Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7474173" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The issue here, in my view, is not that <em>RPGs require creation</em> but that the two campaigns are probably using different systems (though perhaps both derived, more or less tightly, from the same commercially published product), and certainly have different expectations about what counts as a "proper" move.</p><p></p><p>You've probably noticed that I rant against the use of metaphor to describe RPGing, and (attempt to) insist on literal descriptions of techniques being used. The example you're providng here is the sort of thing that underpinds my rants! So trying to be literal:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">(1) In the "high RP" campaign, most moves consist of player descriptions of things their PCs do, or attempt to do, in the fiction. Most adjudicaiton consists of the GM deciding, by reference to fiction some of which has been collectively established and some of which s/he has in his/her mind but hasn't shared with the rest of the group, whether or not the player's proposal/attempt becomes part of the shared fiction. Because the published rulebook being referenced (if D&D) probably has fairly express rules about what to do when an attack is declared (which <em>aren't</em> "the GM decides whether or not it succeeds"), we can infer from the mode of resolution back to the sorts of actions declared - ie its inherent in a "D&D" game that involves few or no dice rolls that most of the declared actions did not involve combat. (Or spellcasting, for that matter, although referencing spell descriptions may sometimes be glossed over when D&D players talk about applying or not applying the rules.)</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">For a range of reasons - it shifts resolution from GM adjudication of the fiction to the dice; it disrupts the unfolding of "the story"; it's a bit gauche - there is probably a social expectation in this sort of game that attacks won't be declared very often, and perhaps only if the GM leads the group into giving some sort of signal (formal or informal) of permission.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(2) In this game, there are two, perhaps three, main categories of socially-sanctioned moves. One is the combat moves that you describe. Another is to declare movement of one's PC within the dungeon. This is highly analogous to a boardgame, as far as tracking the movement is concerned, but because its a RPG there are moves here that permit "breaking" or "bypassing" the board by directly engaging the fiction - eg "I dig through the wall" or "I cast dimension door to get to the other side of the chasm". This is the third category which may or may not be permitted, depending on how the table rolls. Some players dislike this sort of thing, precisely because the way it engages the fiction and hence requires GM adjudication makes it not fully amenable to mechanical resolution. But I think we can fairly say that if the game has none of this at all, and <em>only</em> combat moves and move-through-the-dungeon moves then it isn't really a RPG at all (whatever book might be being referenced in play) but in fact a wargame or boardgame. (This was a common accusation levelled at 4e.) I think that some 3E and 4e tables that really embrace the "rule for everything" approach while eschewing adjudication of the fiction (eg in 4e via p 42 and other elements of the rules; I don't know how a 3E GM is meant to adjudicate the fiction) probably get pretty close to this sort of wargaming-under-the-guise-of-RPGing, with no shared fiction that serves as anything but flavour text.</p><p></p><p>For me, therefore, your example doesn't show that RPGs are game creation engines, but rather that people will play rather different games - based on different suites of moves, different adjudication methods, different social expectations as to what play consists in, different attitudes to the shared fiction - but will refer to the same commercially published text while doing so.</p><p></p><p>Of course there are some other (less well-selling) commercially published RPG texts that attempt to indicate the mode of resolution they are suited to, to settle the applicable suite of rules, etc - DitV would be one example. Do you think your "game creation engine" idea, with its contrasting campaigns, makes sense in the context of DitV?</p><p></p><p>Well, that's a bit like me asking you to recreate the game of backgammon I played yesterday - how are you supposed to do that without any actual record of how the game unfolded?</p><p></p><p>So let's up the pressure of the example a bit, to give it more bite:</p><p></p><p>Suppose you provided my group with all your background notes, the PCs as pregens, etc, it remais overwhelmingly likely that the game would turn out differently. But that could be related to system issues of the sort I described earlier in this post.</p><p></p><p>So let's suppose that we also agree on what counts as good play - so that my players are trying to do the same sort of thing with the moves they declare, as your players are in your game, and we don't have the sort of system divergence I described in the earlier part of this post. In the context of backgammon, assuming the same dice rolls, this should produce literally the same game, at least in the ideal case (as everyone is agreed on what sorts of risks to take, etc).</p><p></p><p>But in the Primeval Thule case, even under those conditions, you would expect the two campaigns to turn out differently. Why? I assert that this is because of the role of the fiction. You can't play a RPG without generating shared fiction more-or-less continously during play. And that ficiton feeds back into action declaration - player 'moves' - and action resolution, making the outcomes of play extremely path dependent.</p><p></p><p>Whereas a wargame/boardgame should turn out like the backgammon example. So if we are "rule for everything" types who reject the idea of GM adjudication of the fiction, then if my group plays the same dungeon crawl as your group with an agreed criterion for what counts as good play and the same dice rolls, you <em>would</em> expect my group to have the same campaign as your group. Some classic tournament-style play can come pretty close to this, I think!