RPG vs RPE: Art Forms with Elves

A:       What’re you doing?

B:        Playing a game.

A:       Who’s wining?

B:       No-one can win.

A:      You’re certain it’s a game?

B:        I’m playing aren’t I?

A:       Maybe, you’re not playing a game.

B:       What?

A:       Perhaps you’re just playing.

B:       Well I don’t care what you call it, it’s fun.

What is a game?

Difficult to define!

To paraphrase Nietzsche, anything with a history defies definition.

Yet according to Socrates, a term without a definition is meaningless.

‘Game’ is a textbook example of what is known as a woolly or fuzzy category.

I told you this would be difficult…

Greg Costikyan in his essay I Have No Words and Must Design, does a good job, he states:

A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.

Ironically, as the author of the D6 based Star Wars RPG, Costikyan shoots himself in the foot here - Star Wars had neither goals nor true player choice, so could not be termed a ‘game’. The same holds true for most of what are called pen and paper RPGs. From Dungeons & Dragons onwards RPGs have had no explicit goals, you can’t ever win.

That said, there’s nothing to stop participants focusing on one or more aspects of a RPG and self imposing goals to “make a game out of it” in a principal Skinner stylee.

What is Role-Play?

Role-playing is portraying a fictional character, without a script. Basically, role-play (RP) is a (marginally) more structured version of improvisational acting.

So what’s A Role-Playing Game Then?

A role-playing game is a form of self-expression & entertainment lying somewhere between theatre and war-gaming (or the boards and a board). A role-playing game hinges upon the participants (termed players) immersing themselves in the roles of various fantasy alter egos.

However, as mentioned previously, most of these entertainments termed role-playing games are not games at all, because they lack victory conditions. No-one can ‘win’* or ‘lose’.

There are notable exceptions to this, Robin D Laws’ Rune and Pantheon and James Wallis’ Baron Munchausen are all true role-playing games as they have specific victory conditions.

Still not convinced? How can there be the sense of fair competition necessary for a game when the rules provide one of the participants infinite resources and ultimate control? More on this in The GM’s Role: The Godot-Monkey Unleashed.

I propose re-labeling (most) RPGs as role-playing entertainments (RPEs) since that’s what they are. Interestingly, live action role-plays (LARPs) are less likely to be termed as games - probably because they fall closer to theatre in the war-games - theatre RP continuum.

RPEs are really an art form (though many aesthetes and role-players alike will be galled by this fact). A unique art form which facilitates a collaborative, spontaneous creation of narrative, by players portraying fictional characters constrained by set rules.

Don’t be mistaken into thinking that I’m saying competition isn’t a component of RPEs, competition is a component of all human interactions, unless you happen to be Buddha.

What’s The Point of RPEs?

They’re supposed to be fun.

Role-playing is the only narrative art form in which the (participatory) audience can actually influence the unfolding story — as such it is the only art form which can truly explore the concept of free-will.

So What’s Fun Then?

I’m getting to that - please read my essay Role-Playing Where’s The Fun? GENIUS Theory.

Then post angrily on forums if you disagree.

*This explains the role-playing community’s largely hostile reaction to players who play to win, who are variously termed: munchkins, power-gamers, min-maxers, hardcore gamists, number crunchers, beardy cheese mongers….etc

JJ Prince - 2006

Previous: The FUNnel Next: Where's the Fun? GENIUS Theory.