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

[Shasarak]

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.

So are you saying that an RPG book is like a pack of cards or a ball. They are not games, they are the things we use to play games with?

 

[Hussar]

So are you saying that an RPG book is like a pack of cards or a ball. They are not games, they are the things we use to play games with?

Exactly. Well said. I used the computer OS analogy, but, this fits rather well too.

The RPG in question will obviously influence the kind of game you create - just like using a different ball will create a different game or using Uno cards instead of a pack of Bicycle cards will create a different game. But, at the end of the day, the game that you play is something that you've used the rules of the RPG to create, rather than playing the RPG directly.

Even more limited RPG's, like, say, Dying Earth (incredibly fun game btw) will very quickly diverge from that starting point to where each table will be playing a very different game.

RPG's are game creation engines.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Unless the somewhere you're going is "RPGs are actually totally games, I was just trying to make you think," you've probably lost me on this one. ;P

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.

OK, you're not talking about RPGs in general, you're talking about 5e, in particular, and, yes, it's true that you can't run 5e 'by the book,' by /just/ following RAW and making no judgements or interpretations as the DM (because the rules explicitly call for DM judgements!). That doesn't mean it's not a game, it just means it's a game that doesn't work without the DM.

RPG's are game creation engines. They're 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.

There are a few games out there, like Fuzion, intentionally designed as 'tookits' that way, sure, but not RPGs in general. You take a nominally functional RPG, a pre-designed adventure for it, you play conventional characters that don't require any rule tweaks or anything, and you run through the adventure in a conventional way, and it can work. True, some of the better known RPGs may not have rulesets that are up to that, but they're still games - just bad ones. ;P And, also true, you can create variants and house rules for any game, making it into a slightly-to-totally different game. Doesn't matter if that game is D&D or Monopoly - or even some other game not also published by Hasbro...

 

[Hussar]

Think about what you just said [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. You take the game, ok fine. Then you added a pre-deigned adventure.

Whoops. Now I’m not playing just the rpg anymore. Now I’m playing that adventure. IOW, I can’t just play the rpg. The rpg is the game creation engine and operating system, but the actual game is that module.

I don’t think you’re actually disagreeing with me.

 

[Umbran]

RPG's do not. The game gives a number of guidelines on how to create a game, but, you cannot actually play D&D without first creating a game.

What?!?

You just said (and I quote): "RPG's are game creation engines. ... You use the rules of an RPG to create the game that we play at the table."

So, which is it? First you say it is an outright game creation engine, but now you say it is only a guideline, and it doesn't tell you how to create the game?

I mean, to me, an "engine" should almost literally crank out games for you. My car engine does not provide my car with "guidelines", it actually does the work of moving the car.

Which is why discussing RPG's becomes so problematic because no two tables is EVER playing the same game. Except maybe something like Adventurers League, I suppose, but, that's somewhat its own animal.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the only thing that Adventurer's League has that the rulebooks themselves don't are the adventures.

I'd argue that for non-RPG's, the setup isn't just simple (and, having played games like Advanced Squad Leader, I'd argue that board games =/= simple set ups), but that your initial conditions are dictated by the game itself. There is no game creation in setting up Monopoly. Every single time you play Monopoly, the set up is identical and dictated by the game.

But, the setup for Advanced Squad Leader is *NOT* the same each time you play! Nor is it for pretty much any modern wargame! In Car Wars, the players choose a track, and a dollar value for cars, and then create their cars - thh value, track, and cars are nto stipulated by the rules! Nor is the setup the same for, say, Sentinels of the Multiverse. When you play Settlers of Catan, the world is created anew with each play. Similarly in Betrayal at House on the Hill, both the game board and the ultimate win conditions are a result of play, not pre-determined. And many RPGs (many FATE variants, for example) have an explicit world-building step for the players in the rules.

Every single time you play an RPG, the set up is different and the rules don't dictate any initial conditions.

As above - the set up being different each time is not unique to RPGs. And, the rules do give you some initial conditions, in terms of character creation and challenge design for characters of the chosen level.

I am so far not convinced. I will grant you that RPGs have massively more choice in setup than other games, but that doesn't make it not a game.

Think for a moment about that. "These games have this difference. That makes them not games!" Don't you also have to show how that difference is... not game-like?

There is a danger in this kind of analysis - the potential to assume the conclusion. We don't actually have an acceptable definition of "game" that everyone agrees on to being with*. So, you set about looking at a class of games to find points of difference. But, the fact that it is an identifiable class means that it is different from other games in some way. For any identifiable class you will *always* find some distinguishing characteristics. It is not enough, then, for the distinguishing characteristics to exist. They must be so egregiously not-game as to boot the entire class out of gamedom entirely.

Really, is having a poorly-defined, non-deterministic or choice-heavy setup *that* egregious? That overcomes *ALL OTHER GAME-LIKE ASPECTS*?






*I think this is key. If we cannot all agree upon what a game is, we simply won't agree on all determinations of whether a given activity fits. C'est la vie.

 

[DCRWrites]

You can always define game to exclude the majority of RPGs-- but I would definitely describe them as falling under the category of "play."

 

[Tony Vargas]

Think about what you just said [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]. You take the game, ok fine. Then you added a pre-deigned adventure.

Whoops. Now I’m not playing just the rpg anymore.

Sure you are, RPGs include a lot of materials, adventures not excepted.

 

[Imaculata]

In a typical game, you read the rules, follow the rules and play the game.

Not all games have to work this way. Just because some games break away from the common formula, does not mean they are outside the definition of a game.

 

[ajevans]

I don't really see the point in this?

The world 'Game' has a wide variety of definitions including 'a competitive activity played according to the rules' to 'an activity one engages into for amusement'.

RPGs don't always meet the former definition for example, but neither do co-op board games. But definitely meet the latter.

Okay a RPG book may not be a game in and within itself, but neither are the rules to Snooker, Football, Poker etc.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, then, are wargames similarly not games because they require a scenario/map outside of the rules?