RPGs as Concepts rather than Definitions

This is another more philosophical post. In fact, outside of the fact that I think the philosophy in this post could be used to help you in your game design, there isn't much here in terms of gameable content. However, I am a pragmatist and I genuinely believe that these insights are of actual use when designing games. 

This post in is part a response to a wonderful video done by Kyle from Map Crow, on the question 'Are RPGs Art?' in which he gives a definition of roleplaying games and one of art and goes on to show how the former meets the qualifiers of the latter, proofing that Kyle can, and I quote 'win any argument as long as [he] can set the definitions.'

Currently I am reading the wonderful What is Philosophy? by Deleuze and Guattari and I just finished the chapter 'What is a Concept?'. In this chapter the authors present concept making as a typically philosophical endeavor and clearly oppose it to definition making. And it was when I read that, that I found myself reconsidering the points made by Kyle and wanting to approach the question from a conceptual, rather than a definition point of view. First, let's look at what I mean when I talk about definitions:

Definitions

'The concept of a bird is not found in its genus or species but in the composition of its postures, colors, and songs: something indiscernible that is not so much synesthetic as syneidetic.'  What is Philosophy? p.20

Attempting to define something can be done in multiple ways, but I'll be using the method Aristotle formulated as an example: You take something general and add a differentiating special difference, for example: 'Man is a rational animal'. Animal is generic, but what makes one a human rather than a horse or a mouse is that a human is rational, this is the special difference. 

Definitions are almost always compounds, even if we do not use the general-specific difference kind of definition. This is because we are going to be using different terms, which each require their own definitions, to define the thing in question. So to make sense of 'Man is a rational animal' we need to know what 'animal' and what 'rational' mean.

This compount approach was the central approach Kyle took in his video as well, building a definition from elements that made sense in isolation, going from a definition of 'role' and 'play' and 'games' to a definition of 'roleplaying games'. The resulting definition is a bit like a mathmatical equation, build up from seperate parts that can all be considered individually without alterning their meaning.

Now, a good definition includes everything you want to include and exludes everything you don't want to include, i.e. a definition is good when it isn't too broad nor too slim. Depending on our understanding of rational, our definition of man might be too broad (crows use tools, pigs have complex social relations, orca's problem solve). And given the fact that small children are not yet capable of rational thought it might also be too slim (Aristotle himself just straight up says that children are not yet what he considers to be people). To use more technical language: the extension of a definition is supposed to be comprehensive.

Because of this definitions always work from a logic of generalities and particulars. Once we have defined human in general we can consider which particular entities in the world are humans, or conversely, once we have all particular humans we can consider what in general makes them human. This makes definitions very prone to arguments, as you can endlessly discuss edgecases. Even in civil discussions, definitions will quickly turn into questions of legitimacy, of either the definition itself or of things as compared to the definition. The definition 'man is a rational animal' might have already caused some of you to consider if this means intelligent alien life would be a human and what this means for either the definition or of such hypothetical aliens, i.e. we are seeing if aliens are legitimate humans or if the definition is illegitimate. 

Now I think working through definitions is very common in discussions, but I don't know if anyone makes games this way. I would genuinely be interested to see if there are any know cases of people making games this way, but this way of working doesn't feel very natural to me personally. It feels a bit contrived and not very effective.

So how would this change if we approached RPGs not from definitions but from concepts. 

Concepts

'Even in philosophy, concepts are only created as a function of problems with are thought to be badly understood or badly posed (pedagogy of the concept).' What is Philosophy? p.16

Concepts are wholly different from definitions in many ways, but I think the most immediate difference lies in the fact that for D&G concepts adress and attempt to formulate problems. To build further on our previous example, as a concept, 'man is a rational animal' doesn't so much tell us which entities on the world are humans. It is instead formulated by Aristotle in the context of the problem 'what is the good life?', i.e. it is a concept to be used within the ethical project he outlines in his Nicomachean Ethics.

