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

[Maxperson]

This is exactly the sort of play experience that makes me think that Hussar is write to focus on scenario as a key element of RPGing but is making a mistake in seeing it as an intermediate step that takes "game creation engine" to "game". Scenario is key because shared fiction is key - and the rules of a RPG can tell you when you need to establish some shared fiction, and they can tell you subject matters for that fiction, and they can even give suggestions for that fiction (eg as the Prince Valiant "episodes" do). But in the end the people at the table have to actually construct that fiction, because that's part of the core activity of playing a RPG.

He's also missing the forest for the trees when he focuses on scenario creation before the game and doesn't understand that pre-game scenario creation is part of setting the game up to be played. He's wrong on two fronts with this one. You don't need to prepare the scenario in advance, and when you do it's just a part of the set-up portion of a game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure. But, again, they're just variations on the basic game. Heck, even the Catan example I gave a few posts ago has that. But, at no point can you add a volcano to your Catan board. You don't actually create anything - just rejigger what's already there.



Nope. It really doesn't. Creation =/= set up. Sorry, but no. If you're honestly going to equate laying out a chess board with creating a scenario for an RPG, then, well, we're not going to agree here. We're not even speaking the same language.

See, in an RPG, I could add hex-tiles to Monopoly. I could add money to Wizwar. I could set up pretty much any scenario using the game system, and the only limit, generally, is the genre of the game. I'm probably not going to run a Feudal Lords type game with Traveler rules. Fair enough. But, I certainly might go from a dungeon crawl scenario to a hexploration scenario to an economic simulator scenario of running a kingdom within the span of three D&D scenarios. And, in each case, even though the players are doing entirely different things, they are all still playing D&D.

Laying out a game board requires zero creation. You can't have a scenario without creating something. Thus scenario creation is not the same as setting up a game board.

Creation is THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. Apparently you missed that. Going all the way back to my first post, my distinction between RPG's and other kinds of games is that you must create a scenario to play. No other games have that requirement.

I think we are getting caught up in the minutiae of terms and details. More interested in why this point might be significant. Is there a place you think this insight leads in terms of how games are played and designed, or is it more just a categorization issue?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Most people don't, but in truth there's nothing stopping someone from doing just this.

For Roborally, for example, my wife has designed and painted several custom boards for us which we mix in with the regular boards when we play.

 

[Hussar]

Again, you seem to equate telling other people some stuff (ie establishing a shared fiction) with something that has to happen before you can play a RPG. But that equation is false. I can establishe a shared fiction without preparing it - and doing that is (part of) playing a RPG.

I think we're actually saying the same thing. You say, "establish a shared fiction", I say "scenario creation". It's the same thing. Without that step, whatever you want to call it, there is no game. You say to the players, "what do you do", without establishing any scenario, and nothing happens.

4 players create 4 characters. The GM says, "What do you do?" And, well... nothing happens. Not without that creation step. Someone at the table has to be able to tell the players what's going on. Sure, sometimes that's shared among the table, sometimes it's invested in a GM, but, at the end of the day, someone has to create that shared fiction. Without that step - creating a shared fiction, what I'm calling scenario creation, there is no game.

You even admit to pulling scenarios out of your Rule book to get started. Someone had to create those. Imagine that your Prince Valiant book didn't have those canned scenes in them. Lots of RPG's don't and it's not required for an RPG to have them. What then? Is the game unplayable? No, of course not. The canned scenarios provide a guideline to new players on how to create scenarios for that system. But, those canned scenarios are not the be all and end all of the game and it's not required, at all, to play any of them.

 

[Hussar]

He's also missing the forest for the trees when he focuses on scenario creation before the game and doesn't understand that pre-game scenario creation is part of setting the game up to be played. He's wrong on two fronts with this one. You don't need to prepare the scenario in advance, and when you do it's just a part of the set-up portion of a game.

Only if you insist that creation and board set-up are the same thing. Which I don't. The notion that placing the pieces on a chess board is somehow some sort of act of creating a shared fiction at the table is ludicrous to me. As usual [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you are working from a really, really different dictionary from me.

