>>10231Games are a test of skill for entertainment. Tabletop role-playing
can be considered games, some of them anyway, but are often very weak as games because the dungeon master type can change the scenario so radically and subvert expectations all the time. The thrill in tabletop role-playing is usually not in testing one's skill, because there is so little consistency across one scenario to another (important for honing one's skill meaningfully). Rather, the thrill in tabletop role-playing comes in the form of surprise fooling around with your friends. It's a bit like a more elaborate, scenario-bound version of playing as superheroes on the school playground. Nothing wrong with that. But they are not high quality game experiences. The really big problem is when you translate rules and ideas from tabletop role-playing, where the major source of thrills comes in unexpected happenings
created by friends, into a singleplayer experience attempting to be a game.
Why is my definition of a game a good one? Because it's the most consistent one that clearly delineates games from other activities.