My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games

[Sadras]

Because they're among the more complex of the rules for chess, and hence when you're teaching children you build up the complexity. (That seems very obvious, and so maybe not what you were asking for? Sorry if I've missed your point.)

I've also played with adults who described themsevels as knowing how to play chess, but weren't familiar with those rules, because their grasp of the game never really got beyond that childhood level.

There is the basic rule set of D&D and there is the full fledged PHB as well as supplements. Which ever ruleset ones uses one usually never says one is playing a variant version of D&D. So too in chess, having or not having knowledge of the advanced moves does not negate that one is playing chess or classify it as a variant. A variant chess game, like Doubles or Take is far different than a kid or senior not knowing en passant and castling.
My contention is that @Maxperson's comment of

(snip) you must adhere to all of the rules exactly. If you don't, you are not playing chess, but are instead playing a chess variant.

does not relegate the kid's or senior's game to a chess variant because they did know those moves. They still adhered to all the chess rules exactly therefore your comparison is not a fair comment.

There is a level of similarity between not knowing the advanced moves and not seeing your opponent setting you up for a fall - in both instances you are still adhering to all the rules. You not playing the advanced move or not countering your opponent does not make it a chess variant.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying you think kids' games are chess variants, but your example was not a fair counter to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). . . . One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. . . . Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities. This increase in power is reflected by an adventurer’s level.​

/snip.

Bold mine.

That, line, right there, is what I'm talking about. The DM "creates the adventures". Not, "You will play the game and go through adventures." Unless the DM creates those adventures, there is no game to play.

As far as meta-game mechanics go though, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I'm going to disagree with you here. In Traveler, your chargen is random. You, the player, have zero input in what happens during chargen other than maybe choosing to roll on this or that table, which, again, doesn't really have any in game correlation. Never minding something like Inspiration in 5e, which is awarded entirely based on the player's actions, not any actual event in the game fiction. While meta-game mechanics can correlate, they don't have to and often the correlation is added after the fact to justify the mechanics.

I get where you're coming from. And, true, those are some pretty decent definitions of rpg's. The only problem with those definitions though, AFAIC, is that they are not restrictive enough. They include too many computer games and board games as well.

However, the quote from the Basic rules there is a clear difference that you don't see in board games or computer games. You don't pick up Monopoly and then not play until one player has rebuilt the board into something completely different from the last time you played.

 

[Bedrockgames]

However, the quote from the Basic rules there is a clear difference that you don't see in board games or computer games. You don't pick up Monopoly and then not play until one player has rebuilt the board into something completely different from the last time you played.

There are plenty of computer games with random generated worlds. And even boardgames can require building a different board each time.

 

[Maxperson]

And page 71 has a heading "Attack Rolls", which is followed by this:

When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers.​

That states a rule. The second sentence even uses two imperative verb to do so. (I've bolded it in the quote.)

What are you suggesting it is a description of?

It's clearly a description of one of the many ways to make an attack. In my game(not really this is just an example) we roll 2d20 and average the number, and then add the modifiers. It's that way because the above is not an imperative due to the ability to alter rules as I see fit.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not true. Kids who play chess will often not use en passant, or even castling. That doesn't mean they're not playing chess. Or to put it another way: the boundary between "chess" and "chess variant" is nowhere near as tight as you suggest. I've played cards with people who allowed reviewing the previously-played tricks. That's a house rule that (personally) I think undermines the fun of the game (which includes following the play), but they were still playing five hundred.

Opting not to engage in a rule is different from altering the rules. What you are describing is the same as if you and I played chess, and I chose not to move my knights. What you describe there is not a chess variant. A chess variant would be if knights now moved 2 in a direction and then 2 over, rather than 1 and 2.

 

[Maxperson]

There are plenty of computer games with random generated worlds. And even boardgames can require building a different board each time.

Those are generally different games, though. You don't typically alter the board hundreds of times over the year or more that the one game is playing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Those are generally different games, though. You don't typically alter the board hundreds of times over the year or more that the one game is playing.

They are still the same game, they just have you set up a bunch of hexes randomly to create a new board each time (but the rules of play are the same). It is the rules, not the scenario, that is the game.

 

[Hussar]

There are plenty of computer games with random generated worlds. And even boardgames can require building a different board each time.

