D&D General What is D&D?

[Dessert Nomad]

You keep saying this, but poker is the only one of these that is actually an engine, or platform, or whatever we want to call it.

No, I already said poker (that is, the structure of the deck and system of ranking hands) is an engine/platform/whatever. Texas hold em and Belatro are both games that use the poker engine/platform/whatever.

Texas hold 'em, while a specific kind of poker, is not a game by your definition. It does not have goals or victory/loss conditions, those come from at least as far back as the betting and buy-in rules, and often from outside of game considerations. So not only is poker not a game, none of the individual variations of poker under a broad name qualify as games.

If chess (again, not a specific variant in a specific format) is a game by your definition, then what are the goals and victory/loss conditions of chess? Not of a specific variant of chess played in a particular format, but of 'chess' as a whole. Same thing as we go through other games - what are the goals and victory/loss conditions of Skyrim? Does applying a patch or mod render it a different game? What about using console commands (which, incidentally, can make your character immortal and unable to lose) - does doing something within a 'game' render it no longer a game? For that matter, what does it mean to achieve what's supposedly a win or loss condition of a game but to continue playing it anyway?

It seems that as we apply the definition to the things that normal people call 'games', we find that almost nothing broad counts as a game, and only by going through what amounts to a session 0 of specifying very specific rulesets and implementation details do we get something that qualifies as a game.

 

[saviirkad]

This conversation is honestly pretty fascinating, and I appreciate those going into what really is a game and how does D&D fail to meet the criteria. It highlights our tendency to box things in and classify them, but also how inadequate it often becomes the more granular and understood things become. No such thing as a fish, and all that.

It also highlights how ultimately unnecessary that granularity often is for communication, and that at the end of the day, nobody's really going to be confused about D&D or poker being the choice for game night.

 

[Charlaquin]

Texas hold 'em, while a specific kind of poker, is not a game by your definition. It does not have goals or victory/loss conditions, those come from at least as far back as the betting and buy-in rules, and often from outside of game considerations. So not only is poker not a game, none of the individual variations of poker under a broad name qualify as games.

“Victory and loss conditions” was an overly-narrow phrasing of what I was trying to use it to express, which is why I started saying “measurable feedback” a while ago at this point, after having been asked what my specific criteria were for a game. Texas hold ‘em has a goal, which is to have the strongest hand among players who haven’t folded by the time the final betting round is over. The measurable feedback is the contents of the remaining players’ hands. That’s how you know if you won or lost the hand.

If chess (again, not a specific variant in a specific format) is a game by your definition, then what are the goals and victory/loss conditions of chess? Not of a specific variant of chess played in a particular format, but of 'chess' as a whole.

The goal of chess is to maneuver the opponent’s king into a position where they are in check and have no legal moves they can make to get out of check (a position known as “checkmate”). The feedback is the board position and pieces/pawns remaining of each color. Chess players and scholars have actually developed a whole point system for this.

Same thing as we go through other games - what are the goals and victory/loss conditions of Skyrim?

Kill Alduin. The measurable feedback is provided by the context of the main questline. The game also contains a sandbox in which players can set their own goals to pursue, but the main goal of killing Alduin is always present, that’s why we say we “beat the game” when we get to that point. I can’t remember if Skyrim rolls credits after you complete the main quest, but that’s standard in most CRPGs, because completing the main quest is the standard goal of such games.

Does applying a patch or mod render it a different game?

I mean, it depends on the patch or mod. Arguably the Dragonborn DLC is another game from vanilla Skyrim, with its own goal of killing Mirak. But, if I install a mod that gives me higher resolution textures or something, no, that’s not a different game. That doesn’t affect the parameters of goal, restrictions, uncertain outcome, or measurable feedback. Very few mods change the goal of completing the main quest by killing Alduin. Some major overhaul mods like the Skywind and Skyblivion projects definitely constitute different games (or will, if they’re ever completed anyway).

What about using console commands (which, incidentally, can make your character immortal and unable to lose) - does doing something within a 'game' render it no longer a game?

