Why D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Make believe is still a key childhood past time, yeah. I have four boys and I teach, so I'm basing that on a pretty large sample size too.
Fair enough... So I am seeing it as an isolated thing when really its part of a broader tapestry. I can get that.
Even if you really don't like PbtA games, it's still sometimes a very useful way of talking about things. From a game design standpoint I've found it pretty invaluable. Not because I want to design PbtA, although I might, but because Baker, in the game in his various blog posts, has been blessedly transparent about the design process and what all the moving parts do and how to change them. Reading a bunch of PbtA has made me better able to see the design behind the rules in other, unrelated games.
 
Make believe is still a key childhood past time, yeah. I have four boys and I teach, so I'm basing that on a pretty large sample size too.


That's good, I was worried it'd been taken over by technology.
 
The word Rob used earlier to refer to the imaginary space is Setting. It carries the connotation of the reality of the imaginary space and the rules that describe how the imaginary space differs from ours (Orks, Jedi, God-Emperor, whatever).

I don't have an issue with diagetic frame, now we all know what we're talking about.
Setting works too, I was just worried that it carried to much of a 'it's what's in the book' feel. A lot of people (no one here, mind) seem to want to use 'setting' and 'lore' interchangeably. So, for example, the Forgotten Realms setting isn't just the bits we're currently using at the table, but everything in an identified sourcebook. I think we're pretty clear though, so I'm happy using either now that I know how you're using it.
 
Sure, Wargams are where RPGs get the concept from. We use a GM in many of our wargames. But wheres a GM in a Wargame arbitrates, interprets, and institutes the rules, I'm not familiar with any situation where a wargame GM is not beholden to the rules.
Kriegspiel or at least Free Kriegspiel, so actually one of the earliest war games... The GM WAS the rules.

Also is Braunstein an RPG? That actually even allowed players to "do anything", well, almost anything. That is a good example of where Rob's "are you playing to victory conditions" comes in as a distinction. I think Braunstein is an almost RPG.
 
Make believe is still a key childhood past time, yeah. I have four boys and I teach, so I'm basing that on a pretty large sample size too.

Even if you really don't like PbtA games, it's still sometimes a very useful way of talking about things. From a game design standpoint I've found it pretty invaluable. Not because I want to design PbtA, although I might, but because Baker, in the game in his various blog posts, has been blessedly transparent about the design process and what all the moving parts do and how to change them. Reading a bunch of PbtA has made me better able to see the design behind the rules in other, unrelated games.
Heres where i disagree and refer to my earlier criticism. On its own it doesnt do it. It takes aim but doesn't fire.
 
Kriegspiel or at least Free Kriegspiel, so actually one of the earliest war games... The GM WAS the rules.

Also is Braunstein an RPG? That actually even allowed players to "do anything", well, almost anything. That is a good example of where Rob's "are you playing to victory conditions" comes in as a distinction. I think Braunstein is an almost RPG.

Yeah, that's a point regarding Free Kriegspiel, though it's been a while since I read up on it, I don't recall how much the GM was expected to institute their military knowledge towards the game outside of specifically the individual calls of two units clashing. I'm under the impression (and could be wrong) that what Free Kreigspiel did was allow the opportunity for the GM to decide the percentile likelihood of events, but that they didn't overall deviate from the game structure imposed, players were just free to come up with different tactics not covered by the base rules (like using camels to freak out Roman horses to break the other side's cavalry line - true story).

I agree it's pretty impossible to extricate the two hobbies overall. Braunstein I consider an RPG in effect, if not intention, insofar as how Arneson played it. But then there's less discussed but more significant (IMO) earlier stuff like Bath's Hyperborean campaign, which had character creation rules, stats, an experience system, etc. And one could say, playing an individual character is what seperates the two - except what about the character funnel of DCC? Or Troupe style play in Ars Magica?

I guess to me, I distinguish based on how I engage with the rules.

In a Wargame, I see myself as enacting a simulation, where I am making tactical decisions for my army, but am ultimately a disconnected observer seeing how things play out.
 
