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

[Jhaelen]

Well, I can't build sandcastles with a RPG; whereas I can with a sandbox. (With at least some RPGs I can pretend to build a sandcastle, but that's not the same as actually building one.)

Even if we confine ourselves to storytelling; and even if we build in further assumptions that the story is going to be created not by the players just sitting around telling stories but via the mediation of some process wherein one player establishes an initial situation, and other players bring distinct characters into that situation; and then some process is used to work out how the situation changes from those characters engaging with it; it's still not true that any RPG let's you tell any story that you like.

For instance, no version of D&D that I'm aware of lets me tell the story of Jack the Giant-killer (I believe I'm recalling the Blue Fairy Book version): the events of that story aren't able to be generated by D&D combat rules, XP rules or treasure rules.

??? wt...?
Could someone please warn pemerton that his ENWorld account has been hacked? Someone is impersonating him, spouting nonsense!

I'm not even sure where to start. I guess, for the sake of my health and sanity, I'll just ignore I've ever seen this post.

 

[Tonguez]

It seems your limitation is in grouping RPGs with other 'tabletop games' specifically Boardgames and Card Games which are very much hard bounded games with mechanical rules for how the game materials can be manipulated.

But lets take a game like Charades . In charades there are set guidelines and even standardised aspects to help speed play. However the exact content of the game and the possible range of styles is entirely over to the creativity of the player.

RPGs may thus best be understood as a table focussed creative drama game like Charades or Human Props or similar games of pantomimes

 

[Hussar]

Maybe there's a better analogy?

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.

 

[pemerton]

you're not really playing "D&D" when you play a module. You are playing Tomb of Horrors or Storm King's Thunder.

That's a fairly bizarre claim. Module publishers advertise them as material to help play D&D. Peope playing them describe themselves as playing D&D. They roll dice like the D&D rules tell them to, move pieces (literal or notional) around maps in accordance with the D&D rules for doing so, etc.

Until someone actually uses the guidelines of the RPG to create that adventure, there's nothing to really do with an RPG.

This isn't true either. When I wanted to play Classic Traveller with my friends, we sat down and started playing: PC gen; world gen; patron gen; GO! (Further details here.)

They're playing Against the Giants. They're playing whatever campaign they happen to be playing.

We use RPG's to create the campaigns which is essentially the game that we play, whether it's some massive dungeon crawl or some high rp court intrigue game. Or combinations thereof. And the campaign that I play is distinct from the campaign you play. Unless we're using the same module, it's virtually impossible for two campaigns to share any points of similarity.

Doesn't that mean, at that point, we're essentially playing different games?

I mostly agree with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] and [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] on this.

Was I playing chess, or the Sicilian defence? Presumably both. Was I playing D&D, or Against the Giants? Presumably both.

Maybe there's a better analogy?

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.

Does what you say apply to My Life with Master? DitV? Even The Dying Earth?

And even for RPGs that have "the campaign", how is that different - in a structural sense - from dealing a hand? Or agreeing at a casual bridge table what the practice is to be with regard to bidding conventions and signalling?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess I'm trying to equate campaign to game. You play the campaign - whether it's a single one shot adventure, or a ten year long epic. While playing that campaign, you don't play other campaigns (at least not with the same characters typically).

You see it in the language that people use. They're playing Against the Giants. They're playing whatever campaign they happen to be playing.

We use RPG's to create the campaigns which is essentially the game that we play, whether it's some massive dungeon crawl or some high rp court intrigue game. Or combinations thereof. And the campaign that I play is distinct from the campaign you play. Unless we're using the same module, it's virtually impossible for two campaigns to share any points of similarity.

Doesn't that mean, at that point, we're essentially playing different games?

That argument doesn’t add up. When I go to watch Star Wars at the theater, that doesn’t suddenly make it not a movie or film. The specific film I am watching is Star Wars. Or just look at sports. Boxing is a sport. But if you say you are going to see Ali-Frazier, that doesn't mean boxing isn't a sport, but Ali-Frazier somehow is a sport.

I think you are also only focusing on how the language sometimes gets used. Yes people will say 'we are playing Agains the Giants tonight". But those same people could just as easily say we are playing D&D tonight. In fact, I think that is what I hear more often, rather than the module or campaign. But it does depend.

With D&D the core concept is you need a place for the game to take place. It is described in the rules. When you make a dungeon to play D&D, the game you are playing is D&D. And if you swap out rules for GURPs, the game you are playing is GURPS. And in both cases you still playing a role playing game. And that is definitely still a type of game.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I can play Against the Giants using any edition of D&D rules, Pathfinder rules, Savage World, 13th Age, or any other rules set I convert. Am I playing Against the Giants, D&D, a role-playing game, or something else? Maybe it's all of the above.

 

[Caliburn101]

I heard you out, but I don't think you got anywhere.

Can you play poker if nobody deals out the cards? No. Can you play Sentinels of the Multiverse if you don't pick heroes and a villain and an environment? No.

To play any game, you still must set up an instance of that game. You need to put the pieces on the chessboard, you need to give everyone their starting Monopoly money and sort out the deeds and put the top hat on Go. For most games, setting up the instance is incredibly simple compared to D&D. For most games, setting up the instance has far fewer choices for those involved than in D&D. But creation of the instance is still there.

Actually, both of you are half right.

RPGs are an OS and a game, and require considerably more input that the rules set itself, without being playable without game-rules application.

Perspective is an unusually strong bias-creator in this particular case.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Perspective is an unusually strong bias-creator in this particular case.

I think operating system is more of a metaphor though, and game is more of what D&D actually is (it is literally categorized as such and recognized as such by most people).

I have to say, I find this argument fairly absurd (not your specific argument, but the general argument that D&D isn't a game).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it’s all a matter of semantics and how people choose to categorize things.

I mean, there are many versions of poker. One group of players could be playing Texas Hold Em, another could be playing Five Card Stud. We’d obviously say they’re playing different games, but both games are still Poker. That variation from one game to the other doesn’t mean that Poker is not a game.

I don’t think most games have a universal experience that players will have. Perhaps the simplest of games, but anything beyond those will have a wide array of experiences. Any game of Monopoly may be similar to another, but there will still be aspects that are unique to any individual game (in one game, Bob owned Boardwalk and won, in another Mike owned Boardwalk and lost).

I can run Against the Giants for multiple groups, or for the same group multiple times, and it’s the “same campaign”, but will likely have significant variations from one game to the next.

So I don’t think that RPGs are not games. 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.

 

[cmad1977]

Eh. Nah.