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

[Maxperson]

Because the rules of an RPG do not tell you what that scene is. Nor do they include any way to determine what that scene is. You are expected, as a player in an RPG, to create that shared fiction (whether alone in a trad RPG as the DM, or as a group in other RPG's.) and THAT SHARED FICTION is what you play out.

Here is the rules for Pictionary. What do you have to create to play Pictionary that is not contained in the rules in order to play? You open the box, follow the instructions and play. Done. Nothing, not a single thing, has to be created outside the framework of the rules. Your categories are pre-selected, the words that you have to draw are also pre-selected. For example, your Pictionary will not contain words not in the language selected. You don't need to create new words to play Pictionary. In fact, you CAN'T create new words and play Pictionary. Every single thing you need to play that game is self contained within the rules of that game.

Then substitute Charades for Pictionary. The rules do not dictate what you are to pick for your charades. You can also use Scattergories. The rules say to use the letter C and give catagories, but the players create which words they use. That's the same as D&D rules instructing you to create a scenario, giving you advice on how, and then leaving you to create up with the details.

@Ovinomance has you here, not that he should have had to. It's painfully obvious that scenario creation is just a form of set-up, and almost every other game has set-up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because the rules of an RPG do not tell you what that scene is. Nor do they include any way to determine what that scene is. You are expected, as a player in an RPG, to create that shared fiction (whether alone in a trad RPG as the DM, or as a group in other RPG's.) and THAT SHARED FICTION is what you play out.

Here is the rules for Pictionary. What do you have to create to play Pictionary that is not contained in the rules in order to play? You open the box, follow the instructions and play. Done. Nothing, not a single thing, has to be created outside the framework of the rules. Your categories are pre-selected, the words that you have to draw are also pre-selected. For example, your Pictionary will not contain words not in the language selected. You don't need to create new words to play Pictionary. In fact, you CAN'T create new words and play Pictionary. Every single thing you need to play that game is self contained within the rules of that game.

That is NOT true of an RPG. Every example that's been brought up so far proves that. Whether it's determining the marital status of a PC, or determining what jobs are going to be offered to the PC's in Traveler. None of this is included in the rules of those games but every single time, those questions HAVE to be answered before play progresses.

The act of creating the shared fiction/scenario creates the game you are going to play and RPG's require the participants to create elements that are not in any way defined by the mechanics of the game in order to play. Thus, every single campaign, whether it's a one shot or a 10 year magnum opus is a unique game because the elements that you must create in order to play that campaign are idiosyncratic to that specific campaign, are required for that campaign and cannot be reproduced in any other campaign.

But the rules for Pictionary do not tell me what to draw. They provide a goal for the game, yes, which is 'draw something so that your teammates guess the goal' but they do not say 'draw this thing in this way.' You're ignoring this part.

Further, your arguments about RPGs seem to indicate that running a published module isn't RPGing, because the scenes are provided. I'm sure the counter is that someone had to write that module, but then, someone had to write the Pcitionary categories and words as well. Either a thing is a thing or it is not, you cannot change classifications based on which argument you wish to present.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a good point that the point of RPGs is the creation of shared fiction, a goal which is lacking from most board games that have more concrete goals. It also dovetails nicely with my description of RPGs as consensus fiction generators, where the rules act primarily to find consensus about the shared fiction. You're trying to differentiate RPGs by method; I think you should consider goals.

ETA: also, by technical definition, games like Pandemic are role-playing games -- you assume a role for the game that changes how you approach and interact with the game. Monopoly and Pictionary lack this roleplay.

 

[Lanefan]

But the rules for Pictionary do not tell me what to draw. They provide a goal for the game, yes, which is 'draw something so that your teammates guess the goal' but they do not say 'draw this thing in this way.' You're ignoring this part.

Pictionary does fall into a gray area, much like pass-the-conch storytelling games, where at least in part creation and play are one and the same. The difference with Pictionary is that there's other elements that are purely play that feed off of this creation (the guessing bits, and scoring if such is done); this doesn't really exist in pass-the-conch.

