Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Janx]

A big part of the problem with Wick's article is his (re-)definition of the term "roleplaying". If a game has some method in its rules whereby one can create a customized in-game character, a role, to play, then it's a roleplaying game. (Cue several examples of RPGs where creating customized characters isn't possible.) That's the meaning of the terminology as it was first defined. Calling the game that engendered that definition "not a roleplaying game" is ridiculous twisting of words. Unless your intent is to generate a lot of useless arguing over semantics, you don't get to redefine a term in use for 40 years. Use different words.

Yup.

Games called RPGs tend to have one or more (but most times not all) of these traits:
player controls just one character
the character performs a role on a team (Fighter, Tank, Wizard) with a specific skill set
the character advances is proficiency and the player makes choices about what skill areas to improve, at the expense of others
the character may be portrayed by the player as having a specific personality and behavior pattern (aka Role Playing)

I doubt my list is definitive nor entirely correct, but those are the most obvious things I see in most things called an RPG, be it table top or computer. Some games let you control multiple characters. Some games don't have any kind of advancement for the character, but I suspect that is more rare in the category.

One thing I left out is Story. I suspect just about every CRPG tells a Story (ex. Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, etc). Straight sandbox dungeon crawling might not tell a Story, except in the crudest sense of linearly describing what happened to the PCs.

Since Wick's article was really getting down to "RPGs must tell a story" is that part of the conflict? Given that I see valid point to not require "Story" as part of the traits of an RPG.

 

[delericho]

Most important is to remember that the theoretical construct is a *theoretical* construct. A model. It is not reality in and of itself. Your model can be incorrect, or have some corr3ect bits, but some notable flaws that don't represent reality. Many theoretical constructs may be beautiful and elegant, and completely fail when the rubber meets the road.

The difference between theory and practice: in theory there is no difference; in practice, there is.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, I haven't read this thread, so I may be just repeating what someone else has already said, but anyway, this is what I think:

The author of this article is quite opinionated and decidedly wrong about some fairly basic things. For one thing, the genre is called Roleplaying _Game_.
It's called that because it's about roleplaying, yes, but it's also a GAME.

Saying that D&D is not an RPG because you can be successful without roleplaying is just as wrong as saying that in Vampire you cannot be successful without roleplaying.
I really wonder if the guy has ever actually played D&D or watched a game of Vampire?

If he was a player in my D&D campaign, he wouldn't have a chance of being 'successful' without roleplaying at all. In fact, players who fail to roleplay tend to leave the group after mutually agreeing that it just won't work. On the other hand I've seen a Vampire group play the game without any regard to the story - it was just a high-powered hack&slay affair involving the villain of the week.

What does this tell us? It's all in what you make of it.

I also had to laugh out loud reading that in Vampire he'd not use the Initiative rules, but he'd use the Humanity rules. Well, guess what: A different storyteller may choose to do the opposite! And, yes, that might mean he's turned the game from a roleplaying game into 'just a game'.

I also like how he mentions Pendragon as an example of a 'good' roleplaying game. As it happens, the weapon tables are quite important for that game. Each weapon (and armor) comes with a set of very specific advantages and disadvantages, resulting in a particular choice to be optimal in a very specific situation. This in turn leads to a character trying have a wide choice of weapons available - just in case. And in Pendragon this isn't a problem, because your squire will serve as a kind of caddy, handing you the weapon of choice when you need it.
You just don't go hunting a boar with your two-handed sword, there's a boar spear that has been designed for that purpose. Trying to use the sword will probably just get you killed.

He's not completely incorrect, though. It clearly doesn't hurt to think about your game (system) and ask yourself "What does x add to the story?" In fact that's the most important question I'm asking myself when designing encounters. When choosing an rpg system for my campaigns I similarly ask myself: "Is this the right system for the kind of stories I'd like us to tell?" And if the kind of stories I'd like to tell involve a lot of skirmish style combats, then D&D might just be the best choice!

He's completely correct, though, to dismiss most (if not all) computer rpgs as not being true rpgs. But it's a sad player who finds that WoW is a sufficient replacement for playing D&D. It's not even close.

 

[Umbran]

So at this point, Wick's writing is useless. The only value to be gained is if there's any nuggets of ideas to be recycled. Spotlight Balance is certainly valid consideration for game design. It may or may not depend on Game Balance, but at this point Wick isn't a credible source of insight on that.

