Unpopular opinions go here

[Gradine]

Yes. That's exactly what people have said.

We said, "If it doesn't have a table, dice, and probably a really cool DM screen, then not only is it not an RPG, but you are wrongity wrong wrong."

You have, in fact, gotten exactly to the heart of the issue!

Read what I quoted and tell me that's not what's being argued there. Of course it's not what's being said, I know that. But that's actually what he staked that particular argument on. If your your players in WoW aren't sitting at a fictional table rolling fictional dice it's not a TTRPG. That was the argument. Because there's no table and no dice, no TTRPG.

Which you know and I know is obviously a ridiculous argument.

 

[Reynard]

So, we're saying that the only thing that can be a tabletop RPG is if it has a table a dice? No other mechanics meet the definition?

Yes. That's exactly what people have said.

We said, "If it doesn't have a table, dice, and probably a really cool DM screen, then not only is it not an RPG, but you are wrongity wrong wrong."

You have, in fact, gotten exactly to the heart of the issue!

The question of where exactly individuals draw the line is a very interesting one. I don't think it is worth turning the discussion into a sniping match over it.

I understand what Snarf is saying about simply play acting while playing WoW not being an RPG any more than talking in funny voices while playing Monopoly. That said, I can also imagine a game that embraces the use of another game as a tool and I think that is still an RPG. For example, I once planned a mini-convention post apocalyptic battle of the bands RPG that used actual Rock Band as the "boss battle" of the game. I don't think it "wasn't a TTRPG" because the inclusion of that video game as a finale. It never happened, sadly, due to technical issues.

But, thinking on it, there is probably some value in trying to distinguish through terminology the methods and forms we are talking about -- especially as those methods and forms diversify with increasing technology.

To go back to an earlier aspect of this discussion: if an RPG comes out built for and limited to a single VTT and is essentially unplayable outside of that VTT, but otherwise operates as a typical TTRPG played on that VTT, does that warrant a new term? Would we want to call it a VTTRPG? And if so, how do we differentiate between a TTRPG playable on a VTT? vTTRPG?

 

[Gradine]

Fake cake > Real cake.

 

[Gradine]

To go back to an earlier aspect of this discussion: if an RPG comes out built for and limited to a single VTT and is essentially unplayable outside of that VTT, but otherwise operates as a typical TTRPG played on that VTT, does that warrant a new term? Would we want to call it a VTTRPG? And if so, how do we differentiate between a TTRPG playable on a VTT? vTTRPG?

This is kind of what the original NWN was set. Do we need a new definition for games run in NWN just to set that apart from all other instances of playing D&D 3.5, in-person or online?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You're right that it's more than "worldbuilding", and I was being unfair to that position. But I also disagree with your interpretation of the concept of a diagetic framework of a world created through interaction being absolutely essential to the creation of a TTRPG; or rather, that a TTRPG's world does not have to be entirely created through that interaction in order to qualify. As has been pointed out, you're tossing a lot of babies out with that bathwater, and leaving out a lot of middle ground that is easier to argue about that MMORPGs.

That said, participants in a role-playing server on a MMORPG are still engaging in the activity of creating parts of their world through their interaction and play. They're not creating all of it, sure, but you're also not creating the entire world of Faerun from scratch every time you start a Forgotten Realms campaign. There's a sliding scale, and anywhere you point that point is going to be arbitrary. Which, sure, is rather the point of a personal definition, but then that's a different beast from arguing another's personal definition is wrong.

Again, this isn't a personal definition. It's a definition I appropriated from academic work on the subject. Moreover, it's ... an actual definition.

The problem with definitions is that ... they define things. If you wish, you are welcome to present your own, as I mentioned. I think you will see that once you do so, it is very difficult to create one that-

A. Includes all the things that you know to be a (TT)RPG; and
B. Excludes things that you know aren't a (TT)RPG; and
C. Doesn't exclude things that you think are a (TT)RPG; and
D. Also manages to, relatively succinctly, capture the essence of what a (TT)RPG is.

For example, my proffered academic definition, which is, again, for TTRPGs, most assuredly captures things that others would argue strenuously against- LARPs. Freeform. GM-less games that operate through other narrative authority (Fiasco!).


