I think I'm enjoying boardgames more than RPGs these days

[Skywalker]

"Not losing' is the usual victory condition; succeeding in the short term is, if not a victory condition, a win, however transitory its effect. Making other players lose (and then taking their stuff, giving an advantage against not losing) and gaining the satisfaction of succeeding in that conflict are "play to win" reasons for PvP.

I don’t agree. It seems a limited view of RPGs to view avoiding failure of a PC as a victory condition. The best stories are filled protagonists failing at what they want to achieve.

 

[Séadna]

I mentioned it here before and it's sort of a ridiculous end state that nobody could ever really achieve, but you can win BECMI.

 

[Numidius]

There is pleasure in concentration and in immersion (and also in just hangin' out). Maybe silva you're looking for a good mix of both.

In boardgames I play better when the main thing is about changing tactics quickly , rather than planning a long term strategy; better yet if "psychology" of the other players is also a factor (my all time favourite is Dune from ages ago)

In rpgs I like having real freedom to change the course of events, and to let them change my PC: the Gm needs to be on the same page, of course.
When I run I want to elaborate and improv as much I as I can on players input, to have a sort of real challenge.

(Sometimes I just want to relax casually playing something).

 

[Moonglum]

Check out 'The Fantasy Trip'; it is effectively a board game you can play as a roleplaying game when the mood takes you. Or, if you like, a roleplaying game you can play as a board game when the mood takes you. It is often noted for its 'deadliness', which is really just a catch phrase for the fact that was designed to be played competitively, meaning both sides can potentially lose.

 

[Magister]

Reaching name level in D&D or otherwise retiring in a successful state is not an uncommon RPG victory condition, if not explicitly called out. It's essentially synonymous with "not losing". Every one-shot game has some sort of objective that acts as a victory condition and which doesn't invalidate the game as an RPG.

There's a victory condition in each battle - one side wins by defeating the other (killing them, taking captives or chasing them off), or there's a draw (a standoff or truce). A campaign in the wargaming sense is a series of battles. There might be an overall objective (defeat all the opposing kingdoms, say) but that's true of an RPG as well (defeat the Dark Lord or banish Chaos). The ongoing property of RPGs works against that kind of conclusion, because the players want to continue with their characters or perhaps the children of their characters in a generational game. If you view a single adventure/mission/session as the game, then you win or lose in that session according to its outcomes (gained treasure, lost a limb, died and created a new character) and the only difference from a club playing whist is that one game carries into the next, with PCs carrying forward advancement and loot. The game store nearby has Magic tournaments; the winner gets a pack of cards and so may be better placed for the next tournament. There's no overall victory condition for the sequence (or campaign) of individual tournaments.

 

[TristramEvans]

I don’t recall win conditions in Paranoia.

No, but there's plenty of PvP.

There was a win condition introduced in later adventures, but I wasn't a fan.

 

[The Butcher]

I have yet to encounter a boardgame that I would rather play than a RPG.

I am particularly miffed at complex games that take forever to set up and forever to resolve. WHY ARE WE NOT PLAYING RPGS

I am truly and irrevocably insulted when/if they are patterned after RPGs like the D&D boardgames and the Cthulhu ones (I get them all mixed up) WHY ARE WE NOT PLAYING D&D OR CoC THEY ARE LITERALLY TWO OF MY FIVE FAVORITE GAMES AND I CAN RUN EITHER ON DEMAND

 

[TJS]

It can happen, but RPGs are different in that they have no victory condition where board games do. As such, any PvP action is due to story reasons and not to play to win. In fact, RPGs are perhaps the only type of game that has no victory conditions.

The Angry GM makes the argument IIRC that rpgs are basically incomplete games and that it takes the adventure writer (whether published or just an individual GM) to basically complete the game.

You can see this somewhat in games like Descent that are modelled on rpgs. The victory conditions for individual scenarios are basically similar to those that would exist (even if not explicitly stated) in individual rpg adventures.

 

[Numidius]

Apocalypse World and Dogs in the vineyard have retirement plans for characters

 

[Skywalker]

The Angry GM makes the argument IIRC that rpgs are basically incomplete games and that it takes the adventure writer (whether published or just an individual GM) to basically complete the game.