And the difference between RPGs and Pictionary is that the creation phase - yes, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , even when said creation phase happens on the fly during play rather than in advance - is more easily seen for what it is; and play then feeds off of it.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a good point that the point of RPGs is the creation of shared fiction, a goal which is lacking from most board games that have more concrete goals. It also dovetails nicely with my description of RPGs as consensus fiction generators, where the rules act primarily to find consensus about the shared fiction. You're trying to differentiate RPGs by method; I think you should consider goals.

As far as I can tell the discussion was supposed to be about method right from post one, and how the methods that go into an RPG are different than what go into most other games due to the extra 'creation' step.

That said, I can think of one example where content from outside a game can be brought into that game on the fly: in M:tG there was a cycle of five cards once, each called "xxxxx Wish", each of which allowed you to take a card you owned that was not in your deck and put it into your hand. For tournament play you were restricted to your sideboard; but for casual play it could be anything you owned and had access to, which is the version I'm using as an example here.

Lanefan

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

This reminds me of the discussion about the Ship of Theseus, maybe a RPG is not actually a "thing" like a rule book for example maybe a RPG is a "process" that includes all aspects from reading the rules, preparing material, running the game and wrapping up at the end.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Pictionary does fall into a gray area, much like pass-the-conch storytelling games, where at least in part creation and play are one and the same. The difference with Pictionary is that there's other elements that are purely play that feed off of this creation (the guessing bits, and scoring if such is done); this doesn't really exist in pass-the-conch.

And the difference between RPGs and Pictionary is that the creation phase - yes, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , even when said creation phase happens on the fly during play rather than in advance - is more easily seen for what it is; and play then feeds off of it.

I'm struggling to follow you here. If Pictionary is in a grey area, there's a ton of games in the same grey area -- enough that the distinction you're claiming isn't very strong at all, even if I were inclined to agree with it.

As far as I can tell the discussion was supposed to be about method right from post one, and how the methods that go into an RPG are different than what go into most other games due to the extra 'creation' step.

Well, yes, and that's the problem.

That said, I can think of one example where content from outside a game can be brought into that game on the fly: in M:tG there was a cycle of five cards once, each called "xxxxx Wish", each of which allowed you to take a card you owned that was not in your deck and put it into your hand. For tournament play you were restricted to your sideboard; but for casual play it could be anything you owned and had access to, which is the version I'm using as an example here.

Lanefan

Just to take your position for the sake of argument here, but how are cards that are part of the M:TG ruleset to be considered from outside the game? This doesn't even work assuming your points are true and correct. Which I don't, of course.

 

[Hussar]

But even the first sentence is not true. The player could have just ignored the whole thing, declined to make a decision about his PC's past, and the focus of play would have shifted. It's not like I've got no ideas to keep the session moving unless we sought out this marriage thing!

But, now, you're playing a different scenario. And, in order to play a different scenario, you still need to create THAT new shared fiction.

I'm obviously not explaining my point clearly enough here because the only one who seems to understand what I'm saying is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. You keep fixating on when the shared fiction is being created and, as far as I'm concerned, that's not important. Whether it's created beforehand or during play, it's the fact that that shared fiction, which is not referencing the mechanics in any real way, that is the difference from other games.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to be utterly convinced that creating a complete scenario is the same as shuffling a deck of cards, so, again, I'm not explaining myself well enough because, to me, there's nothing in common. Even in something like Charades or Pictionary- what is being created? If your word is cat, and you start slithering like a snake or draw a snake, you are either really, really bad a those games or you're not understanding the rules of the game. Your output in both games is dictated by the game itself.

