What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Thomas Shey]

And I think that definitions that ignore how the word is actually are used are very unhelpful.

On the other hand, things often evolve in such a fashion where they're so broad they're virtually impossible to define, and even when they can be the definition doesn't mean much.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think as the hobby has evolved "roleplaying game" hasn't been generically accurate for some time now, but terms often outlive their original function, so...

Well that clears you of any need to participate further! More seriously, I dont really see the point here. I mean if you want to call them something else then go ahead, but everyone else uses roleplaying game, and many of those people have very convincing reasons for why the whole term, game in, makes sense.

One can question whether that's because in a lot of cases saying "That's not an RPG" is more gatekeeping than trying for clarity, though, and the response to that is going to both be immediate and strong.

Well, maybe we can assume that we're generally proceding in good faith then, and not playing silly gatekeeping games. I usually assume that for the sake of the discussion.

Personally, I have very little use for the analogy by other games approach. I don't think its gets very far, as the last few pages here aptly illustrate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well that clears you of any need to participate further! More seriously, I dont really see the point here. I mean if you want to call them something else then go ahead, but everyone else uses roleplaying game, and many of those people have very convincing reasons for why the whole term, game in, makes sense.

I'm willing to particpate as people use a term--I'm a descriptive linguist, not prescriptive--but that doesn't mean I don't think the choice of terminology confuses the issue, or feel a need not to say so. And I flat out think some of the ways RPGs are operated minimizes any game elements enough that the term ends up being deceptive with them. As soon as you hear "want the mechanics to get out of the way" that's a pretty telling phrase as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is I think there's a very wide range of things called "RPGs" some of which emphasize the game element strongly, some of which either minimize it or consider it a necessary evil at best (and a few I reserve the right to question whether are games in any meaningful way), and I think applying the term broadly to all of those is probably obfuscating discussion rather than enlightening it. Not that the borders wouldn't be fuzzy anyway, but I still can't help but think we'd be better if "game" wasn't in the term we use for the hobby as a whole. But the term is what is.

Well, maybe we can assume that we're generally proceding in good faith then, and not playing silly gatekeeping games. I usually assume that for the sake of the discussion.

Well, if we're going to proceed with the common term for the entirety of the hobby, its moot.

 

[Campbell]

Under your definition most of the time playing roleplaying games is not actually playing roleplaying games. To me that is blatantly absurd definition. But I am really not interested in this semantic nonsense.

I think it is playing a roleplaying game because there are still rules, a structure of play and defined roles. The rules and mechanics are just not written down.

GM decides what happens is as much a mechanic as an Apocalypse World basic move. Whether or not it is written down does not change it, as long as it is part of our agreement. It's the agreement that matters (even if only implied), not the written down in a book part.

This is why the idea that rules or mechanics ever get out of the way is silly because there are always some rules and mechanics in play. It's about which ones work best for us.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm willing to particpate as people use a term--I'm a descriptive linguist, not prescriptive--but that doesn't mean I don't think the choice of terminology confuses the issue, or feel a need not to say so. And I flat out think some of the ways RPGs are operated minimizes any game elements enough that the term ends up being deceptive with them. As soon as you hear "want the mechanics to get out of the way" that's a pretty telling phrase as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is I think there's a very wide range of things called "RPGs" some of which emphasize the game element strongly, some of which either minimize it or consider it a necessary evil at best (and a few I reserve the right to question whether are games in any meaningful way), and I think applying the term broadly to all of those is probably obfuscating discussion rather than enlightening it. Not that the borders wouldn't be fuzzy anyway, but I still can't help but think we'd be better if "game" wasn't in the term we use for the hobby as a whole. But the term is what is.



Well, if we're going to proceed with the common term for the entirety of the hobby, its moot.

This is all quite fair. I dont rhink its moot either, we could call them snot stacks and still discuss all the gory details. As for the RP and the G, I agree that the breadth of the hobby contains games that that shade very much toward or away from certain elements. That's fine though, if we focus on edge cases we'll be arguing until the sun dies. Id prefer to focus on the parts where the discussion seems to bear interesting fruit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think it is playing a roleplaying game because there are still rules, a structure of play and defined roles. The rules and mechanics are just not written down.

