Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Hussar]

On the challenging players vs characters thing- I'd say that in rpg's you need a bit of both. If it only challenges one or the other it has probably gone too far and either stepped into story game territory or tactical board game. If we only challenge the character, it might look a lot like a CRPG where the player simply points the characters in the right direction. If it's all on the player then it's a board game.

An RPG needs both.

 

[Celebrim]

If it's all on the player then it's a board game.

An RPG needs both.

I'm not sure that I disagree, but for the sake of argument, do we agree that Bloodbowl is a board game? If so, then it has at least some concept of "challenge the character" Any board game with differentiated pieces (and a fortune mechanic?) challenges the character at least to some degree.

While the fact that RPGs challenge both character and player seems to be reasonably true, even if we accept it as true, I'm not sure it is a distinguishing feature from other classes of games.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the challenging players vs characters thing- I'd say that in rpg's you need a bit of both. If it only challenges one or the other it has probably gone too far and either stepped into story game territory or tactical board game. If we only challenge the character, it might look a lot like a CRPG where the player simply points the characters in the right direction. If it's all on the player then it's a board game.

An RPG needs both.

I don't think it becomes a non-RPG just because players are being directly challenged or just because characters are being challenged. Most tables probably have both but there are definitely groups who do just one or the other and they are most definitely still playing a roleplaying game.

Again this boils down to descriptive versus proscriptive definitions of RPGs. I know for a fact many game tables do the thing where you pretty much just challenge the players. i also know many tables who just roll their skills and never interact with the setting directly. I still consider these within the RPG hobby, and both are viable approached. The standard approach probably does include a mix of the two, but we shouldn't set up a definition that keeps these folks outside hobby or labels games that might focus on say players directly investigating a scenario outside the hobby.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm a high function autistic. Sometimes things that should be obvious to me aren't. I honestly thought people - even Wick - were seeking to find an accurate definition using Socratic discourse in order to speak on the topic of game design and implementation with greater clarity. That they are not literally for me a stunning revolution. I physically gasped when I realized it and nearly fell out of my chair.

Sounds silly I suppose, but it's true.

Yes I think this is what is going on. People are using definitions to make their way, the best way, the way that is truest to what an RPG is.

 

[Umbran]

But apparently that's not your motivation.

I am not using mod-voice here, but dude, you probably want to back off. Address the reasoning of the post, not the person of the poster.

Your fundamental assertion is that 'story game' has no meaning. That's its just a veiled insult.

Not necessarily. If, in practical use, the term is muddied by having so many people use it many different ways, then it can be left in a state where it has no clear meaning. This can happen with created jargon, and is not so much an insult as a realization that we, the community, are not of one mind on the topic.

 

[Umbran]

Yes I think this is what is going on. People are using definitions to make their way, the best way, the way that is truest to what an RPG is.

Some people are, sure.

People refer to "edition wars". In my time as a moderator, I've realized that there's a generalization of this concept - the Dichotomy War. It can be 3e vs 4e, Old School vs New School, Story game vs "Real RPG", or what have you. Definitions are often used to draw the lines between Us and Them in such conflicts. This is part of why I asked *why* folks want to define a thing.

But, some folks aren't - I'm not. I question the driving *need* for hard definitions, but I'm willing to engage on the subject. I don't think Janx is trying to be warlike about it, either.

And here's where we get to thinking of this as a genre, and using the genre-definition style - about inclusion rather than exclusion. Things that have enough of the tropes, elements, or what have you fit in the genre, even if they also have things that are not normally found in the genre! A thing can even (*gasp*) be a member of more than one genre! The Dresden Files are both urban fantasy and noir detective stories, and that's okay!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I had thought we were trying to learn something about the design of games, and hone our language so that we could speak more clearly and more correctly than someone like Wick who is busy spouting nonsense like, "D&D is not an RPG". But apparently that's not your motivation. Your motivations is that you like the gobbledly-gook.

The gobbeldygook is either me explainign unclearly or your failure to read, and your unwillingness to accept counter-examples. My motivation is that your definitions simply aren't true and you keep to them despite counter-examples.

You are trying to argue for useless and flimsy definitions because for some reason you think that not being able to speak about something with precision protects your thing from criticism, and you are so focused on that that you are completely unable to imagine that anyone else in the discussion doesn't have the same motivation.

This is complete nonsense. I've been demonstrating that your definitions fit two categories - ones for which there are counter-examples and ones which are meaningless.