I mean, I think that "victory conditions" do not necessarily negate a game being an RPG. Shinobigami technically has win conditions for the characters each session, but I think it still qualifies as an RPG.
 
I mean, I think that "victory conditions" do not necessarily negate a game being an RPG. Shinobigami technically has win conditions for the characters each session, but I think it still qualifies as an RPG.
I would agree. This one came up a lot with the criticizing parents growing up.
"I don't understand how you lot can play a game where you cant win"
The same parents, however had a room where a full on years long axis and allies game was going on yet couldnt grasp the concept of a campaign and following a plot to its climax and conclusion.
We always had goals and victory vonditions. We just often got sidetracked or the campaign ened prematurely.
 
Heres where i disagree and refer to my earlier criticism. On its own it doesnt do it. It takes aim but doesn't fire.
It's a four sentence intro. I wasn't suggesting it was exhaustive. I was referring to the entire book btw, not the intro.
 
I don't know Fiasco, but it is a game that is frequently cited as not being an actual RPG, much like Baron Munchausen.
It not it is a dice game wrapped with the trappings of a caper. Much like Shadowrun Crossfire is a card game wrapped in the trappings of the Shadowrun setting. It also highly abstract allowing people to read whatever they want into it.

I am not a fan.
 
I mean, I think that "victory conditions" do not necessarily negate a game being an RPG. Shinobigami technically has win conditions for the characters each session, but I think it still qualifies as an RPG.

Alot of RPG settings have implied Victory Conditions I suppose.

Paranoia you could, theoretically, end the computer's reign. In Tribe 8, you can free humanity from under the cominance of the Z'Bri and Fatimas. In Shadowrun you can topple the Megacorps I guesss. In Planescape you could get laid by the Lady of Pain...
 
I mean, I think that "victory conditions" do not necessarily negate a game being an RPG. Shinobigami technically has win conditions for the characters each session, but I think it still qualifies as an RPG.
If the point to achieve the win condition then it is a boardgame. If the point is to pretend to be a character having adventure then it a RPG with the "win" condition a poorly named version of milestones.
 
It's a four sentence intro. I wasn't suggesting it was exhaustive. I was referring to the entire book btw, not the intro.
We are going in circles here. Im stepping off the merry-go-round. :p
 
If the point to achieve the win condition then it is a boardgame. If the point is to pretend to be a character having adventure then it a RPG with the "win" condition a poorly named version of milestones.

See I just think this kind of cut and dry definition stuff is how we squash creativity in the RPG field. I think sometimes the reason why I've loved the Japanese TTRPG field so much is they don't seem to be burdened by the mountain of navelgazing that we have in the EN community. They don't think about "oh but if I do x, I'm no longer making an RPG".

"If you do this or that, you aren't a REAL RPG" is just trying to fit everything into the mold of your mindset, rather than accepting that the field is much more nebulous than that.
 
I agree it's pretty impossible to extricate the two hobbies overall. Braunstein I consider an RPG in effect, if not intention, insofar as how Arneson played it. But then there's less discussed but more significant (IMO) earlier stuff like Bath's Hyperborean campaign, which had character creation rules, stats, an experience system, etc. And one could say, playing an individual character is what seperates the two - except what about the character funnel of DCC? Or Troupe style play in Ars Magica?
A lot of the elements of tabletop roleplaying were being used in various types of campaigns like Braustein's and Bath's Hyperborea. Even Dave's Blackmoor started out as a campaign version of a Braunstein. But eventually due to his willingness to yes, Blackmoor moved away from the Law vs Chaos scenarios into where character pursued their own interests like exploring the Blackmoor dungeon.

I never got the sense that Bath's Hyperborea to be that open ended and the Braunsteins were generally one-shots.
 
See I just think this kind of cut and dry definition stuff is how we squash creativity in the RPG field.
There more types of gaming than RPG including new forms that been developing.

My counterpoint that games like Fiasco should be their own thing and develop in their own way rather try to shackle themselves to the RPG label with its expectations of players playing character interacting with a setting with their action adjudicated by a referee.
 
