D&D General What is D&D?

[Toe Knee Nose]

As you don't prefer my normal style, I will post it as a block. I apologize for antagonizing you.

If you reference no specific poker game, then (just like chess) there is a conventional meaning. The conventional application of "poker" is five-card draw. So, you would play that game.

Are conventions a problem? Like is that what the issue is here?

And you have yet to show anything about how they are "categorically different". You have declared it. You have not shown any evidence for it.

That's my point. The "conventional meaning" is vague. I'm positing a more specific definition.

How have I not shown any evidence?

Can we agree that all games have a defined play space? Is that something we can agree on? Any game that you care to play will have a space of some sort defined by that game for the game to take place in. So 5 card draw has ... well.. 5 cards. Chess has a chess board. If you are playing another version of these games, the play space will be defined by the rules of that variant.

RPG's do not come with a play space. You can read the core D&D books a thousand times and still not find a single defined play space. They might come with sample play spaces that teach new players how to create their own play spaces, but, again, there are no indications that the sample play spaces (ie modules) included in the DM must be played or are even expected to be played.

That's the difference I'm harping on. A game MUST have a defined play space. Sure, the definition might be vague (that tree over there, that big rock over there are the boundaries of our game of tag) but, in all cases a game will always have a defined play space. Since RPG's don't have that, then there must be something different about RPG's.

Note, I'm shifting my definition a bit here from "scenario" to "defined play space" because I do think that's clearer.

But, in answer to your question about common usage - since the origin of this thread was a question about what is D&D, then a vague, common usage answer isn't really all that useful. Common usage presumes common experience. If I've never played poker, telling me that we're playing poker and assuming that I know the rules for 5 card-draw is a mistake. And, frankly, I'd argue that 5-card-draw as a "default" assumption on poker isn't really all that accurate anyway. You're assuming experience. It's no different than if I tell you I bowled a really good game last night and scored 19.

 

[bsss]

Could I not say, by this standard, that "our shared imagination and a means to generate random numbers, commonly dice" is D&D's "defined play space"? Tag seems to get off the hook pretty easy here (the concept of an area to run around being all that's necessary, and defined entirely on a per instance basis) compared with what is expected of D&D in this attempted distinction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's my point. The "conventional meaning" is vague. I'm positing a more specific definition.

Then I reject your definition. When it excludes a zillion things that are consistently referred to as "games", and dilutes the meaning of "engine" to the point where we will need to come up with a new term for something that genuinely is ONLY a game engine, and not actually a game in any way, it is not a useful definition.

I get why you want specificity. I love specificity. I'm confident if you asked anyone on here, even the people I don't always get along with, they would agree that I'm kind of obsessive about it! But the kind of specificity you're applying here weakens other words, gets major pushback, conflicts with usage (which is what language is; language is usage, not prescription!), and requires even further effort.

Would it be cool, useful, if we had a one- or two-word term for "something that is both itself actually a game, and a procedure for generating the necessary context for that game"? Absolutely! Is it useful to us here, in this timeline, with this English language, to demand that we treat a lot of things called "games" as being not games at all, and instead mere "game engines"? No. No it is not.

If you disagree with me on that, after having read these and previous arguments, then there is no further need for discussion. We simply do not agree on the utility of your redefinition of the word "game", and bashing our heads together won't change that. I can certainly say it won't change whether I accept this definition, and I very much doubt that my words will sway you away from it if this post has failed to do so.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Could I not say, by this standard, that "our shared imagination and a means to generate random numbers, commonly dice" is D&D's "defined play space"? Tag seems to get off the hook pretty easy here (the concept of an area to run around being all that's necessary, and defined entirely on a per instance basis) compared with what is expected of D&D in this attempted distinction.

But, again, it is still defined, if in a fairly vague way. If we're playing tag and I run home and lock the door, most people would cry foul. The play space is largely instinctively understood as "Somewhere near(ish) here".

to demand that we treat a lot of things called "games" as being not games at all, and instead mere "game engines"? No. No it is not.

What is "mere" about a game engine? Game engines are fantastic. They are tools that we use to create games. There's a reason that we use Unreal Engine to make games and not, say, design cars. That's what the tool is for - to create games. Which is what the tools we have in an RPG are for - not to design cars but to create games.

I've actually never redefined the term game at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What is "mere" about a game engine?

A game engine is an inert tool whose only function is to produce rules and structures for other usage. It is not a game, an actual activity that people can enjoy.

To reduce a game--something that is lived and played--to a mere engine is to dismiss anything of value from the play of that game, and call it something far less.

It would be like calling the Mona Lisa, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, a palette of paints. Paint is a tool by which we do beautiful things. To reduce those beautiful things to merely the tools used to make them is a loss. One I consider extremely serious. All the lore, all the game design, all the clever elements, flattened down into nothing more than a tool that spits out actually usable things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've actually never redefined the term game at all.

