Wofano Wotanto
Hero
Tell that to Boot Hill.
David Wesely: The Man Who Accidentally Invented RPGs
If the players are playing a game as their characters (meaning they’re identifying with them and/or making decisions based on character concerns rather than game-optimality), then it sounds like they’re playing an RPG to me.
A lot of stuff that is taken for granted is a layer on top of that core. It can be fun to have (and I wouldn’t want to strip down my homebrew system further), but it’s not strictly required.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Weird. So any game with combat rules is a wargame instead of an RPG? That’s certainly a spicy take.
Celebrim
Legend
Agreed. One of the key innovations that made the modern RPG possible was reorienting the perspective of a war game from being about commanding multiple troops on the battlefield to being that one character and identifying with that character. Fantasy wargames lent themselves naturally to this transition because in a fantasy you can be "the hero" and thus capable as a single figure of sustaining action. The hit point was a key innovation that made playing a single figure rather than a collection of figures interesting.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Others have argued that it is combat resolution mechanics that make a modern RPG. I'd dispute that as there are a number of skirmish level wargames that allow named characters with custom stats, objective hunts and combat mechanics - that doesn't make them RPGs.
The Brontes as referenced above had 12 toy soldiers which they named, put in an imaginary world and built stories around. Many of the stories involved social encounters and romantic tryst (there's even a theory that Wuthering Heights was a polished version of one such tale) - they were role-playing.
For me it is the non-combat social and exploration aspects that make a game an RPG rather than a wargame
Celebrim
Legend
Is anyone making that argument?
I don't think the particular content or conflicts have anything to do with whether something is an RPG or not. The Brontes may have been roleplaying but they didn't have a roleplaying game. Stories were probably determined based on whim, consensus agreement and some sort of social hierarchy. There is no evidence they had a fortune mechanic. And while fortune mechanics come to us from wargames and so are associated with combat, that doesn't make them "combat mechanics".
Last edited:
I think the important part is that the players adopt the persona of their characters, and that is the intended (or at least commonly practiced) mode of play. I’m generally willing to use a broader definition so that unusual games are not excluded unnecessarily.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
That’s the trick though, isn’t it. It’s not just role-playing. It’s not just a game. It’s both role-playing and a game.
Willie the Duck
Hero
Re: Wesely, the Brontes, Free Kriegsspiel, every child since forever -- We do this every time we discuss the pre-LBB era. And kind of like Gary vs. Dave, it always seems like there's a tension about who gets the right amount of credit. In this case whether someone gets to much or too little credit.
Sorry for not bringing the receipts, but isn't there a quote from Gary about what they TSR was doing was convincing their audience to let them (TSR) sell them (the audience) their own imaginations back to them for $10 a pop? On some level, all of roleplaying and RPGs is just a formalization of play patterns everyone has been doing since forever. Everyone is aware of this.
Likewise, there's this thing called RPGs (now TTRPGs) that is a distinct (or indistinct, at the point we are discussing) thing -- as a cultural (pastime) movement/entity, if nothing else. That movement started with Dave and Gary publishing D&D as the simplistic answer, and a non-simplistic answer of 'it's complicated.' It had influences and quasi-forms and movers and shakers and early influencers and Wesely is undeniably one of those. His place in the games' history is beyond reproach. I think we all are aware of this, but certainly not all modern participants in the pastime are. For that reason, I'm glad to see vids like the on in the OP.
It's like Frisbee/disc -- people have been tossing around discs since ancient times, lightweight lids since they became a thing, and Frisbees since 1937. That doesn't change that Ultimate is a distinct thing with specifics and history and notable individuals.
Sorry for not bringing the receipts, but isn't there a quote from Gary about what they TSR was doing was convincing their audience to let them (TSR) sell them (the audience) their own imaginations back to them for $10 a pop? On some level, all of roleplaying and RPGs is just a formalization of play patterns everyone has been doing since forever. Everyone is aware of this.
Likewise, there's this thing called RPGs (now TTRPGs) that is a distinct (or indistinct, at the point we are discussing) thing -- as a cultural (pastime) movement/entity, if nothing else. That movement started with Dave and Gary publishing D&D as the simplistic answer, and a non-simplistic answer of 'it's complicated.' It had influences and quasi-forms and movers and shakers and early influencers and Wesely is undeniably one of those. His place in the games' history is beyond reproach. I think we all are aware of this, but certainly not all modern participants in the pastime are. For that reason, I'm glad to see vids like the on in the OP.
It's like Frisbee/disc -- people have been tossing around discs since ancient times, lightweight lids since they became a thing, and Frisbees since 1937. That doesn't change that Ultimate is a distinct thing with specifics and history and notable individuals.
Is this a reply to me or someone else? I feel like there’s some connective tissue in the discussion I’m missing.
Similar Threads
