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

[pemerton]

Sigh.

Three times. Three times now I've stated that RPG's are games. This would be number four.

RPG's are games. THEY ARE GAMES. THEY ARE GAMES. THEY ARE GAMES.

Ok, happy now? Can we please move on and stop banging on about something I've repeatedly stated now?

Fair enough. But then I've lost track of your point.

Yes, the start conditions for a game of Traveller are different for those of a hand of poker. But both are different from the start conditions for charades (to stick to games that might be thought of, at least broadly, as "parlour games") or for football or some othr sporting or athletic game.

In this game of chess, so-and-so uses the Sicilian defence. In this other game of chess, played by amateurs like me, the moves are pretty mediocre reflecting maybe some vague sense that the central pawns matter and opening is a useufl thing. Within a couple of moves those two games have different conditions and parameters for play, and will unfold pretty differently.

The same thing will be true if my group plays KotB and your group does - that's how tournament competition is feasible.

Conversely, if my group plays KotB and (say) G1, the moves we make might be quite similar if we're a robust, consistent team.

I don't see that the theory of individuation and differentiation of games is robust enough to answer the question of where the boundary between two games lies, and what the point is of trying to mark out that boundary. I do know that I can turn up at many D&D tables and basically join in, understanding what is going on and playing along, and at many of those tables it won't take me long to work out what the shared expectations and practices are.

So I'm not sure what you think is at issue. Upthread I posted what I thought was a reasonable description of RPGs as a category of game, that distinguishes them both from shared storytelling games and from wargames/boardgames, but you didn't seem interested.

 

[Aldarc]

How about we take a different tact to approaching Hussar's inquiry rather than trying to put Hussar in the hotseat?

Are TTRPGs games? If so, what distinguishes Tabletop Roleplaying Games from non-TTRPGs?
This question takes the "games" in "tabletop roleplaying games" not necessarily as a given, but as part of its moniker. Much as we may recognize that a 'ladybird' is not a 'bird' just because it has 'bird' in its name.

 

[pemerton]

Are TTRPGs games? If so, what distinguishes Tabletop Roleplaying Games from non-TTRPGs?

What differentiates RPGs from other games?

Each player (except, perhaps, for one special player, if the RPG has a GM in the traditional sense) has, as his/her "piece", a character who is understood to be a component of a shared fiction - all the participants in the game, as part of playing the game, imagine a world in which these characters are inhabitants. A player's moves consist in declaring actions for this character, which aren't just moves in the traditional boardgame sense, but are also understood as intentions to change the fiction that this character is part of.

Another, distinct set of "moves" consists in establishing the rst of the shared fiction beyond these characers and their players' action declarations. In most RPGs on the traditional model, the GM does this.

The rules of the game (which may include various sorts of "mechanics", but may also confer direct authority on one participant to sauy what the shared fiction shall be) are used to help determine the outcomes of these moves. The rules take as input, and generate as output, not just mechanically-defined states of the game (as is the case for a boardgame, or most wargames) but also states fo the shared fiction.

There are probably games that count as RPGs that I haven't quite captured with the above. I think it's hard if not impossible to get more specific than the above without beginning to characterise some particular RPG(s) rather than RPGs in general (just as a definitin of card game that went much beyond shuffling and dealing in the specified pattern, and then making permitted moves in relation to changing the pattern of cards - eg to include that there is an auction or that each round of play involves a trick - would be too specific to define card games in general, as opposed to say variants of whist).

That there are players with pieces who make moves is, I think, sufficient (even if not necessary) to make a RPG a game. This also helps distinguish a RPG from simply shared storytelling.

That the pieces and the moves relate to, and are contributions to generating, a shared fiction is what helps distinguish RPGs from boardgames and wargames that otherwise have some pretty close resemblances to much RPGing.

 

[Lanefan]

But, that's the point. It doesn't change what game you are playing to have X or Y number of chips. You are still playing THAT version of poker regardless. However, as you say, the rules of each version are different, thus a different actual game.

But is it, though. See below...

To put it another way, it doesn't matter if I have a big stack of chips or I'm down to the scrapings of the bottom of the barrel, I'm still playing 5 Card Draw. Granted, how I play will likely change, but, that doesn't change the game.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], Lanefan, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] sit down at a table to play some poker. (and, probably, argue the night away )

Each starts with 100 chips. Ante is 2 per deal.

First deal - 5-card stud. Hussar does OK, Lanefan does poorly, pemerton and Aldarc just lose their ante.

Hussar 126, Lanefan 78, pemerton 98, Aldarc 98

Second deal - texas hold'em - Hussar again does quite well, with the main victim this time being pemerton as Lanefan folds after the turn. Aldarc again just loses ante.

Hussar 162, Lanefan 66, pemerton 76, Aldarc 96

Third deal - 2's and jokers wild - this time Aldarc rises and clobbers Hussar, while Lanefan and pemerton stay out of the way.

Hussar 130, Lanefan 64, pemerton 74, Aldarc 132

And so it goes, on into the night as the table-talk RPG arguments rage on.

Now, while the rules are changing with each deal, does the chip-count continuity from deal to deal mean we're playing the same game of poker through the evening? Or is "game" defined by the ruleset thus meaning we're playing a different game with each deal, and if true what term can be applied to the overall evening's play as defined by the chip count...does poker have "campaigns"?