No, that’s just a game you’re cheating at. That’s why we used to call them cheat codes.

For that matter, what does it mean to achieve what's supposedly a win or loss condition of a game but to continue playing it anyway?

Well, if you’re talking about games like Skyrim that contain both a traditional game and a sandbox, it means you’ve beaten the game and are now playing in the sandbox. If you’re talking about games like, I don’t know, God of War 2018 that are entirely or almost entirely linear but still allow you to keep playing after completing them… that’s still just making your own fun, comparable to sandbox play, but with a very small and limited sandbox, which is why games like this usually provide “new game plus” options (and God of War 2018 was initially heavily criticized for not including). If you’re talking about games like the mainline Pokemon games with dedicated postgame content, the postgame is effectively its own, smaller game you have to win the main game to unlock the ability to play.

It seems that as we apply the definition to the things that normal people call 'games', we find that almost nothing broad counts as a game, and only by going through what amounts to a session 0 of specifying very specific rulesets and implementation details do we get something that qualifies as a game.

Nah, most things people call games are games. Some things people call games are different in ways I have identified here, and it’s valuable to have the language to be able to discuss those differences.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

What exactly am I misreading? You just said (it's what I quoted above) that your position is "'Poker' is not a game", which is what I summarized your position as, and you are emphatically insisting that poker is not a game here, and taking it a step further and saying I can't possibly play poker, even though I have.

"D&D is not a game if we define 'game' in such a way that poker, chess, Axis and Allies, Skyrim, and a host of other things often called games are not games" is an accurate summary of the position. You don't like the summary because it highlights that the definition of 'game' is not the one in common use and leads to some peculiar conclusions, but you explicitly agreed that poker is not a game under your definition above.

Really? You've played "Poker"? How many cards did you deal? Why did you deal that many cards? After all, "Poker" doesn't tell you how many cards to deal. Whatever member of the family of games under the umbrella told you how many cards to deal, but, "Poker" certainly didn't.

Tell me the rules of "Poker" please.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Where did you get this definition?
Why is everyone obligated to treat this as the one and only acceptable definition?

Did you miss the part in the first line there where I said, "can"?

No one is obligated to do anything.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Did you miss the part in the first line there where I said, "can"?

No, just as I didn't miss the last two lines where you say "Games don't qualify as RPG's" and "RPG's don't qualify as games" which are absolute statements.

No one is obligated to do anything.

If you are not arguing that your definition must be followed then I'm not clear what your point is. It seems like you are just assuming your definition is correct and therefore those who disagree with you are necessarily wrong. If that's not the case can please explain what your point is?

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Really? You've played "Poker"? How many cards did you deal? Why did you deal that many cards? After all, "Poker" doesn't tell you how many cards to deal. Whatever member of the family of games under the umbrella told you how many cards to deal, but, "Poker" certainly didn't.

Tell me the rules of "Poker" please.

By your reasoning no one in history has ever played poker. No one has ever played baseball either because every league has variations of the rules. No one has ever played football or soccer or volleyball as well. So all the millions and millions of people who say they play poker, baseball, football, soccer, and/or volleyball are completely wrong, they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

No, just as I didn't miss the last two lines where you say "Games don't qualify as RPG's" and "RPG's don't qualify as games" which are absolute statements.

If you are not arguing that your definition must be followed then I'm not clear what your point is. It seems like you are just assuming your definition is correct and therefore those who disagree with you are necessarily wrong. If that's not the case can please explain what your point is?

I'm having a discussion. Argument is down the hall. Yes, I believe that RPG's are game creation engines and the "game" of an RPG is "RPG+Scenario". I've never argued that RPG's can never be played. Game's aren't RPG's because you don't need "Scenario" in order to play a game. RPG's on their own are not games because you cannot play an RPG without first creating a scenario.

IOW, RPG's are distinguished from other kinds of things that we play in that you have this extra step involved before you can play.

By your reasoning no one in history has ever played poker. No one has ever played baseball either because every league has variations of the rules. No one has ever played football or soccer or volleyball as well. So all the millions and millions of people who say they play poker, baseball, football, soccer, and/or volleyball are completely wrong, they don't know what they are talking about.