 

[Hussar]

I think we are getting caught up in the minutiae of terms and details. More interested in why this point might be significant. Is there a place you think this insight leads in terms of how games are played and designed, or is it more just a categorization issue?

More just categorization. Oh, no, I don't think this is particularly insightful in other aspects. It's more just another way to be able to talk about RPG's as opposed to other games which doesn't rely on Forgisms and manages to include pretty much anything that we typically call an RPG, whether story game or trad RPG. My issue with the typical way of differentiating games is that it often is used to denigrate games that the person happens to not like (X isn't really an RPG, it's a story game) and, additionally, I find that the typical definitions include too many games, particularly video games where the line is getting a lot more blurry, that aren't really RPG's.

I find this a fairly clear line between RPG's and other games. Other games do not require that "shared fiction creation step", or "scenario creation step" or whatever you want to call it. All games require set-up, but, that's not the same thing. Simply plonking down a randomly generated dungeon and randomly created PC's isn't enough to play an RPG. It certainly IS enough to play most board games.

 

[Hussar]

Most people don't, but in truth there's nothing stopping someone from doing just this.

For Roborally, for example, my wife has designed and painted several custom boards for us which we mix in with the regular boards when we play.

Fair enough. But, you're still playing RoboRally no? You are not using Roborally to govern a kingdom, or explore a new planet or delve into the morality of forced assimilation, are you?

 

[Hussar]

I think this latest bit is leading somewhere very interesting and I'd like to unpack it a bit. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] talks about his wife creating new bits for Roborally. Very cool. But, I'd point out that it's not required to play the game. There is no act of creation necessitated to play.

And, therein lies a big difference. If you strip out the scenario creation guidelines from an RPG, an RPG is still quite playable. As proof of that, I'd point to any number of RPG's out there that don't have scenario creation guidelines. At least, not any mechanical ones. You certainly don't have to reference the D&D dungeon creation section at all to create a dungeon crawl for D&D. The section is there to provide advice, sure, but, it's not required.

OTOH, for any board game, strip out the set-up rules and the game is unplayable. You cannot play Catan, for example, without those rules. Imagine not knowing how to set up chess and having no set up rules and trying to play. You know how the pieces move on the board, you know the win conditions, but, you don't know how many of each piece to use nor where those pieces should be placed.

Sure, you could create your own game. True. But, at that point, you aren't playing chess anymore, you're playing whatever game you've created. IOW, scenario creation creates a new game, just like in an RPG. RPG's require you to create a shared fiction/scenario in order to play. They don't have a "set-up" set of rules.

This applies to other games as well. Without knowing how to set up a basketball court, you can't actually play basketball. You could play a new game, that you've created, but, it wouldn't actually be basketball. Video games build in the set up right into the start up of the game. You can't choose beyond the options granted to you by the game itself.

To me, it's a pretty clear difference here. You can strip out the set-up rules of an RPG because an RPG requires you to create your own game, whether before play starts or during play. You cannot strip out the set-up rules of any other type of game. Once you do so, the game stops functioning.

 

[pemerton]

More just categorization. Oh, no, I don't think this is particularly insightful in other aspects. It's more just another way to be able to talk about RPG's as opposed to other games

<snip>

My issue with the typical way of differentiating games is that it often is used to denigrate games that the person happens to not like (X isn't really an RPG, it's a story game) and, additionally, I find that the typical definitions include too many games, particularly video games where the line is getting a lot more blurry, that aren't really RPG's.

I find this a fairly clear line between RPG's and other games.

I think we're actually saying the same thing. You say, "establish a shared fiction", I say "scenario creation". It's the same thing. Without that step, whatever you want to call it, there is no game. You say to the players, "what do you do", without establishing any scenario, and nothing happens.

4 players create 4 characters. The GM says, "What do you do?" And, well... nothing happens. Not without that creation step. Someone at the table has to be able to tell the players what's going on. Sure, sometimes that's shared among the table, sometimes it's invested in a GM, but, at the end of the day, someone has to create that shared fiction. Without that step - creating a shared fiction, what I'm calling scenario creation, there is no game.