I agree with this except to the extent that it makes it sound negative by the way it uses the word complete. If you compare them to most games, RPGs aren’t “complete” but the element that they are missing is the structure needed to create a level playing field for competition. RPGs don’t have win conditions so such competition is not needed to complete them.

RPGs are a complete activity in which the input of the participants is required.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Honestly, I just don't see why the comparisons to be honest. They are different hobbies. I don't talk about how I'd rather read a book than play an RPG. I have different moods for different hobbies.

 

[Skywalker]

Apocalypse World and Dogs in the vineyard have retirement plans for characters

But these aren’t win conditions and the game is still a complete experience if you never use them.

Dont confuse being more explicit with the mechanics as mechanics creating a level playing field to allow players to compete. I believe that RPGs can benefit greatly from such explicit game structures. But they don’t play well as what we normally associate with a game (which has a winner).

 

[Simlasa]

I have yet to encounter a boardgame that I would rather play than a RPG.

I am particularly miffed at complex games that take forever to set up and forever to resolve. WHY ARE WE NOT PLAYING RPGS

I play boardgames with people who, for whatever reason, aren't going to play RPGs.
Sometimes it's the factor of overt competition that will hold their interest. Sometimes it's just that boardgames feel more casual, they can drink and chat and not pay attention. When I've tried TTRPGs with them, their kids fully engage... but the parents fall asleep (these folks also prefer their boardgames to be over within an hour).

The only RPG-ish boardgame I've bought is solid for solo play, and that's the big draw. I don't think I could drag my boardgame friends into it anyway, it's too long/complicated to hold their interest. Maybe their kids would play, but I'd never choose to play it over a 'real' RPG.

The only RPGs I've played that have felt anything at all like boardgames have been recent editions of D&D... and more because of the people playing than because of the rules. They played it as an arena game, a string of battles with little or no context... or as a Choose Your Path adventure game, with intermittent combats strung along a GM's narrative... little or no NPC interaction.

 

[Winterblight]

I love board games. They do a few things well. They allow our gaming group's partners to game with us without being tarred with the stigma of being roleplay nerds . Some board games do well at building tension and they bring out the competitive side you often don't see among friends.

Still, no board game I've ever played comes close to an RPG in my opinion. I love the continuity of an ongoing campaign. I love the ongoing consequence of actions. Some adventures and the antics characters get up to still get talked about years later like they were favourite movies, or actually happened. Then there is the creative side. I can take an RPG in almost any direction. I can create content, tweak rules, build worlds, write complex plots, draw maps, and a ton more besides.

 

[Lessa]

Most RPGs do have victory conditions, if not formally, then in practice. In Shadowrun for eg. succeeding at the mission is the primary victory condition, and surviving is the secondary one. CoC is the same, only swaping "mission" by "mistery", etc.

 

[Lessa]

Honestly, I just don't see why the comparisons to be honest. They are different hobbies. I don't talk about how I'd rather read a book than play an RPG. I have different moods for different hobbies.

Both are games, though. And with experiences that share common aspects (strategical thinking, evocation of an imaginary space, etc).

 

[Skywalker]

Most RPGs do have victory conditions, if not formally, then in practice. In Shadowrun for eg. succeeding at the mission is the primary victory condition, and surviving is the secondary one. CoC is the same, only swaping "mission" by "mistery", etc.

No they don’t. You don’t beat the GM if you solve the mystery. It’s an in game victory vs an out of game one. Nearly all other games, include board games, have a out of game victory. Even Cooperative board games.

 

[Lessa]

Reaching name level in D&D or otherwise retiring in a successful state is not an uncommon RPG victory condition, if not explicitly called out. It's essentially synonymous with "not losing". Every one-shot game has some sort of objective that acts as a victory condition and which doesn't invalidate the game as an RPG.