That would be correct. Again, tell me how to play poker. Without referencing which kind of poker you are playing, tell me the rules of the game and how we can play.

The answer is, you can't. It is impossible to play Poker without specifying exactly what kind of poker you are playing. It's no different than if I tell you I'm baking cookies. How do you bake cookies without specifying what kind of cookies you are making? Now, in casual conversation, I will certainly say, "I baked cookies this morning". Sure, not problem. Language is full of ambiguities. But, until either you ask or you taste, you have no idea what I actually made, other than it's probably small, uses flour and eggs and was made in an oven. Which could also be tarts, muffins or a thousand other things.

You are insisting that the vague conversational shorthand that we use is definitional. It's not. You're right that you cannot play football without specifying what kind of football you are playing. Are you playing American Football? Canadian Football? Soccer? If I tell you I watched a football game yesterday, do you actually know what I watched? Of course not. It's simply a vague shorthand and you would need to ask more questions to narrow down what I actually watched.

Now, your last bit, "They don't know what they are talking about" is not true. Of course the person playing KNOWS what they played. They know because the variation that they played was chosen by the participants. The observers know what was played, because they watched the game. But to anyone else? They have only a vague idea what was played and would require the person to be more specific before they could actually talk about the experience.

----TLDR Version----

Language is full of vagueness. Simply stating, "I played a game of poker" doesn't actually tell the listener anything. Until such time as you add more information, the listener cannot know what you actually did. There are a multitude of variations of games. In order to communicate effectively about whatever activity the speaker actually did, simply using vague categories doesn't work. Baseball is a category. Basketball is a category. Poker is a category. The actual game that is played isn't "Poker". That's just a category. Like "car".

The reason I'm arguing for this definition of RPG's is that it is a more clear explanation of what I'm doing. I just finished a session of playing D&D. That doesn't really tell you very much does it? I just finished a session of my 5e D&D campaign using Out of the Abyss, where the PC's are in Chapter 16, The Fetid Wedding, tells you a hell of a lot more. Did I play Dungeons and Dragons? Well, yes, in conjunction with the campaign that I'm running, I did. But, remove that Out of the Abyss book, and my players and I would be staring at each other in silence for 3 hours.

The game of an RPG = The RPG + Campaign (or scenario, or whatever word fits here better).

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Was cogitating this a bit more, so, maybe this example might help.

When I was a kid, I used to go bowling with my grandparents fairly often. Not a bunch, but, enough. And, I got respectable at it. I almost always lost, because, well, I was like ten years old. But, I could usually make a race of it and I won from time to time.

I would almost always be able to score sixteen or seventeen before I lost.

Now, if you're reading that, that probably makes very little sense. A score of sixteen in bowling is abysmal. That's less than you typically score in a single end, even if you're Canadian like me and played lots of 5 pin. But, see, my grandparents and I used to lawn bowl. And, in lawn bowling, first to 21 wins.

Now, was I playing the game of bowling? Absolutely. I would ask my grandparents if we were going bowling tonight and they would say of course. But to anyone else, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense because language is vague, and bowling, like most games has a lot of variations and, until you specify exactly which one, it's pretty hard to talk about what I was doing.

The mistake I think people are making here is by conflating the general conversational usage of the names of various games with precision. I went bowling with my grandparents is 100% true, but, also, 100% misleading. I went lawn bowling with my grandparents is 100% true and 100% accurate.

Saying that RPG's are game creation engines (I prefer engine to platform, but, I'm not wedded to it) is simply being more precise.

 

[Charlaquin]

By your reasoning no one in history has ever played poker. No one has ever played baseball either because every league has variations of the rules. No one has ever played football or soccer or volleyball as well. So all the millions and millions of people who say they play poker, baseball, football, soccer, and/or volleyball are completely wrong, they don't know what they are talking about.

The variations on those games are, in conversation, still referred to by the general name of the game/sport/whatever