I've internalized what Aj_ said a little bit, and I have two further thoughts.
First, "games in which the player manages systems of clear rules and many objects" is a pretty good definition for the strategy game. (It could maybe use some tweaking, but the general idea is there.) How can I have a definition for the strategy game which doesn't have any reference to actual strategy in it? Quite simply. The more complex a predictable system becomes, the more benefit there is to planning ahead. (Strategizing.) And you don't really need to plan ahead in order to play these games, you just need to follow the rules. But strategy is the key to victory.
Secondly, if turn-based strategy battles and simulation strategy are two types of the same general form, then the role-playing game can be defined very simply: "Fiction plus both short-term and long-term strategy systems." Not only does this definition apply to all types of role-playing games, on the computer or otherwise, but it points to lots of potential that's not being tapped into. Why does the long-term strategy always have to deal only with individual characters? Couldn't there be a big, epic story where you're planning out the entire war, rather than just individual battles? Why does the long-term strategy need to involve "leveling up"? There are many other possible ways to indicate progress. And if the definition of role-playing doesn't require that the strategy be battle-related, then where are the RPGs without fighting?
|
