Chess is not an RPG: The Illusion of Game Balance

[Bedrockgames]

I think any definition of RPG which doesn't include the idea of creating some sort of narrative through play misses the mark pretty well. By the same token, I certainly do think you can play an RPG without roleplaying, the same way you can play a board game with roleplaying.

This is a matter of viewpoint and how one defines "story". I am pretty comfortable talking about story to mean "in game events" but it is a slippery term and can mean more than that. So you do get a lot of folks who reject the idea of story being in an RPG (basically because there are folks who make the leap from "story is present in an RPG" to "RPGs must serve story more than anything else"). Does story emerge naturally through the actions of the players? Sure, I have no problem with that. But does that mean that I am there to be entertained by a good yarn rather than to play a character in a believable world that feels real and doesn't follow the rules of a good story? Personally I don't like it when GMs start doing things "for the story", I am much more of a let the dice fall where they may, let stuff happen without concern for drama or pacing, kind of player. So I think some of the resistance you see to "RPGs are collaborative storytelling" comes from the fact that that often gets used to either say RPG mechanics should work to create a good story or that the ideal session produces a good story. But lots of people are not interested in that kind of game. In short, I think RPGs are collaborative storytelling is a fine definition provided the next sentence isn't "therefore good RPGs should have narrative mechanics" or something.

 

[Hussar]

story provides framework for the adventure, the challenge and the conditions of victory in the context of people undertaking something. Not the same as Soccer or Chess.

that doesn't mean Story is the more important thing to every player. Why do you think there's the Sandbox crowd?

Even in Sandbox, there's a story there. Again, look at Paizo's Kingmaker modules. Or Keep on the Borderlands. There's the beginning of several stories there and the expectation is that through play, you will flesh out those stories and create new ones.

Why do the Patriots keep playing football. They've won a game. heck, they've won a few Superbowls.

Because the Game doesn't end. You only succeed at a present goal (win THIS contest) and then there is the next.

Otherwise, you would only play Chess once in your life, or once per opponent by the logic you espoused.

But, the difference is, the Patriots don't die when they lose. About the only way you "win" at D&D is retiring the characters and starting a new campaign. Simply different win conditions. Heck, you character in an RPG can die and you can still consider the game a success. Look at something like Dread. I'd certainly classify it as an RPG. But, you are pretty much guaranteed to die. Or Call of Cthulu. It's not a good game if your character isn't locked up, in a straight jacket, and gibbering insane.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Even in Sandbox, there's a story there. Again, look at Paizo's Kingmaker modules. Or Keep on the Borderlands. There's the beginning of several stories there and the expectation is that through play, you will flesh out those stories and create new ones.

This is why story is a somewhat tricky term when it comes to RPGs and why I thin we need to be cautious. Here is the thing about this case, most sandbox players are not there for the story. They will acknowledge that a story can be described after the fact, but I find the folks are into sandbox are very much against things like mechanics that give players control of the "narrative", devices that give players plot immunity, or obvious efforts by the GM to "tell a story". This is a crowd who want to feel like they are inhabiting a character in a world that feels real. If you talk to these people you don't see words like "story" or "narrative" but rather "exploration" or "setting" or "events". So I think Janx's point stands here. Story may be said to emerge or exist in some way in an RPG depending on how one defines it, but that doesn't mean that is the most important aspect of the game to people. And this is especially true if one's definition of story starts getting into territory that sandbox players explicitly reject.

Now I understand that story can simply mean "there is a dragon ravaging a village, what do you do?". And most people would agree that sort of thing is a feature of sandbox. But that is different from saying people who play sandbox are there for the story. Most would say they are there to play a character. If your focus is on character rather than on story itself that does lead to a whole different set of expectations and conventions around play. So while I don't think the term "story" is bad on its own, and while I can say "story" to mean 'stuff that happens in game', once we start talking about why people are there to play in the first place, we need to listen to what they say, not impose "story" upon them as the ultimate aim of the game. And again most sandbox players I meet either are adamant they are not there for story, or they see story as this emergent thing that develops out of the actual goal which is to play a character and explore a world.

Story does have connotations in gaming beyond "there is a dragon ravaging the village". It suggests to some folks things like adventure paths, railroading, story RPGs, narrative mechanics, etc. Those are generally the things people are referring to when they say there is no story in their sandbox. And there are definitely folks out there who leap from RPGs include "There is a Dragon ravaging the village" to "your game should tell a good story". That is exactly what Wick does in his article and it is why people get a bit edgy around that term sometimes (even though it has multiple other meanings and some of them apply to pretty much any RPG).

 

[howandwhy99]

Role playing games are designed to teach and challenge players who play the roles within the game.

That means you play your class. Not a character. Character performance is irrelevant to game play.

A game without classes, roles like doctor, lawyer, or wizard, warrior, isn't a role playing game.

A game which doesn't use game systems to define those roles thereby enabling players who improve through mastering of those roles/systems/games aren't really role playing games either. Or they are poorly designed.

-Edited

 

[Bedrockgames]

Role playing games are designed to teach and challenge players who play the roles within the game.

That means you play your class. Not a character. Character performance is irrelevant to game play.

A game without classes, roles like doctor, lawyer, or wizard, warrior, aren't role playing games.

