Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

Hussar · Oct 25, 2014

I have no problems with that Celebrim. I'd buy that. I think your point about essential vs unique is telling and I think explains my point better than I did. In RPG's, there is usually a pretty strong expectation that you will take on the role of your character. You can certainly do that in other games, but, it's not expected. Would that be a fair way to say it?

Bedrockgames · Oct 25, 2014

Hussar said:
Bedrockgames - I do understand what you're saying about specific tables, but, then again, I don't think that's a particularly useful direction to take. We have to stick to what the expectations of the game are, rather than how someone plays it. Otherwise, the categories really don't mean much. If I play Baldur's Gate entirely in character, only taking actions that would make sense for that character, am I playing an RPG? Well, maybe. But, the game as it stands certainly doesn't presume that you will play that way. Conversely, I could play D&D entirely in Pawn stance, 100% metagaming every encounter (which is how I think @Howandwhy expects RPG's to work) but, that doesn't mean that the game presumes that this is what you will do. There is certainly an expectation within the game of D&D that you will create a character whose motivations and actions are separate from your own and that you, the player, will take those motivations into consideration when trying to portray the game.

As I said earlier, we need to focus on the middle, not on the edges. Players who do nothing but reference the character sheet are not the expected norm of a player, and nor is the 100% meta-gamer. The expectation of most RPG's that I can think of, is a mix of both where you have a little of column A and a little of column B. When the expectations of the game move very far in one direction or the other, then I think it goes to the edge of the definition of RPG and then into something else, like Story Games where the expectation is that the player isn't really being challenged directly by the game but rather the expectation is that the player will, in part, create some of the challenges for the characters in order to craft a better story for the group. Player decisions shift from "What can I do to make my character succeed in this situation?" to "What can I add to this situation to challenge this character?"

But what is the purpose of defining from the middle? What are we attempting to achieve? What is the utility? Clearly the hobby also includes lots of people who don't spend a single second thinking what their character would do and just roll skills, on the other end arepeople who don't worry about characterization but just play as if they are their character...yet in all these cases something is still going on at the table that constitutes a roleplaying game. Something about the structure of play still makes it RPG in my view (even when someone is just basically playing themselves).

I do agree, some things are clearly not RPGs (like bridge or jump rope), there is an "I know it when I see it" element. But stuff that lots of people still view as roleplaying (i.e. playing my character straight from the sheet or playing myself) shouldn't be excluded from a definition of what the hobby. Those are valid ways to approach the game. I don't see why that suddenly makes it not a roleplaying game. Heck in the early days of RPGs tons of people basically just played themselves, there was even a variant skill system in the 2E PHB for having the player and character share the same sets of skills (what you know, your character knows). I don't think we should define these players away, nor should we define away games intended to cater to them. Calling those RPGs, does nothing detrimental to the hobby. What is detrimental to the hobby is setting up arbitrary lines that people are not supposed to cross if they still want to call themselves RPG players (I used to believe those lines myself, but I think they just constrain what we allow ourselves to enjoy).

Hussar · Oct 25, 2014

But, "I play the game this way, thus it's an X" isn't really helpful. I'm not sitting at your table. I have no idea what you're doing and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for you to tell me what you do, other than in very broad strokes. Like Celebrim says above, if I give personalities to my Bloodbowl players, is Bloodbowl now an RPG? I'd say no. I'd say I've added role playing to a game and that Hussar's Bloodbowl might be an RPG, but, since I'm the only one playing (well, other than the other people at my table) then that definition isn't really helpful.

If I pick up D&D, there is an expectation, written right there in the rules of the game, that I will attempt to create a fictional persona (a character) and play the game through the eyes of that fictional persona. That is right there in the game books. I'm not making that up. I'm not adding anything. Anyone else reading those same books gets the same advice. You don't have to play Hussar's D&D in order to do that.

The purpose of these definitions is never about specific tables. Why would you want to do that? What difference does it make to that table what they are playing? They aren't going to play differently depending on what label you happen to slap on. But, if I talk about Fiasco and call it an RPG, I'm not really telling you what I'm doing. I could probably play it as a more traditional RPG, but, then again, now I'm playing Hussar Fiasco and that doesn't help you either. OTOH, if I label Fiasco a Story Game, that tells you something. That tells you that this isn't really an RPG, and if you want to play an RPG, then Fiasco probably isn't what you should be looking for.