There's a victory condition in each battle - one side wins by defeating the other (killing them, taking captives or chasing them off), or there's a draw (a standoff or truce). A campaign in the wargaming sense is a series of battles. There might be an overall objective (defeat all the opposing kingdoms, say) but that's true of an RPG as well (defeat the Dark Lord or banish Chaos). The ongoing property of RPGs works against that kind of conclusion, because the players want to continue with their characters or perhaps the children of their characters in a generational game. If you view a single adventure/mission/session as the game, then you win or lose in that session according to its outcomes (gained treasure, lost a limb, died and created a new character) and the only difference from a club playing whist is that one game carries into the next, with PCs carrying forward advancement and loot. The game store nearby has Magic tournaments; the winner gets a pack of cards and so may be better placed for the next tournament. There's no overall victory condition for the sequence (or campaign) of individual tournaments.

I agree 100%. And notice that some boardgames do allow for experience gaining and "carrying loot" to the next adventure.

 

[Lessa]

No they don’t. You don’t beat the GM if you solve the mystery.

Victory conditions are not necessarily linked to beating the GM. Not even in boardgames.

It’s an in game victory vs an out of game one. Nearly all other games, including board games, have a out of game victory. Even Cooperative board games.

Not necessarily. Shadowrun assumes play is driven by missions. Missions have victory conditions per principle. The fact you can choose those during play don't mean there aren't victory conditions to beat. You enter the game knowing you will face them.

 

[Simlasa]

Not necessarily. Shadowrun assumes play is driven by missions. Missions have victory conditions per principle. The fact you can choose those during play don't mean there aren't victory conditions to beat. You enter the game knowing you will face them.

But those missions are often/usually just a means to a bigger goal... and that goal, while being the real focus, might never be achieved. As with Call of Cthulhu, where each mystery is a nibble on the huge unknowable conspiracy that can never be solved/won. Yet the PCs struggle on.
What boardgame presents such situations?

 

[Lessa]

But those missions are often/usually just a means to a bigger goal... and that goal, while being the real focus, might never be achieved. As with Call of Cthulhu, where each mystery is a nibble on the huge unknowable conspiracy that can never be solved/won. Yet the PCs struggle on.
What boardgame presents such situations?

The Cthulhu boardgames (Mansions of Madness, Arkham Horror, Eldritch Horror, LCG) are like that too. Each game has a myriad (branching) scenarios that you can chain together to form a campaign if you want. And you can use the same characters too.

 

[TristramEvans]

The Cthulhu boardgames (Mansions of Madness, Arkham Horror, Eldritch Horror, LCG) are like that too. Each game has a myriad (branching) scenarios that you can chain together to form a campaign if you want. And you can use the same characters too.

I think Simlasa's point is that even in boardgames with campaigns and multiple expansions - that's still finite, as opposed to the inherently infinite nature of RPGs.

But I think this tangent regarding "win conditions" is a red herring, because the term means two different things depending if you are applying it to an RPG or a boardgame.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Both are games, though. And with experiences that share common aspects (strategical thinking, evocation of an imaginary space, etc).

Except one leans so heavily to one side (strategic thinking) and the other so far to the other side (evocation of an imaginary space) that they really aren't that similar.

 

[TristramEvans]

A board game is limited by the creativity of the designer

An RPG is only limited by the imagination of the participants

This isn't to say "RPGs" are better - because limitations aren't bad things, they create the framework of an experience.

More I think it's like comparing boats and cars - it's kind of meaningless, they are designed to do different things. Cars suck on water, and boats are crap on land.

And hybrids suck at both things equally.

 

[Lessa]

Is that a thing, Tristram? I mean, are there car-boats in USA?

 

[TJS]

It would seem that ,as it can be difficult to get enough people together regularly to play either, they're at least somewhat comparable on that basis alone.

But it depends on the board game. Ticket to Ride is fundamentally different to any rpg.

But you also have those games like Descent, or Rebel Assault or (I take it) Gloomhaven, that seem to be set up to be rpgs without the roleplaying - which I find somewhat bizarre. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would play Descent when they could be playing a real rpg.

 

[TristramEvans]

Is that a thing, Tristram? I mean, are there car-boats in USA?

Yeah, Amphibious cars. They are pretty obscure these days. Think they came out in the 60s (?) and never caught on.

 

[TristramEvans]

But you also have those games like Descent, or Rebel Assault or (I take it) Gloomhaven, that seem to be set up to be rpgs without the roleplaying - which I find somewhat bizarre. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would play Descent when they could be playing a real rpg.

