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

[aramis erak]

...now, I was going to say that you can't play, say, Traveler with D&D rules, but there /are/ RPGs with which you could fairly accurately play other RPGs, by not only modeling all the same characters, challenges, and setting info, but also while aping the other game's system artifacts...
...it's a tad hilarious to do, actually.

My name appears in the credits for d20 Traveller rules... T20 Traveller's Handbook.

It's got some quirks, like it was playtested with half the XP rate given... so high-level play is not as well balanced as it should be.

The game engine can be thought of as a system architecture, yes... but it's much more profound an impact than playing, say, Lego Star Wars on Playstation2 vs Game Cube vs Wii vs X-box.

Still, lots of people talk about, "Lets go play some X-Box" without stating which software they're going to be playing.

 

[Hussar]

Suit yourself. I think it's kinda hokey, though, to make a claim like the game rules and game play are two different games, and then take off when you are challenged on it.

And, if I actually said that, you'd have a point. Meh, I'm taking a break from marking exams, so, let's run at this wall one more time and see if it gets through. Doubtful, but, hope springs eternal.

-------------

RPG's are games. Yes, of course they are. Let's get that out of the way right at the outset and, as I said before, that was a very bad idea on my part to drop click bait in the thread title. Mea Culpa.

However, what distinguishes RPG's from other games is that the rules of an RPG are unplayable as is. Unlike virtually any other game out there, be it a card game, or a board game or a sport, you flat out cannot actually play an RPG straight from the books. RPG's require that intermediate step of scenario creation. There are three levels - RPG rules ---> scenario ----> actually playing the game. In virtually every other game out there there are only two steps - game rules ----> actually playing the game.

RPG's are essentially both games and operating systems for those games. You can read your RPG rules until the ink bleeds out of the paper, but, until such time as someone creates a scenario, you can't actually play the game.

Take the introduction to Moldvay Basic page B3

It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins...

Later on, it expands the role of the DM:

Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map or become familiar wit hone of TSR's dungeon modules...

Now, it goes on to give some pretty good step by step instructions on how to construct a scenario. But, at no point does it tell you what a scenario is or should be. And later we have:

The success of an adventure depends on the DM and his or her creation, the dungeon.

Even back then, the three levels of an RPG were pretty clearly outlined. You don't pick up any other game and then use that game to create a specific game for you and your friends to play. Non-RPG's are (rarely) game creation engines. You play THAT GAME. Sure, the game might have variations or variable set-ups or whatnot, but, while you can create different scenarios for, say, Catan, the differences between one scenario and another are mostly cosmetic.

Again, you don't use the rules of Poker to play anything other than Poker. But, you can use the rules of an RPG to play virtually any scenario you can dream up. Sure, some rulesets lend themselves better to certain types of scenarios, fine. But, that doesn't mean that you can't do Game of Thrones and Ravenloft and The Great Train Robbery using a single RPG ruleset. Board games quite simply do not have that intermediate step that all RPG's do - creation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

However, what distinguishes RPG's from other games is that the rules of an RPG are unplayable as is. Unlike virtually any other game out there, be it a card game, or a board game or a sport, you flat out cannot actually play an RPG straight from the books. RPG's require that intermediate step of scenario creation..

But people have been responding to this very clearly: Scenario design is part of the game. Any complete RPG book (and many are incomplete on this front because they know their audience already understands the ins-and-outs of scenario design, include not just guidelines on scenario design, but tables, mechanics, procedures, etc. You can literally run a dungeon crawl out of the box using nothing but random tables in the DMG and random monsters from the monster manual (so additional steps on your part required, not books beyond the core books, etc). It is part of the game. And it is worth pointing out, many board games require this kind of thing as well. I mentioned board games with random hex placement for instance. But there are also games like Battle Cry that require you set up the board each time for a specific historical battle. Well, that is a scenario. Even games like Candyland or Monopoly, have a 'scenario'. It just comes with the game, and there is only one. But you can still abstract the mechanics and the 'game' from the scenario if you are determined to separate those two things.

 

[Maxperson]

And, if I actually said that, you'd have a point. Meh, I'm taking a break from marking exams, so, let's run at this wall one more time and see if it gets through. Doubtful, but, hope springs eternal.

-------------

RPG's are games. Yes, of course they are. Let's get that out of the way right at the outset and, as I said before, that was a very bad idea on my part to drop click bait in the thread title. Mea Culpa.

However, what distinguishes RPG's from other games is that the rules of an RPG are unplayable as is. Unlike virtually any other game out there, be it a card game, or a board game or a sport, you flat out cannot actually play an RPG straight from the books. RPG's require that intermediate step of scenario creation. There are three levels - RPG rules ---> scenario ----> actually playing the game. In virtually every other game out there there are only two steps - game rules ----> actually playing the game.

I can't think of virtually any games like you describe. Almost without exception, games including RPGs use three levels. Rules --->game setup ---> play the game. RPGs, chess, checkers, Candyland, Chutes and Ladders, Monopoly, and so on. They all have the game setup stage. Hell, you can't even play Tic Tac Toe with just the rules. You have to take a second or two to draw the 4 lines as part of game setup. RPGs just have one that is longer than most.

Take the introduction to Moldvay Basic page B3

Later on, it expands the role of the DM:

Now, it goes on to give some pretty good step by step instructions on how to construct a scenario. But, at no point does it tell you what a scenario is or should be. And later we have:

Even back then, the three levels of an RPG were pretty clearly outlined.

I should hope so. If the rules don't clearly tell you how to set up the game before you start playing, it's badly designed.

You don't pick up any other game and then use that game to create a specific game for you and your friends to play. Non-RPG's are (rarely) game creation engines. You play THAT GAME. Sure, the game might have variations or variable set-ups or whatnot, but, while you can create different scenarios for, say, Catan, the differences between one scenario and another are mostly cosmetic.

