Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7468195" data-attributes="member: 29398">While I think you're maybe on to something here, I also think you've hit the wrong difference.It's not that RPG games aren't games.&nbsp; They are, in that participants sit down and engage in a communal recreational activity which in theory provides fun-enjoyment-entertainment for said participants.But RPG rules aren't the same as game rules, particularly in terms of how they set or don't set boundaries to play.In a more typical game like chess or poker, the rules set the hard boundaries of what can be done within the game meaning play can almost certainly only proceed in a similar manner both from one game to the next and when comparing different groups of people playing the same game.But in most RPGs the rules provide only a skeleton, onto which the participants (and often mostly just one participant) have to add flesh and beyond which the participants can sometimes go should the mood strike them - the boundaries set by the rules are in some cases hard boundaries (e.g. in D&amp;D 5e there are 6 ability scores, a d20 is rolled to attack, etc.), in many cases soft boundaries (the DM isn't always bound by the rules, a player/PC can find unexpected uses for a spell, kitbashing the system is sometimes encouraged, etc.), and in a few cases no boundary at all (e.g. an Illusionist can cast as an illusion anything she can dream up, no matter how ridiculous).&nbsp; End result: rarely if ever are two RPG games going to be as similar to each other as two games of chess or two games of poker would be.There's also the whole bit about whether a game requires a win-loss condition and whether an RPG has such, but that's not what I'm talking about here.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7468195, member: 29398"] While I think you're maybe on to something here, I also think you've hit the wrong difference. It's not that RPG games aren't games. They are, in that participants sit down and engage in a communal recreational activity which in theory provides fun-enjoyment-entertainment for said participants. But RPG rules aren't the same as game rules, particularly in terms of how they set or don't set boundaries to play. In a more typical game like chess or poker, the rules set the hard boundaries of what can be done within the game meaning play can almost certainly only proceed in a similar manner both from one game to the next and when comparing different groups of people playing the same game. But in most RPGs the rules provide only a skeleton, onto which the participants (and often mostly just one participant) have to add flesh and beyond which the participants can sometimes go should the mood strike them - the boundaries set by the rules are in some cases hard boundaries (e.g. in D&D 5e there are 6 ability scores, a d20 is rolled to attack, etc.), in many cases soft boundaries (the DM isn't always bound by the rules, a player/PC can find unexpected uses for a spell, kitbashing the system is sometimes encouraged, etc.), and in a few cases no boundary at all (e.g. an Illusionist can cast as an illusion anything she can dream up, no matter how ridiculous). End result: rarely if ever are two RPG games going to be as similar to each other as two games of chess or two games of poker would be. There's also the whole bit about whether a game requires a win-loss condition and whether an RPG has such, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification