What is an RPG?

Remove all ads!

Methinks this debate needs to move out of Oaz's thread, where it is really not all that relevant.

So, the debate so far is:

Runequester believes that games which are not rules-heavy do not actually classify as RPGs. Games where you roleplay, but without system, should not be classified as such but rather as an entirely different pasttime. Also, he seems to believe that CRPGs are RPGs still. (You'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure )

I, on the other hand, would say that any social game which involves roleplaying should be called an RPG. This includes rules light, rules heavy, freeform, LARP, play by post - hell, even cops and robbers. I would call CRPGs something seperate - as they lack the social interacting factor.

So, discuss (maybe this time I'll manage to keep references to The Forge to a minimum )

 

My personal belief of an RPG's definition is a game in which someone takes on the role of one (sometimes multiple) characters, and has that character be active in a world over which he has no direct control. Another person is in control, or a predetermined system is in control.

So I consider CRPG's to be RPG's - after all, you can't spell CRPG without RPG.

 

Oaz - so you would call games played with systems that allow player control (limited or unlimited) over the game world to be non-RPGs? Or are you seperating character from player moreso (as in - the character has no direct control, but the player might)?

Or maybe you mean that the character is unable to affect events and is simply herded by the GM (but somehow I doubt you did, because that sounds like a pretty shoddy game)?

 

I'd define an RPG as a game where you play someone (something?) else's role. By "role" I mean take over another personality as well as another "physical" body. The point is that you as the player get to define the details of that personality. So for example King's Quest isn't an RPG because "you" are not King Graham, you're just directing his actions through an interface.

Also, if you stick to this definition, there isn't much distinction between pen & paper RPGs and "traditional" CRPGs. Both involve you creating an alternate persona (though it can also be more than one, as in IWD, TOEE, and many others) and completely controlling they future actions. What you do in the game isn't only a matter of "solve this puzzle to finish the game" (as in adventure games), but more along the lines of "given this event, how would this personality react?" Again, this is exactly the same situation you'd get in P&P, so the social factor doesn't enter the equation. CRPGs can be social after all - multiplayer NWN, MMORPGs, etc.

One major factor I forgot to mention: in order for the game to qualify as an RPG, the PC must evolve. It needn't be only "physical" (go up a level, increase your stats, etc), but can (and should) also be a "mental" evolution. The goal of taking over another persona is to interact, both with others (whether they are AI-controlled NPCs or real people sitting at the same table) and with the virtual world.

Rules are very convenient to make the above process easier, but that doesn't mean that a more complex RPG must have more complex rules. I don't know if I'd go as far as calling cops and robbers fully-fledged role-playing, but it could be a "primitive" form of RPing. Even Paintball is RPing if you look at it this way. But I feel these games lack the evolving factor to be called "true" RPGs.

 

Aik - When I say direct control, what I mean is... well, direct control. Sorry, but I can't think of a better way to say it, so I'll give an example.

A player has no right to say that an NPC has a heart attack and dies on the spot, but the player's character can do something like slip that NPC some poison or cast a spell to make him have a heart attack (and there will probably be some chance the character doesn't succeed). Since the DM or GM has authority over the world's NPC's and circumstances, he can easily say, "the old man had a heart attack before you could find him in town."

The player doesn't always have direct control over the character either. The player can say, "I have my dwarf fighter charge the troll (rolls d20)," but he cannot say, "My character has a heart attack," unless he were suicidal and intentionally caused it.

So in short, the character of course can affect things, but he is of course limited and must take actions himself to complete his goals.

 

I like what Ziad posted above. I probably place less importance on 'reacting in character' and whatnot but all in all I would agree with Ziad.

