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

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe there's a better analogy?

You're unlikely to find a worse one, but, hey, it got a discussion started, didn't it?
(nothing leaves a thread at 0 replies like being all reasonable and non-controversial)

I see RPG's as having three levels. At the top, you have the RPG itself which we use to build a campaign. At the next level, you have the campaign which, in my mind, is the game that this group is going to play, and at the third level, you have the session, which is roughly analogous to a single instance of the game.
For most games though, you only have two levels. The game and the instance. You don't use charades, to use the example, to build a specific kind of pantomime game that players then play. You just play instances of charades. There's no higher level tier, such as what you get with RPG's.

Still not see'n it as distinct to RPGs. A campaign is a series of sessions, sure. A night of poker is a series of hands. A chess tournament can be a series of instances of chess that goes on and on.
And, I run convention games a lot, they're typically a complete RPG in one session (instance).

I think the reason you see a hard-to-define difference between RPGs and other sorts of games, is that the formalized D&D-style approach to roleplaying as a cooperative game with rules & dice & such (as opposed to a game with costumes & happy endings), has only been around for 44 years, now, and has maybe undergone 15 years worth of development in that time, thanks to the persistent stagnation of the gateway to the hobby. 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.
Can anyone think of an RPG where the GM seems almost superfluous?


TL/DR: RPGs don't seem like games, because they're such bad games they're barely recognizable as such.













There. 'Cynical bitter old man' rep secured...

 

[Hussar]

I disagree. Each time you play a hand of poker, you are still just referencing the rules of that particular version of poker. A night of poker isn't analogous to a session of an RPG. Each hand is analogous to a single RPG session. We don't replay the same set up in an RPG over and over again (by and large). Each session is distinct and unique and starts from a different initial condition. Each hand of poker, OTOH, starts from exactly the same initial conditions.

As far as something like Classic Traveler, I'll admit that I've never played or read the game. But, from what I understand, you use the planet creation as a starting point of a given scenario, but, it's not the scenario itself. The planet looks like X, but, the adventure you have on that planet is generated by the GM. The pirates on that planet, for example, aren't generated by the rules. Unless every session of Classic Traveler is just the players exploring the randomly generated planet and nothing else, I'd say that no, it isn't the same as the set up of a board game.

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

So, you use the rules to create the scenario and then the players play in that scenario each session. There is still that third level - the rules of the RPG - which doesn't really exist in other games.

Note, the point about rules being both game and OS is very true. I would totally agree with that point.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree. Each time you play a hand of poker, you are still just referencing the rules of that particular version of poker.

Not quite. All of the private poker games I have played in allow for the dealer to announce rules by hand. The dealer can name variation (5 card draw, seven card stud, Texas hold-em). But, the dealer can also name wild cards, or declare that your'e playing low-ball rather than high, and so on.

Also, a given table can have betting rules - what's the ante? What's the minimum raise, or maximum bet? Sometimes this is defined for the night, sometimes this is dictated by the variant.

The term "table rules" didn't start with Settlers of Catan, or Monopoly. It started with cards.

And, when you are playing a betting game like poker, each hand is a game, but the entire evening at the table is a game, too. Your placement tint he game is determined by how much of your original stake you finish with. So, it isn't just hand-by-hand.

A hand might be equivalent to one combat/challenge (different monsters, different rules for the hand). One evening of poker is a session, many challenges. And the campaign is the folks who get together one night a month to play for several years (there's a long rest between, so everyone starts the next session back at full).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I disagree. Each time you play a hand of poker, you are still just referencing the rules of that particular version of poker. A night of poker isn't analogous to a session of an RPG. Each hand is analogous to a single RPG session. We don't replay the same set up in an RPG over and over again (by and large). Each session is distinct and unique and starts from a different initial condition. Each hand of poker, OTOH, starts from exactly the same initial conditions.

I don’t think that’s really true. For one, everyone starts with a different hand. For another, you could switch which game of poker you play from hand to hand.