And, just to add, you keep coming up with single examples and going, "AHA! GOTCHA!" without even bothering to try to take a broader view. No genre discussion is ever, ever 100% watertight. And, I'm frankly getting very tired of this nit picking and then declaring victory. At least [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others have the decency to make the attempt to address the broader issues rather than playing silly buggers.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm obviously not explaining my point clearly enough here because the only one who seems to understand what I'm saying is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. You keep fixating on when the shared fiction is being created and, as far as I'm concerned, that's not important. Whether it's created beforehand or during play, it's the fact that that shared fiction, which is not referencing the mechanics in any real way, that is the difference from other games.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] called the creation process set-up. He did it in a post that you responded do with, "I agree completely." Given your vehement opposition to that concept, I don't think you are reading his responses very carefully.

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to be utterly convinced that creating a complete scenario is the same as shuffling a deck of cards, so, again, I'm not explaining myself well enough because, to me, there's nothing in common.

Given that both are set-up, they are both set-up. That's what they have in common.

Even in something like Charades or Pictionary- what is being created? If your word is cat, and you start slithering like a snake or draw a snake, you are either really, really bad a those games or you're not understanding the rules of the game. Your output in both games is dictated by the game itself.

In Pictionary if I get a card that says to draw Cagney and Lacey, I can in my attempt to draw Lacey, draw the following. An item with a lot of lace, bag of potato chips and the sea, a person lying down with his hand to his eyes trying to see something, or Lacey herself. The game did not tell me what to draw and I have a lot of creative leeway to draw whatever the heck I want in my attempt to get the other person to guess right. Cagney I'm stumped on what the heck to draw.

 

[Maxperson]

That said, I can think of one example where content from outside a game can be brought into that game on the fly: in M:tG there was a cycle of five cards once, each called "xxxxx Wish", each of which allowed you to take a card you owned that was not in your deck and put it into your hand. For tournament play you were restricted to your sideboard; but for casual play it could be anything you owned and had access to, which is the version I'm using as an example here.

I don't remember that cycle of cards, but I've been kinds out of the loop for a while. That said, in the Arabian Knights set there was the Ring of Ma'Ruf which allowed you to get any card you owned outside of your deck. It didn't specify that it had to be a MTG card, so once for the hell of it I grabbed an ace of spades. It didn't help me any in that game, but it did get a laugh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But, now, you're playing a different scenario. And, in order to play a different scenario, you still need to create THAT new shared fiction.

I'm obviously not explaining my point clearly enough here because the only one who seems to understand what I'm saying is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. You keep fixating on when the shared fiction is being created and, as far as I'm concerned, that's not important. Whether it's created beforehand or during play, it's the fact that that shared fiction, which is not referencing the mechanics in any real way, that is the difference from other games.

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] seems to be utterly convinced that creating a complete scenario is the same as shuffling a deck of cards, so, again, I'm not explaining myself well enough because, to me, there's nothing in common. Even in something like Charades or Pictionary- what is being created? If your word is cat, and you start slithering like a snake or draw a snake, you are either really, really bad a those games or you're not understanding the rules of the game. Your output in both games is dictated by the game itself.

And, just to add, you keep coming up with single examples and going, "AHA! GOTCHA!" without even bothering to try to take a broader view. No genre discussion is ever, ever 100% watertight. And, I'm frankly getting very tired of this nit picking and then declaring victory. At least [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others have the decency to make the attempt to address the broader issues rather than playing silly buggers.

When you logically critique a definition, single examples that argue against the definition are revealing. However, I'm not doing this, I'm questioning the very premise you're starting with. Defining RPGs by the creation aspect isn't valid -- there are many games where creation is critical to play, Pictionary being a useful example. Nothing in Pictionary tells me what to draw, only what I need to get my teammates to guess to win a point. This is closely analogous to setting a scene in an RPG -- I create this to get the players to engage with it using the rules to achieve the goal of play. Again, you're method focused, which is going to fail for you because you seem to have a huge blind-spot to non-D&D, non-DM-centric RPGs and how they function (which can be wildly different from D&D). For instance, no myth games are predicated on the premise that nothing is made up outside of play -- all facts for the game are presented by the players during play and become the setting, not the other way around. The players literally create the setting in play via their action declarations.

Instead, you should look to goals of play -- outcomes. There's a pretty general definition of the goals of RPGs, and it differs from other games to a useful degree.