You're describing a single-player videogame or choose-your-own adventure book basically. Talking about those under the umbrella (tree) of "role playing games" alongside D&D is pointless.
You're the one who brought them up; I was disputing your assertion that noncollaborative implies linear (or predetermined).
You're the one who brought them up; I was disputing your assertion that noncollaborative implies linear (or predetermined).
I still argue that, for all intents and purposes, it does. Unless you actually want to count writing a novel, and count the decisions of the writer working in a vacuum to be interesting decisions.
Note that I am an advocate against taking the "word of god" from authors into consideration in literary analysis. The finished work as it is is all that matters. So unless you actually want to count novel writing in this whole discussion, then for players noncollaborative still effectively means predetermined.
You could make an argument that Choose-Your-Own-Adventure is a collaboration between the author and the reader.
Yes, you could. And were I younger, I would make that pedantic argument. But I'm older now, and wiser, and so are you. ;^)
The player almost definitely has no connection to the author except through the work itself. The work is itself finite and immutable. The player tells multiple "stories" simply by traversing different branches of the same unchanging tree.
I could equally argue that there is no collaboration, there is simply creation and exploration, each in a vacuum.
Yes, the type of constrained interactive storycrafting we're talking about here requires other players, but is that actually an inherent property?
In my view, it's mostly just a technological limitation; current algorithms and hardware aren't capable of generating genuinely new situations the way that other players can.
I think there is, at least hypothetically, a category of single-player games that carry across much of the core of what makes an RPG. The only notable example of a real game I can come up with is Dwarf Fortress, and although I can agree that it doesn't fit the RPG mould in several ways, I can say this: - It is not, by any reasonable definition, linear or predetermined. - It is a game. - The core of the game is about interactively crafting a story.
My argument is that there is, in fact, a space outside of orthoRPGs that is similar enough to warrant discussion; that space simply remains mostly unexplored due to technological limitations.
One could, of course, argue (as I mentioned before) that this is merely collaborative storytelling with an AI, but that would also imply that there is a continuum between other players and the environment; in the terminology of Characteristics of Games that would be the space around one-and-a-half player games. Consequently, there would be games that don't really involve what you would call other players, but still behave very much like an RPG.
I've seen this thread so many times in the last fifteen years...
Through a mixture of oral tradition and poorly-written RPG texts, the problem persists across generations. I'm not sure it'll ever go away. The persistent might drag themselves out of the murk, flopping and gasping. Others will find no need.
Just think about the Dave Arneson pamphlet propaganda wargame story that is one of the progenitors of this very argument. It wasn't a type of game someone set out to create, it just sort of came together organically.
Rym, by your definition it could be seen that railroaded D&D session is not roleplaying, while writing a novel with a friend in "I write one chapter, you write one, then me, then you" -way is roleplaying.
But back to the topic of problematic terminology in role playing games. I'd say that outside of certain fields of science in anything it's impossible to create a list of terms and their definitions that everyone knows and agrees with. When I talked about this thread with my friend he mentioned that terms are just tools. It's much easier to say "orthogame" than say "a game of two or more players, with rules that result in a ranking or weighting of the players, and done for entertainment." (Characteristics of games, page 8, Garfield, Elias and Gutschera, 2012). But I can only use the term orthogame when talking to people who know that definition. Well I can use it anywhere, but it's not useful if people don't understand it.
Then there is the problem of people having different definitions to same terms. I assume it raises from two sources. First is where person sees or hears someone using the term, but they don't understand what they actually mean with the term and they start using the term with their own "wrong" definition. Or when two or more people decide that a certain term describes a thing well, with all of the people thinking different thing. For example someone could say that political game is one where the purpose is explicitly to convince others to join you, comparing that to the Characteristics of Games definition where any game with three or more players where you can affect to other player and can choose to who to affect.
outside of certain fields of science in anything it's impossible to create a list of terms and their definitions that everyone knows and agrees with. When I talked about this thread with my friend he mentioned that terms are just tools. ...I can use it anywhere, but it's not useful if people don't understand it.
Intelligent people having a serious discussion will define their terms and agree upon a mutual lexicon before (and sometimes during) debate. If someone is unwilling to do so, and insists even at this level on pedantry, it's usually not worth discussing the topic with them in the first place.
Think of it this way - if you figure out how to generate energy using this, you'll have a Nobel prize for inventing a perpetual motion machine pretty much in the bag.
Intelligent people having a serious discussion will define their terms and agree upon a mutual lexicon before (and sometimes during) debate.
And that's what happens or should happen when people talk about role playing games.
In my experience, a small number of people in the conversation go apeshit that their particular special edge case doesn't fit into the otherwise useful definition and derail the entire conversation into minutia.
