Excellent episode. Star Wars is one of those games that definitely set the bar.
Listening to Greg's reflections, I think the real tension is not between defining an RPG vs refusing to define it. The tension is between taxonomy and design.
Taxonomy looks backward. It seeks to describe what already exists. At its best, it gives us a common language for teaching. At its worst, it becomes what Delany warned against and what Greg now calls "a fascist enterprise." It becomes gatekeeping. It mistakes a rigid, artificial map for the territory itself.
Design looks forward. It creates what does not yet exist. Designers focus on the experience, and the taxonomy follows later.
Every important innovation begins by blurring the line on the prevailing taxonomy.
Star Wars rejected many assumptions inherited from D&D, and Sims challenged the assumption that games required explicit victory conditions.
Ludwig Wittgenstein is the classic reference. In 'Philosophical Investigations,' he uses "game" as an example of a concept that has no single defining essence. His argument is not that definitions are impossible, but that many concepts fail because every example shares a hidden characteristic. Instead, they work through what he calls family resemblance. Games resemble one another in overlapping ways. Some have competition, some cooperation. Some have victory conditions, some do not. Some are physical, others digital. So too with RPGs. Some are played in groups or solo. Some are PVP, PVE, or PVEVP. And so on.
There is no single feature common to every game or every RPG, only a network of similarities.
That is where Greg's old essay and his current position actually converge. In the essay, he was trying to build a critical vocabulary because designers need language. From what I heard today, it sounds like he now believes defining games can be dangerous when that definition is used as an instrument of exclusion.
Definitions are valuable, but only if they remain provisional. A taxonomy should help us explain innovation while remaining humble enough to accommodate future designs. Taxonomy is useful for understanding design, not for constraining it. It grows when those boundaries are broken and exceeded. Otherwise, taxonomy can become a weapon of exploitation as genre and category become instruments of exclusionary commerce.
Excellent episode. Star Wars is one of those games that definitely set the bar.
Listening to Greg's reflections, I think the real tension is not between defining an RPG vs refusing to define it. The tension is between taxonomy and design.
Taxonomy looks backward. It seeks to describe what already exists. At its best, it gives us a common language for teaching. At its worst, it becomes what Delany warned against and what Greg now calls "a fascist enterprise." It becomes gatekeeping. It mistakes a rigid, artificial map for the territory itself.
Design looks forward. It creates what does not yet exist. Designers focus on the experience, and the taxonomy follows later.
Every important innovation begins by blurring the line on the prevailing taxonomy.
Star Wars rejected many assumptions inherited from D&D, and Sims challenged the assumption that games required explicit victory conditions.
Ludwig Wittgenstein is the classic reference. In 'Philosophical Investigations,' he uses "game" as an example of a concept that has no single defining essence. His argument is not that definitions are impossible, but that many concepts fail because every example shares a hidden characteristic. Instead, they work through what he calls family resemblance. Games resemble one another in overlapping ways. Some have competition, some cooperation. Some have victory conditions, some do not. Some are physical, others digital. So too with RPGs. Some are played in groups or solo. Some are PVP, PVE, or PVEVP. And so on.
There is no single feature common to every game or every RPG, only a network of similarities.
That is where Greg's old essay and his current position actually converge. In the essay, he was trying to build a critical vocabulary because designers need language. From what I heard today, it sounds like he now believes defining games can be dangerous when that definition is used as an instrument of exclusion.
Definitions are valuable, but only if they remain provisional. A taxonomy should help us explain innovation while remaining humble enough to accommodate future designs. Taxonomy is useful for understanding design, not for constraining it. It grows when those boundaries are broken and exceeded. Otherwise, taxonomy can become a weapon of exploitation as genre and category become instruments of exclusionary commerce.
"It mistakes a rigid, artificial map for the territory itself." Incredible turn of phrase. Wonderful points all around!