You most certainly have when (a) on the basis of your definition, you reject things being called "games" that are demonstrably called games, even by dictionaries and usage guides; and (b) I provided you the actual definition of a game, I applied it to D&D, and it worked--as far as I can tell you didn't rebut that, at all.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

A game engine is an inert tool whose only function is to produce rules and structures for other usage. It is not a game, an actual activity that people can enjoy.

that's the point though. You can't play D&D. You MUST create a play space in order to play D&D. It is not possible to play D&D without first creating that play space. The game that you, me and lots of other people play is the rules of D&D PLUS that play space. Those combined create the game that we play.

That is what separates D&D from other games. In games, the play space is defined by the game. I don't pull out my Catan board to play Monopoly. I don't play cribbage on a chess board. The play space is always defined by the game. And, until you have that play space defined in an RPG - which the rules of the RPG don't do - you can't play it.

We use the rules of an RPG to provide guidelines for creating that play space. Sure. The books have lots of handy hints and tips for what we could do when creating that play space. There's tons of modules out there that also provide lots of handy bits and bobs. But, until such time as that play space is created, your D&D books don't do anything. You simply cannot play without first creating that play space.

You most certainly have when (a) on the basis of your definition, you reject things being called "games" that are demonstrably called games, even by dictionaries and usage guides; and (b) I provided you the actual definition of a game, I applied it to D&D, and it worked--as far as I can tell you didn't rebut that, at all.

Your own definitions contradict you. Your dictionary definitions of Poker, for example, calls it "any of several card games". As in, Poker, in and of itself, doesn't exist. It is a group of games that come under the category of Poker. The fact that you cannot tell me how to play poker without first specifying which of those several games we're going to play demonstrates that Poker, in and of itself, is not the game that you play. It's a broad category of games that share a number of elements but, it's not actually those games.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

that's the point though. You can't play D&D.

Yes, you can.

The clear usage patterns indicate that that is how the word "game" is used. You can play D&D. Folks talk about it constantly. It is a game. Whether or not you like that does not matter, because language is usage, not prescription.

I'm sorry. You're just not going to succeed on this argument.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

I do have to say, being challenged like this is forcing me to refine my definitions, which is very useful.

I think I might have a way to cut through this.

All games require some sort of play space. I think we can all agree on that. Whether it's a vaguely defined space like tag (a game played by children generally, so, rigorous attention to rules is perhaps not a priority) or a basketball court or a board or whatever. Games need some sort of space to played in.

Now, here's where RPG's are different. The play space of an RPG is created independently of the RPG itself. And I can prove it. Firstly, most of us have used a module or a setting in different systems. Keep on the Borderlands was mentioned. I've played that in Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e D&D. Sure, just variations of D&D. But, I've also played it in GURPS and Savage Worlds - two completely, incompatible games. But, you can play Keep on the Borderlands in many different systems with little or no change.

Secondly, I can buy/make system agnostic setting and adventures. There's a truck full of system agnostic settings and adventures out there right now. A quick google search and you can find dozens, if not hundreds of them. Some are limited by genre (fantasy, SF, whatever) and some are even broader.

Now, how would you make a system agnostic board game play space? How would you make a play space that I can play Chess and Catan on? I can't even imagine how you would even start to make a system agnostic play space for games. But, we take it for granted that RPG's have play spaces that are created completely independently from any system.

Which is why I call RPG's game creation engines. They are tools for building a game in conjunction with the play space that is created independently of the system itself. No other games have this ability. You cannot create the play space of a game independently of that game. That's an inherent quality of all games.

Now, once you've wedded your game creation engine to your play space, NOW you have a game. Now you can go forth and play. But, each half on their own is not a game. RPG's can't be played without a play space. You can't play a play space without some sort of mechanical framework that makes it a game. It's the combination of these two elements that makes an RPG a game which is distinct from pretty much any other kind of game.

 

[bsss]

My problem is that you have defined a set of convoluted criteria that chafe against common, reasonable usage and understanding, and use that internal complexity to support itself and your argument, but what your criteria and terms mean to anyone else is unresolved.

I defined a play space for D&D right up above. I also feel that insisting that adventures/modules are on the same order of a chess board is unconvincing. Your argument relies on these two elements that I don't hold the same way you do, and refining them to support your argument just, in my opinion, further distances your argument from reality. We didn't agree on one idea (is D&D a game), now you've added personal jargon into the mix and there are two or three ideas we don't agree on.

How is a "play space" any convenient area (tag) or a board (chess) or a table to put game pieces on (Catan) or their virtual equivalent (assuming you accept these games can be played online), but never, absolutely never, the space where people gather to play D&D? The theater of the mind somehow disqualifies the game from ever having a "play space"? Or, if e.g. tag and Catan's "play spaces" are the thing assembled/designated at play inception/setup, how does the fact that there is no prescribed recipe in a D&D book and it instead tells you to use your creativity a disqualification in the same manner? Both problems are just glossed over.

Your definitions may make sense to you as you refine them, but I don't think they're making a convincing argument.