Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7921285" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's a generic enough definition that it should get most RPGs.  It also captures a lot of wargames, boardgames, and other things, though.  Take Gloomhaven -- RPG or boardgame?  Or Warhammer 40k, wargame or RPG with armies?I'm not knocking the intent -- it's just a really hard thing to define RPGs. I've proposed definitions before that have fallen flat in the face of this or that example.  I think that the best path forward is to offer a definition that works for the majority of RPGs but doesn't grab other games too much.  IE, one that has grey areas of "shrug, maybe?" but doesn't get Monopoly involved.  And, that's not easy, either.Yes, of course games impose constraints.  This is a fundamental requirement of a game, which, all other things included, needs to have a conflict resolution mechanism (even if it's "Bob decides!") and constraints (ie, what's in or out of the game).  It's all the other things that get fuzzy about game definitions, but you cannot have a game without conflict resolution or constraints.  Name any game and these things exist.  Of course, they also exist for lots of things that aren't games, but that's why they're necessary but not sufficient to a definition for a game.  Oh, just had a thought**.  I add it at the end, but it's about your RPG definition above.So, games must have constraints.  I don't think these constraints rise to Force, as they aren't overriding player choices but instead determining which player choices are allowed.  That's a distinct difference, at least to me.  There's a difference between a GM telling a player, 'No, you don't shoot the Duke with a laser pistol because those don't exist in this genre/game/setting," and a GM telling a player, "No, your Space Marine doesn't shoot the alien with your laser pistol because it would be cooler if the alien gets away right now."  Granted, pretty gross example of Force there, but the point isn't to explore subtle Force use but make distinct the difference between a constraint and Force.The constraints of a system should be 1) transparent and 2) agreed to before play starts.  If either of these isn't true or don't exist, then something has gone wrong.  I think your construction of yes, and/but can make for a very interesting game, and some games use this kind of construction already.  I think that "no" can have a place, even in Forceless games, and achieve the escalation of consequence and... you know, I thought your E&E had something to do with escalation consequence and some other e but when I just went back to make sure I had the right verbiage, I couldn't find any definition for your E&E.  :/  Maybe I'm blind.  Anyway, "no" has a place, at least in the theory of making hard moves against characters after a failure.  Thwarting the goal of the player action can make for good games whereas never thwarting, only complicating can... also make for good games.  Ha.  The long and short is that escalation can happen even in a game that has 'no' instead of yes, and/but, but it really needs to be a no, and rather than just no.  The key, I think, to the escalation cycle is the conjunction.  Never stop at yes or no.  (This is, I think, one of the reasons that D&D features Force so much -- it's resolution mechanics are geared for yes or no, not yes or not and and or but (<-- odd sentence).  You can do 'yes/no, and/but', but the system doesn't offer very much at all in the way of this (5e includes some discussion of success at cost and/or fail forward, but only as a sidebar, really, while also presenting the binary pass/fail more fully).  For escalation to occur in 5e, you either have to be diligent about reducing resources to get to escalating danger or you have to use Force. The former isn't easy, the latter is.  But, I'm rambling.** So, it occurs to me that maybe your definition of RPGs is also necessary but not sufficient.  It would appear that the general "you have players and a shared fiction which is developed through interaction of the players" is good stuff and covers those RPGs I can think of, but it also gets other things, so it's not a sufficient definition -- it's not limiting enough.  But, it is necessary to RPGs to meet this definition?  I think so.</blockquote>

Verification