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

[Maxperson]

So, in one campaign, we play a high RP game with virtually no combat and barely reference any rules for sessions on end. In another, we play a down and dirty dungeon crawl with pretty much zero RP and nothing but endless tactical combat.

I'm playing the same game?

100%. Virtually no combat still entails some combat using the same rules. The same skills you use in a dungeon crawl are also used in the high RP game. The same rules to make characters are used in both. Treasure is the same rules wise from one to the other. The same monsters exist for the DM to use or make up if he so chooses. Both games are designed around the same number of encounters per day. And so on. The same amount of exp is required for character to go up in level.

Or, put it another way. Let's see you create my Primeval Thule campaign. We're using the same rules right? So, you should be able to create my campaign with no problems.

Being the same game is not the same as identical results. This is a False Equivalence you are engaging in. There is no difference between Settlers of Catan resulting in different set-ups(hex layout and numbers) each time you play a game of it, and D&D resulting in different set-ups(campaign design and goals) each time you play a game of it. The differences are that D&D doesn't end after a few hours and one game of it can last for years, and the D&D rules describe how to play the game, rather than prescribe how to play the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I am not confused. People are equivocating on ‘game’. Here you are using it to mean an instance or session of of play (I.e. a full game of Catan or Chess). I meant game as in the rules system (I.e. this is the game of chess). Those are two very different meanings of the same word. I don’t know when we shifted to the former use but this conversation started out seeming to make the case that D&D wasn’t a game in the latter sense by relying on the former definition of the term, which is classic equivocation. If you are making some other argument, I have no objection.

We didn't switch between those two at all. The thread started out on whether D&D was a game at all, which is different from it being a game(rules system) or whether each instance of play was playing a game. Then [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] admitted that D&D was a game, and tried to argue that if you play two different campaigns(changes in game set-up_, that somehow you are not playing D&D when you play both of them and that they are two different games(rules systems). So now we're arguing with him over that, telling him that they are the same game(rules-system) and giving examples like Catan and such to show him that other kinds of games than RPGs also engage in a similar play format. That format being that the set-up being different each time you play a game of <insert rules system here> doesn't result in a different game(rules system).

So the discussion after whether or not D&D was even a game has used both meanings of the word game.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think anyone is denying prep is part of play, or denying RPGs have qualities that set them apart. But campaign creation is usually part of the rules. Most rule books have advice, guidelines and even mechanics for preparing campaigns and adventures. And if they don’t it is usually because the book assumes you already know that aspect of play. But prep is part of the game.

Yep. Campaign creation = board set-up in Catan as far as what both mean to their respective games. They are both just creating the stage upon which the game is played.

 

[Bedrockgames]

We didn't switch between those two at all. The thread started out on whether D&D was a game at all, which is different from it being a game(rules system) or whether each instance of play was playing a game. Then @Hussar admitted that D&D was a game, and tried to argue that if you play two different campaigns(changes in game set-up_, that somehow you are not playing D&D when you play both of them and that they are two different games(rules systems). So now we're arguing with him over that, telling him that they are the same game(rules-system) and giving examples like Catan and such to show him that other kinds of games than RPGs also engage in a similar play format. That format being that the set-up being different each time you play a game of <insert rules system here> doesn't result in a different game(rules system).

So the discussion after whether or not D&D was even a game has used both meanings of the word game.

Apologies if I am misdirecting any of my points at the wrong posters (we're in the hundreds of posts now and honestly having trouble sifting through everything at this stage). But if that is the case, then Hussar is equivocating on the two meanings to make his argument. the argument of whether or not D&D is a game, should only use the first meaning (a rules system), never the second meaning (a particular instance of play). I don't mean to harp on this, but I see equivocation constantly in RPG discussions, and I think it is one of the things that causes some of the more questionable assumptions in the hobby to take root.