The point of defining genre is to give everyone a common language with which to discuss whatever that genre is. We gain a common acceptance of that genre and I can say, "Hey, I read a really good SF book last night, it's ..." OTOH, if we try to include every single reader's views on what is SF, then someone who says, "Hey, I read a really good SF book last night, it's" simply leads to an endless list of questions to pin down how that person defines SF. You might have that conversation anyway if the book is on the edge between SF and Fantasy, but, by and large, you now have a solid starting point and you can discuss the book without getting bogged down in semantics. At least, that's the hope.

By saying that X is an RPG, and RPG's share these traits, then when someone says, "Hey, this is a great RPG", I can know, with some degree of certainty what they're talking about.

Yes, we should be as inclusive as possible, but, trying to include very subjective perspectives into a definition is virtually impossible. Someone who is acting at the table in a manner that the game does not presume, is something I'm fairly comfortable excluding from the definition of that game. I do not want to define a table. That's too subjective and idiosyncratic to ever be of any use to anyone other than the people at that table.

Celebrim · Oct 25, 2014

Hussar said:
RPG's and CRPG's

I think that the majority of cRPGs are a subset of RPGs. A few very simple cRPGs are probably more like tactical board games with RPG elements, but get called 'RPG's for lack of a ready term. This is particularly true of some very simple linear cRPGs that ask you to play a team of characters, and give you no choices that aren't tactical. But crucially, those sorts of games are often broken out of the main RPG genera by calling them TRPGs (tactical role-playing games).

Now that I think about it, Necromunda and Bloodbowl are probably pen and paper tactical role-playing games. So TRPGs are probably skirmish level wargames that have adopted the open ended gameplay of RPGs, but not the rest that comes along with (whatever that is). Since RPG elements are getting pretty ubiquitous in gaming showing up even in first person shooters like World of Tanks and Borderlands 2, if we are going to say any game that shares a feature with an RPG is an RPG I think this RPG tent is going to become really big indeed. Am I roleplaying being a T-29 experimental American heavy tank fighting in a vaguely Korean setting against a mixture of other tier 7 tanks of various nationalities and from different eras? I don't think so. If I am, then something is wrong with your definition of role-playing, and of RPG if World of Tanks is one. If World of Tanks is an RPG, then probably so is Monopoly and "Whose Line is it Anyway".

Bedrockgames · Oct 25, 2014

But Hussar we are not talking about a few specific tables we are talking about common styles of play, things you see people do all the time and things that are not breaches of the rules of the game. Even in early D&D in the rules it isn't terribly explicit in terms of what playing the individual character means. It wasn't like there was the clear bright dividing line between player and character that emerged later (at least reading Chain Mail and the White Box, that was my impression, I could be misremembering). I think that is a common aspect of RPGs that developed pretty quickly, i don't think it is essential for the definition of what an RPG is. Like I said I can play an investigative RPG where I am directly challenging the players the whole time. This doesn't mean I am not playing an RPG or doing it wrong. This is still within the framework of what most people understand an RPG to be. What your definition does is it eliminates this approach from the hobby. When I run investigations, that is how I prefer to play them. I don't want to challenge players through their Diplomacy skill or through their Detect skill, I want the investigation to be a puzzle the player solves, so the gap between player and character narrows when we turn to mystery adventures. I think this is still well within the scope of RPG.

I am fine saying RPGs are about playing a character. But to me what you are saying seems to go beyond that, it seems to be saying it is also about how you play that character and it excludes very common ways of approaching characters in RPGs. If people want to refer to their character in the third person, treating it as a pawn with a list of skills on the sheet, that is fine.

prosfilaes · Oct 25, 2014

Hussar said:
Just as there are lots of games on the edges that might be one or the other. Is Diplomacy a role playing game? It's bloody well close.

