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

Hussar said:

You keep focusing on the prep side. That's largely irrelevant. It really doesn't matter.

What matters is the scenario creation. You cannot play an RPG without creating a scenario. Full stop.

Click to expand...

DEAD WRONG.

Quite literally, some of the best campaigns start without a scenario.

Especially given the mechanics in AD&D, where dungeons can be created on the fly, and random encounter tables are provided. Or Traveller, where the players can generate the world at the start of play, and, as exemplified in AM 1, generate systems as needed.

The setting goal is implicit in the game, but is not a scenario.
D&D: find a dungeon and loot it.
Traveller: A bunch of out of work guys go and get into trouble, often of their own making.

There needs be no addition to render D&D playable, just follow the procedures fully and you'll get a somewhat enjoyable game with no narrative sense.

Hussar said:

IOW, the game is the shared fiction, not the rules. Without that creative element, you cannot have an RPG.

Click to expand...

True. You can't have most games without the set-up.

It's the act of creation that differentiates RPG's from other games.

Click to expand...

You've already been shown that other games have creation as part of their set-up as well. RPGs are not unique with creation as part of the set-up.

Unlike board games though, your decision, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], to incorporate the PC's marital status is entirely outside of the rules of the system. Additionally, your game cannot progress UNTIL you determine the marital status of that PC. You simply cannot play out the scenario - woo the widow - without determining whether or not the PC is married. And that determination is completely outside the mechanics of the game.

IOW, you cannot play your game until you add in fiction completely from the outside of the game. Things that the game in no way specifies nor even suggests or implies. And, until you add that in, play stops.

I cannot think of a single similar situation in a board game. Where you, the players, are required to write in additional material before you can play. This is different from wargames, because wargames tell you exactly what that warband will look like. You never, ever look outside of that wargame to determine anything in play.

The wedded relationship between the king and queen in chess is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's not referenced, nor does it in any way affect play. However, you were required to create shared fiction - was the PC married or not - before you could continue play.

In what way is this not creating material before play? Sure, it's not done too much before play, but, before play can resume, you had to figure this out. Just like in every other example you brought up. In order to play the game, you are forced to create shared fiction before play can progress. And it's that shared fiction, mediated by the rules of the system you are using, that you play out. Not the rules by themselves.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - what have you shown? What do I need to create, that in no way references the rules, to play Monopoly? Note, it's the fact that you MUST create in order to play an RPG that is the difference.

Hussar said:

Unlike board games though, your decision, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], to incorporate the PC's marital status is entirely outside of the rules of the system. Additionally, your game cannot progress UNTIL you determine the marital status of that PC. You simply cannot play out the scenario - woo the widow - without determining whether or not the PC is married. And that determination is completely outside the mechanics of the game.

IOW, you cannot play your game until you add in fiction completely from the outside of the game. Things that the game in no way specifies nor even suggests or implies. And, until you add that in, play stops.

I cannot think of a single similar situation in a board game. Where you, the players, are required to write in additional material before you can play. This is different from wargames, because wargames tell you exactly what that warband will look like. You never, ever look outside of that wargame to determine anything in play.

The wedded relationship between the king and queen in chess is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's not referenced, nor does it in any way affect play. However, you were required to create shared fiction - was the PC married or not - before you could continue play.

In what way is this not creating material before play? Sure, it's not done too much before play, but, before play can resume, you had to figure this out. Just like in every other example you brought up. In order to play the game, you are forced to create shared fiction before play can progress. And it's that shared fiction, mediated by the rules of the system you are using, that you play out. Not the rules by themselves.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - what have you shown? What do I need to create, that in no way references the rules, to play Monopoly? Note, it's the fact that you MUST create in order to play an RPG that is the difference.

Click to expand...

Randomly or intentionally placed terrain/board configurations. Tactical approaches to problems. What I choose to draw on the board in Pictionary. What words I make in Scrabble. What I choose to submit in Things. What definitions I invent in Balderdash.

Ceeation is all over non-rpg ganes, you're just ignoring it in favor of presenting chess as the only model. Thus frame of argument is called strongmanning -- only the best example for your argument is considered.

Ovinomancer said:

Randomly or intentionally placed terrain/board configurations. Tactical approaches to problems. What I choose to draw on the board in Pictionary. What words I make in Scrabble. What I choose to submit in Things. What definitions I invent in Balderdash.

Ceeation is all over non-rpg ganes, you're just ignoring it in favor of presenting chess as the only model. Thus frame of argument is called strongmanning -- only the best example for your argument is considered.

Click to expand...

But tactical approaches or random or intentional placing of terrain isn't creating anything that isn't part of that game. You don't add volcanoes or irradiated terrain to Catan. You could create those pieces, but, to play Catan, that's not required. What you choose to draw on the board in Pictionary isn't creating anything new for Pictionary. That's how you play the game. You can't, for example, start playing music as a clue. The only thing you can use in Pictionary is the board and the pen in your hand. Nothing outside the rules of the game is being added to the game.