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7474173, member: 42582"] The issue here, in my view, is not that [I]RPGs require creation[/I] but that the two campaigns are probably using different systems (though perhaps both derived, more or less tightly, from the same commercially published product), and certainly have different expectations about what counts as a "proper" move. You've probably noticed that I rant against the use of metaphor to describe RPGing, and (attempt to) insist on literal descriptions of techniques being used. The example you're providng here is the sort of thing that underpinds my rants! So trying to be literal: [indent](1) In the "high RP" campaign, most moves consist of player descriptions of things their PCs do, or attempt to do, in the fiction. Most adjudicaiton consists of the GM deciding, by reference to fiction some of which has been collectively established and some of which s/he has in his/her mind but hasn't shared with the rest of the group, whether or not the player's proposal/attempt becomes part of the shared fiction. Because the published rulebook being referenced (if D&D) probably has fairly express rules about what to do when an attack is declared (which [i]aren't[/I] "the GM decides whether or not it succeeds"), we can infer from the mode of resolution back to the sorts of actions declared - ie its inherent in a "D&D" game that involves few or no dice rolls that most of the declared actions did not involve combat. (Or spellcasting, for that matter, although referencing spell descriptions may sometimes be glossed over when D&D players talk about applying or not applying the rules.) For a range of reasons - it shifts resolution from GM adjudication of the fiction to the dice; it disrupts the unfolding of "the story"; it's a bit gauche - there is probably a social expectation in this sort of game that attacks won't be declared very often, and perhaps only if the GM leads the group into giving some sort of signal (formal or informal) of permission. (2) In this game, there are two, perhaps three, main categories of socially-sanctioned moves. One is the combat moves that you describe. Another is to declare movement of one's PC within the dungeon. This is highly analogous to a boardgame, as far as tracking the movement is concerned, but because its a RPG there are moves here that permit "breaking" or "bypassing" the board by directly engaging the fiction - eg "I dig through the wall" or "I cast dimension door to get to the other side of the chasm". This is the third category which may or may not be permitted, depending on how the table rolls. Some players dislike this sort of thing, precisely because the way it engages the fiction and hence requires GM adjudication makes it not fully amenable to mechanical resolution. But I think we can fairly say that if the game has none of this at all, and [I]only[/I] combat moves and move-through-the-dungeon moves then it isn't really a RPG at all (whatever book might be being referenced in play) but in fact a wargame or boardgame. (This was a common accusation levelled at 4e.) I think that some 3E and 4e tables that really embrace the "rule for everything" approach while eschewing adjudication of the fiction (eg in 4e via p 42 and other elements of the rules; I don't know how a 3E GM is meant to adjudicate the fiction) probably get pretty close to this sort of wargaming-under-the-guise-of-RPGing, with no shared fiction that serves as anything but flavour text.[/indent] For me, therefore, your example doesn't show that RPGs are game creation engines, but rather that people will play rather different games - based on different suites of moves, different adjudication methods, different social expectations as to what play consists in, different attitudes to the shared fiction - but will refer to the same commercially published text while doing so. Of course there are some other (less well-selling) commercially published RPG texts that attempt to indicate the mode of resolution they are suited to, to settle the applicable suite of rules, etc - DitV would be one example. Do you think your "game creation engine" idea, with its contrasting campaigns, makes sense in the context of DitV? Well, that's a bit like me asking you to recreate the game of backgammon I played yesterday - how are you supposed to do that without any actual record of how the game unfolded? So let's up the pressure of the example a bit, to give it more bite: Suppose you provided my group with all your background notes, the PCs as pregens, etc, it remais overwhelmingly likely that the game would turn out differently. But that could be related to system issues of the sort I described earlier in this post. So let's suppose that we also agree on what counts as good play - so that my players are trying to do the same sort of thing with the moves they declare, as your players are in your game, and we don't have the sort of system divergence I described in the earlier part of this post. In the context of backgammon, assuming the same dice rolls, this should produce literally the same game, at least in the ideal case (as everyone is agreed on what sorts of risks to take, etc). But in the Primeval Thule case, even under those conditions, you would expect the two campaigns to turn out differently. Why? I assert that this is because of the role of the fiction. You can't play a RPG without generating shared fiction more-or-less continously during play. And that ficiton feeds back into action declaration - player 'moves' - and action resolution, making the outcomes of play extremely path dependent. Whereas a wargame/boardgame should turn out like the backgammon example. So if we are "rule for everything" types who reject the idea of GM adjudication of the fiction, then if my group plays the same dungeon crawl as your group with an agreed criterion for what counts as good play and the same dice rolls, you [I]would[/I] expect my group to have the same campaign as your group. Some classic tournament-style play can come pretty close to this, I think! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
Top