all people) use pie-tins as frisbees, that doesn't remove the ability to bake pies from the definition of pie-tin. It just makes the defintion of pie-tin irrelevant to most users of the product. They might then refine that product to make it a better frisbee, at which point it might cease to be a pie-tin. As soon as it can no longer be used to bake a pie, it is no longer a pie-pin. The people who always saw the pie-tin as a frisbee will see the change merely as an improvement in the product. And as a frisbee, the product is improved. But making it a better frisbee didn't make it a better pie-tin, and removing the ability to bake pies from the product didn't remove the abiltiy to bake pies from the defintion of pie-tin. The product simply ceased to be a pie-tin.

If we remove the ability to roleplay from something that was previously a roleplaying game, it ceases to be a roleplaying game. If we remove the ability to play as a game from something that previously allowed it, then it ceases to be a game. But the definitions never change.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree. Using your example, the same device could be both a pie-tin and a frisbee, but the defition of pie-tin never changed. A pie-tin is still a shallow dish for baking pies.

Any given title might be both a roleplaying game and a game, but that doesn't mean that roleplaying games are games, as that removes from the definition of roleplaying games any titles that didn't satisfy the criteria to count as games.

If the vast majority of people (or even all people) use pie-tins as frisbees, that doesn't remove the ability to bake pies from the definition of pie-tin. It just makes the defintion of pie-tin irrelevant to most users of the product. They might then refine that product to make it a better frisbee, at which point it might cease to be a pie-tin. As soon as it can no longer be used to bake a pie, it is no longer a pie-pin. The people who always saw the pie-tin as a frisbee will see the change merely as an improvement in the product. And as a frisbee, the product is improved. But making it a better frisbee didn't make it a better pie-tin, and removing the ability to bake pies from the product didn't remove the abiltiy to bake pies from the defintion of pie-tin. The product simply ceased to be a pie-tin.

If we remove the ability to roleplay from something that was previously a roleplaying game, it ceases to be a roleplaying game. If we remove the ability to play as a game from something that previously allowed it, then it ceases to be a game. But the definitions never change.

Kleenex, then.  The Hitachi Magic Wand.  Dozens of other examples.

Perhaps the pie-tin was a bad example - but analogies are not perfect, and you know better than to nit-pick.

A thing can change it's use and definition as newer, or better, or more popular uses are found. 

And this is a tangent, a major one ignoring my major point that should really be beyond your arguing -

If reference materials (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.), manufacturers (those who make the product, in this case game designers) and end-users (the consumers, in this case game players) all consider role-playings games to be games, you, alone, cannot say they are wrong.

In effect -
they are games has: established definition, intended purpose, and end use all in agreement.
they are not games has: your assertions, using reasoning that fits your personal opinions.

This is just about as bad a case as the "role-playing is not core to role-playing games", just coming at it from the opposite end.

People who make RPGs are called game designers, companies who make RPGs are called game developers, companies that publish RPGs are called game publishers, people who play RPGs are called gamers, and the word GAME is in RPG.

In fact, the very corollary to "you can play a role-playing game without role-playing, but role-playing is still core to what a role-playing game is" is "you can role-play in a role-playing game without gaming, but gaming is still core to what a role-playing game is."  Especially if you consider a need of "gaming" to be "trying to win."

If you want role-playing absolutely without gaming, which exists, it is outside of role-playing games.

Again -



The subset is wholly inside of set 2.

This is logic 101.

Modifié par MerinTB, 20 août 2012 - 11:17 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, this is the sort of error you learn not to make in logic 101.

Again, games have winning conditions as a necessary feature. Roleplaying games need not. Therefore, it is possible for something to be a roleplaying game without being a game.

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I disagree. Using your example, the same device could be both a pie-tin and a frisbee, but the defition of pie-tin never changed. A pie-tin is still a shallow dish for baking pies.

Any given title might be both a roleplaying game and a game, but that doesn't mean that roleplaying games are games, as that removes from the definition of roleplaying games any titles that didn't satisfy the criteria to count as games.

If the vast majority of people (or even all people) use pie-tins as frisbees, that doesn't remove the ability to bake pies from the definition of pie-tin. It just makes the defintion of pie-tin irrelevant to most users of the product. They might then refine that product to make it a better frisbee, at which point it might cease to be a pie-tin. As soon as it can no longer be used to bake a pie, it is no longer a pie-pin. The people who always saw the pie-tin as a frisbee will see the change merely as an improvement in the product. And as a frisbee, the product is improved. But making it a better frisbee didn't make it a better pie-tin, and removing the ability to bake pies from the product didn't remove the abiltiy to bake pies from the defintion of pie-tin. The product simply ceased to be a pie-tin.

If we remove the ability to roleplay from something that was previously a roleplaying game, it ceases to be a roleplaying game. If we remove the ability to play as a game from something that previously allowed it, then it ceases to be a game. But the definitions never change.

