S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[Beleriphon]

Some RPG groups don't have rulesets, leaving it all to the GM instead of rulesets.
One of the oddest I've played, you play a corporation, not a person.

And I've got a couple games that I've only played solo, and several more where most of my play was solo. And I'm not counting the ones that ONLY have mechanics for solitaire play. Runeslayers I've only played solo, for example — there's a solitaire module in the core — but I've never gotten it to table with players. Most of my play of TFT has been solitaire; in hours, probably 10:1; if we break out group RPG play from tactical battles, S:G:B::302. Same for T&T, tho the ratio is much closer to S:G:1.

Each of your minimums is able to be individually falsified.

In several games I have played, characters are created as part of the process of play, so those are not necessary for play to start.

As for the "agreed upon set of rules..." my first game of D&D, ever, I played blind. I didn't have a character sheet. I had not read the rulebook. I agreed on the rules in the sense that I trusted my older brother to implement all rules in the background where I didn't see them.

So.. you need a group of people - and the size of the group may be 1.

I would suggest that a new player may not know the rules, but they implicitly agreed to abide by them, even if the rules are the GM makes them up as they go along. That's still a ruleset, just one that is opaque to one side of the play group.

One player can still be a group, and you still need a character of some kind to play an RPG. Sheets and other ephemera aren't inherently necessary despite how useful they are to facilitating play.

Thus, I still assert a group, a characters, and rules needed to play an RPG. The specifics of each of those can and do change substantially depending on what kind of game is being played and the general expectations that changing each one produces.

 

[Umbran]

I would suggest that a new player may not know the rules, but they implicitly agreed to abide by them, even if the rules are the GM makes them up as they go along. That's still a ruleset, just one that is opaque to one side of the play group.

Well, my point was to note that "agreed upon set of rules" does not necessarily mean what you'd expect.

Though, I don't see as one can agree to abide by rules when those rules are opaque - you cannot choose to obey or disobey rules when you don't know them. You instead accept that what the GM says goes - whether they are using a set of rules is not relevant or provable.

One player can still be a group, and you still need a character of some kind to play an RPG.

I will reiterate that some games can begin play without the character. Some Fate games, for example, begin play with worldbilding. Others begin with character generation as an explicit step of play. YOu just don't get far without getting teh character to some operable stage of creation.

 

[Beleriphon]

Well, my point was to note that "agreed upon set of rules" does not necessarily mean what you'd expect.

Though, I don't see as one can agree to abide by rules when those rules are opaque - you cannot choose to obey or disobey rules when you don't know them. You instead accept that what the GM says goes - whether they are using a set of rules is not relevant or provable.

The rule is the GM is right. Its a pretty straightforward rule, not one I personally like, but it is a rule. There are other rules as well, from tone to genre conventions. For example I don't get to play as the Second Last Son of Krypton in Lord of the Rings.

If you aren't willing to accept the GM knows the rules and you don't then you can't play that game. Thus, you abide by the rules.

I will reiterate that some games can begin play without the character. Some Fate games, for example, begin play with world building. Others begin with character generation as an explicit step of play. You just don't get far without getting the character to some operable stage of creation.

Sure, there are games that make character generation and world building something the whole group does together rather than separating the tasks. In the end though everybody that needs a character has one. Generation of the character can occur through several processes and stages, but in general if somebody doesn't have character by the end of whatever the generation process is being used that person can't play (assuming they aren't a GM type position).

 

[Lanefan]

In backyard football, there is no book - there's a quick discussion in the huddle, and the QB will hope to find you somewhere around where you said you'd be, but that's just a vague hope.

And if the QB doesn't find me where he thinks I should be, he might want to instead look down in the pub; as it ironclad guaranteed that given a choice between playing gridiron football and having a beer in the pub, the pub will win all day long.

No matter what ruleset is in use.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar,

I know you feel passionate about this due to the use of all-caps, but I don't think you're understanding why people don't agree with you. It's a definitional thing. It's a hot dog / sandwich thing.

Let's look at this.

Imagine a ruleset for RPGs. Now, different people are playing it different (you say, grunting, or rolling dice, or whatever). Yet people generally agree that they are playing an RPG. Good?

Now, let's do the following-
1. Two teams playing an NBA game.
2. Two teams playing a WNBA game.
3. Two teams playing a college NCAA men's basketball game.
4. Two teams playing a college NCAA women's basketball game.
5. Two teams playing a high school men's game.
6. Two teams playing a high school women's game.
7. Two teams playing pickup at the Y.
8. Two teams playing pickup at Venice Beach.
9. One on one at the playground.
10. One on one in the driveway.
11. Hangin' out and playin' horse.
12. Shooting hoops with friends.
13. Practicing free throws on your own.
14. Dribbling in the street.