As I said above, the difference is only that an RPG has a longer setup than the other games. That's it.

There are lots of board games where you will rarely, if ever, play the same game twice. Board game play doesn't involve the variety of different moves that players in an RPG can make, though. However, the three levels are the same for virtually all games.

Again, you don't use the rules of Poker to play anything other than Poker.

But you are are required to get out a pack of cards, shuffle them, and allow someone else to cut the deck as part of the second level. THEN you can play the game.

But, you can use the rules of an RPG to play virtually any scenario you can dream up. Sure, some rulesets lend themselves better to certain types of scenarios, fine. But, that doesn't mean that you can't do Game of Thrones and Ravenloft and The Great Train Robbery using a single RPG ruleset. Board games quite simply do not have that intermediate step that all RPG's do - creation.

If by do not have, you mean have, then you are correct. RPGs just have one that is longer to enact and has more variety.

 

[Aenghus]

I prefer RPGs that are games, that have sufficient mechanics provided with them to allow a complete game without being forced to go outside the box. Accordingly I disagree with your premise.

While it's true in many cases that a scenario needs to be acquired or created to run the game, in most RPGs that's the responsibility of one person, and one that's mostly or entirely voluntary.

Precisely because RPGs tend to have so many moving parts, it's very difficult to meaningfully discuss them without pinning down most of those moving parts, and have a clear scenario or example to talk about.

 

[Umbran]

In virtually every other game out there there are only two steps - game rules ----> actually playing the game.

I will say, again, that this is not really true. Here's a case in point - among the most iconic of games in the modern age. I put forth that if your point does not hold for this game, it does not really hold, in general... I give you THE RULES TO MONOPOLY.

Can you play the game, given *just* those rules? With *only* what is in that pdf?

No. I will grant that the playing pieces, buildings and money are trivial, because they are effectively only game-state markers. However, there are things not in the rules that contain game information: You need a board. You need Chance and Community Chest cards. You need deeds. The content of these items is not stipulated in the rules, but greatly impact game play.

In Monopoly, the cards, deeds, and board all amount to the scenario. With most games, you buy the scenario with the rules. But the scenario is still separate from the rules.

RPGs allow you to create your own scenario with far more ease than other games do. But you can purchase them, if you wish - see the previously mentioned Starter Set as an example.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

RPG's require that intermediate step of scenario creation. There are three levels - RPG rules ---> scenario ----> actually playing the game.

First, I don't think this is true. There are RPGs that have a single pre-constructed scenario and no rules for how to make other scenarios. I haven't played it, but my understanding is that Lady Blackbird is an example of this.

Second, how does this differ from tabletop wargaming? There you have rules for the interaction of the miniatures, but someone has to create a scenario (e.g.. the field of play and the win conditions), and then you actually play it. Would you agree that tabletop wargames are RPGs?

 

[Shasarak]

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

Maybe he is saying that making up prescriptive rules like Resonance is bad game design. It seems probable.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], apparently there is no escape! (Though I can sympathise with the need to take a break from marking - thus was many an ENworld post born!)

You can read your RPG rules until the ink bleeds out of the paper, but, until such time as someone creates a scenario, you can't actually play the game.

I'll have another go too - this claim, as you are presenting it, is not true.

Here's a description of a Traveller first session that I actually played. No scenario creation in advance of playing the game. (I'd rolled up a couple of worlds in advance of play, but neither was the starting world, and I could have done that just as easily during play.)

Here's a description of a Cortex+ Heroic first session that I actually played. No scenario creation in advance of playing the game. (I'd pre-genned some PCs, but you don't seem to be fastening on PC creation as a special feature for RPGs)

Here're two descriptions of other first sessions - one Burning Wheel, one 4e Dark Sun. Neither had a scenario created in advance of playing the game. Both used setting and genre elements that we didn't make up ourselves (Greyhawk sword & sorcery, Dark Sun sword & planet), but in both cases the rules speak directly to that genre (the settings add proper names and some background - I could have made that up if I had too, as in the other two games) and you haven't told us yet what your theory of genre is. (Setting up a wargame involves deciding wherther its 30 Years War or Napolenoic or whatever, doesn't it?)

Here's an account of a Prince Valiant session I played not much more than a week ago. No set up - I opened the books, the players made PCs, we started things off, I dipped into the books for scenarios (really more like scenes or situations) when I needed them and made stuff up when I needed to.

I think Moldvay Basic gives a misleading impression on this point. It is giving advice on how to run a particular sort of RPG - classic dungeoneering - which generally requires a predrawn, pre-stocked maze (though it can be done with random charts, the quality may be mixed). But not all RPGing is maze- or puzzle-solving.

 

[Lanefan]

After reading [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's recent second (and much clearer!) try at defining and explaining his viewpoint I think this time I can see where he's coming from.

With Monopoly or chess or most other games, what's in the box - rules and equipment - is enough to get you going and to play a complete game; reasonably ignoring for these purposes the occasional need for additional common equipment e.g. a pen and paper to keep score in some games.

With some RPGs, assuming TotM play, this is also true:
- those that come with a starter setting and-or adventure included in the initial box/book(s) e.g. the 5e starter box; and-or
- those that come with random dungeon and-or setting creation rules included e.g. the 1e DMG/PH/MM set of books.

With other RPGs, those that come with neither of the above, Hussar has a point: you can't play the game right out of the box/books using only what's provided. Someone - usually the DM - needs to by whatever means create a setting and-or adventure and-or background before play can begin.

Is this a big deal? No, at least not for me - I really don't care. But it not being a big deal doesn't mean Hussar is entirely wrong in what he says. The part I don't understand is why any of it matters.