But disagreeing might not get you anywhere?
MerinTB is essentially correct. Language is fundamentally and primarily defined by how it's used. Which is why I'm always saying that, for our purpose, the term/label 'RPG' is already useless. Utterly useless. And maybe we should start to treat it like that? As useless. What use 'RPG' is of, is up to those, who can use it without starting an argument, to find out. I don't F* care.

Suggestions: "Roleplaying game" will always be confused with 'RPG', which today is only any game featuring a few mechanical elements which have historically been used inside some real roleplaying games. So be more distinguishing. Introduce a new term, a new label.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 20 août 2012 - 11:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I still think we can unring the bell. I'm not ready to rename them interactive roleplaying software quite yet.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, this is the sort of error you learn not to make in logic 101.

Again, games have winning conditions as a necessary feature. Roleplaying games need not. Therefore, it is possible for something to be a roleplaying game without being a game.

Where is my logic error?  Role-playing games are games in which you role-play.  They are a subset of all role-playing and all games.  This couldn't be more basic.

Basic errors, however...

I know you are being too narrow / specific on your definition of what "game" means.  Game doesn't need a winning condition. There are endless computer games I can think of that never end / have no "winning" condition.

And, again, I go to established definitions -

Google game definition - A form of play or sport

1. activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime

1. an amusement or pastime

wikipedia - "A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

I'm not seeing the word "winning" mentioned once.

You are using a definition of "game" that isn't universal.  A neccesary feature would surely be included in the first relevant given definition of the type of game we are discussing, wouldn't you think?

Sylvius, you are arguing the same way Pzykozis did - from a self-centered, reset of society be darned, stance.

Modifié par MerinTB, 20 août 2012 - 11:43 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Using the Wikipedia description, I wouldn't call too many role-playing activities games, since it is not structured, something outlined in the very first section of the description.

If there can be a legitimate argument if a player has killed another player, for example, then there is no structure. If states of the game are subjective depending on someone's opinion or desire, that does not feel structured to me. So I would say role-playing activities are not games.

And I went with the Wikipedia definition because it is the most in-depth. And because under the Webster's definitions, sex, sewing, watching TV and gardening are also all games. Which is ridiculous.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 août 2012 - 12:09 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

My RPG
(To the tune of My Sharona)

Ooh let's do some role-playing, role-playing.
How we gonna do it? I know! RPG!
Char creation, foe slaying, god praying,
choose a name a race a class now, RPG!
Now we gonna start, roll those dice, make a Wisdom save,
Chat with NPCs, fight some foes from beyond the grave,
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My RPG...

Wanna do a story arc? Upbeat or dark?
Intrigue plots with ladies and lords, RPG!
We can do a dungeon crawl, a monster brawl,
Find some gold and epic cool swords, RPG!
Now we must explore, throw those dice, roll Perception checks,
What's that in the sky? You can see some suspicious specks.
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My RPG...

Are you solo or party? LFG?
Team it up or go it alone, RPG!
Your char's personality, mentality?
It's the games we bring from our minds, RPG!
Now we have to fight, ready spells, roll initiative,
And if I should die, rez me quick, my Char wants to live.
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My RPG...
M M M My RPG...

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, this is the sort of error you learn not to make in logic 101.

Again, games have winning conditions as a necessary feature. Roleplaying games need not. Therefore, it is possible for something to be a roleplaying game without being a game.

Where is my logic error?  Role-playing games are games in which you role-play.  They are a subset of all role-playing and all games.  This couldn't be more basic.

Basic errors, however...

I know you are being too narrow / specific on your definition of what "game" means.  Game doesn't need a winning condition. There are endless computer games I can think of that never end / have no "winning" condition.

And, again, I go to established definitions -

Google game definition - A form of play or sport

1. activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime

1. an amusement or pastime

wikipedia - "A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

I'm not seeing the word "winning" mentioned once.

You are using a definition of "game" that isn't universal.  A neccesary feature would surely be included in the first relevant given definition of the type of game we are discussing, wouldn't you think?

I don't need roleplaying games not to be games; it's not central to my point.  If games don't necessarily have winning conditions, then my argument for why roleplaying games are not games is neatly defeated.

It ultimately doesn't matter whether roleplaying games are games.  It matters, though, that roleplaying games are a distinct category unto themselves - a category with firmly defined characteristics.  And the most obviously necessary characteristic, I would argue, is that they allow roleplaying.

As I said above, other sorts of games might allow roleplaying.  And roleplaying games need not require roleplaying.  But roleplaying games must allow roleplaying, else they are not roleplaying games.

Sylvius, you are arguing the same way Pzykozis did - from a self-centered, reset of society be darned, stance.

