D&D General What is D&D?

[Lupher]

I don't know, I remember a great story about a kid playing his first D&D game. His character died, and he was sad for a minute. Then he crossed out character's first name on the sheet and wrote a new one, and happily moved his mini back on the table and said "I am here to avenge my brother".

I'm also not sure how the people who think death is a lose condition would fit games where PC death is impossible into their definitions, but those exist too. Some tables of game like D&D just have a rule that PC's can't die, and some game systems simply don't allow player death in their core rules.

My sister did something similar once. But her follow up character was "jr"

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

This has been a fascinating thread. And, thanks to @Charlaquin for providing such an excellent and very patient defense of what I think is a very relevant element. I do agree with @Charlaquin that RPG's are not games in and of themselves but are rather game engines. Now, before we do another round of arguments, let me provide a possible point that differentiates RPG's from games.

In every game, your initial starting point and moves are dictated by the rules. In chess, there are 20 possible moves for white to make, all of which are dictated by the game. Every chess game in history that uses the modern rules of chess is limited to those 20 moves. In Monopoly, there are 11 possible outcomes of the first move - you start on Go and roll your 2d6 and move that number of squares. In every Monopoly game in history, this is true. In basketball, you start with a jump ball and one side or the other will take possession of the ball and play will begin.

This also applies to video games as well. No matter how many times I play Baldur's Gate 3, I'm going to start on that Illithid ship with a worm in my brain. And my initial moves are constrained by the game itself. I cannot choose, for example, to jump off the ship.

((Yes, yes, sit down at the back, I KNOW there are variations of these games with different starting points, but, again, those variations will ALWAYS have the same starting point for that particular game.))

Now, what is the starting point of an RPG? What is the first "move" you can make? What are you options?

Well, there's no real answer to that. The rules in no way define a first action for the game. You can make a thousand characters and still not be able to actually play the game. Those first moves are defined by the adventure/situation that the DM (or sometimes the group, depending on the system) presents. So, if you're playing Horde of the Dragon Queen, you start in Greenest with a dragon attack happening. If you start in Keep on the Borderlands, you are at the gate of the Keep. If you start in my homebrew Spelljammer game, you find yourself aboard a Spelljamming ship in the middle of an attack by pirates!

The thing is, those initial moves are never defined by the RPG. They cannot be. Because an RPG isn't actually a game. It's a tool for creating games. You create your game (either as a DM, or potentially as a group exercise, again, it depends on the system) and THEN you start playing. The rules of an RPG in no way actually inform or constrain your initial moves which makes an RPG very distinctly different from games.

 

[SableWyvern]

Based on your subsequent posts, I think you are erroneously conflating a player character's state with the player's role in the game.

Edit: And, on reflection, I'd say OP's understanding of RPGs and willingness to actually learn are both roughly equivalent to Chick's.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

To be entirely fair, that is a major difference between games and RPG's. In a game, if you "die", you are out of the game and cannot continue in that game. In an RPG, your character dying doesn't remove you from play permanently. At most, it probably removes you from play for a session and typically far less. Really, the point in many games is specifically TO knock the opposing player out of the game. That's frequently the win state in competitive games.

 

[Umbran]

What do the rules say a dead person can do that keeps them in the game? Is it not technically the same as a person with <= 0 money (bankrupt) in Monopoly?

Well, no. Especially not if you cite Monopoly for comparison.

In Monopoly, any player who is bankrupt leaves the game, and the last one in the game wins (and, we presume we say the others lose, by contrast).

But, having a character die in an RPG doesn't mean the player leaves the game!

In many games, a character coming back from being dead is an option. As is taking on an NPC role, or bringing in a new character. Heck, in some older styles, players might well have several characters in play at the same time, so one dying means very little in terms of their continuing to play.

Indeed, in many cooperative board games these days, having all players continue in the game until the session of play is complete is a very common design element, and that carries over into RPGs There's a bunch of RPGs out there in which character death is not an option, or is an option the player gets to choose...

So, really, no, having a character dying does not mean one "loses" an RPG, in general.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

And, just to add to that, Monopoly actually specifies what happens when you run out of money:

BANKRUPTCY.. You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you
can pay either to another player or to the Bank. If your ,
debt is to another player, you must tum over to that
player all that you have of value and retire from the
game.

There's no ambiguity here. If you run out of money, you must leave the game. AFAIK, RPG's don't have this requirement. I suppose something like Dread might have something like this? But, that's a real outlier.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’d also just like to clarify that while I stand by my position that D&D is a game engine, I would say that any time a group of people are engaged in “playing D&D,” they are playing a game. The game is the adventure (or whatever you want to call the scenario), but the activity they’re doing together is absolutely a game, not an improv performance.

 

[Umbran]

The game is the adventure (or whatever you want to call the scenario), but the activity they’re doing together is absolutely a game, not an improv performance.

Embrace the power of "and".

Like, my players can walk AND chew gum at the same time. They can play a game AND engage in improv performance.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I’d also just like to clarify that while I stand by my position that D&D is a game engine, I would say that any time a group of people are engaged in “playing D&D,” they are playing a game. The game is the adventure (or whatever you want to call the scenario), but the activity they’re doing together is absolutely a game, not an improv performance.

Let's just do an end-run around any doubt: we all get it. You are partaking in experimental pedantry because it seemed interesting and the group as a whole was on board for it. It has been an fruitful tangent. Thumbs up.

This is fundamentally different from OP's positions and insistences.

 

[SothFan]

This is fundamentally different from OP's positions and insistences.

Which again, is fine with me as it is/was good food for thought.