Not really. You don't play any role beyond a nation, and about half of board games give you that much role, at least; Lords of Waterdeep's Lords, for example. There's negotiation, but it's all at the player level; there's nothing in the game that encourages someone to play as their nation might, instead of optimally.

We have to stick to what the expectations of the game are, rather than how someone plays it.

We don't have to. If there are a substantial number of people playing D&D purely tactically, or playing certain boardgames in character, that's interesting information. I don't know why we'd expect any game to be conceptually pure.

But, if we include this, then we're pretty much back to square one where there is no differentiation between Story Games and RPG's.

Why should there be? Why should a group of self-proclaimed RPGs get evicted from the RPG space?

Hussar · Oct 25, 2014

But, what does "playing a character" mean? If it's simply a pawn with a list of skills, then Squad Leader becomes an RPG, as does Battletech and Blood Bowl. After all, a Blood Bowl character has a list of skills which the player uses to manipulate events in the game. It's too broad.

Again, you keep talking about your specific game, which is only played at your table. What system are you using for this mystery game? Does the SYSTEM support this style of play or have you drifted it into something else? Of course you can play games this way. But, if I play Monopoly and start role playing, does that make Monopoly an RPG? Is World of Tanks an RPG simply because it includes some RPG elements? Conversely, if I strip out all the role playing (in the common sense of the word - assuming a role in a fictional setting, even if that is meant to be you, personally, in that fictional setting) from an RPG, does that make it not an RPG?

No, of course not.

All the notions of "playing wrong" and other value judgements are not part what what we're doing here. Saying D&D is a Role Playing Game because it presumes that the players will create a character within the fictional world and that character will have goals and motivations within that fictional world doesn't mean that you can't play D&D in other ways. It's just that D&D does presume this to a large degree. As do virtually all RPG's. Once you no longer have that presumption of role assumption, you probably aren't talking about an RPG anymore.

It doesn't matter how you use your Nissan 300ZX. You can do whatever the heck you want to it. But, when you buy a 300ZX, it's listed as a sports car. Because, well, it has all the features of a sports car. It is not listed as a family sedan. I can use it as a family sedan if I want to. I could use it as a really big paper weight if I wanted to. But, when talking about either sports cars or my 300ZX in particular, it's not helpful to say that my 300ZX isn't a sports car.

I mean, look, virtually every single RPG published in the last thirty years, certainly since AD&D 1e, has had a foreword section that says something to the effect of, "What is an RPG". And virtually every single time, role assumption is the primary play assumption. When you play Vampire, it's assumed that you are going to try to portray your Tremere as a certain kind of Vampire. If you play D&D, it's assumed that your half-orc barbarian will be played as a certain kind of character. Granted, you don't have to do this. You certainly don't have to. There is no have to in these presumptions. But, at the end of the day, the writers of the game are assuming that that's what your going to do. Don't play your paladin in a certain way? Come on En World and start a hundred page paladin alignment wank thread when your DM strips your Paladin powers.

Don't play your fighter in a certain way, you are penalised during training and have to spend extra in game time and money to gain a level. On and on and on.

How someone is playing the game is not relevant to trying to define the genre the game belongs to. You have to look at the game itself. Monopoly isn't a role playing game because there is absolutely no presumption of roll assumption. Same as Chess. D&D is a role playing game because the rules presume you are going to assume a role. Again, there are fuzzy bits at the edges - is Tomb of Horrors a role playing game module or a Tactical RPG (I think the latter to be honest)? But, at the end of the day, we have to work from what the game says, not what someone claims they use the game for. Pounding in a nail with a screwdriver does not make the screwdriver a hammer.

Hussar · Oct 25, 2014

prosfilaes said:
Not really. You don't play any role beyond a nation, and about half of board games give you that much role, at least; Lords of Waterdeep's Lords, for example. There's negotiation, but it's all at the player level; there's nothing in the game that encourages someone to play as their nation might, instead of optimally.

We don't have to. If there are a substantial number of people playing D&D purely tactically, or playing certain boardgames in character, that's interesting information. I don't know why we'd expect any game to be conceptually pure.

Why should there be? Why should a group of self-proclaimed RPGs get evicted from the RPG space?