I'm not strongmanning anything. None of your examples are examples of creating something completely outside the framework of the rules of that game. Nor, do any of those games REQUIRE you to create things completely outside the framework of the rules of that game in order to play.

Again, simply following the rules of a game is not creating anything outside of that game. In every single example from an RPG in this thread, shared fiction has been created that does not reference the rules or guidelines of that game in any way, shape or form, and, without the creation of those shared fiction elements, the game wouldn't be playable. Boardgames never require you to create things completely separate from the rules of that game.

Hussar said:

But tactical approaches or random or intentional placing of terrain isn't creating anything that isn't part of that game. You don't add volcanoes or irradiated terrain to Catan. You could create those pieces, but, to play Catan, that's not required. What you choose to draw on the board in Pictionary isn't creating anything new for Pictionary. That's how you play the game. You can't, for example, start playing music as a clue. The only thing you can use in Pictionary is the board and the pen in your hand. Nothing outside the rules of the game is being added to the game.

I'm not strongmanning anything. None of your examples are examples of creating something completely outside the framework of the rules of that game. Nor, do any of those games REQUIRE you to create things completely outside the framework of the rules of that game in order to play.

Again, simply following the rules of a game is not creating anything outside of that game. In every single example from an RPG in this thread, shared fiction has been created that does not reference the rules or guidelines of that game in any way, shape or form, and, without the creation of those shared fiction elements, the game wouldn't be playable. Boardgames never require you to create things completely separate from the rules of that game.

Click to expand...

You've fatally kneecapped your own argument, here. If what I choose to draw in Pictionary is part of the rules because the rules say, "draw," then how is creating fiction in RPGs not part of tge game when the rules say, "create fiction?"

Basic play for 5e is:
1. DM describes scene.
2. Players describe actions.
3. DM adjudicates actions
4. DM narrates results.
5. Goto 1.

This is pretty much the play loop for almost all RPGs with some modification. This is how the rulebooks tell you how to play. How, then, is doing this not playing within the rules like my drawing is in Pictionary?

Ovinomancer said:

You've fatally kneecapped your own argument, here. If what I choose to draw in Pictionary is part of the rules because the rules say, "draw," then how is creating fiction in RPGs not part of tge game when the rules say, "create fiction?"

Basic play for 5e is:
1. DM describes scene.
2. Players describe actions.
3. DM adjudicates actions
4. DM narrates results.
5. Goto 1.

This is pretty much the play loop for almost all RPGs with some modification. This is how the rulebooks tell you how to play. How, then, is doing this not playing within the rules like my drawing is in Pictionary?

Click to expand...

Because the rules of an RPG do not tell you what that scene is. Nor do they include any way to determine what that scene is. You are expected, as a player in an RPG, to create that shared fiction (whether alone in a trad RPG as the DM, or as a group in other RPG's.) and THAT SHARED FICTION is what you play out.

Here is the rules for Pictionary. What do you have to create to play Pictionary that is not contained in the rules in order to play? You open the box, follow the instructions and play. Done. Nothing, not a single thing, has to be created outside the framework of the rules. Your categories are pre-selected, the words that you have to draw are also pre-selected. For example, your Pictionary will not contain words not in the language selected. You don't need to create new words to play Pictionary. In fact, you CAN'T create new words and play Pictionary. Every single thing you need to play that game is self contained within the rules of that game.

That is NOT true of an RPG. Every example that's been brought up so far proves that. Whether it's determining the marital status of a PC, or determining what jobs are going to be offered to the PC's in Traveler. None of this is included in the rules of those games but every single time, those questions HAVE to be answered before play progresses.

The act of creating the shared fiction/scenario creates the game you are going to play and RPG's require the participants to create elements that are not in any way defined by the mechanics of the game in order to play. Thus, every single campaign, whether it's a one shot or a 10 year magnum opus is a unique game because the elements that you must create in order to play that campaign are idiosyncratic to that specific campaign, are required for that campaign and cannot be reproduced in any other campaign.

Hussar said:

Unlike board games though, your decision, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], to incorporate the PC's marital status is entirely outside of the rules of the system.

<snip>

you cannot play your game until you add in fiction completely from the outside of the game. Things that the game in no way specifies nor even suggests or implies.

Click to expand...

The rules of the system address it, but leave it open. Here is the relevant passage (p 49 of my copy, which is the Kickstarter printing; I don't know if it's the same pagination as the original version):


Because my player had decided - at the Description stage of PC generation, which is the fifth of nine steps set out in the relevant chapter of the book - that he was a middle-aged knight who has accomplished little; and another player had decided that his young knight with an (unplanned) almost identical set of skill choices was the son of the middle-aged knight; the issue of whether or not said PC had already won the hand of a "fair maiden" was put into play.