As a concept, 'man' as 'rational animal' is related to concepts like 'eudaimonia' (the good life), 'telos' (the goal-cause of a thing, that which it is made for) and Aristotle's famous other conception of humans 'man is a political animal'. What is important is that as a concept we cannot separate one concept from the others it relates to without destroying thir meaning, or at least changing this meaning fundamentally. It makes no sense for someone to accept Aristotle's concept of 'the rational animal' without also accepting his concept of 'telos' or 'eudaimonia'. Concepts, unlike definitions, aren't just conpounds in the way definitions are, they are multiplicities that are interwoven. 

Of course, 'man is a rational animal' must have been an inspiration for many concepts of humans that we find later on and is thus also connected to them in some way. Descartes' 'res cogitas' (the thinking stuff he believes we humans fundamentally are) is not the same as Aristotele's concept of the 'rational animal' eventhough the two are clearly related.

And the main reason these different concepts are different despite being so similar (both Descartes and Aristotle think that rational though is essential to being human) is because they mean to adress completely different problems. As stated before, Aristotle comes to the concept of the 'rational man' from the problem of 'how one lives a good life'. Descartes on the other hand comes to the concept of the 'res cogitas' from the problem of having a certain starting point. As such, concepts are neither general, nor particular, but since they are very specific formulations dedicated to very specific contexts and problems they are singular. And because contexts and problems change with the times, concepts are in constant need of re-eveluation.

Finally, and this is something I find especially interesting, concepts don't lend themselves for discussion very well because they are so tied to their problems and their contexts. 

This means that, i) it is meaningless to discuss whether or not a concept is correct or not because it is a purely functional thing (the most we can say is that it is trying to solve a non-issue, or that it doesn't solve the problem very well), and ii) it is almost pointless to share viewpoints in a discussion-like setting because we won't be talking about the same problems. To phrase this differently, you don't achieve anything by explaining to Descartes in complete detail how Aristotle views humans, because that doesn't help Descartes solve his particular problem.

Game Design 

'Discussions are fine for roundtable talks, but philosophy throws its numbered dice on another table. The best one can say about discussions is that they take things no farther, since the participants will never talk about the same thing. Of what concen is it to philosophy that someone has such a view, and thinks this or that, if the problems at stake are not stated? And when they are stated it is no longer a matter of discussing but rather one of creating concepts for the undiscussible problem posed. Communication always comes too early or too late, and when it comes to creating, conversation is always superfluous'. What is Philosophy p.26

You can probably already guess it, but I think that making games can be in a lot of ways very similar to creating philosophical concepts. 

Game mechanics derive their meaning solely from the context in which they operate. The D20 roll over mechanic in D&D 5e is meaningless in isolation. We can't just point at D20 roll over and say that it is bad, or good, or too swingy. It is only in relation to other concepts such as target numbers and ability scores, and in relation to problems such as 'how do we express differences between characters with a uniform dice mechanic' and 'how do we capture uncertainty and random chance in an exciting way' that the D20 roll over mechanic has any meaning.

D&D 5e also makes almost little sense without looking at the prior editions of D&D, for example the 'D&D feeling' that they were chasing in the playtesting when it was still called D&D Next, while simultaneously working clearly from very different problem (which we might as well start calling design goals now that we are talking game design). However, much Descartes concept of man is influenced by Aristotle's but dealing with completely different problems, 5e's design, though inspired by earlier editions, is focussed on trying to solve a completely different set of problems than the previous editions of D&D were trying to solve. 

To illustrate my point further, let's compare 5e and its concept of ability scores to a concept that is very popular in FKR-style play: tags, specifically those we find in Marvelous Mutants and Merry Musicians.

Ability in 5e scores tries to answer the problem 'how do we express difference between characters in a uniform dice mechanic' while also dealing with the problem 'how do we make a game that feels like D&D'. So they come up with generating ability scores, which then give you modifiers which you then use to modify your rolls. If you aren't concerned with the problem of making a game that feels like D&D you might be surprised that they make you generate scores that then give you the modifiers you will actually use, but telling Wizards of the Coast this is meaningless, as they were trying to make a game that 'feels like D&D'. 