Evicted? Why the negative phrasing? Defining a game as a story game or an RPG is helpful. It lets us know what to expect. That's what genre definitions do. They allow for a common language in order to discuss something. Most definitions of SF would not include Star Wars. Mostly because Star Wars doesn't use most of the themes you would expect to find in an SF story. It's far closer to fantasy. Does that make Star Wars a less interesting story to say it's fantasy and not SF? No, not really? But, it's useful in categorising what to expect if you sit down to read or watch Star Wars or it's related stories. I certainly wouldn't expect an A. C. Clark style story in the Star Wars universe. Hard SF in Star Wars? Not a very good fit, IMO.

Sure, how people play games might be interesting in its own right, but, it's not terribly useful in a categorisation exercise. Lots of people open bottles with lighters. Does that mean lighters are bottle openers? No. It's an interesting point, but, when trying to define what a lighter or a bottle opener is, it's not terribly useful. Would you define the word lighter by referencing bottle opening? Would you define the word bottle opener with references to a lighter? Not likely. There's no difference here.

Once you get away from the value judgements that are not really inherent to the terms themselves, it gets a lot easier to have a discussion. "I don't like story games, so, any game I play isn't a story game" or, "Boardgames are boring, any game I don't like is similar to a board game" are lines of thought that never go anywhere. It's what [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] referred to earlier in that the negative and positive connotations are more tied to the speaker than the terms themselves. Once we can get past that, then we can actually start speaking the same language.

prosfilaes · Oct 25, 2014

Hussar said:
It doesn't matter how you use your Nissan 300ZX. You can do whatever the heck you want to it. But, when you buy a 300ZX, it's listed as a sports car. Because, well, it has all the features of a sports car. It is not listed as a family sedan. I can use it as a family sedan if I want to. I could use it as a really big paper weight if I wanted to. But, when talking about either sports cars or my 300ZX in particular, it's not helpful to say that my 300ZX isn't a sports car.

I think it unhelpful to look at the SUV and act like it's a sports or utility vehicle. Any realistic understanding of the SUV requires understand that no matter what the ads say, no matter what the dealers are selling, many, possibly most, of them are used as minivans. And the better selling SUVs are designed with features that support that, no matter how much they advertise off-road performance. I don't trust forewords to accurately reflect how the game is being played, or even necessarily how the game is designed to be played. I'm curious if WoD authors ever had that explicit contrast put to them, the need to sell the game as dramatic, angsty art and yet write stuff that appeals to the group of people who just wanted to play vampires and werewolfs for maximum carnage.

How someone is playing the game is not relevant to trying to define the genre the game belongs to.

Nothing else matters other then what happens when the rubber meets the road. Has Magic: the Gathering always been a collectible card game? When first released, they did not fully expect the randomness and rarities to interact the way they did to produce the first CCG. Should we look at what WotC intended, or how it's always been played in practice?

Hussar said:
Evicted? Why the negative phrasing? Defining a game as a story game or an RPG is helpful. It lets us know what to expect. That's what genre definitions do. They allow for a common language in order to discuss something. Most definitions of SF would not include Star Wars.

Any definition of SF that did I would expect to be negative towards Star Wars. Star Wars derives from deep SF roots and much SF has grown from it. You want to say that Star Wars is not science fiction, despite it coming from a rich heritage including the Lensman series, then you're making up a new definition that doesn't match who people use the word science fiction. Prescriptive definitions of a genre like that are almost always to evict someone; that's not really "heavy metal" or "country" or "science fiction".

Descriptively? Everyone accepts Star Wars as science fiction. People who aren't trying for negative phrasing simply label it as space opera or not hard science fiction and move on.

Likewise, again, 5 out of 6 story games I had at hand labeled themselves RPGs. By giving a definition of RPG that excludes them, you're telling an entire group of people, some of whom are established writers for games that (almost) everyone agrees are RPGs, that despite what they think, they're not writing roleplaying games. That is negative. Why not accept that there's "story games" and "traditional RPGs" all under the RPG umbrella, instead of writing a definition that excludes a bunch of things labeled and understood to be "roleplaying games" from the genre?