But, each time you play, the game is still the same. Sure, some things will change - different board layouts will bring in new strategies, but, again, you are still playing the game straight from the rules.

You are not requiring one player to create a completely new game every single time.

IOW, while sure, you rearrange the board for Catan every time you play, you are still playing Catan. You aren't playing anything else.

But, in an RPG, one campaign doesn't really need to share anything. One campaign might be entirely urban, while the next is entirely wilderness and the next is entirely dungeon crawling. One might be serial and the next episodic. And, while some games do randomly generate a board, you don't actually have to to play that game.

There's a lot more to campaign creation than simply generating a map.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, each time you play, the game is still the same. Sure, some things will change - different board layouts will bring in new strategies, but, again, you are still playing the game straight from the rules.

You are not requiring one player to create a completely new game every single time.

IOW, while sure, you rearrange the board for Catan every time you play, you are still playing Catan. You aren't playing anything else.

But, in an RPG, one campaign doesn't really need to share anything. One campaign might be entirely urban, while the next is entirely wilderness and the next is entirely dungeon crawling. One might be serial and the next episodic. And, while some games do randomly generate a board, you don't actually have to to play that game.

There's a lot more to campaign creation than simply generating a map.

Sure but that is all scenario material. You are talking about making people and places. The core rules of the game and/or the guidelines generally operate the same from scenario to scenario (and because it is an RPG, a key feature is going to be some flexibility managing the rules by the GM). This just seems like a very unusual argument to me. I get that RPGs have a feature many other games don't: customized scenarios and campaigns. But there are other games that have comparable things, and the presence of those elements doesn't make RPGs not games (after all every game has its own unique features that separates it from other games). The big thing that separates RPGs for me from other games is the attempt to remove the usual limits and constraints that a board or computer game would have. In an RPG, there is this idea that you can at least try anything. If you want to talk to the guard about his married life, the GM needs to react to that, and a GM can react to that in a way a board game or computer game simply can't.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] - i think you're trying to pile significance onto "chess variant" vs "adhered to all the chess rules exactly" that those terms won't bear, especially in this context.

Playing in ignorance or (for an adult playing with the child) deliberate disregard of certain rules is not the same thing as not seeing that your opponent is setting you up. There's a difference between (i) not noticing you're under threat or not noticing the significance of a piece being under threat (ie being set up by an opponent), and (ii) not treating a certain position as consituting a threat even though the full rules of the game make it one (ie not playing with en passant) and (ii) not knowing all the legal moves for the pieces (ie not playing with castling).

In the case of (ii) (ie a game in which the players don't use the enpassant rule) moving your pawn two squares adjacent to an opponent's pawn isn't moving your pawn into danger. That's not the same as moving it into danger but not noticing. It's a significant difference in what counts as good or bad play.

In the case of (iii) (ie a game in which castling is not an option), the different conception of the legal moves that pieces might make
means that many of the principles of development - both opening the back rank, and protecting it from threat - don't apply. That's a more subtle difference than (ii), but nevertheless a genuine one. Again, it changes what counts as good or bad play.

But it's still chess.

In Moldvay Basic, what counts as good play will depend, in part, on whether the variable weapon damage rule is being used. In AD&D, what counts as good play will depend, in part, on whether the weapon vs armour rules are being used (I remember reading advice articles for fighters, in an early White Dwarf and also in Dragon #95 or thereabouts, which talked about the importance of a fighter being proficient in, and carrying, at least one weapon that is good against plate armour).

But whether or not the optional rule is being used, the game is still Moldvay Basic or AD&D.

The differences in this respect between chess and RPGs are (in my view) being exaggerated. All games bring with them the possibility of varying rules, dropping rules, adding rules, etc. Even snakes and ladders, or the million-and-one other "race games" that children play - some versions ship with the rule "youngest player goes first", but others don't; and even in versions when that is the rule I've played the game with my kids using other rules for determining first player (eg roll a die, or take it in turns).

Opting not to engage in a rule is different from altering the rules. What you are describing is the same as if you and I played chess, and I chose not to move my knights.

This isn't true. In the children's chess that I'm describing, a pawn that moves two squares adjacent to an opponent's pawn is not under threat. It's not that it's under threat but the other player chooses not to take it, or fails to notice the chance to capture it.