Talk:Role-playing game theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled[edit]

Some discussion of how RPG theory is presaged by theorizing about games in general and roleplaying in general, and even by theorizing about precursors to RPGs needs to be part of even a very short history. Bmorton3 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it sounds like people were discussing RPGs in the 50s; clearly that's impossible. I'll see if I can word it to avoid that. Percy Snoodle 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its tricky, according to Greg Porter's theory, and Alan Fine's (and probably other) role-playing games have been around since pre-history, at least in primative forms like "cops and robbers" or "Greeks and Trojans." "Jury Box" published in 1935 probably counts as an RPG in the modern sense even though no one called it that then, and Diplomacy was published in 1961. It wasn't called an RPG at first, but has been called an RPG since the rise of other RPGs. Many of the "social simulation games" studied in the 60's would probably be called RPGs today. People WERE discussing what some would today call RPGs in the 50's and 60's, its just that the tabletop style of RPG as descended from miniature games didn't quite exist yet, and the term 'role-playing game' wasn't in use yet. This is straying into the waters of original research, although you can find some of it in Porter, Fine, Mackay and others. Bmorton3 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's tricky. I'd say that the article should either deal with theory of role-playing games as described in the main RPG article, or choose another name. Diplomacy is a border case; it pribably deserves mention elsewhere, though. I'd like to hear more about "Jury Box". Percy Snoodle 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note on Diplomacy to History of role-playing games. Thanks for the inspiration. Percy Snoodle 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my work on my own RPG Theory page at [1], I think a reprint of "Jury Box" is availible at http://www.on-line-products.com/ (you might need to google Jury Box 1935. Its a party game style game where you pretend to be members of a jury examining the evidence, and then read what really happened. It not a tabletop RPG but it is a "party game" style RPG. See Kim's theory page for some arguments here. My sense is that part of the point of RPG Theory is to think carefully about what does and doesn't count and why. The current definition at the wikipedia RPG page is "A roleplaying game (RPG) is a type of game in which players assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories." That's VERY broad. All kinds of things count as RPGs besides what we usually think of as RPGs, if that it what we mean. It is tempting to talk about the history of fantasy RPGs or tabletop RPGs when we really mean to talk about RPGs. The current history page doesn't even mention LARPs until 1991 for example, but they were faddishly popular enough in 1982 to have a movie made about them that was far more popular than the Mazes and Monsters. It has been argued that the SCA in 1966 was originally conceived of as a LARP - if so LARPs would predate tabletop RPGs significantly. Everything turns on theory questions about just what an RPG is, and I am trying hard to be NPOV and to refrain from anything that might be original research by me. I've never seen the Jury Box, Assassination Game, or SCA-LARP-pre-dates-tabletop argument in print for example. Bmorton3 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: new section about history and types of RPGs[edit]

I would like to make an attempt at adding a section outlining a brief history of RPG’s and some of the various types. I believe adding this section to the top of the page will help bring about a greater fundamental understanding of RPG theory. I have listed below what I would like to include on the article page:

Fantasy or role playing games are an ever expanding phenomenon which stake no particular claim to boundaries. Role playing games come in an immense array of various types and categories which we will briefly delve into; the first of which being the traditional table top RPG. These games, or more specifically, “(TFRPG), has its historical basis in miniature war gaming” (Williams, Hendricks, and Winkler pg. 3). When using the term “miniature war gaming” we undoubtedly refer to games like Warhammer 40K which is played on a table top with miniature figures. The battles unfold by rolling dice, using rulers, tokens and various other devices to perform a wide array of desired actions. The second RPG to be analyzed is known as CSG or collectible strategy game. This type of RPG has a much broader context than that of a TFRPG due to the fact that it draws elements from both types of RPG’s. A CSG is defined as “a setting and a system, but the setting resides in the background, while the system is integrally tied to some of the collectible material artifacts, such as cards, miniature figures, paper dice, pre-formed plastic constructibles and even pinback buttons.” (Williams, Hendricks, and Winkler pg. 5). These types of games are played using special attributes which are associated with the particular collectible being used. You can place these collectibles in an attack or defensive position, role dice to perform a specific action and much more. Note that this type of RPG is typically associated with CCG or collectible card games (Ex. Magic the Gathering). The final type of RPG to be discussed appeared around the 1970’s and is known as OVCG or Online Video and Computer Game. OVCG’s are defined as RPG’s that “ require either a personal computer or gaming console in addition to gaming software, rather than source books, cards, or dice” (Williams, Hendricks, and Winkler pg. 6). Note that OVCG’s did not truly reach their pinnacle until the 1990’s when the ability to play games cooperatively via large networked servers became available. Current examples of these types of games are World of Warcraft (Blizzard), Rift (Trion Worlds), SWOTOR or Star Wars: The old Republic (LUCASARTS, BioWare and EA) and Atlantica online (Nexon).