RPGs are, at their heart simulation games. They evolved from earlier simulation games called wargames. RPGs differed from wargames in thyat wargames simulated the static attributes of whole units of panzer tanks, infantry squads etc. against fortifications and other units in a sort of 'Attack power = X vs. Defensive Stength = Y' adn figuring in the random element of chance via die rolling.
RPGs on the other hand detailed the attributes of individual characters and many of these attributes were NOT static. Skill and ability evolved with experience. D&D was EXTREMELY limited (and altogether to complciated and nonsensical) in how it enabled such simulation but still deserves the kudos for getting the ball rolling. Later games such as RuneQuest and Champions gave the hobby/industry benchmarks by which systems would be measured. With these later systems it became apparent that pretty much any facet of character developement from romantic intrigue to Honk Kong cinema styled gun fights could be simulated through a well designed system adn, contrary to popular misconception, without incurring atmosphere interupting period of looking up tables and charts and arguing over rules.

Still, some people are not fond of this type of game but ARE fond of improvisational storytelling and acting.


And then there are, I guess, "in-betweeners". The "rules-lite" crowd. I apologise for implying they were not playing RPGs. I should have made a clearer distinction between those who might favor "simplified" systems(think Final Fantasy vs. your average PC CRPG or FUDGE vs. HERO).
These "rules-lite" systems are generally referred to as "free form" by gamers. The philosophy behind them is that it is better to simply roll a die and say "even number is success" if it moves the story along and avoids having to calculate the player character's ability to apply enough force, given his physique and momentum, to the boulder to get it rolling downhill.

As for CRPGs, yes they most certainly ARE RPGs in that they simulate characters in a particular environment via quantified mechanics.

 

Hmm, I think you might all be swaying my thoughts on CRPGs, they mayhap are included - but the type of gaming that they advocate is something that would not appeal to me in any other format. The 'game' part if more prevailant because it is nearly impossible to account for the roleplaying choices that the player might want to make. I don't often find that you have to make much in the way of meaningful decisions about how the character would react (Fallout and PS:T being noteable exemptions)

I definitely wouldn't call paintball an RPG - unless the people are acting out a military situation as something else other than themselves - which isn't really the point of the game as I understand. Cops and Robbers onthe other hand is actively taking the role of another person.

And now onto Oaz's post. So, what would you call a gaming system such as The Pool, Shadows, Metal Opera, Sorcerer, Inspectres, Universalis, ect. that allow players to take active control of the world, if they are not RPGs by your definition? I could understand Universalis (by what I've heard of it) being called an interactive shared storytelling game, maybe, but with the others you control a central character with the rules allowing you to break from it in order to further the game.

Runequester - I would not say that RPGs are simulation games. They were once for sure, but things evolve, and I would say that RPGs have far out-evolved that rather limited definition. I would also call improvisional storytelling and acting a seperate thing from RPGs which encourage storytelling and strong characters.

Improvisional storytelling it, to my mind, where you would sit around and create a story without people having set characters as their own, but rather everything thrown into a heap for the group to shape as they will. Improvisional acting ... well, actually, I would go so far as to call that a form of RPGs. I play theatre sports at school, where you take the role of a character briefly for a short game and improvise with a bunch of other people to hopefully make something that doesn't suck, that still falls into my definition of an RPG.

I think you have some misconception between freeform and rules-lite. Freeform is no rules, and anything goes so long as it doesn't violate what is accepted in the game. Rules-lite is simply a system with only a few rules, but this is very different from freeform in actual play (see some of those links above).

Also, rules-lite is not necessarilly going to be a system that supports the storytelling view (they usually are, but that's certainly not a requirement). Success and failure can happen in a rules-lite system as well as it could happen in any system (though you probably wouldn't be calculating the strength and probabilities, no. And often instead of outright failure it's a complication instead - you might move the boulder down the hill, but instead of going where you wanted it to it rolled over your foot or whatever - but this is a 'narrativist' design technique. Rules-lite can be done for whatever else as well.)

 

But that is exactly what they ARE doing! If we will define RPG so braodly as to include any activity that involves literally playing a "role" within a "game", then you cannot arbitrarily dismiss paintball, dressing up in a French maid outfit and spanking your lover in the bedroom or any other such activity.
The problem is when one comes to a D&D forum and starts talking "roleplaying games" and he has in mind paintball or whatever. In the context here, RPGs are simulation games whether you like them or not. They use quantified mechanics resolution to simulate playing the hero/villain in a setting such as the Forgotten Realms.