Agreed. Wick basically went awry with a One True Way position. That doesn't mean he's completely bereft of insight, just that he tosses a goodly sized baby out with the bathwater.

 

[mattcolville]

John GM'ed my first game of CHILL. I had a blast, I told him so, and I looked forward to playing again next week.

"Well, I don't know how long this will last," he said with some chagrin.

"Oh, how come?"

He shrugged. "Because eventually you'll learn the rules."

That was over 10 years ago, lots changes. But it was a revealing moment into the way John thought then. For him, the game is those moments when the players are planning, telling the GM what they want to do, and the GM tells them "yes and," or "no, but. . ." and no one's had to roll any dice yet. Once people start rolling dice and using the rules, he cools on the whole thing.

 

[Janx]

John GM'ed my first game of CHILL. I had a blast, I told him so, and I looked forward to playing again next week.

"Well, I don't know how long this will last," he said with some chagrin.

"Oh, how come?"

He shrugged. "Because eventually you'll learn the rules."

That was over 10 years ago, lots changes. But it was a revealing moment into the way John thought then. For him, the game is those moments when the players are planning, telling the GM what they want to do, and the GM tells them "yes and," or "no, but. . ." and no one's had to roll any dice yet. Once people start rolling dice and using the rules, he cools on the whole thing.

That's an interesting insight.

I don't know if his attitude is indicative of a GM who likes the players not being burdened by the rules or not min-maxing the rules. Or if he's happy because he controls all the variables (rather than the rules) when the players don't know it.

Some GMs like keeping players ignorant of the rules and they handle everything. D&D 3E shifted a lot of that to the players knowing how things worked and resolving it themselves.

 

[Janx]

Yup.

Games called RPGs tend to have one or more (but most times not all) of these traits:
player controls just one character
the character performs a role on a team (Fighter, Tank, Wizard) with a specific skill set
the character advances in proficiency and the player makes choices about what skill areas to improve, at the expense of others
the character may be portrayed by the player as having a specific personality and behavior pattern (aka Role Playing)
...snip...

I just thought of another key criteria in relation to the opening title "Chess is not an RPG"
the player controls named individuals, presumably representing that individual

In Chess, the pieces are unnamed, known only by their function, not as individuals. In RPGs, you are usually playing as a specific person. Bob the Fighter. Not The Fighter.

So Super Mario Bros is more of an RPG than Chess is, given that you at least are playing as Mario.
However, since Mario does not advance or change, I'm not sure he matches any other criteria to qualify as an RPG.

But Legend of Zelda probably does qualify since Link is an individual, and I think he gets better (gear usually) over time, so when he reaches the end of the game, he is more powerful than he was at the start.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say there are certainly role playing elements in a CRPG. I played Baldur's Gate ages ago and the choices I made in game were based on the character I was playing - a paladin as it happens. And the game does change depending on those choices. Sure, it's limited role playing and nowhere near as broad as what you get in a TTRPG, but, I'm not sure you can simply dismiss CRPG's as no having any roleplaying. And, as CRPG's have advanced, that's a line that's become more and more blurred as time goes on. Mass Effect, Fallout or even Oregon Trail - you can role-play in a lot of CRPG's and have that role that you are playing affect the outcome of the game. Roleplaying can be important in a CRPG. Heck, swing left a bit from WOW to Eve Online and role-play can have a very large impact.

As far as the "balance doesn't matter" argument goes, I think the danger in that idea is that it glosses over a lot of poor game design. "Oh well, the DM can make this work" is never a good justification for pushing mechanics out the door that don't really work or, at the very least, could work better if better written.

 

[pemerton]

As far as the "balance doesn't matter" argument goes, I think the danger in that idea is that it glosses over a lot of poor game design. "Oh well, the DM can make this work" is never a good justification for pushing mechanics out the door that don't really work or, at the very least, could work better if better written.

I've got no disagreement with any of this!

 

[Umbran]

It's called that because it's about roleplaying, yes, but it's also a GAME.

Yes, but that's not very helpful, as "game" is broadly defined.

It includes things with well defined rules and set win conditions. (Chess)

It includes thins with well defined rules, but no clearly defined win conditions. (D&D, though sometimes the rules get a little fuzzy)

It includes running around like a maniac in a yard with your friends. (Yes, Calvinball is still a game)