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

Now, while the rules are changing with each deal, does the chip-count continuity from deal to deal mean we're playing the same game of poker through the evening? Or is "game" defined by the ruleset thus meaning we're playing a different game with each deal, and if true what term can be applied to the overall evening's play as defined by the chip count...does poker have "campaigns"?

Well, some games (several card games, tennis, and others) have levels of game that you play. In tennis, you have game, set, and match, for example.

There's also the idea that you can be playing more than one game at once - so, you may be playing a tactical game that interacts with a strategic game.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, some games (several card games, tennis, and others) have levels of game that you play. In tennis, you have game, set, and match, for example.

Yes, which is a very confusing use of terminology in that you have to win a pile of games (games) to in fact win the game (match).

Far more intuitive had the originators of these terms reversed their usage of "game" and "match".

There's also the idea that you can be playing more than one game at once - so, you may be playing a tactical game that interacts with a strategic game.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Now, while the rules are changing with each deal, does the chip-count continuity from deal to deal mean we're playing the same game of poker through the evening? Or is "game" defined by the ruleset thus meaning we're playing a different game with each deal, and if true what term can be applied to the overall evening's play as defined by the chip count...does poker have "campaigns"?

Lanefan

I would say no. You are playing a different game of poker with each deal. Over the course of the night, we've played many, many games. Each game is distinct from the others - the rules of game 1 and the results of game 1 don't really have any impact on the choice of game 2. It's not like I'm saying, "Well, I've got lots of chips, so I'll pick this game over that game". The choice of game is largely based on preference.

So, no, there are no "campaigns". What you have are dozens of sequentially played games.

 

[Hussar]

That there are players with pieces who make moves is, I think, sufficient (even if not necessary) to make a RPG a game. This also helps distinguish a RPG from simply shared storytelling.

That the pieces and the moves relate to, and are contributions to generating, a shared fiction is what helps distinguish RPGs from boardgames and wargames that otherwise have some pretty close resemblances to much RPGing.

Ok, since you've admitted to losing the point here, let me reiterate.

RPG's are a game where the rules of the RPG allow the user to create new games. This distinguishes them from other games where the rules of the game do not allow you, the user, to create new games. IOW, RPG's are both games and game creation engines.

I honestly don't care about distinguishing RPG's from shared storytelling. That's not the point here. The point here is to distinguish RPG's from other games. Why is Traveller an RPG while Risk is not? To me, it's all about the fact that Traveller is used to create a campaign, ie. game, that the players play through, while Risk, or Catan or Poker is only used to play Risk, Catan or Poker.

Creating a planet in Traveler isn't the campaign is it? You don't just wander around the randomly generated planet admiring the scenery. The campaign lies in the aliens or pirates or whatever scenario the game master has created in order to play the game.

 

[pemerton]

RPG's are a game where the rules of the RPG allow the user to create new games. This distinguishes them from other games where the rules of the game do not allow you, the user, to create new games. IOW, RPG's are both games and game creation engines.

By this measure, my daughter's Monopoly set is a "game creation engine" because it has an optional rule ("speed dice").

I don't undestand on what basis you are saying X is a different game from Y, and why you think it matters to draw this distinciton in the way you're drawing it.

I honestly don't care about distinguishing RPG's from shared storytelling. That's not the point here. The point here is to distinguish RPG's from other games. Why is Traveller an RPG while Risk is not?

Well, I've posted an answer to this two or three times already in the thread. It's not an answer I made up myself but is influenced by (what I regard as) the best writing on this topic - Robin Laws, Vincent Baker, Ron Edwards, Gary Gygax.

I'll try and dot point it:

* An RPG involves establishing and progressively authoring a shared fiction.

* Most of the participants have game pieces which correlate to particular characters in that shared fiction.

* Those players' moves typically correlate, in some fashion, to things done by those fictional characters and take the fictional circumstances of those characters as an input into resolution.

* Unlike in a shared storytelling game, the authorship of the fiction, especially around the playing pieces, is circumscribed by mechanics.

* Unlike in a boardgame/wargame, players' moves are permitted to directly engage the fiction.​

Given that none of those points is true of Risk (unless you think of the play of Risk as creating a shared fiction - I don't play Risk that way, but I guess others might), it's clear that Risk is not a RPG.

Given that all those points are true of Traveller, it's clear that Traveller is a RPG.

There is some RPGing - eg Gygax-type dungeoneering - where a further point is important - key elements of the fiction, like location of the playing pieces, is represented on a physical "board" taking the form of a map - but that's not true of RPGing in general. Likewise different RPGs take very different approaches to who authors relevant parts of the shared fiction, and when they do this in relation to the players' declaration of moves for their pieces, but you can't further specify that stuff in a general definition of RPGs.

I'm sure there are borderline cases, especially in the area of avant-garde game design, that violate my dot points, but nevertheless I think my dot points go most of the way to identifying what makes a game a RPG.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, which is a very confusing use of terminology in that you have to win a pile of games (games) to in fact win the game (match).

Except, of course, that this use is some centuries old. It is perhaps we who have lost track of the terminology, so that now it feels awkward.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?

Let me try to use poker as an example. In the archetypal poker match, you play a number of hands, until one or more players withdraw, or run out of funds. So, there's a tactical game in each hand, and there's a strategic game that spans hands. The iconic example of this is the card sharp, who pretends to be bad for several hands, lulling their opponents into a false sense of security - their play becomes lax, and the sharp may then swoop in with dramatic successes that aren't expected.