D&D General What is D&D?

[Mort]

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.

Doesn't this ignote that, in D&D (and other RPGs) sometimes people just grab the pieces and play?

"Hey let's see how a bunch of 10th level PCs do against a great wyrm red dragon?" - no setting, nothing else.

I've had variations of this from 1e forward.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

It's definitely working against, instead of towards, the goal* of treating language as something to create communication. As fascinating as this navel-gazing** discussion has been, it only works within the axioms used to set it up, baring no particular resemblance to anything outside itself.
*is this a goal anyone is pursuing at this point?
**I think calling it an academic discussion is giving it far too much credit

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

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.

Sorry, but, how does the physical space where you play D&D equate to a board or a court? Where you play an RPG has no bearing on the game whatsoever. Back of a car, on a bus, in a tent, I've played D&D in an awful lot of places.

That isn't what "play space" means. "Play space" means "Where this game takes place". The "play space" of Catan is the board. The play space of basketball is a court. The play space of any game is defined by the game.

Play space doesn't have anything to do with what location you happen to be playing in. It's still Catan if I'm playing in my basement, your back yard or Bobby's broom closet.

Why would you think that "Play Space" somehow discounts theater of the mind? That's not even related to anything I've said.

The difference is, as you say, the thing assembled/designated at play inception is the play space and that is defined by the GAME.

So, D&D becomes a game AFTER you've defined your play space. But, since the play space of an RPG is not dependent upon the RPG itself, that makes it different from the play space of EVERY OTHER GAME. That's the distinction between an RPG and a game. Games ALWAYS define the play space. An RPG doesn't. You must create the play space independently of the RPG and then you put those two things together and now you've got a game.

That's the distinction.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Doesn't this ignote that, in D&D (and other RPGs) sometimes people just grab the pieces and play?

"Hey let's see how a bunch of 10th level PCs do against a great wyrm red dragon?" - no setting, nothing else.

I've had variations of this from 1e forward.

You've just created a play space. Unless you're just running combat in a perfectly flat plane, there has to be more defined than just that dragon.

And, let's be honest here, what you're talking about is a pretty rare corner case. A definition doesn't have to be 100% perfect. Can we at least try to stick to typical play?

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

It's definitely working against, instead of towards, the goal* of treating language as something to create communication. As fascinating as this navel-gazing** discussion has been, it only works within the axioms used to set it up, baring no particular resemblance to anything outside itself.
*is this a goal anyone is pursuing at this point?
**I think calling it an academic discussion is giving it far too much credit

I'm sorry, but, how is this convoluted or even complicated? This is pretty straight forward.

Unlike games, to play an RPG, the participants must create a play space independently of the RPG itself. This is what differentiates RPG's from other games where the play space is always defined by the game itself. This is proven by the existence of system agnostic play spaces for RPG's; something that does not exist for any other kind of game.​

Is that really that difficult to understand? People can disagree all they like, and that's fair, but, it seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[bsss]

That isn't what "play space" means. "Play space" means "Where this game takes place". The "play space" of Catan is the board. The play space of basketball is a court. The play space of any game is defined by the game.

Okay, D&D is a game that takes place in our shared imagination. Done. A D&D book will say that pretty clearly. So D&D is a game, or your definition of "play space" is not clear or complete (maybe it's more reliant on physicality or particular properties than you have let on), or using your definition of "play space" is not conclusive (maybe after further refining jargon, it turns out your definition may hinge on "play space" plus something else) to the issue.

Is that really that difficult to understand? People can disagree all they like, and that's fair, but, it seems pretty straight forward to me.

These replies suggest that the "seems ... to me" part of your statement is the problem.

 

[Mort]

You've just created a play space. Unless you're just running combat in a perfectly flat plane, there has to be more defined than just that dragon.

Not really. And anything added can easily come from the game rules themselves.

I guess I just don't understand the need to separate and declare the system is not the game (which is what trying to define play space separately seems to try and do).

The system may well not be the entirety of the game, but it can be sufficient.

And, let's be honest here, what you're talking about is a pretty rare corner case.

Grabbing PCs and a monster or 2 and putting them against each other in a brawl? I don't think that's an edge case at all.

A definition doesn't have to be 100% perfect. Can we at least try to stick to typical play?