I think it's because RPGs take more effort.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Again, I'm not going to play Gloomhaven in place of an RPG. Because they do very different things well. Gloomhaven has a much more interesting battle system than any RPG I've ever played. It wouldn't work in an RPG because it would be really verisimilitude breaking. But for a strategic exercise it is a much more fun GAME than any RPG I've ever played. There is way more tactical decisions and interlocking parts. The character progression is also clever and fun. The fiction is just an added bonus.

RPGs hit the other end of the spectrum. The fiction is the main star. Mechanics that distract from the fiction are general not a good idea, which is why you don't see something like Gloomhaven's combat in any RPG. (Even D&D 4e is less "gamey" than Gloomhaven). Because the purpose is different.

Again: If you are going into Gloomhaven trying to replace an RPG, I think you are doing it for the wrong reason. Gloomhaven is just an amazing tactical combat game with progression and some added story. I enjoy the story. But it is icing. The cake is the combat.

So all the questions of "Why would you play this instead of an RPG?!" are usually missing the point because they are looking at it from the perspective of it trying to be an RPG, when it isn't.

 

[Simlasa]

But you also have those games like Descent, or Rebel Assault or (I take it) Gloomhaven, that seem to be set up to be rpgs without the roleplaying - which I find somewhat bizarre. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would play Descent when they could be playing a real rpg.

One RPG group I was in took a session to play Tomb, which was like an RPG with most all the fun bits removed. I'm not sure why, everyone showed up that session... I think it was just than someone owned it and wanted to get a game out of it.
IIRC, it took a while to set up, and a while to explain... and was in no way simpler/quicker/better than if we had just played the RPG we had planned on.
We didn't even finish the game, we got bored with it.
The same thing happened with Munchkin.

Robot Rally was always a hit though.

 

[Skywalker]

Victory conditions are not necessarily linked to beating the GM. Not even in boardgames.

That makes no sense. There aren’t GM’s in an sense in board games.

Not necessarily. Shadowrun assumes play is driven by missions. Missions have victory conditions per principle. The fact you can choose those during play don't mean there aren't victory conditions to beat. You enter the game knowing you will face them.

Those victory conditions are only in game. They are out of game victory conditions.

 

[Simlasa]

So all the questions of "Why would you play this instead of an RPG?!" are usually missing the point because they are looking at it from the perspective of it trying to be an RPG, when it isn't.

Except that many of the fans of such games, like the fans of Shadows of Brimstone I've been talking with, do very much look at them as a sort of RPG experience. They'd lump it in with Call of Cthulhu long before they'd put it on the shelf with Monopoly.

 

[Magister]

I think Simlasa's point is that even in boardgames with campaigns and multiple expansions - that's still finite, as opposed to the inherently infinite nature of RPGs.

I didn't read Sinek's book, but I read Carse's book Finite and Infinite Games decades ago and the distinction seemed weak to me. A sports season that declares a champion for this year is a finite game, but the sport itself is infinite since the objective is to continue the sport indefinitely, changing the rules and equipment as needed. So an RPG tournament game at a convention is a finite game and an RPG campaign with no defined ending is an infinite one. But the same is true of a boardgame that admits of expansions, where the infinite game is creating expansions.

But I think this tangent regarding "win conditions" is a red herring, because the term means two different things depending if you are applying it to an RPG or a boardgame.

The victory conditions in a game are certainly the ultimate goal of play, but there are intermediate goals that tend to be pursued to improve the chances of reaching the ultimate goal. So defeating opponents and advancing player characters are typical intermediate goals for RPGs. For a sandbox RPG to be completely devoid of even intermediate goals would make it more of a toy than a game; players will turn it into a game by choosing something to try to achieve, creating at least intermediate goals for themselves.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Except that many of the fans of such games, like the fans of Shadows of Brimstone I've been talking with, do very much look at them as a sort of RPG experience. They'd lump it in with Call of Cthulhu long before they'd put it on the shelf with Monopoly.

Well, I can't help it if they are idiots.

More seriously: I tend to think people who consider them actually like RPGs are people who just want to fight in an rpg. Which honestly with 99% of RPG mechanics, if what you enjoy is the tactical combat, then yeah, a board game is better. But if the fiction is the most important thing, which is where I think is the heart of an RPG, board games are a poor substitute.