AGAIN, whether you can redefine the term RPG to cover such activities as "Cops and Robbers" is beside the point. Obviously when a D&D fan says "I want to try a different RPG system for a while." and you suggest they play "Cops and Robbers", you will be met with puzzled stares at best.

The more interesting of the three you mentioned and linked to but still arguable as to whether it is an actual RPG. I will grant it such with the caveat that this can be REAL borederline as the only thing it has in common with traditional RPGS is dice, at it's core.

In any case if you had suggested such a game to me, as a RPG enthusiast, I would not be interested.

This one I would not call a RPG per se. It is more a childrens educational game that almost smacks of a proselytization tool or something.

This one was just plain silly, not just in the mechanics(such as they were) but the premise and setting. The author seems to be stuck in some 1980's time-warp wherein he is convinced that heavy metal is the soundtrack for rebellion and that metalheads are capable of engineering grand social change through their lyricism(%99 of heavy metal lyrics are so inexcusably poor and laughable they will not inspire anything beyond good sketch comedy). I can buy into fantasy lands of elves and dragons and magic but intelligent and socially concious metalheads??? No way.

But that is beside the point. The mechanics are shoddy if not non-existent. Doesn't fit the simulation aspect and we RPGers are not going to relinquish this criteria because you would rather think that RPGs have gone "beyond" that(as if being a simulation game were by default a bad thing).

I am not going to speak for Oaz but not only do RPGs have to allow the PC to have an effect on the world/setting but they have to do so through more or less objective quantified mechanics. A big guy has an easier time busting down a door BECAUSE he is a big guy! Not because the "narrator"/GM has arbitrarily decided it would be an interesting plot point for him to discover his wife in bed with a necromancer. Again, there is a distinction between improvisational storytelling(games like "Exquisite Corpse" and what not) and a RP Game.

You can say or not say whatever you like. Hell, I can go tell fishermen that I don't think fishing is a means of obtaining food but I doubt I will get anymore agreement with them than you will get from US on this point.

See this is EXACTLY the kind of pretentious nonsense that inspired my rant in the other thread. You use "evolve" here clearly to mean "progress" and you just up and appoint yourself head tzar of what RPGs should aspire to. Free form/narrative RPGs are not a "progression" from the simulation based roots of RPGaming! They are, if anything a REGRESSION towards pre-RPG board gaming and such.
There is no "progression" here. They are two DIFFERENT TYPES OF GAMES! That is like saying that D&D was a progression from Chess! Climb down off your high horse for long enough to realize that there is a large contingent of RPGers who like our games just the way they are. We like studying the mechanics and design elements and we appreciate seeing how good designers attempt to achieve that holy grail of "logical yet elegant" in game design. We are not interested in acting, directing, screenwriting, poetry or dumbed down and oversimplified one-page rulebooks for improvisational storytelling(at least not in so far as our RPGaming is concerned).
"Rules-lite"/Free form/Narrative 'games' are NOT an advanced for of RPG by ANY stretch!

Then make up your mind. Every drama/acting/writing/Improv' comedy class I have ever sat in on has featured games similar to the ones you are advocating(usually without dice but that is incidental).

It CAN be but no, usually the participants DO have set characters even if it is for a very limited time.

Go ahead. But now we are back at square one where the term is so broad that I can have no idea what anyone is talking abgout when they say "Let's play a RPG!". If I am thinking GURPS and then they pull out a monkey suit and cat-o-nine-tails, things will get awkward quick.
Must we create a whole slew of sub-classifications to accomodate you and anyonhe else who thinks they have a "better" or "more advanced/progressive" form of RP gaming? SHould we rename S&M as "Erotic bedroom RPGaming"? SHould we rename D&D styled simulation gaming as "Tactical simulation RPGaming"? Where does it end? Why can't you "storyteller" people just come up with your own term and stick with it?

I don't think this sort of activity sucks either and I have participated in similar myself. But this is NOT a RPG(not at the D&D forums it isn't) and if some D&D player says he is looking to try a different RPG system it would be foolish to suggest he play "Theatre sports"(in that context). You might as well be telling him to take up fishing or billiards.