In all cases, a person who was involved could say that they were "playing basketball" and no one would question it, because the definition of "playing basketball" includes emergent activity that is greater than the ruleset.

In the samesense that RPGs in general, and any specific RPG, includes emergent activity that is greater than a ruleset.

It's a definitional thing. Again, there are differences with RPGs. I'm not sure you will tease them out by yelling at people in all-caps that sports don't have a real meta, and always progresses to a proscribed endpoint.

It's .... not like that.

PS- Sports have a campaign. It's called a season.

Now, would anyone consider one on one in the driveway and an NBA game to actually BE the same game? Because, well, fair enough. If you (the plural you, not you specifically) do, then, well, yeah, this is a total failure to communicate. To me, you just listed several completely different games that happen to share a common root. Euchre and Bridge share a common root, but, does anyone consider them to be the same game?

 

[Hussar]

Ok, look at it this way.

If I tell you that there is an NFL game on tomorrow, we can make a number of factual predictions about what will happen:

• Two teams will alternate between offense and defense.
• They will play for four quarters (unless there is a tie)
• At the end time, one team will be declared a winner (or a tie potentially)
• During play, the offense team will attempt 4 times to move the ball 10 yards forward.
• During play, the defensive team will attempt to stop forward motion.
• There will only be 10 people per team allowed on the field during play.
• I'm sure there are others but, you get the point

.

Now, if I tell you that I'm playing a game of D&D tomorrow, what factual predictions can you make? We roll dice and we talk? That's because the rules of D&D (or any RPG) don't actually define what happens during play. Play is defined by the individual group and is idiosyncratic to that specific group. No two groups play the same. Even in something as rigid as Adventurers League play, there is a huge variation from table to table. And AL play is generally seen as a very idiosyncratic thing in itself with rules specific to that style of play that are outside the rules of the game and generally not acknowledged by the wider range of players.

But, yeah, if people are insisting on focusing on individual plays, or comparing play between different games, then sure, what I'm saying isn't going to make a lot of sense.

 

[Umbran]

Play is defined by the individual group and is idiosyncratic to that specific group. No two groups play the same.

I know that there's a lot of variation. But... I think we are also at risk of overselling it. I've been playing for decades, with groups and people from diverse areas of the country and age groups... and never have I had any problem just sitting down and playing D&D with others.

Has anyone really had the issue come up where they sat down with D&D players... and didn't know what the bloody blue blazes was going on at their table?

I suspect we are far more similar than we are different - and that we nuance a lot of flavor and style out of what are really small differences in play.

 

[Hussar]

I know that there's a lot of variation. But... I think we are also at risk of overselling it. I've been playing for decades, with groups and people from diverse areas of the country and age groups... and never have I had any problem just sitting down and playing D&D with others.

Has anyone really had the issue come up where they sat down with D&D players... and didn't know what the bloody blue blazes was going on at their table?

I suspect we are far more similar than we are different - and that we nuance a lot of flavor and style out of what are really small differences in play.

Well, let's put it this way. I've been told you can't tell who is going to win in a sports game. I disagree. There's an entire industry devoted to predicting the outcome of sports. And, you know what? They're pretty good at it. Not perfect, true. But, pretty good. Right more often than wrong.

Now, predict what my next D&D game looks like. Heck, can you even predict your next session?

Again, if I tell you I'm playing D&D, or any RPG for that matter, tomorrow, you have pretty much no idea what's happening tomorrow. Other than the most vague of notions - some dice will be rolled, some people will talk. Telling someone, "Hey, let's play D&D" doesn't really tell them anything at all. If I ask you to play 2 on 2 basketball, or Monopoly, or NFL football, you have a very, very good idea what's going to happen. Sure, some of the specifics (as in who wins) will be undetermined. It is a game after all. But, the process from start to finish will be pretty predictable.

There is no real "order of play" in an RPG.

 

[Lanefan]

Has anyone really had the issue come up where they sat down with D&D players... and didn't know what the bloody blue blazes was going on at their table?

Yes, but that was mostly because the DM had, I think, a minor speech impediment on top of a very thick (southern US?) accent such that I couldn't understand a bloody word he said.

I suspect we are far more similar than we are different - and that we nuance a lot of flavor and style out of what are really small differences in play.

In general, this is true.

 

[Lanefan]

Now, predict what my next D&D game looks like. Heck, can you even predict your next session?

Can't speak to yours, other than I know computers will be involved.

Mine? Yeah, this time I can more or less predict it: they'll spend half the session dividing a small treasury, do a bit of shopping (there's not much available in the town they're in), some characters will finish training into new levels, and with any luck they'll get back into the field on their next adventure the goal and vague location of which they already know.

Oh, and a few dice will be rolled, many notes will (I hope!) be taken on character sheets regarding treasury shares, many non-game-related things will be said, food will be its usual distraction for some, and beer will flow like it should. (the last three are perpetuals)