Basically: People who think they are good for a replacement for RPGs probably play RPGs like they play board games. It isn't about the board game being like an RPG, it is about their approach to RPGs being boardgamelike.

I like both board games and RPGs quite a lot. They are probably tied for my #1 favorite hobby. But what each does well is different and my mood determines which one I'd want to play at any time.

 

[Skywalker]

But I think this tangent regarding "win conditions" is a red herring, because the term means two different things depending if you are applying it to an RPG or a boardgame.

Thats the point though. It’s a fundamental difference between how RPGs work compared to most other forms of games including board games. I would also argue that its central to the appeal of RPGs and a reason board gaming will never be able to completely replace an RPG experience, unless the board game becomes an RPG or you never really wanted to play an RPG to begin with.

 

[TristramEvans]

I didn't read Sinek's book, but I read Carse's book Finite and Infinite Games decades ago and the distinction seemed weak to me. A sports season that declares a champion for this year is a finite game, but the sport itself is infinite since the objective is to continue the sport indefinitely, changing the rules and equipment as needed. So an RPG tournament game at a convention is a finite game and an RPG campaign with no defined ending is an infinite one. But the same is true of a boardgame that admits of expansions, where the infinite game is creating expansions.

I think that's a linear perspective though. RPGs are infinite in every direction.

Sports are completely unrelated, as they never feature the continuation of a game. Each game in a season is a new, completely self-contained game.

The victory conditions in a game are certainly the ultimate goal of play, but there are intermediate goals that tend to be pursued to improve the chances of reaching the ultimate goal. So defeating opponents and advancing player characters are typical intermediate goals for RPGs. For a sandbox RPG to be completely devoid of even intermediate goals would make it more of a toy than a game; players will turn it into a game by choosing something to try to achieve, creating at least intermediate goals for themselves.

When I say "win conditions" mean something totally different, I''m referring to the use of the term in boardgames to specifically refer to the endgame event. An RPG (by concept at least, if not conception) doesn't have a self-imposed endgame event. Even character death.

 

[TristramEvans]

Basically: People who think they are good for a replacement for RPGs probably play RPGs like they play board games. It isn't about the board game being like an RPG, it is about their approach to RPGs being boardgamelike.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[TristramEvans]

Thats the point though. It’s a fundamental difference between how RPGs work compared to most other forms of games including board games. I would also argue that its central to the appeal of RPGs and a reason board gaming will never be able to completely replace an RPG experience, unless the board game becomes an RPG or you never really wanted to play an RPG to begin with.

yeah, I agree totally

This is why the trend among certain RPGs to impose such restrictions on themselves always kinda baffled me

 

[Lessa]

But you also have those games like Descent, or Rebel Assault or (I take it) Gloomhaven, that seem to be set up to be rpgs without the roleplaying - which I find somewhat bizarre

This may sound bizarre, but I feel like I'm roleplaying all the same when I'm playing my boyo McGlen the Mobster in the Arkham boardgame and decide to visit Velma's Restaurant and the encounter card reads "How you doing my son? You look pale! I have the right thing for you today, the delicious Velma special! Only 1 buck for you because you're my boy", and then I choose to spend the money to get the soup.

(love that Chicage Typewriter!)


I'm taking decisions in character. For me, that's roleplaying the same as in any other game, be tabletop, electronic or whatever. The scale is different of course - in a tabletop RPG I could do funny voices and prolong the conversation or take it to another direction that the boardgame doesn't permit - but it's all roleplaying for me. Why it shouldn't be? I'm playing the role of an alter ego, right?

 

[Skywalker]

yeah, I agree totally

This is why the trend among certain RPGs to impose such restrictions on themselves always kinda baffled me

I get why RPGs look to add restrictions. Despite its infinite nature being its greatest virtue, it’s also one of its biggest hurdles to play. Plus all RPGs have to have some level of restriction inherent in its design.

However, some restriction is fundamentally an issue, such as trying to add out of game competition. Given an RPG fundamentally needs a person to fill it out given the breadth of its experience, adding competition is antithetical as the competition will be unfair or it will just restrain the person who is needed for the RPG to operate.