Your fundamental assertion is that 'story game' has no meaning.

And this is strictly false. I have given story-gaming two separate meanings. One of which is a game designed to be short in run time and not open ended and quite deliberately so, and based round a story structure. More of that below.

But somewhere along the line I find it really bizarre that Hillfolk - a game that uses the Drama Engine - is somehow definitively an RPG whereas MonsterHearts - which uses the Apocalypse World Engine - is somehow definitively a Story Game.

Look at the cover of Monsterhearts. You might find it bizarre that it calls itself a story game. But all that shows is that either (a) Avery Mcaldando is misrepresenting their game, (b) Your definitions are incorrect or (c) Monsterhearts is subtler than it looks. I'm going with B and C.

And using the original definition of Storygame, as I was, with the finite story, Monsterhearts is one. And not because you run off the end of the XP track. It's either a superb or not very good game to analyse because there are a dozen or so factors that obfuscate this.

I'm not a strict believer in 'System Matters' but neither is system wholly unimportant. The Apocalyse World Engine and the Drama Engine have very different traits and play out very differently in game. These systems are so different that to me it seems obvious that they belong to different catagories of games. Not as you would have it superior and inferior categories, not as something were we need to pretend the differences don't exist so that people don't get their feelings hurt, but as different sorts of games that might be equally enjoyable to some or not so appealing to others and all that be ok.

The problem is that you are miscategorising. Hillfolk calls itself what it is. A Dramasystem. And it was definitely inspired by Story Games. System does matter. But there is a huge difference between drama and a tightly crafted story. At the top level very few Storygames aren't RPGs. They are just one type of RPG. oD&D is another.

You are arguing that Drama System and Hillfolk is not only not designed to put story first, but doesn't produce one? Seriously?

And this is where your definitions are incoherent and irrelevant. A game of golf produces a story. There is no game that does not - and it's hard to think of a human activity that doesn't. What Hillfolk is designed to do is not put story first, but to put drama first. It's designed for conflicting PC interaction. This is not, strictly speaking, necessary for a story. And it doesn't help frame a complete one. That's why the engine is called the Dramasystem.

If we look at Fiasco (as a very clear storygame), the thing is written round a five act structure. Exposition: The setup. Rising Action: Pre-tilt. Climax: The Tilt. Falling Action: Post-Tilt. Resolution: Endgame.

This mapping could not IMO be any clearer or more obvious.

My Life With Master also has a defined structure in the same way. When one PC decides to attack The Master. That's the climax. And that triggers the start of Act 4.

If we look at Monsterhearts, things are not as obvious. But they are there. Act 2 runs long (as it should in a five act structure IMO, but that's me playing with lit crit). And each of our screwed up kids is on their own separate storyline for a season. But it has a defined climax that brings up the season end. That's when someone manages to get their fifth advance. At that point each PC can take one growing up move. Which is a (normally positive) climax of their story. They get to get over themselves in some way - or even spiral further. And it changes their nature as a character (sometimes literally). And after the climax, as in MLWM, the end is not far away.

You'll note that this is something you may do in Apocalypse World (change Playbooks) - but in Monsterhearts all the season advances fundamentally alter the PC, and they bring about the endgame. It's a looser connection than in MLWM or (especially) Fiasco, but it's there.

I could go into detail about other games - but I think that that's enough to make the point. (And no, the five act structure isn't essential - it's just a good one (and much better than the three)).

Dramasystem on the other hand doesn't do this. Not even close. It might happen in Hillfolk. There's no denying that. It might also happen in D&D. Hillfolk, however, has not been designed round a story structure. It's been designed round dramatic tension (and IMO treats dramatic tension in roleplaying games the way Michael Bay treats action scenes in movies). There's no built in climax or endgame and certainly no specific climax that flows straight from the rules. It calls itself what it is - a Dramasystem. And focusses exclusively on drama.

John Wick asserts D&D isn't an RPG. Does that prove it isn't? Some people on this board are asserting that everything that isn't OD&D is not a true RPG. People can assert whatever they like. Absent actual definitions - particularly in the presence of definitions that seem as yours do to just indicate which team you belong to - people are liable to assert all sorts of erroneous things. At which point, this is nothing more than an alignment debate with someone that doesn't believe good and evil have definitions, so what's the point of labels beside identifying the colors of the hats. And so now I finally see why everyone is talking past each other.