I would like to think I argue from a logic-centered, rest of society be damned stance.  Which is why I'm willing to concede that my "roleplaying games are not games" position was not well-founded.

When forming a reasoned opinion, society need never be taken into account.  In fact, I would argue that it should not, until such time as the existence of society is demonstrated.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If there can be a legitimate argument if a player has killed another player, for example, then there is no structure.

Might it not be that the structure is ambiguous, or that some of the players are simply unaware of it?

Does the structure need to be effective to exist?

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


When forming a reasoned opinion, society need never be taken into account.  In fact, I would argue that it should not, until such time as the existence of society is demonstrated.

Ah yes, I wondered when something like this was gonna show up.

Don't mind me. Please continue. It is rather amusing, after all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


My RPG
(To the tune of My Sharona)

Ooh let's do some role-playing, role-playing.
How we gonna do it? I know! RPG!
Char creation, foe slaying, god praying,
choose a name a race a class now, RPG!
Now we gonna start, roll those dice, make a Wisdom save,
Chat with NPCs, fight some foes from beyond the grave,
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My RPG...

Wanna do a story arc? Upbeat or dark?
Intrigue plots with ladies and lords, RPG!
We can do a dungeon crawl, a monster brawl,
Find some gold and epic cool swords, RPG!
Now we must explore, throw those dice, roll Perception checks,
What's that in the sky? You can see some suspicious specks.
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My RPG...

Are you solo or party? LFG?
Team it up or go it alone, RPG!
Your char's personality, mentality?
It's the games we bring from our minds, RPG!
Now we have to fight, ready spells, roll initiative,
And if I should die, rez me quick, my Char wants to live.
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My RPG...
M M M My RPG...

Well played!

Tip o' the hat, SoLD. Tip o' the hat.

[LinksOcarina]

I find this discussion fascinating because role-playing games are always under a sort of catch-all umbrella in both the Tabletop world, and the video game world.

I still maintain the fact that there is no wrong answer, it just depends on what the person believes, and reading most of this discussion pretty much cements that. That said, it would be foolish to dismiss classes of RPGs as not being RPGs; if the definition is too narrow, there is no room to expand on the genre in a way that makes it more appealing, fun, creative and so forth, something the genre needs to grow.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would like to think I argue from a logic-centered, rest of society be damned stance.  Which is why I'm willing to concede that my "roleplaying games are not games" position was not well-founded.

When forming a reasoned opinion, society need never be taken into account.  In fact, I would argue that it should not, until such time as the existence of society is demonstrated.

The ability to admit fault is important, and to concede a point shows that you are arguing from a logic point of view.

"Society be damned" can be a noble approach, except in instances where the consensus of the majority is important.

To give a very, very obvious example: when asked what movie do people think is the best one ever, if a majority of responses pick Avatar (definitely not my pick, to be clear) then society matters - the question was what do they think, and their answer is important.

For word definitions, again, how the word is used most is not most important, but it is very important.  Words take their meaning from two main sources - authoritative sources like academia or reference materials and the vernacular.

What the majority of people use the word game to mean is relevant in this instance.

Now, if you are talking about HOW role-playing games should be made ... then have at it with the "society be damned" stance.  I might not agree with you, point for point, but I'll be on a similar soapbox facing off against the teeming hordes.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Formal definitions are not mutable, and formal definitions are the only useful definitions.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Formal definitions are not mutable, and formal definitions are the only useful definitions.

But a process is used to arrive at the formal definition. During that time the definition is mutable until the formal definition is agree upon.
Formal definitons have change over time given that society itself has change the definition to the point it becomes acceptable. Thereby being accept as formal.

[LinksOcarina]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Formal definitions are not mutable, and formal definitions are the only useful definitions.

But a process is used to arrive at the formal definition. During that time the definition is mutable until the formal definition is agree upon.
Formal definitons have change over time given that society itself has change the definition to the point it becomes acceptable. Thereby being accept as formal.

I would also add  in some fields like language, history, art, design, and scociology this is usually the norm. For example, the word "gay" has a formal definition of being happy, and is now used as a perjorative, a label, and a rallying cry depending on it's usage. I know its an apple/orange comparison, but it also falls under the definition of what an RPG is, both in terms of its gameplay mechanics, and the amount of role-playing and control is involved with the player character.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 21 août 2012 - 06:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

But a process is used to arrive at the formal definition.

Not usually.  Formal definitions are typically assigned all at once to establish a standard by which things can be measured.

Formal definitons have change over time given that society itself has change the definition to the point it becomes acceptable. Thereby being accept as formal.

You've just describe colloquial definitions, not formal definitions.

LinksOcarina wrote...

I would also add  in some fields like language, history, art, design, and scociology this is usually the norm.

Is language really a field?  Linguisitcs is a field, and it relies heavily of pre-set formal definitions.  What and what isn't a phoneme isn't subject to popular opinion.

