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

[Lanefan]

But once the connection between scenario prepration and prep is severed, what is scenario creation?

You can't sever the connection. Scenario creation is a part of prep no matter what you do. Even if the GM is in theory making it all up on the fly during play it's still prep, only with a near-zero lead time; and rare indeed wuld be the GM who didn't have at least some background in mind to put this all against e.g your own example where you used WoG as your background setting.

It's just the GM playing the game! And what does it consist in? Establishing shared fiction for the players to engage via action declaration for their PCs!

When the GM is in full react mode in mid-session then this is true; but by this point the background/setting is already established.

 

[pemerton]

You can't sever the connection. Scenario creation is a part of prep no matter what you do. Even if the GM is in theory making it all up on the fly during play it's still prep, only with a near-zero lead time; and rare indeed wuld be the GM who didn't have at least some background in mind to put this all against e.g your own example where you used WoG as your background setting.

When the GM is in full react mode in mid-session then this is true; but by this point the background/setting is already established.

These are false claims.

Writing a speech is a form of preparation. Having a conversation is not.

Drawing a map, designing other story elements, etc, in advance of play, is preparation. Making stuff up in a back-and-forth with my friends, perhaps mediated by a rulebook, is not.

There are some approaches to RPGing which deem that certain stuff that is made up during play is to be treated as if it was in fact prepared in advance. I think those are the only approaches to RPGing that you have any experience of. But they don't cover the field.

 

[Lanefan]

These are false claims.

Writing a speech is a form of preparation. Having a conversation is not.

Having a conversation where you knew going in which way you were going to try and lead it (e.g. a conversation with your boss during which you'd decided ahead of time that you were going to try and work the chat around to asking for a raise), that forethought is prep. The conversaton is the run of play.

Drawing a map, designing other story elements, etc, in advance of play, is preparation.

Yes, here we agree.

Making stuff up in a back-and-forth with my friends, perhaps mediated by a rulebook, is not.

Not quite so cut-and-dried. If the GM is making it up in reaction to what the players do then there may or may not have been prep involved. For example, if the players/PCs decide to check out some cultists' lair in the city sewers that their previous in-game inquiries had pointed them toward then the GM might make something up on the fly, or might already have something prepped, or some combination of these (and ideally, from the player side there's no way to tell the difference during play).

There are some approaches to RPGing which deem that certain stuff that is made up during play is to be treated as if it was in fact prepared in advance. I think those are the only approaches to RPGing that you have any experience of. But they don't cover the field.

Whatever's made up during play kinda has to be treated as setting canon thenceforth, unless nobody cares at all about internal consistency, and thus treating it all as if it was already prepped even if it wasn't is just an extension of this. (and actually having as much of it prepped as possible just makes it easier)

 

[pemerton]

Having a conversation where you knew going in which way you were going to try and lead it (e.g. a conversation with your boss during which you'd decided ahead of time that you were going to try and work the chat around to asking for a raise), that forethought is prep.

But not all conversations are like that. I had several conversations with friends at work today, and none of them was like that.

Whatever's made up during play kinda has to be treated as setting canon thenceforth, unless nobody cares at all about internal consistency, and thus treating it all as if it was already prepped

No. Treating some fiction as "canon" ie as already established doesn't mean treating it as prepped. That assumes an equivalence between setting/scenario and prep which simply doesn't obtain. (And as a form of argument is question begging in virtue of assuming what you are trying to prove.)

There are some approaches to RPGing - eg classic dungeoneering - in which setting/scenario = prep. But not all RPGing is like that, or is configured as an ad hoc or deviant departure from that as a default.

 

[Sadras]

If one keeps discussing the same topic in thread after thread, is it considered prepped?

 

[Maxperson]

If one keeps discussing the same topic in thread after thread, is it considered prepped?

Pretty sure it's considered beating a dead horse.

I have to agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] here, though. Preparation is done well in advance of something. If you look at all of the examples of preparation, it's getting stuff done in advance of the event, not something done during the event. So even if you have an idea of where you want to go with the event, it's not prep to do it while the event is going on.