I've been saying throughout that the colour of the hats is a common definition. And providing another one - and getting counters back that involve adding a story structure to a game by means of a module rather than designing the whole game round it - this makes about as much sense as giving all the PCs in a game of D&D first level commoner stats and putting them effectively through Montsegur 1244. That's adding story-structure to a prior game and being left with a complete mess.

Like the laws of Thermodynamics, there are a lot of ways to phrase the concept.

But some of them cause confusion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Some people are, sure.

People refer to "edition wars". In my time as a moderator, I've realized that there's a generalization of this concept - the Dichotomy War. It can be 3e vs 4e, Old School vs New School, Story game vs "Real RPG", or what have you. Definitions are often used to draw the lines between Us and Them in such conflicts. This is part of why I asked *why* folks want to define a thing.

But, some folks aren't - I'm not. I question the driving *need* for hard definitions, but I'm willing to engage on the subject. I don't think Janx is trying to be warlike about it, either.

And here's where we get to thinking of this as a genre, and using the genre-definition style - about inclusion rather than exclusion. Things that have enough of the tropes, elements, or what have you fit in the genre, even if they also have things that are not normally found in the genre! A thing can even (*gasp*) be a member of more than one genre! The Dresden Files are both urban fantasy and noir detective stories, and that's okay!

I am not suggesting that any attempt to define is rooted in this. I think there are plenty of good reasons to have a working definition of something (even if only to label it for consumers so they can get what they want). In this respect terms like OSR, Story Game, Genre, etc can all be very useful. I think where it is a problem is when people use highly proscriptive definitions and it is clear their definition also just happens to align with their preferred style of play and exclude styles they dislike. Things I generally look for is how is the person arriving at their definition. If they take the OSR and simply try to describe what they see it including, that is fine. No problem. It is when someone starts playing games with root words or tries to reduce to come up with a definition that is obviously meant to exclude certain players, that I have an issue. This is something we see a lot of in gaming discussions and posters often don't realize what is going on so they fall into the trap of accepting a flawed definition and then trying to fit their position within it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh God. This all makes sense now. I was busy trying to figure out how people could write the sorts of things that they wrote, especially Wick, and now I get it.

As Wick is using the term, RPG is just a synonym for 'good'. D&D is 'bad', D&D has things I don't like, therefore 'D&D is not an RPG'. Apparently there are people ought there that have defined 'story game' as 'bad', so then something like "My Life with Monster is not an RPG (ei 'good'), it must be a Story Game (ei 'bad')" provokes comments like, "Oh No! It must be an RPG (ei 'good'). D&D is a board game! (ei 'bad')"

I finally understand this thread.

Pretty much. And I've been misreading you because one thing the people who are trying to make that distinction as one of good/bad (and further claim in the case of the RPG Pundit that a collection of "Storygaming SWINE" are trying to subvert the hobby) always do is say that Storygames are emphatically not RPGs. My apologies for misreading you that way.

As a rule of thumb (although not a hard and fast rule), people who try to claim that things only go in exclusive categories are generally in the good/bad camp. People willing to have more than one subcategory on something are trying to classify it, and are aware that things sprawl across definitions.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That passage just irked me.

See, the mechanics are there to let you play something you're not. You can play the genius and the mechanics will pick up the slack in terms of knowledge. You can play a gun nut and the mechanics will enable you. And you can play a charming smooth talking quick-witted James Bond type character and the mechanics will have your back.

...

Half of roleplaying is being something you're not, being someone you can't be. If you can only roleplay to your strengths then that aspect is lost.

That passage irked me as well, and I think the problem is that Wick is employing a False Choice Fallacy. We are not stuck with only the two choices of True Roleplaying or Mere Rollplaying.

It is not as if the DM is shackled into only resolving a social interaction by the standard of "if it does not charm me, then you are not charming". The DM is inevitably going to employ a standard that is subjective to a significant degree. Rather than feeling boxed in by this ambiguity, we can see this as an opportunity to tailor the resolution mechanics to the players at the table.

For example, the shy and poorly spoken player should be required to have his PC present his case to the king. The king is never going to go against his perceptions of his interests simply because a Face skill. But once a logical reason to interpret his own interests in a different light are presented, the player can use the dice. (If the player and PC are both naturally gifted at persuasion, I probably do not bother to roll at all.)

Yes, a tongue-tied player will have disadvantages playing certain kinds of characters. But I want to use his PC's skills as positive opportunities to stretch himself.