It's not just RPG people. At a MAGFest of yore, Scott and I were on a panel discussion where someone in the audience flipped the fuck out that we even implied that a "game" where the player makes no decisions might not be usefully described as a game in the context of our discussion.
Someone else was personally offended that the panelists disagreed with his position that:
1. He only liked the story and cutscenes of Final Fantasy 7, but not the game part itself.
2. He would rather the "game" parts be removed or minimized so he can just see the story.
3. It WOULDN'T BE THE SAME if Final Fantasy 7 had just been a movie: IT HAS TO BE A GAME!
4. A movie where the action is interrupted by unrelated minigames would be TERRIBLE and NOT A GAME.
He wanted mutually exclusive things and not only didn't see that this was the case, but was visibly angry at the discussion going on about how much gameplay does or does not tie into narrative.
Many years ago, at ConnectiCon, Scott and I lectured on "German" style board games. Dude in the audience FLIPPED THE FUCK OUT that were dared to call them "German," because American games are JUST AS GOOD! He wouldn't let that point go, and proceeded to be an annoying heckler wanting to talk about something completely different from what we were ostensibly lecturing on.
When I quoted you I left this out, purely because it was not the thing I replied to.
If someone is unwilling to do so, and insists even at this level on pedantry, it's usually not worth discussing the topic with them in the first place.
I would maybe put this into simpler terms by saying idiots be idiots, that's surprise to no one.
Also your style of presentation is has a feel of know-it-allness, which easily makes it so that when person's personal believes or opinions are different from those you present, some people can easily take it as a personal attack against their opinions.
Trust me, the silent majority of the audience hates that guy with that shitty question too.
In last year I was in a con where multiple lectures went nowhere and otherwise potentially interesting lecture went to shit when it devolved into endless barrage of questions and comments from audience. When the person in the front, who I have come to listen to speaks less that half of the time, something has gone wrong.
Intelligent people having a serious discussion will define their terms and agree upon a mutual lexicon before (and sometimes during) debate.
And that's what happens or should happen when people talk about role playing games.
In my experience, a small number of people ... derail the entire conversation into minutia.
I'm glad you guys don't do that.
Someone else was personally offended that the panelists disagreed with his position that:
1. He only liked the story and cutscenes of Final Fantasy 7, but not the game part itself.
2. He would rather the "game" parts be removed or minimized so he can just see the story.
3. It WOULDN'T BE THE SAME if Final Fantasy 7 had just been a movie: IT HAS TO BE A GAME!
4. A movie where the action is interrupted by unrelated minigames would be TERRIBLE and NOT A GAME.
He wanted mutually exclusive things and not only didn't see that this was the case, but was visibly angry at the discussion going on about how much gameplay does or does not tie into narrative.
Many years ago, at ConnectiCon, Scott and I lectured on "German" style board games. Dude in the audience FLIPPED THE FUCK OUT that were dared to call them "German," because American games are JUST AS GOOD! He wouldn't let that point go, and proceeded to be an annoying heckler wanting to talk about something completely different from what we were ostensibly lecturing on.
Gamers in general suck at talking about games.
That last sentence doesn't follow, dude. You guys got heckled. It's like you're saying that people, in general, have no sense humor because Carlin got yelled at.
But I see it time and time again, and primarily (though not exclusively) at lower tier gaming cons. Multiple people in the audience, if given the chance to speak, will bring surprising and specific umbrage to the table, apparently personally offended by any manner of benign statement or opinion from panelists.
The first guy at that MAGFest was one of several. They would interject their personal anger at the opinions stated, visibly agitated that someone had the audacity to say that "games can be solved" or that "maybe puzzle is a subset of game," or perhaps "chess skill primarily consists of memorized openings and complex pattern recognition." These people were visibly angry. They were MAD. It boggles the mind, but I see it time and time again.
Even worse, their rebuttals will often be directly contradictory or outright nonsensical. One woman actually answered a question from one of the panelists with (paraphrasing): "Yes, I prefer games where I don't have to make any decisions. I don't want to have to do anything, and I definitely don't want to be able to lose."
What is that person thinking? What do they mean by game? How did they come to this conclusion? Why are they so angry if one points out that the game they expressed enjoying greatly just before does actually involve decisions?
One heckler. All of the rest of the examples are hand-raised questions or statements. The pattern persists.
Angry gamer gets angry and personally offended if someone says anything even remotely related to "his game" that doesn't exactly match his personal opinion.
Comments
Note that I am an advocate against taking the "word of god" from authors into consideration in literary analysis. The finished work as it is is all that matters. So unless you actually want to count novel writing in this whole discussion, then for players noncollaborative still effectively means predetermined.
The player almost definitely has no connection to the author except through the work itself. The work is itself finite and immutable. The player tells multiple "stories" simply by traversing different branches of the same unchanging tree.