Then the term has drastically changed in the last several years because there used to be entire magazines dedicated to "Free form RPGs" that would include entire systems within their pages and these systems were even more rules intensive than the stuff you are advocating for in here.

Whatever. Point remains that while these types of games MAY be RPGS in some sense, they are NOT some evolutionary progression from the RPG stone age of OD&D. RuneQuest was progress. Champions was progress(in RPGaming) because of the mechanics/design.
"Metal Opera" is just a different type of game which shares some superficial similarities to RPGs.

I know you will take offense to much of what I said above but understand that you guys really NEED to get over this "narrativist supremecist" attitude you keep espousing. I listened to it without commenting for around ten years thinking it would wear itself out but now I am about sick of it.

[ March 20, 2005, 13:36: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

While my response to your previous question, Aik, is not nearly as acerbic as RuneQuester's is above, it can basically be summed up in:

So I think that in an RPG, you cannot have your character intimidate an NPC and say, "I succeed in intimidating [the NPC]," any more than you could in real life intimidate someone and decide that he is automatically scared. Once a player who isn't a GM begins to describe the actions of others and the world that he has not directly caused, the game begins to seem like a collaborative storytelling.

 

Who, I wonder, is being the supremist here? Stop to consider that maybe it is you is is being a 'simulationist supremist' and disregarding other styles of play in favour of your own. Really, if you considered, I am not the one who is going about screaming 'My game style is better than yours!' - you, I think, are trying to do that by denouncing all else as as 'not an RPG'. Really, I can't see where you're getting the idea that I'm a rabid narrativist converter person. All I did in the first place was make a suggestion to Oaz that, if his playing style wasn't doing it for him, maybe he should try something else. And if someone else decides that they don't like my playing style when they game with me, then that's fine - they just won't play with me again. I don't, as you seem to suppose, go about telling them 'Ragh! Your way of playing is teh suxxor!'

And I am not saying that narrativist ect is an ADVANCE of RPGs - that is saying, I do not think that these things are better than other people's styles of playing - but it is an evolution in that their are now more playing styles, and the original one has mutated. Yes you can still play the original simulation games - but the original simulation games are now not all there is. Simulation is the roots - narrativism is the leaves - is any better than the other? NO - and never did anyone here claim such, they are just different parts of the same thing which serve different purposes.

If people like their style of gaming better than mine - I really, really don't care. If their gaming style came first - that does not invalidate what came later and visa versa. Get off your own high horse and see that there is now more to the genre than just simulation games, and that every play style is just as valid as your one.

Your rant about Metal Opera is retarded. It's a game designed to be non-serious, and if you decided to read some of the actual play links, you'd find that the mechanics work fine.

For your thing against Shadows - are children's computer games any less computer games than FPSs or CRPGs? The same applies here, though no doubt you have some other reason for not classifying it into your limited idea of what an RPG can or can't be.

I don't understand how out of 'roleplaying game' you can get the idea that it must refer to simulation roleplaying that is realistic. Where is that nice little phrase does it say anything about simulating anything? 'Roleplaying' in itself does not mean that something has to be simulated - it only means that you play out the role of something. Likewise, game doesn't have anything to do with simulating anything. If the acronym was SG for 'simulation game', then you would have a point and everything I said would be crap, but it's not.

Some of your argument seems to imply that at certain places the term is going to mean different things (like at a D&D forum it will refer to only D&D style games) - well, if we have a seperate definition for it everywhere, all that's going to do is end up in a confusing mess. RPG is a term that is used everywhere - so let us have a definition that works everywhere.

And the 'storyteller' people have come up with their own name for it - otherwise we would not be refering to the different styles as different things. 'narrativist', 'gamist', and 'simulationist' are attempts at this. RPG, as I see it, is the general term. As above, it, by its wording, can mean a whole heap of things - and now the RPG theorists are coming up with ways to divide it up.