You even admit to pulling scenarios out of your Rule book to get started. Someone had to create those. Imagine that your Prince Valiant book didn't have those canned scenes in them. Lots of RPG's don't and it's not required for an RPG to have them. What then? Is the game unplayable? No, of course not. The canned scenarios provide a guideline to new players on how to create scenarios for that system. But, those canned scenarios are not the be all and end all of the game and it's not required, at all, to play any of them.

Where we differ, I think, is this:

I think that when the GM tells the players (or when the group sits around and decides among themselves, in more consensus-oriented RPGing) Here's what you see and what you know, that is playing the game. It's not a prior step that then enables play to take place.

Whereas you seem to be disagreeing (with your reference to "game creation engines" etc).

If I've misunderstood what I think is a disagreement, I'm happy to be put straight!

The reason I think it matters is actually similar to yours: by framing establishing the shared fiction as prep, or as a "game creation" step, I think you prioritise some styles of RPGing (mainly (i) classic dungeon crawling and (ii) GM-driven adventure paths and modules) over others. Whereas I want to keep those others clearly in the frame.

And on the issue of set-up: I don't know if you've ever read the rules for In a Wicked Age, but it is probably the clearest presentation of RPG setup as game setup that I know. It begins with an Invitation:

Invitation
what: In a Wicked Age
who: You and three or four of your smartest, boldest, most creative, and hottest friends
where: In your living room, or around your dining room table
when: Once a week or twice a month, for several weeks or a few months
bring: Mixed dice
The Four Oracles
A deck of cards (with the jokers out)
Copies of the sheets
Pencils
Snacks: tea, wine, nuts, chocolates, fruit
For dice, you’ll need a few of every size (except twenties). Be sure you have sixes with numbers and sixes with pips, both, too.
For sheets, you’ll need a story sheet, a character sheet for each player, a handful of NPC sheets, a few particular strength sheets, and
an owe list. The first time, just write “we owe” at the top of a blank sheet; after that, keep the same owe list going.​

There are then three pages of instructions on getting started - diving the oracles, establishing the characters and filling in their sheets, and designing any "particular effects" (ie magic and similar special abilities) needed for those characters. At the end of those pages is the following:

Wait here until everyone’s made all their character sheets and particular strength sheets (for those who do). If you’re finished early and waiting, maybe it’s time to pour the wine?​

There's then another two pages on establishing characters' "best interests", which is the Belief/Alignment/IBF mechanic that actually drives play. That concludes:

At the end, you should have a situation not easily untangled and about to turn really bad. Some of the characters will be able to achieve their interests, concievably, but only by fighting and meaning it, and only by taking other characters’ best interests away. Dedicated rivals, aggressive enemies, and alliances fragile at best.

It’s time to start the game.​

It's complicated setup compared to chess or backgammon. It's easier than some boardgames (eg Magic Realm, which I own but don't really understand). I'm sure it's easier than some wargames (I've never played Empires in Arms, but from my knowledge of it I'm guessing its set up rules take more than 5 pages, and probably takes more than the hour or so that IaWA took when I ran a session of it).

 

[pemerton]

If you strip out the scenario creation guidelines from an RPG, an RPG is still quite playable. As proof of that, I'd point to any number of RPG's out there that don't have scenario creation guidelines. At least, not any mechanical ones. You certainly don't have to reference the D&D dungeon creation section at all to create a dungeon crawl for D&D. The section is there to provide advice, sure, but, it's not required.

OTOH, for any board game, strip out the set-up rules and the game is unplayable. You cannot play Catan, for example, without those rules. Imagine not knowing how to set up chess and having no set up rules and trying to play.

All this shows is that many RPGs ship with incomplete rules, and rely upon a shared sense of "knowing how it's done" to work. It's like picking up a really cheap draughts/checkers set, which has pieces and a board and relies on the fact that everyone already knows how to play.

OD&D is notorious in this respect. Contrast Moldvay Basic, which actually does have set-up/scenario creation rules, precisely because it is meant to be playable by people who don't already know how to play an RPG.