There is a lot (I mean a lot) of debate about competing in Roleplaying. (See article on Wining and Losing in RPGs.) While competition games have long been a feature of many Roleplaying Conventions, with one or more players being awarded prizes for their performance in a short session, groups can be wildly divided over exactly how to adjudge such a game.

The problem lies in the question of whether or not a Roleplaying game is an exercise in Puzzle Solving, an exercising in Acting, or something else.

RPGs as Puzzle Solving

A Puzzle Solving competition is the simplest kind to design. A game is written where the players face a number of problems and puzzles. Each problem, and the ways of solving it, can be given a points value, and these points given to individual players or groups. The person with the most points is clearly the winner, as they have solved the most elements of the problem.

The problem with this type of game is that it can go disastrously wrong. There is no room for roleplaying and little for ingenuity, all that matters is working out the problems the way that the game's designers thought that it should be done. In some hands this even goes to the extremes that a person gets no points for solving a problem in a way that had not occurred to its designers. The worst culprit in this respect (speaking as a member of a society who has cut its links with them for this very reason) is the RPGA, which runs competitions designed exactly along these lines, with very strict points awarded to every action.

RPGs as Acting

The alternative to the puzzle approach is to say that all Roleplaying is a form of acting, of assuming roles, and it is excellence in this ability that should win competitions. Naturally excellence in roleplaying ability is much harder to adjudge than problem-solving, since the GM must estimate a subjective quality during play, so it is much less common.

The problem behind this approach is simply that roleplaying is not acting. Indeed it a player who 'acts' more than the rest can quickly ruin a game for the other players, and a competition is the perfect place for such grandstanding. Even with a pre-designed set of characters it is easier to act at the expense of the other players than with them, especially if you are trying to win over them.

RPGs as... something else

The Third approach is the hardest by far, since it requires finding a real definition of what Roleplaying actually is, something that the hobby as a whole has not yet found. Ideally a competition of this type would choose its winner on the basis of a combination of problem-solving, ingenuity, character realisation, roleplaying and ability to enhance the game as well as being fun, for the whole group. Indeed fun should probably be at the heart of such a competition, since Roleplaying is a co-operative activity undertaken for pleasure. If the session, and the performance of a player, was memorable and enjoyable, then that person deserves to win.