[/rant]

 

You know, I love the term RPG. You know why? it says ROLE PLAYIMG game. So if you are in a game, and take on a role, then it is by definition an RPG. Read the above expansion of the letters.

I love freeform, but to play it you have to get into your role. 'Become' the character as how else can you react appropriately. I dont have to roll a d20 to know how my character will react, no, his personality decides that. Does this make it any less of a role? Hardly. It doestnt need rules to assume a role, it doesnt need riles to make a game. All it takes is imagination and creativity. You have a charcter and are in that role, you are always bound by that characters limitations. If you dont, the role playing is gone. It doesnt take set rules, or 'realistic' dogmatic attitudes to keep a role. As such, I have to support Aik's views since he is not defining what role playing is, just that if you play a ROLE, no matter how, it qualifies as an RPG.

 

This is deffinetly were I would put my finger!

 

[quote ="Aikanaro"]They were once for sure, but things evolve, and I would say that RPGs have far out-evolved that rather limited definition.[/quote]


There is an off-chance that you did not intend this to come off as it did but NOW do you see why got me a bit miffed? You were not just saying that "other types of RPGs exist adn I happen to like *these* types.". If you had said that then we wouldn't have had much disagreement here.

You identified traditional RPGs as something we have "out evolved"(indicating these other alternatives are some progressive stage "beyond" the simulationist roots) and then further identified traditional RPGs as "limited". The context in which you said these things is what is important. In that context, your meanings are pretty clear that character-based simulation games are somehow constrictive or "limited" and that your games have overcome such and are therefore somehow superior.

You are not alone in expressing this view as it has been parroted over and over and over again for the last ten plus years by a certain type of roleplayer.

Your comments may not be as direct or flat out unambiguous as mine but they are just as offensive in their condescension.

@Takara


You are free to define "tree" as "a brick wall" for all I care but CRPGS ARE RPGS so long as one does not make the mistake of PRESUMING that RPGS, by definition must have a "social" element. THey do not. In fact even in tabletop gaming there were systems like Tunnels & Trolls that encouraged solo play of modules(no GM).
When defining terms, the only way we have of even approaching objective criteria is to invoke the essential definitions. The elements that are common to all things which fit under the label.
Since "social element" is not essential to RPGaming(it is nice but not necessary), it is right out. THe one element that RPGS have all had since D&D are the game mechanics/simulation aspect.

Have other types of games evolved from RPGs? Sure! Just as D&D itself evolved from wargames. We do not call D&D a "wargame" because it is not! it is a "roleplaying game". It simulates the individual as unit, rahter than the squad or the regiment of panzers or what have you.

As Aik' said, we have games that have elvolved from RPGs just as RPGs evolved from wargames. The difference is that when D&D came about, RPGamers did not insist on calling their new hobby "wargaming" and then talk down to tabletop wargamers as if they were misguided children playing a lesser game.
There are a million ways to solve this dillemma. Most notably, the "storytellers" can adopt a new term such as "Interactive Story Gaming"(ISG)(off the cuff example, don't take too seriously) or somesuch. That will all but elminate these sorts of squabbles.


Edit: One more thing. Breaking down words adn terms into their individual, literal components(i.e. "Role Playing Game") is good for comedy but poor for understanding words and terms.
"Politics": From the Greek, poly meaning "many" and tics meaning "small blood-sucking insects". Therefore "Politics" means "many small blood-sucking insects".

See? Funny but not accurate.

 

I wonder if the world "game" in RPG is appropriate any more. Perhaps we should replace it with "activity that some would like to be super-intellectual and thus results in hours spent in debating on the internet."

RPATSWLTBS-IATRIHSPIDOTI

 

Okay - but you've misinterpreted me. By saying 'limited definition' I was not refering to the games themselves as being limited (as in, the ruleset limiting certain things (which is does, but that's fine because it's meant to - games that try to cover all styles of play are likely not going to work, and this applies to everything)) - but rather refering to what the term covers. The term was once limited to simulationist games, now the term has expanded.