 

[Hussar]

But that is part of the game, not a thing you are adding in top of it. Even in something like the white box, if my memory is correct, it talks about making dungeons for example.

But what is the point of all this hairsplitting? I just don't even understand where you are trying to go with this. Everyone understands one of the things that makes table top gaming unique is there is this sense of possibility when you sit down at the table, and that the experience feels so different from other media (like books, video games, etc). No one is saying table top games are not unique. I think we are just puzzled by the fixation on this point (so much so that posters who are usually at odds with one another, appear to be on the same page scratching their heads here).

It's not hair splitting. That's my point that scenario creation is part of the game. It's only part of the game for RPG's. RPG's are the only games where it's required that you must create a game before you can play

You can't play Monopoly without a board, pieces and money(or a representation of it), either. With very few exceptions, the same goes for all games. You need the set-up portion to play.

Yes, but, the games dictate to you what that board, pieces and whatnot IS. You don't use the rules for Monopoly to create a completely new board with shortcuts, new spaces, spaces that exist outside the written rules that interact with the game in completely new and idiosyncratic ways for your specific table.

Comparing set-up of a board game to scenario creation is like saying that a bicycle is the same as a Ferrari because they both have wheels. It's a false equivalency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not hair splitting. That's my point that scenario creation is part of the game. It's only part of the game for RPG's. RPG's are the only games where it's required that you must create a game before you can play
.

But that isn't true. You can create a scenario and/or setting during play. Also plenty of games come with setting material pre-made, or come with random methods for determining scenario material during play. Yes you need a place for the game to be occurring in. It doesn't have to happen before play. But yes, you do need to have some kind of setting or scenario for the thing to hang on. Again, though, I am just not seeing the point of this line of discussion. It is like obvious point 0 of RPGs: to play Dungeons and Dragons you need a dungeon. This isn't exactly a revelation Hussar.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, but, the games dictate to you what that board, pieces and whatnot IS. You don't use the rules for Monopoly to create a completely new board with shortcuts, new spaces, spaces that exist outside the written rules that interact with the game in completely new and idiosyncratic ways for your specific table.

As I said earlier. The difference between Monopoly and an RPG is that the set-up portion of the RPG is much more involved. That extra involvement, though, doesn't mean that it still isn't just set-up. Monopoly and RPGs have the same play procedure. Rules-->set-up-->play.

Comparing set-up of a board game to scenario creation is like saying that a bicycle is the same as a Ferrari because they both have wheels. It's a false equivalency.

The equivalency is not false at all. Both a bicycle and a Ferrari are vehicles. I'm comparing set-up = set-up. That's equal. The scope is all that is different and I've already acknowledged that RPGs are much more involved with set-up.

 

[Hussar]

These are false claims.

Writing a speech is a form of preparation. Having a conversation is not.

Drawing a map, designing other story elements, etc, in advance of play, is preparation. Making stuff up in a back-and-forth with my friends, perhaps mediated by a rulebook, is not.

There are some approaches to RPGing which deem that certain stuff that is made up during play is to be treated as if it was in fact prepared in advance. I think those are the only approaches to RPGing that you have any experience of. But they don't cover the field.

You keep focusing on the prep side. That's largely irrelevant. It really doesn't matter.

What matters is the scenario creation. You cannot play an RPG without creating a scenario. Full stop. When you create that, who cares? That's not important. The fact that you HAVE TO CREATE A SCENARIO is the important part. Board games and other games do not have this step. You read the rules of a board game, which tell you how to set up the board - even if the set up is somewhat randomized - and then you play THAT GAME. And, generally speaking, that game will be pretty close to every other game played with the same rules.

This is simply not true in an RPG. There are no "set up" rules for an RPG. There are some guidelines, sure, but, the scenario you create, whether as the GM or collaboratively as in some other RPG's, MUST BE CREATED before you can play. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], your own examples show this. You could not play your Traveler game without you, as GM, creating the scenario that the players played through. The rules helped you create the scenario, but, certainly didn't tell you what that scenario had to be.