Kelgray and Beyond

int game_engine(void) {

The End of a Theory

I thought I’d finish up my writings on the Charactorial Theory of Roleplaying Games here.  I actually came up with the conclusion a while ago but didn’t really want to admit it.  Truth is, the theory doesn’t work.  No theory works.  Roleplaying games can’t be defined universally, if for no other reason than the definition of ‘game’ itself is still up in the air.  The best theory I can think of as to whether a computer game is a roleplaying game or not, is the subjective theory which would be that a game is a roleplaying game if and only if you(personally)  play a character while you are playing through it.  Which can include many games that would not be thought of as roleplaying games for some people and disclude games that are thought of as roleplaying games for other people.

I hate having to go back to the subjective argument for anything, but unfortunately, in this case, I think that it’s a necessity.  We simply aren’t going to figure it out, and we have to understand that it’s all based on each person’s individual thoughts about a game.


July 11, 2007 Posted by | Epistomology, Games, Logic, Philosophy, Roleplaying Games, RPG, Videogames | Leave a comment

The Charactorial Theory of Roleplaying Games

Last time I started to talk about the Charactorial Theory o f Roleplaying Games, but I left the definition of what that is somewhat vague.  So now let’s explore it a bit further and see if we can make this work as a solution to the demarcation of roleplaying games.

 So the Characrtorial Theory of Roleplaying Games states that a game is a roleplaying game if and only if you are able to define your character through the game mechanics.  So let’s start by defining what’s meant by game mechanics.  If this term is used too loosely then any game that allows you to enter a description about your character would be included, so we have to be a bit more specific and say that it is the in-game mechanics that matter.  That is to say the part of the game where you actually consider yourself to be playing, rather than the part where you are setting yourself up, getting ready to play.  So the actual character creation part of any game would be excluded in the Charactorial theory of roleplaying games.  Which would mean that according to this theory, it wouldn’t matter what “class” of character you are, be it mage, thief, warrior, etc.  The game mechanics that are set up because of the character creation, therefore, also wouldn’t matter, as we would say that you would simply be playing a different version of the game.  Basically, if your character relies on the game mechanics for his/her definition, then the game mechanics cannot rely on your character for theirs.  One or the other has to come first, and so we’re saying that the game mechanics must come first and the character be made out of them. Continue reading

April 25, 2007 Posted by | Epistomology, Ethics, Fallout, Games, Metaphysics, Oblivion, Philosophy, Roleplaying Games, RPG, Technology, Videogames | 6 Comments