More generally: the rules of the game include make up fiction together, with a particular focus on these protagonists, and using these rules to help generate it and engage it. Making up some fiction about one of the protagonists is not outside the rules of the system: its the main thing the rules tell us to do! (I'll cheerfully concede that the Prince Valiant rulebook is strikingly clear on this point compared to many RPG rulebooks. That's why its widely regarded as one of the best RPG books ever written.)

Hussar said:

Additionally, your game cannot progress UNTIL you determine the marital status of that PC. You simply cannot play out the scenario - woo the widow - without determining whether or not the PC is married. And that determination is completely outside the mechanics of the game.

Click to expand...

I've already addressed the last sentence. And in an earlier post I've explained how things which must be decided in order to take further moves in playing a game may themselves be moves in the game.

But even the first sentence is not true. The player could have just ignored the whole thing, declined to make a decision about his PC's past, and the focus of play would have shifted. It's not like I've got no ideas to keep the session moving unless we sought out this marriage thing!

Hussar said:

The wedded relationship between the king and queen in chess is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter. It's not referenced, nor does it in any way affect play. However, you were required to create shared fiction - was the PC married or not - before you could continue play.

In what way is this not creating material before play? Sure, it's not done too much before play, but, before play can resume, you had to figure this out. Just like in every other example you brought up. In order to play the game, you are forced to create shared fiction before play can progress. And it's that shared fiction, mediated by the rules of the system you are using, that you play out. Not the rules by themselves.

Click to expand...

The session started around 2.30, I think, after the early arrivers had finished their boardgame and the late arrivers had arrived. With half-an-hour or so for the two new players to write up their PCs and some recap of the last session, I'd say that play proper started around 3 pm. The question of whether or not the knight PC was married or widowed came up around 5 pm. We didn't say - "OK, let's take a break from playing this game so we can do this bit of prep so we can keep going." I asked "Is Gerren married, or widowed?" The player and I and the player of his son discussed it for a few minutes and decided that it made sense that he was widowed, which led to him losing his wife's estate (consistent with the already-established lack of nobility of these two knights) and heading out, with his son, on his travels. None of that is preparing for anything. It's playing the game, establishing salient shared fiction.

It's not even in principle or notional preparation, because we literally could not have had that discussion prior to play, as we wouldn't have known all these things about these two knights which helped provide the context for constructing a suitable backstory.

The fundamental act in RPGing is establishing some shared fiction. Which is what we were doing. We were playing the game.

Hussar said:

I cannot think of a single similar situation in a board game. Where you, the players, are required to write in additional material before you can play.

Click to expand...

That's because the play of most boardgames doesn't involve creating fiction, and so it's not the case that creating fiction is a necessary component of playing them.

In a boardgame, if no one will move their piece then the game can't go on. That tells us that moving pieces is important to boardgames.

In a RPG, if no one will establish any fiction, nor engage any established fiction (which itself requires making up at least some modest fiction, such as "My guy looks through the window"), then the game can't happen. This tells us that shared fiction is important to RPGs. It doesn't tell us that RPGs are engines for creating games. They are engines for creating fictions, but in my preferred approach, those fictions are primarily outputs of play, not things created in advance of play.

Hussar said:

You are expected, as a player in an RPG, to create that shared fiction (whether alone in a trad RPG as the DM, or as a group in other RPG's.) and THAT SHARED FICTION is what you play out.

Click to expand...

This is why I say that you are describing only a limited sort of RPGing - namely, RPGing in which (i) someone creates some fiction, then (ii) the group plays it out. Adventure Paths are like this. Dragonlance modules are like this. So are all the Ravenloft ones I've looked at, and most of the 3E ones I'm familiar with.

In a very different way, classic D&D can be described like this as well, in the sense that (i) the GM draws a map and writes a description of its content, and (ii) a good part of play is the players making moves with their PCs that oblige the GM to tell them stuff about the map and the contents.

But that's not how the only approach to RPGing. It doesn't describe any RPGing I've done for about 20 years, and doesn't adequately describe any GMing I've done for close to 30 years. Even in the two AD&D one-shots I've run over the past 2 years (or thereabouts?) had the players trying to establish shared fiction in the course of the game in ways that went beyond working through, or learning the content of, a pre-authored fiction.

Hussar said:

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - what have you shown? What do I need to create, that in no way references the rules, to play Monopoly? Note, it's the fact that you MUST create in order to play an RPG that is the difference.

Click to expand...

How about instead of mentioning Monopoly, you respond to the other folks here who have pointed out games where you create? I mean, there have been a few wargames where you create scenarios. I'm pretty sure that you were like, "They use the rules to create." The thing is, suppose they were setting up a town scenario. The rules don't say reference movie theaters, gas stations, or any of the other building that are being created for the scenario. That's the same as your example of RPG rules not telling you about marriage. There were other kinds of games mentioned that have creation as well.