I could equally argue that there is no collaboration, there is simply creation and exploration, each in a vacuum.
In my view, it's mostly just a technological limitation; current algorithms and hardware aren't capable of generating genuinely new situations the way that other players can.
I think there is, at least hypothetically, a category of single-player games that carry across much of the core of what makes an RPG. The only notable example of a real game I can come up with is Dwarf Fortress, and although I can agree that it doesn't fit the RPG mould in several ways, I can say this:
- It is not, by any reasonable definition, linear or predetermined.
- It is a game.
- The core of the game is about interactively crafting a story.
My argument is that there is, in fact, a space outside of orthoRPGs that is similar enough to warrant discussion; that space simply remains mostly unexplored due to technological limitations.
One could, of course, argue (as I mentioned before) that this is merely collaborative storytelling with an AI, but that would also imply that there is a continuum between other players and the environment; in the terminology of Characteristics of Games that would be the space around one-and-a-half player games. Consequently, there would be games that don't really involve what you would call other players, but still behave very much like an RPG.
I'm an old man now. Old and jaded.
Edit: http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/104/braunstein-the-roots-of-roleplaying-games/
But back to the topic of problematic terminology in role playing games. I'd say that outside of certain fields of science in anything it's impossible to create a list of terms and their definitions that everyone knows and agrees with. When I talked about this thread with my friend he mentioned that terms are just tools. It's much easier to say "orthogame" than say "a game of two or more players, with rules that result in a ranking or weighting of the players, and done for entertainment." (Characteristics of games, page 8, Garfield, Elias and Gutschera, 2012). But I can only use the term orthogame when talking to people who know that definition. Well I can use it anywhere, but it's not useful if people don't understand it.
Then there is the problem of people having different definitions to same terms. I assume it raises from two sources. First is where person sees or hears someone using the term, but they don't understand what they actually mean with the term and they start using the term with their own "wrong" definition. Or when two or more people decide that a certain term describes a thing well, with all of the people thinking different thing. For example someone could say that political game is one where the purpose is explicitly to convince others to join you, comparing that to the Characteristics of Games definition where any game with three or more players where you can affect to other player and can choose to who to affect.
If it's not 100% railroaded, then it is, as there is some collaboration, however small.
It's not just RPG people. At a MAGFest of yore, Scott and I were on a panel discussion where someone in the audience flipped the fuck out that we even implied that a "game" where the player makes no decisions might not be usefully described as a game in the context of our discussion.
Someone else was personally offended that the panelists disagreed with his position that:
1. He only liked the story and cutscenes of Final Fantasy 7, but not the game part itself.
2. He would rather the "game" parts be removed or minimized so he can just see the story.
3. It WOULDN'T BE THE SAME if Final Fantasy 7 had just been a movie: IT HAS TO BE A GAME!
4. A movie where the action is interrupted by unrelated minigames would be TERRIBLE and NOT A GAME.
He wanted mutually exclusive things and not only didn't see that this was the case, but was visibly angry at the discussion going on about how much gameplay does or does not tie into narrative.
Many years ago, at ConnectiCon, Scott and I lectured on "German" style board games. Dude in the audience FLIPPED THE FUCK OUT that were dared to call them "German," because American games are JUST AS GOOD! He wouldn't let that point go, and proceeded to be an annoying heckler wanting to talk about something completely different from what we were ostensibly lecturing on.
Gamers in general suck at talking about games.
Also your style of presentation is has a feel of know-it-allness, which easily makes it so that when person's personal believes or opinions are different from those you present, some people can easily take it as a personal attack against their opinions.
This, on the other hand, probably fits by my own personal definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobbovia
That last sentence doesn't follow, dude. You guys got heckled. It's like you're saying that people, in general, have no sense humor because Carlin got yelled at.
The first guy at that MAGFest was one of several. They would interject their personal anger at the opinions stated, visibly agitated that someone had the audacity to say that "games can be solved" or that "maybe puzzle is a subset of game," or perhaps "chess skill primarily consists of memorized openings and complex pattern recognition." These people were visibly angry. They were MAD. It boggles the mind, but I see it time and time again.
Even worse, their rebuttals will often be directly contradictory or outright nonsensical. One woman actually answered a question from one of the panelists with (paraphrasing): "Yes, I prefer games where I don't have to make any decisions. I don't want to have to do anything, and I definitely don't want to be able to lose."
What is that person thinking? What do they mean by game? How did they come to this conclusion? Why are they so angry if one points out that the game they expressed enjoying greatly just before does actually involve decisions?
One heckler. All of the rest of the examples are hand-raised questions or statements. The pattern persists.
Angry gamer gets angry and personally offended if someone says anything even remotely related to "his game" that doesn't exactly match his personal opinion.