Again, I do not believe 'simulation' RPGs to be a bad thing or less than anything else, I am perfectly fine with them so long as I am not playing them. I prefer narrativist - so naturally I am going to promote it somewhat in order to expand the pool of potential players, but never did I put down the other styles - simply offered something different from them - and you've misinterpreted it to me being an elitist jackass somehow.

The viewpoint which you see me taking no doubt has been parroted again and again - but then, I reckon that most other styles have done it too. Note yourself, even - 'Narrative games aren't RPGs!', and then there's those who call gamists 'munchkins' or whatever. It seems like everyone from the different groups has something against the others, which is kind of sad considering how close they are to each other and that really nothing is gained by the conflict except driving people off...

Just to tangent a bit, but how does that work? Does the person sit by themselves and 'GM' for themselves?
And also - doesn't that go against your 'players don't control the world' idea of RPGs? That sounds more like interactive novel writing to me...

And while it might be ideal that another term was made for narrativist games in order to avoid this kind of confusion (and probably open up new branches sooner as people wouldn't be thinking 'AH! RPG, yes!' and copy from others what they thought were the essential ingredients). But that's just not how it happened and the term has been broadened - and despite what you believe on the matter, people are going to keep refering to games that you think of as interactive storytelling as RPGs.

But then, I really don't think that most narrativist games are so far from the original model - you usually take one character, with a GM, and play, only getting a different kind of enjoyment from it.

I really don't see why you're so defensive of 'simulationist' being the one true way of RPGs, it all works together and I don't know why you can't just accept things as they are. If someone starts spouting their own 'one true way' style of RPing at you, by all means flame the hell out of them, but then if you do the exact same thing back...

Pfft, let us have our fun

 

Actually, the way I see it, the definition of politicians as "small blood-sucking insects" is VERY appropriate

Seriously, if I had to define RPGs in one sentence, I would quote RuneQuester's "RPGs simulate characters in a particular environment via quantified mechanics." That would include both freeform and story-oriented, social and computer, and it even has Takara's "role playing" definition in it. Simple yet effective.

As far as the "my gaming is better than yours" thing, I don't think it deserves that much bashing. Stop arguing semantics and go PLAY the damn thing, whatever it's called!

 

The problem with that defininition as I see it is the word 'simulate' - not all types of RPGs aim for simulation. Some aim for kill count, clearing out dungeons, ect. Some aim for developing characters through conflict and themes and so such - neither of which is simulation.

 

This is incorrect. ALL RPGs are simulations. Some are very detailed and mechanics-heavy(character attributes covering everything from "Physique" to "Ego" with advantages, disadvantages, skills etc.) while others are not-so-detailed(probably many of your "rules-lite" RPGs would fit here.

When RPGs first appeared there was only one thing that was truly essential adn unique to RPGs in general and that was the 'simulation' aspect. The quantified mechanics. That is what seperated D&D from "Cops and Robbers". As children we all played games like "Cops and Robbers" which had no objective means of resolving whether the "cop" was a better shot than the "Robber" was at avoiding being shot, so nearly every single instance of "Cops and Robbers" degenerated into the "I shot you!"/"No you did not!" confrontation.

D&D was as different from "Cops and Robbers" as Monopoly was and it was because of this unique design element(which emerged from the squad-level tactical simulations of tabletop wargaming).

The simulation aspect is the ONLY aspect that is unique to RPGs and therefore integral to their being defined as such.

Those narrativist games which truly lack any aspect of simulating characters(assuming such even exist) in a particular environment will fit a whole lot better under a different label than "roleplaying game". Calling them RPGs is no more sensible than calling 'Chess' a RPG.

I do not say this to put down narrative/storytelling games that do not have aspects of simulation. The term "RPG" is not some lofty title or distinction of quality and saying that game 'X' is not a RPG is not an insult.I do not say that Monopoly is not a RPG to insult Monopoly players.
It is a matter of convenience. If RPG can mean anything you want it to then I have no idea what someone is talking about when they say "You up for some roleplaying gaming?". They could mean Chess, sex, a board game, a wargame etc.
That is why we have different labels. If my friend asks me if I want to play some board games, I know he will be reaching for RISK or somesuch and not D&D. IF my other friend says she feels like playing a RPG then I know she does not mean Monopoly. She means a game wherein plays a character defined by quantified attributes and measures those attributes against a more or less hostile or challenging environment(re: a "simulation").
If she says that she wants to do some improvisational storytelling then she does not mean that she wants to create and play a 'Decker' in GURPS Shadowrun.