Sure, perfect is the enemy of good. But I don't want any definition to be overly limiting either.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

I guess I just don't understand the need to separate and declare the system is not the game (which is what trying to define play space separately seems to try and do).

The system may well not be the entirety of the game, but it can be sufficient.

That bolded part is the key. Because, no, it isn't sufficient to actually play. Until you create that play space, you cannot play an RPG. It's true that the play space exists in our imagination. Nothing I've said would contradict that. But, the play space is also entirely independent of the system. And until you add that play space, you cannot play.

Even if that play space is a completely flat plane and a monster, there's still a play space being created. You, the person playing, chose that specific play space. That play space is system agnostic. I could do that in any RPG. That play space, "Empty space with a monster and X number of PC'S" is a completely system agnostic play space that is not in any way dependent on the system that is used once play begins.

Which is not true of any other game. There are no games with system agnostic play spaces which must be created by the participants before play begins. All games must have a play space. That is a fundamental requirement of all games. You cannot have a game that does not have a play space.

RPG's do not have play spaces. The play spaces must be created independently of the system before you can play. Therefore RPG's are not games in and of themselves but rather become games AFTER you create the play space and effectively that play space IS the game that you are playing.

 

[Voranzovin]

My thesis is “D&D is a game engine.” Every campaign is a bespoke game, which can be run by the D&D engine, the Pathfinder engine, the Shadowdark engine, the Daggerheart engine, or whatever other roleplaying game engine you like.

I can see your point, but i think i dont agree with it--or rather, I think its a taxonomy that isnt particularly useful. It ends up segmenting RPGs in a way that, while perhaps technically correct given a strict definition of the term “game,” creates more problems than it solves.

For instance, how does it function for RPGs that explicitly never have win or lose conditions, eg. PBTA games? I'm guessing that the answer is that they are not RPGs. While there are almost certainly PBTA fans who would take exception to this characterization, there's nothing incoherent about it.

However, I would argue that the PBTA credo “play to find out,” which I take as an explicit rejection of win/lose conditions, also applies to many DnD games! I have certainly had characters perform actions that were counterproductive to their stated goals, because I thought they'd be too emotionally compromised by the situation to act rationally, or because I thought it would be dramatically interesting. This would be an absurd thing to do if the character's goal were in fact the goal of play. Hence, goals that can be won or lost can be the object of a game of DnD, but don't necessarily have to be. And if everyone at the table is playing with no object but to “play to find out,” then the game, by the strictest definition, is not a game.

What are we to make, then, of a “game engine” that can produce things that aren't games? That's not an idea I think is very coherent.

I think it's a lot more productive to use the more expansive definition of “game,” which is something more like “recreational activity,” for the G in RPG.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can see your point, but i think i dont agree with it--or rather, I think its a taxonomy that isnt particularly useful. It ends up segmenting RPGs in a way that, while perhaps technically correct given a strict definition of the term “game,” creates more problems than it solves.

For instance, how does it function for RPGs that explicitly never have win or lose conditions, eg. PBTA games? I'm guessing that the answer is that they are not RPGs. While there are almost certainly PBTA fans who would take exception to this characterization, there's nothing incoherent about it.

However, I would argue that the PBTA credo “play to find out,” which I take as an explicit rejection of win/lose conditions, also applies to many DnD games! I have certainly had characters perform actions that were counterproductive to their stated goals, because I thought they'd be too emotionally compromised by the situation to act rationally, or because I thought it would be dramatically interesting. This would be an absurd thing to do if the character's goal were in fact the goal of play. Hence, goals that can be won or lost can be the object of a game of DnD, but don't necessarily have to be. And if everyone at the table is playing with no object but to “play to find out,” then the game, by the strictest definition, is not a game.

What are we to make, then, of a “game engine” that can produce things that aren't games? That's not an idea I think is very coherent.

I think it's a lot more productive to use the more expansive definition of “game,” which is something more like “recreational activity,” for the G in RPG.

I think games like PbtA do have goals and measurable feedback. Indeed, many PbtA systems even have those goals baked into the rules - for example, resolving established relationships with other PCs. In that way, a lot of PBbtA systems actually are games on their own, in my opinion. That’s why you’re able to “play [them] to find out what happens” without any adventure or scenario already prepared by the GM. They don’t need the scenario to provide goals like D&D does, they already have goals and feedback inherently.