Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robconley" data-source="post: 8957334" data-attributes="member: 5636">Where I am coming is that in my view what makes a RPG an RPG is the below.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I describe to you a setting</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You (and others participating) describe to me what characters you want to play within that setting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I describe any additional information your character would know about the setting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I start the campaign by describing the initial circumstances that the character and the group find themselves in.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You and the other participants describe what it is they try to do as their characters in response.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I adjudicate the result and describe the result and the changed circumstances</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">We repeat #5 and #6 throughout the campaign whether it is a single session or multiple sessions.</li> </ol>Based on all my readings the whole evolution of RPG out of the last 60s and early 70s wargaming coalesced on the above.  WIth Wesley's Braunstein being a key milestone and Dave Arneson working out the nuts and bolts of an entire campaign focused on the exploits of individual characters in Blackmoor alongside others who were running stuff like Wild West campaigns focused on individual characters.One of the key innovations is Dave saying yes as long as it made sense to whatever his players tried to do. Making notes about how he handled it and so on. And "What made sense" according to the various accounts was based on the fact they were in a setting made up a mishmash of early 70s era Fantasy Tropes.Resulting in things like a player pointing if that if vampires like Dracula existed in Blackmoor then wouldn't it make sense that there would a "Van Helsing" type that was able to hunt them? Mash it with a few other things and the result is a player playing a cleric.If you can't run down to the game store and buy a rulebook or a supplement if you are using your own mishmash of a setting. What else you are going to base your rulings on?Hence why I made my point about you don't need a system as a reference as a setting will do just fine.My view is that everything that the RPG Industry produces is just an aid to make the above 7 steps happen. That the point of RPGs should be about characters having adventures in interesting settings not on playing particular games with particular rules.There are two important practical considerations.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For the vast majority, this is meant to be done as something fun in the time one has for a hobby. Using a published system is a big timesaver even if it doesn't quite line up with the setting one has in mind.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">One key element to making a campaign good is consistency. In general, things work out better when the same ruling is used for when the player attempts the same thing under similar circumstances. It is easier for folks to be consistent when using a system whether it is their own or published.  Also, I submit that if one starts out without a system, if the referee is good and wants to be fair, they will end up with one anyway that is built up through actual play. This becomes especially true if you run multiple campaigns in the same setting.</li> </ul>These practical considerations are why going systemless and relying on rulings to run a campaign is not an ideal but rather just something useful to remember as a tool for when you need it.My two cents.</blockquote>

Verification