This doesn't make it either right or wrong, but it does provide a useful starting point. I don't think that the fact that it happens to exclude CRPGs, which are a well-known, and usually considered separate, subgenre of RPGs, is a fault of the definition. But if you disagree, come up with your own, instead of insisting that this one is wrong.

It's a lot harder to create it, than to criticize others.

 

[Reynard]

This is kind of what the original NWN was set. Do we need a new definition for games run in NWN just to set that apart from all other instances of playing D&D 3.5, in-person or online?

For NWN I would say there is a distinction to be made. It is sort of a VTT, and you can use it that way, but it is a lot more jarring to have to stop NWN to deal with the stuff that the engine just doesn't do than shifting between modes of play in, say Fantasy grounds. Just by virtue of what NWN is, game engine wise, I mean. NWN, DOS2 GM mode, and similar games are different thing, although I can't be sure what I would call them.

 

[Gradine]

Again, this isn't a personal definition. It's a definition I appropriated from academic work on the subject. Moreover, it's ... an actual definition.

The problem with definitions is that ... they define things. If you wish, you are welcome to present your own, as I mentioned. I think you will see that once you do so, it is very difficult to create one that-

A. Includes all the things that you know to be a (TT)RPG; and
B. Excludes things that you know aren't a (TT)RPG; and
C. Doesn't exclude things that you think are a (TT)RPG; and
D. Also manages to, relatively succinctly, capture the essence of what a (TT)RPG is.

For example, my proffered academic definition, which is, again, for TTRPGs, most assuredly captures things that others would argue strenuously against- LARPs. Freeform. GM-less games that operate through other narrative authority (Fiasco!).


This doesn't make it either right or wrong, but it does provide a useful starting point. I don't think that the fact that it happens to exclude CRPGs, which are a well-known, and usually considered separate, subgenre of RPGs, is a fault of the definition. But if you disagree, come up with your own, instead of insisting that this one is wrong.

It's a lot harder to create it, than to criticize others.

I think the disconnect here is actually that I 100%, completely agree with your definition (especially seeing how it includes things like Fiasco and LARPing, which I would agree with), with the exception that I disagree with your interpretation that it cannot include CRPGs. Because there is such little of meaning in the difference between D&D 3.5 on Roll20 and D&D 3.5 through NWN, that a definition that includes one but precludes the other... doesn't track. Same with LARPing in the woods versus LARPing in Minecraft.

I guess I just don't see where in "A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework." that automatically disqualifies that happening in a computerized framework.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But, thinking on it, there is probably some value in trying to distinguish through terminology the methods and forms we are talking about -- especially as those methods and forms diversify with increasing technology.

To go back to an earlier aspect of this discussion: if an RPG comes out built for and limited to a single VTT and is essentially unplayable outside of that VTT, but otherwise operates as a typical TTRPG played on that VTT, does that warrant a new term? Would we want to call it a VTTRPG? And if so, how do we differentiate between a TTRPG playable on a VTT? vTTRPG?

I don't think that there is a difference when using a VTT.

The salient distinction (for me, and the definition I am using) is between a computer-aided game, and a computer game.

If the game is playable without a computer creating the diegetic framework (in effect, acting as a participant), then there isn't an issue. You can use the computer to create maps and minis for combat. To allow conversations between remote participants. To roll dice. To store character sheets. And so on.

A VTT is just the game, but with computer aids. Oh, that does not sound right. It's just a computer-aided game. Does that answer the question?

 

[Emberashh]

This murkyness is why I don't think the debate is valuable.

Especially because a lot of the implicit motivation seems to be rooted in otherizing video games and tabletop games from each other.

Idk if it was here or in another topic (perhaps not even on this site), but Ive said before that one of the biggest things the tabletop industry and hobby needs to grow up and get over is letting game design advances in video gaming cross over to tabletop, because at the end of the day, game design is game design.

A lot of the best practices, methods, and philosophies are universally applicable no matter what the specific game medium is.

 

[Lanefan]

A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework.

In terms of both getting it in one sentence, and excluding videogames, it works.

That might define RPG but to get the TT piece in there I think the word "personal" (or "in-person"?) needs to be added right before 'interaction'.