The "G" in RPG

[FrogReaver]

when the game gets in the way of having some good story.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think some people just like to argue with premises.

No they don’t!

 

[bloodtide]

The "like a board game" is too much game for an RPG. Or like a video game.

I put much more focus on the Role play then Rule play. It is fun for me to have a character take real actions in a fictional world, not have someone just say "my character uses rule six and takes action two".

 

[Reynard]

when the game gets in the way of having some good story.

In my experience, players and GMs are far more likely to do that than rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How much game is too much game in an RPG?

My own feeling is "The amount that would probably be too much in a non-RPG." That is to say, my tolerance for a lot of game structure is high enough that to push it above what I might want (note the "might"; I don't insist on this in every RPG, but the less there is the more something else will have to attract me to the system) in an RPG, I'd probably find it excessive in wargame or the like, too.

 

[FrogReaver]

In my experience, players and GMs are far more likely to do that than rules.

Sure. I’m just saying that’s the too much spot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think many folks go through the above process with D&D, which is why its often labeled "medium" ruleset. I think it gets a slight downgrade becasue of the familiarity with the mechanics and ease of which they can be applied after so much experience. YMMV.

I've made the argument before that most forms of D&D are actually more complex than games that have a rep for being moreso because so much of it from day one has been exception based (i.e. there are a million little things to remember, especially if you need to play a spellcaster at either end of the table). But since people are so used to it, they don't see it; its a water-to-fish situation.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

How much game is too much game in an RPG?

I think that answer is going to differ depending on the person. Personally, I have a pretty liberal definition of what role playing is. I do think many video and board games absolutely apply. In fact you have to get down to the Tetris level of game design for me to stop thinking of the RP aspect. Even something like Diplomacy, one of the finest board games every invented, has RP elements as you take the role of the head of a nation state. The scope of the "game" portion isnt really a factor I worry about. In fact, its the RP portion that I think is more important to an RPG than the G. You can have almost no game mechanics, or extensive simulation attempts, and it doesnt effect my perception of an RPG. I didnt mean to pull a bait and switch on y'all, but everytime I read about this topic, its exactly where I go. Looking forward to hearing y'all's perspective.

-Cheers

I am pretty down with the ol G.

5e is pretty good for me. Had some fun with 3e as well. Have no illusions about high drama Oscar worthy improvisation.

We want to chuck dice and crunch a few numbers…we know it’s a game we gathered for. Its best if it’s not so much that it pulls the mind sharply away from the action though…

 

[Leatherhead]

I am apparently in the minority of people who prefer the G over RP.
Then again, I always preferred the tongue-in-cheek "beer & pretzels" style of game nights over trying to write a drama or living out another life (as it were). So the actual game parts of the game are what influence what I am playing in particular.

 

[MNblockhead]

I guess the game. The rules are an important to channeling role play and creating how the game feels. Games like D&D and Warhammer Fantasy are my goldilocks zone. I like changing gears between tactical combat and open role play with light resolution mechanics. While I also really enjoy more "thespian" and improv-heavy games like InSPECTRE, those are mostly good for one-shots. I don't find them satisfying for building long campaigns.