My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games

Olgar Shiverstone · Jul 28, 2018

Shasarak said:
Wait, auto racing is a sport?

What next, playing video games is a sport?

I don't know, but I hear D&D will be an eSport soon ...

You know it's true; I read it at EN World!

Lanefan · Jul 28, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
There's a reason that having a GM seems like one of the big, obvious, distinction between TTRPGs and CRPGs/MMOs and non-RPGs: because a GM who overrides the rules as a matter of course (see other threads on 'fudging,' 'balance,' &c), is helpful when the rules are lacking, and the more the rules lack, the more necessary the GM.

Yet there's no distinction at all, in that a CRPG/MMO still has the equivalent of a GM sitting there in the background: a combination of the programmers who write the game and the program they actually wrote. The difference is that in a TTRPG the players can (usually) interact with the GM on a personal level, where in a CRPG/MMO they cannot.

Can anyone think of an RPG where the GM seems almost superfluous?

Yeah, mine, some nights; when all they want to do is argue among themselves.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - you're getting pushback upthread on your use of the word "engine" to describe what an RPG is; might I suggest "chassis" instead.

Lanefan

Enevhar Aldarion · Jul 28, 2018

If you are rolling dice, you are playing a game. If you are using another method to randomly determine the outcome, you are playing a game. What that game is can vary wildly, but it is still a game.

Hussar · Jul 28, 2018

On the point about poker-

I'd say that if you played 4 rounds of poker, with 4 different dealers each choosing a different version of poker, you've actually played 4 different games. For each session of an RPG to be analogous to each round of poker, you'd need to change the baseline ruleset for each session.

Which, IMO, probably never happens. Not too many people play 4 different editions in the same campaign.

Same goes for war-games. You don't change the ruleset of a war-game in the middle of the game. You use one ruleset throughout the instance of that war-game.

I don't think you can really compare poker to an RPG this way. And, while poker and crazy eights might share the same deck of cards, you in no way use the rules of poker to create a crazy eights game. You can only use the rules of poker to play poker. You can only use the rules of that war-game to play that war-game.

OTOH, we use the rules of an RPG to create a campaign. And it's the campaign that we play. Which makes an RPG both a game AND a game creation engine or chassis.

pemerton · Jul 29, 2018

hawkeyefan said:
If what we’re really trying to discuss is what makes them different than other games, I’d probably have to attribute it to how much variety is allowed in play, and how much the players are involved in the direction of the game. There are other factors that collectively are a big part, but which individually aren’t unique to RPGs.

What you suggest here doesn't seem to distinguish RPGs from a range of story telling games and imaginative play.

For RPGs that follow the traditional model (GM and players) key additional, distinguishing features include things like player control over a particular element of the fiction - the PC - which is also the player's game piece; and something like a distinctive role for the GM in relation to the fiction - this can vary (which gives us different approaches to RPGing) - but normally includes something about introducing elements into the fiction and/or establishing events in the fiction.

The ability to directly engage the fiction via play is also worth mentioning, not because it distinguishes RPGs from storytelling (which also have that feature) but because it distinguishes RPGs from boardgames and wargames that have the previously-mentioned features.

pemerton · Jul 29, 2018

When a group of children play "families" or "houses", the roles they take on, the correlation of realworld surrounds to imagined places ("this couch is the bed; this box is the oven"), the permitted moves ("No! You can't go to sleep because we're playing daytime, not nighttime") are all highly variable and contextually settled, often through ongoing negotiation between the participants.

Children will nevertheless describe this as playing a game, and adults can likewise ask "What game did you play?" or say "Stop playing your game, it's time for dinner!".

RPGs are generally more structured than this in the rules for establishing participant roles, story elements and scenario framing. Hence they are not less likely to count as instances of games.

pemerton · Jul 29, 2018

Hussar said:
IOW, even in Classic Traveler, as I understand it, you still need to create an actual campaign/scenario after you've created your planet.

You roll on the random patron table.

At a certain point someone has to make somthing up, yes. That's part and parcel of playing a game that has the authoring and retelling of ficiton as a core part of the activity.

That doesn't make it cease to be a game.

Lanefan · Jul 29, 2018

Hussar said:
On the point about poker-

I'd say that if you played 4 rounds of poker, with 4 different dealers each choosing a different version of poker, you've actually played 4 different games.

If the chips were re-equalized after each round, I'd agree with you.

If the chip counts are carried forward from one game to the next, however, then it becomes a gray area - in some ways you're playing the same continuing game, only the rules of said game are changing with each deal.

Hussar · Jul 29, 2018

pemerton said:
You roll on the random patron table.

At a certain point someone has to make somthing up, yes. That's part and parcel of playing a game that has the authoring and retelling of ficiton as a core part of the activity.

That doesn't make it cease to be a game.

Sigh.

Three times. Three times now I've stated that RPG's are games. This would be number four.

RPG's are games. THEY ARE GAMES. THEY ARE GAMES. THEY ARE GAMES.

Ok, happy now? Can we please move on and stop banging on about something I've repeatedly stated now?

Hussar · Jul 29, 2018

Lanefan said:
If the chips were re-equalized after each round, I'd agree with you.

If the chip counts are carried forward from one game to the next, however, then it becomes a gray area - in some ways you're playing the same continuing game, only the rules of said game are changing with each deal.

But, that's the point. It doesn't change what game you are playing to have X or Y number of chips. You are still playing THAT version of poker regardless. However, as you say, the rules of each version are different, thus a different actual game.

To put it another way, it doesn't matter if I have a big stack of chips or I'm down to the scrapings of the bottom of the barrel, I'm still playing 5 Card Draw. Granted, how I play will likely change, but, that doesn't change the game.