And the others you've listed are insufficiently precise areas of investigation to be useful.  I would much rather we approach this like a logic or engineering problem than like a sociology problem (a field for which I have no use at all).

[Fast Jimmy]

Technically, culture can create its own norms, which are then reflected by those establishing the formal.

"Ain't" is a double contraction of are, is and not, something not allowed in conventional language. It has no set noun/adjective agreement, since it implies both singular and plural noun states, which is impossible. However, that didn't stop Webster from adding it to the dictionary after a century of people using it.

By the same token, games that have leveling, stats and equipable armor or weapons are RPGs or games that have RPG elements to them, despite giving no contr to what the character thinks, says or acts like - hence, no role playing.

Does that make it right? No. But it does make it the social norm. And without a governing body to officially define genres, the only option is to accept the social norm or, if not, then at least recognize that when people use that term incorrectly, there could be a double meaning.

Or, conversely, you could do what religions have done for millennia - name your brand of religion as a specific, 'purer' subset. Like Roman Catholicism. Or Orthodox Judaism. Or Southern Baptists.

I suggest a new name for video game RPGs which allow you to have total (or at least as close to it as possible) control of your character - True Test RPGs. Implying they can pass the True Test of what an RPG is - mainly, allowing you play the role of a character as you see fit.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

But a process is used to arrive at the formal definition.

Not usually.  Formal definitions are typically assigned all at once to establish a standard by which things can be measured.

Formal definitons have change over time given that society itself has change the definition to the point it becomes acceptable. Thereby being accept as formal.

You've just describe colloquial definitions, not formal definitions.

LinksOcarina wrote...

I would also add  in some fields like language, history, art, design, and scociology this is usually the norm.

Is language really a field?  Linguisitcs is a field, and it relies heavily of pre-set formal definitions.  What and what isn't a phoneme isn't subject to popular opinion.

And the others you've listed are insufficiently precise areas of investigation to be useful.  I would much rather we approach this like a logic or engineering problem than like a sociology problem (a field for which I have no use at all).

Well  for one, sometimes logic and engineering don't make sense in those other fields. They are inprecise purposefully because contextually it is wise to interpret things over define them. Science works this way too, believe it or not. See, facts and logic are good to have, but what is more compelling is not that they are factual, but how they are used to explain theories, to show why they are noted as facts. In science, the most important aspect of the application is the theory, versus the fact, because the fact always changes with the theory. 

And I meant to say linguistics, but even pre-set formal definitions are thrown out the window because language changes. We have "unofficial" languages and lingua-franca in different parts of the united states, to whole countries that carry on a tradition of language that is not seen elsewhere. Ancient languages have a much different flow and syntax than modern languages, middle english follows different rules over modern english, and so forth. Pre-dertimed rules would cause languages to stagnent completely, so the rules are really just a scaffolding to hold it up, versus being a concrete definition. You need to have nouns, pronouns, verbs, and so forth.

Just like phenomes. From what I know about it (which is limited but let's go for it anyway), the term phenome is not universally defined. Theoretically the term is still debatable because the word phenome is problematical when discussing its function in genetics. When you have two different viewpoints on how a phenome functions, then it becomes something outside logic. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 21 août 2012 - 06:53 .

[Wozearly]

MerinTB wrote...



The subset is wholly inside of set 2.

This is logic 101.

I disagree...I think it suffers from logical equivocation.

The diagram is correct only if either;

a) there is a single agreed definition of roleplaying and of games, and RPGs must all contain both elements in order to adopt the title - all other things must be labelled differently.

there are multiple definitions of  roleplaying and/or of games, but RPGs include elements that satisfy all interpretations of both groups simultaneously - all other things must be labelled differently.

The intense verbal sparring above has got to a stage where I think its accepted that "games" and "roleplaying" both have very broad definitions and interpretations. And its very difficult to set down rules that only fit RPGs into that middle box without unintentionally including or excluding things that clearly should / should not be there.

For example, using the dictionary-style definition of game, live action roleplaying sits neatly within the RPG box, although I'm not sure many people would equate LARPing with Dragon Age 2. Games that allow roleplaying and have many of the same mechanics (take one of the more recent Grand Theft Auto games), would also fall into the RPG box, despite no-one considering them to be RPGs.

I think where we are is a failure on - the segments as shown imply that the definitions are singular and universally agreed and recognisable, which is disguising a layer of complexity going on in reality.

If (for argument's sake) that complexity could be resolved by introducing a third circle to cover it, you'd then have three additional nuances where two circles overlap with each other (but not the third), as well as all three overlapping in the middle.

If people then used the term RPG to encompass everything in the fully overlapping centre AND the three nuances, despite them being distinctly separate from one another, that would probably be a better description of what's going on in the genre at the moment.

Modifié par Wozearly, 21 août 2012 - 07:38 .