Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7469098" data-attributes="member: 177">What?!?You just said (and I quote): &quot;RPG's are game creation engines. ...&nbsp; You use the rules of an RPG to create the game that we play at the table.&quot;So, which is it?&nbsp; 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 &quot;engine&quot; should almost literally crank out games for you.&nbsp; My car engine does not provide my car with &quot;guidelines&quot;, it actually does the work of moving the car.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.But, the setup for Advanced Squad Leader is *NOT* the same each time you play!&nbsp; Nor is it for pretty much any modern wargame!&nbsp; 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!&nbsp; Nor is the setup the same for, say, Sentinels of the Multiverse.&nbsp; When you play Settlers of Catan, the world is created anew with each play.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; And many RPGs (many FATE variants, for example) have an explicit world-building step for the players in the rules.As above - the set up being different each time is not unique to RPGs.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; &quot;These games have this difference.&nbsp; That makes them not games!&quot;&nbsp; Don't you also have to show how that difference is... not game-like?&nbsp; There is a danger in this kind of analysis - the potential to assume the conclusion.&nbsp; We don't actually have an acceptable definition of &quot;game&quot; that everyone agrees on to being with*.&nbsp; So, you set about looking at a class of games to find points of difference.&nbsp; But, the fact that it is an identifiable class means that it is different from other games in some way.&nbsp; For any identifiable class you will *always* find some distinguishing characteristics.&nbsp; It is not enough, then, for the distinguishing characteristics to exist.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; That overcomes *ALL OTHER GAME-LIKE ASPECTS*?*I think this is key.&nbsp; If we cannot all agree upon what a game is, we simply won't agree on all determinations of whether a given activity fits.&nbsp; C'est la vie.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7469098, member: 177"] 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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification