D&D General What is D&D?

[Toe Knee Nose]

@Charlaquin I was kinda wondering about this question myself. After all, in a PbtA game, there is no real "scenario" as I was defining it. But, again, since the play space that is created is largely agnostic to the system, I don't think there's a contradiction. I've played quite a lot of Ironsworn, both solo and as a group. IME, each player is creating scenarios in play. So, one player might decide to narrate a failed check as some sort of problem has arisen. That problem could be small - down to a single attack- or it could be big - a dragon flies overhead.

And since the challenges that arise from failed checks don't actually have to be tied in any causal way to the check itself, I do think that these games do fall in line with the definition I've laid out. Now, Ironsworn does come with all sorts of tables to inspire challenges (they are called Oracles in Ironsworn) but, again, these are so generic that they are just a way to get the creative juices going when a player gets stuck. There's nothing forcing a player to Consult the Oracle.

 

[Voranzovin]

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.

That's a good point, but i think the original question still stands. Dnd does not have those baked-goals, so is Dnd not a game when played in a play-to-find-out style?

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

That's a good point, but i think the original question still stands. Dnd does not have those baked-goals, so is Dnd not a game when played in a play-to-find-out style?

Perhaps "goals" is the point that's getting tripped over? When playing an RPG, talking about the "goal" of play is a bit tricky. There's more than one layer going on. There's the goal within the game of whatever it is the characters are trying to do. Then there's the table goal, which typically isn't particularly defined other than, "have fun". But, in a "play to find out" style game there are goals. Finding out is the goal. I mean, you've stated the goal right in the name. You're playing to reveal further truths about the setting/plot. Nobody at the table actually knows what those truths are before they are revealed because they are revealed in play, but, that doesn't make it any less of a goal of play.

I've often found that in these more narrative based RPG's, the goal is to see just how much naughty word you can pile on the characters before they break.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's a good point, but i think the original question still stands. Dnd does not have those baked-goals, so is Dnd not a game when played in a play-to-find-out style?

How does one play D&D in a play to find out style?

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

How does one play D&D in a play to find out style?

At a guess, I'd say sandbox play would qualify. But, again, in sandbox style play, the goals develop organically from play and are typically determined by the players. It's not that there's no goal in play though.

 

[Charlaquin]

At a guess, I'd say sandbox play would qualify. But, again, in sandbox style play, the goals develop organically from play and are typically determined by the players. It's not that there's no goal in play though.

Agreed. Those goals are often player-defined, but they’re still part of the scenario and can’t exist without the scenario, which is not the case with many PbtA systems.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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 would add one critical caveat.

Structured recreational activity.

That's what separates D&D and most other TTRPGs from playground "let's pretend", which isn't a game but is a form of play. Exactly the things that "let's pretend" runs aground on are the things the structure of a TTRPG is meant to address. With some, perhaps very minimal, amount of limits and rules, you ensure the experience doesn't devolve into "you can't break my infinity shield!" "My infinity-plus-one sword can!!" Or "I hit you!" "You did NOT!" "DID TOO!!!" arguments where everyone who participates loses.

Most TTRPGs have more than that minimum. But as far as I can tell, even FKR, despite what I see as its active hostility to the very concept of consistent and openly-stated rules, does in fact have rules. So, structured recreational activity. A necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be a game. (After all, a hike is a structured recreational activity but no one calls hiking "playing a game".)

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

But isn't that definition too expansive

TTRPG's are "structured recreational play" which includes virtually anything. If my hike is a planned walk along a fixed route, isn't that structured? And, certainly something like Improv Theater very much is structured and has rules - which makes it a game?

No, I have to say that I prefer the notion of "rules defined play space". Games, as opposed to recreational activities, define their play space within the rules of the game. Hiking isn't a game since hiking never defines what actually constitutes "a hike". It's just something we do. It could be short, it could be long, it could be in any environment. "A long walk done for fun" is about as close to a definition of a hike that we can get.

But games define their spaces. Without that defined play space, you cannot have a game.

 

[Voranzovin]

How does one play D&D in a play to find out style?

Well, let me paraphrase your argument so far, as I see it: DnD, by itself, is not a game, because while it does provide rules and structure, it does not provide objectives. An adventure, whether prewritten or extemporized, provides the objectives that make playing DnD playing a game. Your objective is to escape the dungeon with all your loot, to slay the lich, to save the villagers from bandits, or whatever. Do I have that right?

If so, this conception of play assumes that characters goals are also the players goals. But what if the player is not attempting to achieve those objectives, but simply to find out what happens next, and any actions they take to achieve the character's objectives are simply in the service of seeing what happens when the character encounters opposition?

Then there's the table goal, which typically isn't particularly defined other than, "have fun". But, in a "play to find out" style game there are goals. Finding out is the goal. I mean, you've stated the goal right in the name. You're playing to reveal further truths about the setting/plot. Nobody at the table actually knows what those truths are before they are revealed because they are revealed in play, but, that doesn't make it any less of a goal of play.

Finding out may be a goal, but its not a quantifiable objective. Whether you will find out or not is not in doubt--as long as your character does anything at all, you'll find out what the consequences are one way or another! That doesn't sound like the kind of objective the definition of "game" demands at all.

 

[Toe Knee Nose]

Finding out may be a goal, but its not a quantifiable objective. Whether you will find out or not is not in doubt--as long as your character does anything at all, you'll find out what the consequences are one way or another! That doesn't sound like the kind of objective the definition of "game" demands at all.

To entirely fair, "has a goal" isn't really my argument, so, I'm probably the wrong one to ask. I'm the "A game must provide a defined play space to be a game" guy. I think the idea of requiring goals is important and most games have some sort of goal, but, to me the key element is "must provide a defined play space".