Adding this source to the page as well:
Williams, P., Hendricks, S., & Winkler, K. (2006). Essays

on reality, identity and experience in fantasy
games. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &
Company, Inc Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=i7UBWz6LBK4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=role
playing game theory&ots=YIs5Cci6IY&sig=vLzlRWNWvTqRI12m9zV9M9kFeU0


There are also a few cosmetic changes which I would like to perform on the page which I will list below:

1. Standardize the hyperlink color to blue. As you can see some links are red and others are blue.
2. The following links through a 404 error, I would like to delete them.
a. The Meilahti School
b. The Turku School
3. The following links cannot be accessed and are also non credible sources due to the fact that they are forums.
a. The Forge’s article page
b. The Forge Forums - Index


I would appreciate a response as to the acceptance or denial of these changes within the next day. If there are no responses after a one day period I plan on enacting the changes to the article page.
BrianDNortonUSC (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, feel free to go ahead. and thanks for taking the time to contribute. Any submitted content can be changed, expanded or deleted by other users. Prior article versions can be reinstated. As to link color: That's intentional. Please acquaint yourself with WP:COFAQ#LINKS. The Turku and Meilahti links (although not working) are references for parts of the article. If possible, replace them with adequate sources, but do not simply delete them. Perhaps you can find them in the Internet Archive. The two Forge links seem to work fine.
Have you considered that your contribution maybe should be integrated into Role-playing game instead of this page?
PS: I added a new heading for this part of the discussion page. --Jonas kork (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonas, I appreciate the quick response, and thank you for adding the new heading. I will attempt to locate the downed links to the best of my ability, if I cannot find them I will leave them on the page. I have considered adding my suggested changes to the Role-Playing game page and to be honest it could be put on that page as well. My reason for wanting it on this page is an attempt to facilitate a greater understanding of key concepts in order to better understand base theories. To be honest I feel as if the various RPG categories have an inherit theoretical sense about them given the fact that their boundaries are so broad and hard to define.
BrianDNortonUSC (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This introduction, which appears to still exist in unchanged form on the main page, seems odd to me. It divides the subject into three categories, none of which actually represent what I believe is the most common and recognized form of RPG (even in the wake of the CRPG boom): the pen and paper abstract social game, in which miniatures play little or no role. Either the quoted passage omits this distinction, or the source itself fails to recognize a distinction between miniatures-based tactical Wargames and narrative RPGs. I will not edit this passage, as it seems to come from an actual source and I have no knowledge of that source nor a definitive competitor, but I am posting this objection because the passage explicitly fails to convey the subject of the article as I understand it. 75.106.96.58 (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powerleveling, Fishing, Cooking[edit]

??? 89.201.182.55 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multi character, Failed character (in relation to their stats), Bus (party hunt (equal distribution - not possible when difference between levels of the characters is to high)), Luring, not being able to see level of a character that is many times stronger (expressed with LV??) ... 185.18.61.127 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornering, Growing weapons, Mez skills, defense, evasion, escape skills, active/passive skills 89.201.139.231 (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some missing information that could be added would be to mention more kinds of RPG's, like JRPG's. Chrispedia315 (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Chrispedia315[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Role-playing_game_theory&oldid=1204610062"