 

[Lanefan]

game = a single identifyable episode of play e.g. a single game of Monopoly, in an RPG this "single episode" can encompass many instances of sitting at the table (sessions)
Game = the rules and design used repeatedly through different episodes of play e.g. the contents (including rulebook) of the Monopoly box, in an RPG this is the PH, DMG, MM, etc.

So, in one campaign, we play a high RP game with virtually no combat and barely reference any rules for sessions on end. In another, we play a down and dirty dungeon crawl with pretty much zero RP and nothing but endless tactical combat.

I'm playing the same game?

You don't mention whether these two examples - the high-RP game and the dungeon crawl - are using the same rules chassis (e.g. 5e, 13th Age, whatever); nor do you mention whether they involve the same players/characters/DM.

If 'yes' to using the same rules chassis then you're playing different games of the same Game. If 'no' then you're playing different games/Games.

If 'yes' to the same rules chassis and 'yes' to the same players and characters, then you're playing both the same game and the same Game.

Or, put it another way. Let's see you create my Primeval Thule campaign. We're using the same rules right? So, you should be able to create my campaign with no problems.

No, I shouldn't; though in theory I could - by the remotest of random chances.

Your creation of that campaign is merely part of an episode of play - a small-g game. Asking me to recreate it is the same as saying "I just played a game of Monopoly and came second, with no more knowledge than this you should be able to play exactly the same game to exactly the same result with no problems".

Lan-"got game"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

Apologies if I am misdirecting any of my points at the wrong posters (we're in the hundreds of posts now and honestly having trouble sifting through everything at this stage). But if that is the case, then Hussar is equivocating on the two meanings to make his argument. the argument of whether or not D&D is a game, should only use the first meaning (a rules system), never the second meaning (a particular instance of play). I don't mean to harp on this, but I see equivocation constantly in RPG discussions, and I think it is one of the things that causes some of the more questionable assumptions in the hobby to take root.

That ship sailed a long time ago. In the first few pages he admitted that D&D was a game. Then he went on to make the equally absurd claim that the game rules and game play are two different games. It's that second claim that he's arguing with everyone else about right now.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Ok, so, once more I'd like to flog this horse.

I was thinking about what differentiates RPG's from other games and I think I might have one true difference. RPG's aren't really games. Now wait, hear me out. I'm going somewhere with this.

In a typical game, you read the rules, follow the rules and play the game. Deal 5 cards, have rounds of betting until everyone calls and then show your cards - the rules of Poker pretty much directly line up with what you do when you play Poker. But, if you read the three core D&D 5e books, you can't actually play the game.

RPG's are game creation engines. They operating systems. You use the rules of an RPG to create the game that we play at the table. But, until such time as someone actually creates that game, you can't actually play an RPG. Your books don't tell you what to do. They tell you how to build your game.

My claim is more extreme in that even after you've figured out what you are doing, RPGs still aren't necessarily games. I'l get to my essay...someday.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This topic reminds me of the "boardgame" 504. You can pick different rules to use every game!

https://www.shutupandsitdown.com/videos/review-504/

 

[Hussar]

That ship sailed a long time ago. In the first few pages he admitted that D&D was a game. Then he went on to make the equally absurd claim that the game rules and game play are two different games. It's that second claim that he's arguing with everyone else about right now.

Now that's missing the point.

And, well, folks, at this point, there's really not much point in continuing this. I screwed this up from the outset with a bit of tongue in cheek clickbait title which derailed the conversation from the get go. Now we have people coming in quite a bit later who obviously haven't been reading what's being written and then trying to impose their own definitions on the discussion.

Yup, unsubscribed. You folks have fun.

 

[Maxperson]

Now that's missing the point.

And, well, folks, at this point, there's really not much point in continuing this. I screwed this up from the outset with a bit of tongue in cheek clickbait title which derailed the conversation from the get go. Now we have people coming in quite a bit later who obviously haven't been reading what's being written and then trying to impose their own definitions on the discussion.

Yup, unsubscribed. You folks have fun.

Suit yourself. I think it's kinda hokey, though, to make a claim like the game rules and game play are two different games, and then take off when you are challenged on it.