Each hand of poker could be viewed as a round in an RPG. Maybe a campaign is an entire night of gambling, when one player has finally won all the money in play.

I’m not saying that there aren’t differences between an RPG and many other games...they can be numerous amd significant. But I still think there are similarities and I still think an RPG is a game.

I mean...they’re not RPAs.

Edited to add: somewhat ninja’d by Umbran.

 

[Hussar]

But, even if you are changing which game of poker you are playing from hand to hand, your instance of that particular hand is automatically locked into that particular version of poker.

IOW, you never use the rules of poker to create a new version of poker which has virtually nothing connecting to previous versions of poker. Sure, you have variations, but, the order of winning hands rarely changes (barring some oddball additions like "player with the lowest spade takes half the pot"). You might deal different numbers of cards, or have different wild cards, but, at no point are you suddenly going to play Uno with poker rules.

OTOH, a given campaign is largely self contained and is virtually impossible to port from one table to the next. If I play seven card stud at one table, and then play seven card stud at another table, virtually nothing has changed. If I play in two different campaigns, however, it's entirely possible that virtually everything has changed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But, even if you are changing which game of poker you are playing from hand to hand, your instance of that particular hand is automatically locked into that particular version of poker.

Different dealers could toss in different house rules, of course. It's a good example, because it's a conventional card game, played with the conventional deck, but with a tremendous amount of variation, and a powerful metagame.

IOW, you never use the rules of poker to create a new version of poker which has virtually nothing connecting to previous versions of poker.

Games 'created' from a core rule system like d20 are hardly unconnected to d20.

Sure, you have variations, but, the order of winning hands rarely changes (barring some oddball additions like "player with the lowest spade takes half the pot")

Lowball isn't /that/ oddball, OK, it's a little odd... but a variation on D&D where you win a fight be reaching 0 hps first, or start at 20th and level down to 1st, would be a lot odder.

You might deal different numbers of cards, or have different wild cards, but, at no point are you suddenly going to play Uno with poker rules.

No, but you can play crazy-eights (similar to Uno), with the same deck as you would poker...

...now, I was going to say that you can't play, say, Traveler with D&D rules, but there /are/ RPGs with which you could fairly accurately play other RPGs, by not only modeling all the same characters, challenges, and setting info, but also while aping the other game's system artifacts...
...it's a tad hilarious to do, actually.

OTOH, a given campaign is largely self contained and is virtually impossible to port from one table to the next. If I play seven card stud at one table, and then play seven card stud at another table, virtually nothing has changed. If I play in two different campaigns, however, it's entirely possible that virtually everything has changed.

A lot changes going from one table to another, most tellingly the other players - extremely important to the poker metagame - but specific table rules, the ante & betting limits, etc...

...you actually can jump from one table to another at AL with minimal disruptions, not quite as readily as Encounters, but it's pretty doable.

 

[Satyrn]

This conversation (at least the first page) reminds me of that time I started a thread on NASCARWorld claiming auto racing isn't a sport.


I hope this conversation's going better than that one did.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OTOH, a given campaign is largely self contained and is virtually impossible to port from one table to the next. If I play seven card stud at one table, and then play seven card stud at another table, virtually nothing has changed. If I play in two different campaigns, however, it's entirely possible that virtually everything has changed.

War games can change drastically depending on the scenario. I think most people would still agree those are still games. Any video game where you can customize is different from one screen to the next. A game of capture the flag is also different from scenario to scenario and things can naturally emerge that are fun but not part of any rules of play. I just don't see how having scenarios or the ability to be different from table to table, makes something not a game.

 

[Shasarak]

This conversation (at least the first page) reminds me of that time I started a thread on NASCARWorld claiming auto racing isn't a sport.

Wait, auto racing is a sport?

What next, playing video games is a sport?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The "what's a game?" discussion trips this up, but I'm happy to define RPGs as: "cooperative storytelling meets improvisational theater".