S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[aramis erak]

Which is true, but this is why I've suggest delineating the most basic components of an RPG. I mean at the core you need a group of players, and agreed up on set of rules, and some characters to role play.

Some RPG groups don't have rulesets, leaving it all to the GM instead of rulesets.
One of the oddest I've played, you play a corporation, not a person.

And I've got a couple games that I've only played solo, and several more where most of my play was solo. And I'm not counting the ones that ONLY have mechanics for solitaire play. Runeslayers I've only played solo, for example — there's a solitaire module in the core — but I've never gotten it to table with players. Most of my play of TFT has been solitaire; in hours, probably 10:1; if we break out group RPG play from tactical battles, S:G:B::302. Same for T&T, tho the ratio is much closer to S:G:1.

Each of your minimums is able to be individually falsified.

 

[Umbran]

Which is true, but this is why I've suggest delineating the most basic components of an RPG. I mean at the core you need a group of players, and agreed up on set of rules, and some characters to role play.

In several games I have played, characters are created as part of the process of play, so those are not necessary for play to start.

As for the "agreed upon set of rules..." my first game of D&D, ever, I played blind. I didn't have a character sheet. I had not read the rulebook. I agreed on the rules in the sense that I trusted my older brother to implement all rules in the background where I didn't see them.

So.. you need a group of people - and the size of the group may be 1.

 

[Hussar]

While I'm not a fan of Maxperson's tone, I have to back him up here - this is incorrect.

The rules tell you whether a given action in play is legal. But the rules do not determine what actions will be taken, and so don't say what it going to happen at every point in the game. Football players have choices. Will the team run or pass the ball? That's what is happening in the game, but which they do is not determined by the rules.

The other way to think of this - Note that football is a game with an end condition that is typically separate from its win condition. A football game typically ends after a specified amount of time of play has passed. Only in the case of a tie does the game end become entwined with the win/loss condition.

Play a one-shot D&D session with a maximum length in time (we only have the game store space until 10 PM!), and we have the same "where to start and where to finish". But clearly, D&D doesn't tell us what is going to happen in between start and end... and neither does football.

Don't mistake "rules constrain actions" with "rules determine actions".

But, right there, you have created a one shot D&D game. That is a DIFFERENT game than a campaign. The rules of the game do not tell you how long a campaign should be. There are no real end conditions within the rules.

I'm not confusing constraint with determine. Not at all. In games, the rules CONSTRAIN actions. Your choice of actions is determined by the rules at every single point in time during a game. You cannot opt for a forward pass in football if you are on defense. What actions are taken at any given time don't affect the rules at all. Sure, players have choices during the game, but, as far as the GAME itself is concerned, every single one of those choices is constrained by the game itself.

RPG's don't work like that though. In a game, the rules tell you how to set up for play. You follow the steps of the game, A to B to C until the game concludes. The individual choices within A, B and C don't really matter as far as the game is concerned. The game doesn't care who wins or loses. The game simply progresses until the proscribed end point. But RPG's don't have steps to follow. They don't have an initial set up, nor do they have a concluding end point. Not within the rules. Setting up a one shot is adding rules to the game that aren't contained within the rules themselves. Which has been my point all along. You CANNOT play an RPG as it is written the way you can play EVERY other game. In EVERY other game, you follow the steps that the rules tell you to follow. RPG's do not have any proscribed steps. So, one group plays and never rolls a die, the other group plays and barely says anything more complicated than a grunt while repeatedly throwing dice.

Yet, we consider them to be playing the same game.

You are the ones who keep zooming in on the individual choices. They aren't really that important as far as the game is concerned. Whether you blitz or play zone matters to YOU, the player, but, the game? The game proceeds exactly as predicted - ball is snapped, play continues until the runner is stopped, start again.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sadras]

Sports have a campaign. It's called a season.

Is that considered purely player-driven or does it sometimes incorporate illusionism?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sadras]

Even purely amateur sports usually have some sort of season (or series of events). While there are one-offs in many sports, the idea that some sort of longer sample size is required is a long-standing one.

Heck, even your local rec-league bowling doesn't crown a champion every night.

Krikey! 0-2 loss for me
I was only wondering if the games were such that spectators were watching to find out what was written in the coaches'/owners'/bookies' notes or if these games were player driven?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[prabe]

@Sadras

Are you asking if the outcome of a given sporting event (or maybe season) is in doubt? Or if there's a difference in schemes between Team A and Team B that might be a different difference than the players on the field?

The former should always be yes, in any fair game/sport. There are reasons why professional sports leagues (at least in the US) have strong rules about players and coaches gambling on their own sports, and even stronger rules about their betting on their own games.

The latter might be yes, depending on the sport. There's a bigger difference in schemes (game plans) in American football than there is in baseball. I know (or at least knew) people who enjoyed watching football as much to see the coaches play a mental game as to watch the players be athletes.

Maybe I'm answering questions that aren't what you're asking?

 

[Umbran]

I was only wondering if the games were such that spectators were watching to find out what was written in the coaches'/owners'/bookies' notes or if these games were player driven?

In professional tournament play, the playbook - the coach's notes - become rather dominant. In more casual play, the game is more player-driven.

In pro football, if the QB calls a play, darned straight the players get knocked for not following the playbook exactly. In backyard football, there is no book - there's a quick discussion in the huddle, and the QB will hope to find you somewhere around where you said you'd be, but that's just a vague hope.

And that difference, still under the same ruleset.