Clearing out dungeons, killing monsters, devloping characters through conflict etc. are ALL simulations and I do not see how you thought otherwise!?
If I created and played a character in a hypothetical political RPG wherein my GM presented a scenario wherein I had to debate a conservative senator about stem cell research and I had to match my "Debate skill" against his (with a negative modifier because the audience is scientifically illiterate and religiously fundementalist) then the quantified mechanics are exactly what makes this a RPG rather than improv' acting or simple storytelling(or some other type of game).


Re: Tunnels & Trolls' solo play

T&T was probably most noted for two things:

1)It was the second RPG ever published and demonstrated that RPG mechanics/design did not need to be as complicated as D&D was(T&T characters could fit all neceesary info on a 3"x5" index card and all the rules ever published for T&T were contained in a single slim book).

2)Solo play. T&T featured a host of modules designed for solo players without a GM(some editions of the game even came packaged with one). They worked somewhat like a "choose your own adventure" book only using T&T RPG mechanics to resolve combat and various skill/attribute checks.


Re: Offensive/insulting ranting


I apologise for being so course. I would hope that even if you did not intend the insult I percieved, you can understand how I percieved such. Your statement, in the context of the discussion, simply read like an all-to-familiar put down of RPG and RPGamers who appreciate the traditional/'simulationist' RPG.

 

Right, I think we're starting to get into restating points now, and I'm quite sure everything you have brought up now I have addressed in previous posts.

Ooookay, now we're getting into screwier territory - to definine 'simulation'.
I would say that a simulation is to play out a scenario in order to explore a situation, character, setting, ect. Any ruleset in these cases would work towards making the game 'realistic' by the game/settings reality (so while hitpoints are hardly realistic by our terms, within a reality where they're consistantly used, they are realistic and thus can be used simulationistically).

If a game's focus is not to explore the situation/character/whatever - then it is not 'simulationist' by my reasoning (and by the reasoning of that kooky bunch of RPG theorists). If the goal is to hack and slash your way through a dungeon with more interest in going up levels and getting a high kill count - it is not 'simulationist'.

Character simulation is something different entirely - it would be where you take a character of a certain style and explore what it would be like to be a character like that. 'Narrativist' style play would have a character and to develop it by making choices about that character's morals, ect as conflict arises - while a player who is trying to simulate a character type would make a choice when faced with conflict by what the character type they are trying to play out would make.

Naturally, this is all The Forge sort of stuff, and I really wouldn't be surprised if you had a highly different definition than I do of it (which never really occured to me before).


I think some of the things at the top of your post which I now think that I probably haven't covered before can be addressed in your reply to this bit too...

 

Yeah we must have VERY different definitions of "simulation". I am using the term as it has traditionally been invoked in gaming(particularly computer gaming), as in "flight simulators", driving games(Nascar Racing etc.), Sports management sims, various "Tycoon" games, and games like "The Sims". RPGs, at their corer, are basically(and this is an oversimplification so don't take it too literally) simulations of running characters(usually heroic ones) through gauntlets(usually dungeons or somesuch). Instead of reading about "Conan" or playing "King Arthur" ina school play, in a RPG you create your own character(usually) that is often inspired by popular fictional characters, quantify his attributes with numeric ratings, assume an initial state of (in)experience and then match this "hero" against the challenges dreamed up by the DM/GM(which are also of a quantified measurement. Locks adn traps will have a difficulty rating to pick or disarm and monsters will have their own attribute ratings for example).
Sports manager sims wherein you act as the manager, GM, owner of a team or several athletes who have attributes that apply to the sport they play(for soccer this might be "passing", "stamina", "shooting" etc.), might be the best example for how I am using the term "simulation".