GM decides what happens is as much a mechanic as an Apocalypse World basic move. Whether or not it is written down does not change it, as long as it is part of our agreement. It's the agreement that matters (even if only implied), not the written down in a book part.

This is why the idea that rules or mechanics ever get out of the way is silly because there are always some rules and mechanics in play. It's about which ones work best for us.

Yeah, so this it the angle I expected to see "rules do not define the central activity of RPGs" to be challenged from, and I agree with you that there are such rules present about who is allowed to decide things about what etc. But there also are similar sort of rules in improv theatre, so I think we are still far removed from rigid game rules that a game like Chess has. Hell, I think kids playing make believe will have these sort of rules: "this is my doll, so I get to decide what she is like and what she does."

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is all quite fair. I dont rhink its moot either, we could call them snot stacks and still discuss all the gory details. As for the RP and the G, I agree that the breadth of the hobby contains games that that shade very much toward or away from certain elements. That's fine though, if we focus on edge cases we'll be arguing until the sun dies. Id prefer to focus on the parts where the discussion seems to bear interesting fruit.

I meant it was moot in that if no one is trying to say "But that isn't a roleplaying game" in the discussion, the gatekeeping intent or not is irrelevant. That only comes up if that distinction is trying to be made, in which case the motivation involved becomes important.

As to the other, I'm not sold that its entirely fringe cases where this comes up. You'll see this when there's a discussion from people playing certain rules light (sometimes narrative focused, sometimes not) games with those playing heavier ones (which are sometimes that way because they make a more engaging experience in the game-play end) who will argue the latter is impairing or damaging the roleplaying element doing so, whereas the former will respond that the latter are eliding over things that matter.

 

[Campbell]

Yeah, so this it the angle I expected to see "rules do not define the central activity of RPGs" to be challenged from ,and I agree with you that there are such rules present about who is allowed to decide things about what etc. But there also are similar sort of rules in improv theatre, so I think we are still far removed from rigid game rules that a game like Chess has. Hell, I think kids playing make believe will have these sort of rules: "this is my doll, so I get to decide what she is like and what she does."

There is no central activity of playing a roleplaying game. We don't play "a roleplaying game" we play specific games with specific structures that fit within the broad category. That some choose to bring encultured system into the matter is on them. There is nothing about roleplaying is a medium that requires a baseline GM role. That's a rule/practice we bring in as we choose.

Yes. As children we built games with structures and rules we agreed to, often on the fly. Their still games. Stuff like Truth or Dare is a defined game most of us have played for example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, so this it the angle I expected to see "rules do not define the central activity of RPGs" to be challenged from, and I agree with you that there are such rules present about who is allowed to decide things about what etc. But there also are similar sort of rules in improv theatre, so I think we are still far removed from rigid game rules that a game like Chess has. Hell, I think kids playing make believe will have these sort of rules: "this is my doll, so I get to decide what she is like and what she does."

Yeah, I'm not sure rules about structural parts of the (there's probably a better term for this) social process are the same as rules regarding resolution.

In fact, I saw those in the most ungame-like RPing environments I was ever in, mechanic-free MUSHing; most such MUSHes are operating on what's known as "consent based" determination, where anyone can narrate the action they're taking, but when a result would effect another PC (or in some human operated NPC), the result of that action was controlled by said operator.

You can argue both this and a description of the die rolls and target numbers in a set of game mechanics are "rules" but I don't think they're otherwise at all similar.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is no central activity of playing a roleplaying game. We don't play "a roleplaying game" we play specific games with specific structures that fit within the broad category. That some choose to bring encultured system into the matter is on them. There is nothing about roleplaying is a medium that requires a baseline GM role. That's a rule/practice we bring in as we choose.

I don't quite agree. There is the central structure of playing the roles of the characters; that is what makes things roleplaying games.

Yes. As children we built games with structures and rules we agreed to, often on the fly. Their still games. Stuff like Truth or Dare is a defined game most of us have played for example.

Sure.