Games that don't use game mechanics to define those roles for players to increase their player proficiency within aren't really role playing games either.

If I understand you I couldn't disagree more.

 

[howandwhy99]

If I understand you I couldn't disagree more.

D&D was a role playing game. It was never designed for group story telling. It was designed for players who preferred games.

This is why contemporary D&D hardly has any aspects at all which could be considered D&D, much less include the game play from earlier years.

 

[Bedrockgames]

D&D was a role playing game. It was never designed for group story telling. It was designed for players who preferred games.

This is why contemporary D&D hardly has any aspects at all which could be considered D&D, much less include the game play from earlier years.

I think any working definition of roleplaying game needs to be able to encompass early D&D as well as new versions of D&D and other roleplaying games people play. We can't limit the definition to OD&D alone. That is a great game and perfectly fine way to play but it isn't the only way, and I think we all need to start being more honest about how diverse and broad the hobby is. It definitely goes beyond my own personal tastes and preferences and I just don't feel the need to define it rigidly around those. We are arguing over really small territory here and I feel like it is constricting the hobby rather than expanding it (because I can assure you the distinctions people are fighting over make little to no sense to people from the outside looking in). What I think we need is for the hobby to include folks like you buy also folks like Hussar. We are all role-players. One segment of the community doesn't get to decide who belongs and who doesn't because they have an argument based on etymology or root terms. What matters is how the term roleplaying game is used by people in general. When I see folks playing OD&D I see people engaged in a roleplaying game. When I see folks playing Numenera, I see people engaged in a roleplaying game. When I see folks playing savage worlds, 4E or GURPS, I see people engaged in a roleplaying game.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think any working definition of roleplaying game needs to be able to encompass early D&D as well as new versions of D&D and other roleplaying games people play. We can't limit the definition to OD&D alone. That is a great game and perfectly fine way to play but it isn't the only way, and I think we all need to start being more honest about how diverse and broad the hobby is. It definitely goes beyond my own personal tastes and preferences and I just don't feel the need to define it rigidly around those. We are arguing over really small territory here and I feel like it is constricting the hobby rather than expanding it (because I can assure you the distinctions people are fighting over make little to no sense to people from the outside looking in). What I think we need is for the hobby to include folks like you buy also folks like Hussar. We are all role-players. One segment of the community doesn't get to decide who belongs and who doesn't because they have an argument based on etymology or root terms. What matters is how the term roleplaying game is used by people in general. When I see folks playing OD&D I see people engaged in a roleplaying game. When I see folks playing Numenera, I see people engaged in a roleplaying game. When I see folks playing savage worlds, 4E or GURPS, I see people engaged in a roleplaying game.

They are vastly different designs of behavior because the goal and act of play are significantly different. Storytelling games are games where the overall objective is to create a narrative. And the players are there to invent it.

D&D is a game like every other game. Players are there to game the game. To discern strategies inherent in the design and use them to achieve game objective which also exist in the design.

The limited philosophical viewpoint that the article's author and others use allow only "Problem Solving" to cover what is basically the entire scope of actual game play. That's because it's actually, inextricably different than invention, which story inventing requires.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They are vastly different designs of behavior because the goal and act of play are significantly different. Storytelling games are games where the overall objective is to create a narrative. And the players are there to invent it.

D&D is a game like every other game. Players are there to game the game. To discern strategies inherent in the design and use them to achieve game objective which also exist in the design.

The limited philosophical viewpoint that the article's author and others use allow only "Problem Solving" to cover what is basically the entire scope of actual game play. That's because it's actually, inextricably different than invention, which story inventing requires.

To me this is just as narrow and limiting as the Wick article itself. I get what you are saying but I honestly think you are really describing a preference you have and then defining the hobby around it. I used to share this view and used to believe in this distinction. I don't anymore. I do agree there is a spectrum at work, with story RPGs on one end and more traditional RPGs on the other. But a lot of games mix and match from various points on the spectrum and few groups are completely on one side or the other. I think overthinking these points, constructing philosophies of gaming around them, has led people to paint themselves into rhetorical corners that not only guide the flow on online flamewars but limit what they permit themselves to enjoy at the gaming table. Personally I am no longer interested in limiting my gaming experience because someone online asserted a particular definition of roleplaying games.

 

[howandwhy99]

To me this is just as narrow and limiting as the Wick article itself. I get what you are saying but I honestly think you are really describing a preference you have and then defining the hobby around it. I used to share this view and used to believe in this distinction. I don't anymore. I do agree there is a spectrum at work, with story RPGs on one end and more traditional RPGs on the other. But a lot of games mix and match from various points on the spectrum and few groups are completely on one side or the other. I think overthinking these points, constructing philosophies of gaming around them, has led people to paint themselves into rhetorical corners that not only guide the flow on online flamewars but limit what they permit themselves to enjoy at the gaming table. Personally I am no longer interested in limiting my gaming experience because someone online asserted a particular definition of roleplaying games.

I agree. My explanation is not THE way. It's my best understanding of early D&D design and play.

I just don't see anyone else explaining what games and game theory have been for millennia in the face of the Big Model's one true understanding.

I'd prefer people to be aware of multiple viewpoints and have unbelittled access to long standing game philosophy. That isn't the current climate as Mr. Wick is clearly trumpeting.