Marvelous Mutants and Merry Musicians written by Wendi Y. is a game that was started as an attempt to apply some of the structure screenplay writers use in their scripts to a roleplaying game. MMnMM's tags are not concerned with the same problems as D&D 5e. Tags are there to inform you about your character, without concerning themselves too much with how you would then express this in a resolution mechanic (not that there isn't a rule for this, but it clearly isn't primarily concerned with this problem). You pick 2 things you ARE, 2 things you HAVE and 2 things you know how to DO, aside from being a musician, having an instrument and knowing how to make music that is. It is a tool that is meant to help you make interesting and distinct characters. 

Neither D&D 5e nor MMnMM is better or worse, it is meaningless to make such a distinction given that they do not share the same problems or the same context from which they approach their problems. Of course you will have preferences for one over the other based on which of these solves the problems you wish to adress the best or even just based on the kind of game you are looking to play, but that doesn't make one of them right and the other wrong, one of them good and the other bad (though the layout of MMnMM is in my opinion superior in every way to that of D&D 5e so go check it out already). 

The example I gave just now focusses primarily on mechanics, but I do not think that is all there is to RPGs. The art chosen for a particular game, the flavour text, implied setting, random tables, and probably a whole lot of other stuff I am forgetting at the moment could be considered conceptually: what problem is it trying to adress? how does it connect with the other game elements? what is the context in which these elements operate?

So what does this do for us? Well, for one I think it gives me a certain focus when making, running or playing my own games. Moreso than mere design goals, the intertwined nature of concepts means that I cannot think about elements of my game, whether that be an upcoming game I have to prep, a game I will be playing in, or a game I am working on. However, it also helps me with how I can meaningfully interact with games that I might think are very good or very bad. To look at one final quote from What is Philosophy: 

'To criticize is only to establish that concepts vanish when thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components or aquiring others that transform it. But those who criticise without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life are the plague of philosophy.' (p.26)

And I would add to that, that the same can probably be said for tRPGs and game elements. 

 

Are Roleplaying Games Art?

Given all of the above, let's return to what set all of this in motion to begin with, the question Kyle attempts to answer in his video: Are Roleplaying Games Art?. Though I think defining what a roleplaying game is can be useful, as I think that RPGs work a lot more like concepts, I guess it completely depends on what your conception, rather than your definition of an RPG is. 

Without knowing what problem Kyle's conception of RPG is trying to solve, without knowing more about the context in which he articulated that concept, it is nearly meaningless for me to say whether or not I agree with his take. 

To me, the problem tRPGs attempt to solve is that of 'how can the players of a game, change the game's parameters'. This is why I games in which players are encouraged to look for answers outside of the scenario as it is given. By all means go and negotiate with the wooden door after casting both 'speak with plants' and 'animate objects', rather than kicking it down, try to mindcontrol the sentient weapon into not waking up the dragon, or sabotage the race car of your rival by hiding a fake snake in a loose compartment. 

I have played tRPGs that are clearly meant to solve other problems. Apocalypse World, Cthulhu Dark, Wanderhome and Necronautilus all were a blast, but are very different games than the ones that I keep finding myself being drawn to. Electric Bastionland, Goblin Laws of Gaming and Mazerats are better adjusted to facilitating the kinds of games I am looking for, though the contexts or problems that I will be dealing with in the future are bound to change.

As for my own answer to Kyle's question 'Are RPGs Art?', I am not sure what I think yet. In What is Philosophy? Deleuze and Guattari deal with art and science as well, but I have yet to read those chapters. Once I have I might feel more strongely one way or the other. And who knows, that might itself cause me to write another one of these more theoretical posts.

Next post will be either another one about Project Social or another more theoretical post, but one that hopefully has a lot more gameable content.