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

[Lanefan]

Metagame mecahnics frequenty take the fictional circumstances of a player's PC into account as an element of action resolution. It's true that they sometimes don't correlate to things done by those fictional characters, but often they do - eg most people think that Come and Get It is a metagame mechanic, and it clearly correlates to something done by the PC in the fiction. Likewise Second Wind and Action Surge - the topic of a recent thread - clearly correlate to something done by the PC in the fiction.

Well, only if one uses a really heavy-duty shoehorn, and kinda looks away when it still doesn't quite fit...

 

[pemerton]

If I was going to explain RPGing to someone who was familiar with other games but not RPGs, I'd probably start by describing the piece and the way one makes moves or makes plays with it.

BUt in any event, the topic is about defining RPGs, not about explaining them to beginners. It's often the case that the definition of something isn't easily accessible to someone whose never thought about that thing before. Being able to manage that issue is one part of the skill of technical teaching.

 

[Lanefan]

If I was going to explain RPGing to someone who was familiar with other games but not RPGs, I'd probably start by describing the piece and the way one makes moves or makes plays with it.

Which is the complete opposite to how I'd do it, and how it was first explained to me.

I'd explain it more like you're playing a part, kind of like on stage except without all the blocking and movement bits, but with the character you're playing being something defined by a combination of you and the dice rather than taken from a script. Then give examples of some well-known fantasy characters (e.g. any from the LotR movies) saying "you can be this person, or someone else as similar or different as you like within that type of setting, only your thoughts and 'lines' aren't bound by any script or novel but instead only by what you can make up based on your character's surroundings."

Then when-if asked about where the surroundings come from I'd move into explaining the role of the DM, the game rules, and so forth; because at that point I know there's interest. And somewhere in there I'd call it a game...

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

Hm. An interesting, and I think relevant, insight from Mike Mearls on Twitter:

"...RPGs are distinct in tabletop gaming (and maybe in all of gaming) for being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, rules sets, and a lot of bad/misguided design comes from forgetting that."

That may be the distinction the OP was trying to get at.

 

[pemerton]

Hm. An interesting, and I think relevant, insight from Mike Mearls on Twitter:

"...RPGs are distinct in tabletop gaming (and maybe in all of gaming) for being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, rules sets, and a lot of bad/misguided design comes from forgetting that."

That may be the distinction the OP was trying to get at.

I don't really get what Mearls is getting at.

For instance, the rule in D&D that says an attack is resolved by rolling a d20 and comparing it to the AC that has been assigned to the target monster/creature doesn't look like it's a decription of anything. And it looks as prescriptive as any other game rule.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really get what Mearls is getting at.

For instance, the rule in D&D that says an attack is resolved by rolling a d20 and comparing it to the AC that has been assigned to the target monster/creature doesn't look like it's a decription of anything. And it looks as prescriptive as any other game rule.

The combat rules are not the game. The game as a whole just describes ways to set up the world and run things, it doesn't force a way on the DM and players. They include optional rules and often let it be known that the rules are just guidelines. That's not prescriptive at all.

 

[Sadras]

Of late when I attempt to describe roleplaying to someone new, I skip past trying to derive a comprehensive definition and jump straight into the game, providing a scenario whereby their character/player is forced through the quick narrative to make a choice in an uncertain environment....from there it is easy to explain the rest (collaborative game, mechanics, DM).

EDIT: I find this method works well to encourage real interest in the game at the start and is much easier understood from the quick immersive experience than via a word salad.

 

[Hussar]

While meta-game mechanics may frequently try to tie into the in game fiction, there is no actual requirement to do so. There's no in-game reason why second wind works. It just does.

Or, to use another example, what in game fiction am I engaging with when using the life path character generation method of Traveller?
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] - interesting link. I could definitely see your point.

 

[pemerton]

The combat rules are not the game.

They're part of the game. And prescriptive.

So are the rules for building PCs (determine these six stats; choose race; choose class; calculate various bonuses; etc).

So are the rules for resolving ability/skill checks and saving throws.

The game as a whole just describes ways to set up the world and run things, it doesn't force a way on the DM and players. They include optional rules and often let it be known that the rules are just guidelines.

Optional rules aren't thereby non-prescriptive. If you opt to use the optional flanking rules, then those rules prescribe a certain circumstance in which advantage is gained - and advantage is itself a prescriptive rule (roll two dice, keep the best). Neither the flanking rule nor the advantage rule describes anything.

I could say that the rules of chess "just describes ways to set up the pieces and move then" - but that wouldn't show the rules of chess are not prescriptive.

I think there's an argument that the notion of descriptive rule set is incoherent - that the whole idea of a rule is to prescribe a norm or mode of conduct. But without going that far, the rules of RPGs are clearly prescriptive in all sorts of ways.

Gygax's PHB, p 7:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. . . . You act out the game as this character . . . You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! . . . [O]ne player must serve as the Dungeon Master, the shpaer of the fantasy milieu, the "world" in which all actions will take place. The other participants become adventuerers by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face all of its challenges . . . By successfully meeting the challenges posed, they gain experience and move upwards in power . . .​

From the 5e Basic PDF, p 2:

In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). . . . One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. . . . Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities. This increase in power is reflected by an adventurer’s level.​

These are instructions on how to play the game: "You become . . .", "You act out . . .", "You interact . . . not as . . . but as. . .", "one player must serve as . . .", "By successfully meeting posed, they gain . . .", "each player creates . . . and teams up with . . .", "One player . . . takes on the role of . . .", "The DM creates . . .", "This increase in power is reflected . . ." - these are all prescriptions.

 

[pemerton]

While meta-game mechanics may frequently try to tie into the in game fiction, there is no actual requirement to do so. There's no in-game reason why second wind works. It just does.

Or, to use another example, what in game fiction am I engaging with when using the life path character generation method of Traveller?

I said that, in a RPG,

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.​

Second wind correlates to a direct event in the fiction - the character gets his/her second wind. And it takes fictional circumstances as an input: the character is not at full strength.

Character generation in Travller correlates to events in the fiction - the character joining a service or taking up a profession, progressing through the ranks, etc. But it doesn't engage with an existing shared fiction. That's why I would characterise it as part of set-up rather than play in the strictest sense.

I don't really understand why you're pushing this line about metagame mechanics. As I said upthread, the characterisation of RPGs that I offered draws on what I've read from designers like Vincent Baker, Robin Laws, Luke Crane and Ron Edwards. They're not strangers to metagame mechanics.