And it helps explain why
Good luck getting people to agree on what’s IC vs. OOC. Diegetic is described as a binary switch, everything is Diagetic or non-Diagetic. There’s at least three levels of Roleplaying, IC, Abstracted and OOC, which I describe in my sig.

Your first two levels are diegetic (one first-person layer, one third-person layer) while your third is non-diegetic. I'd probably import Justin Alexander's dissociated mechanics to differentiate those OOC mechanics which directly reference events in the diegetic world from those which do not.
 
Yeah but do you believe what's created in all cases during an RPG session is a story, whether we call it that or not?

No--I agree with you there. It only becomes story once it's retold and narrativized. But everything that happens in the game-world is fictional for certain.
 
The problem with IC/OOC is that while there are a few that are clearly divided, there are just as many that are up to player choice to view through an IC or OOC perspective.

Hence the reason I find the player stances as useful.
 
Well, in the end, it's all a huge Wittgensteinian system of family resemblances and overlapping idea clusters. Some sort of multi-dimensional topology.
 
I never got the sense that Bath's Hyperborea to be that open ended and the Braunsteins were generally one-shots.

It's hard to say how open-ended Hyperborea could have been without an Arneson to push the boundaries to see what he could get away with,

but I'm a bit confused by the use of "one-shots" here - lots of RPGs are played as one-shot adventures.
 
It seems pretty clear to me that any definition of "role-playing game" is either going to be too narrow that it will exclude at least some number of games that have been published in the last 45 years (but particularly in the last 20 years) claiming to be role-playing games (including many computer rpgs) or will be so broad as to include some number of games or activities that we don't typically think of as rpgs, so devoting time and effort to trying (in vain) to identify the exact line that falls afoul of neither the former nor the latter doesn't seem like a very rewarding or valuable pursuit. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
 
I wasn't commenting on PtBA. Honestly I don't know the system beyond that some people speak of it like it is the be all and end all of roleplaying. I was speaking on the snippet you posted.
Hey man I don't have any interest in the current debate but I do recommend picking up a copy of Dungeon World. Even if you never intend to run DW it's worth a read. Not saying it is the end all be all of gaming by any means but like The Lazy Dungeon Master it expanded my GM toolkit a little. I try to stay teachable
 
Roleplaying games:

kirby-machine.jpg
 
PUT YOUR DITKO-LATE INTO MY KIRBY-BUTTER, STAT!

(Was that my outloud voice?)
 
There more types of gaming than RPG including new forms that been developing.

My counterpoint that games like Fiasco should be their own thing and develop in their own way rather try to shackle themselves to the RPG label with its expectations of players playing character interacting with a setting with their action adjudicated by a referee.

And they can develop in whatever way they want when the community stops trying to make ONLY X IS AN RPG a thing.

Shinobigami has victory conditions for each session. It still is a game where you play characters in a fictional world.

Claiming it is a board game just because it has victory conditions is hilarious to me because as a board gamer: No one in board gaming would ever consider the game a board game. It still has way way more in common with RPGs (which makes sense as it is one) than it does with board games.

This just reminds me of your claim that Blades in the Dark wasn't an RPG from another thread.

This whole RPG purity test is the most obnoxious thing that has ever come from the community.
 
Hey man I don't have any interest in the current debate but I do recommend picking up a copy of Dungeon World. Even if you never intend to run DW it's worth a read. Not saying it is the end all be all of gaming by any means but like The Lazy Dungeon Master it expanded my GM toolkit a little. I try to stay teachable
I was going to look at a few systems. Mythras being one of them. I'll add this and Apocalypse world to it. There are elements of playstyles across the spectrum that do interest me.
 
And they can develop in whatever way they want when the community stops trying to make ONLY X IS AN RPG a thing.

Shinobigami has victory conditions for each session. It still is a game where you play characters in a fictional world.

Claiming it is a board game just because it has victory conditions is hilarious to me because as a board gamer: No one in board gaming would ever consider the game a board game. It still has way way more in common with RPGs (which makes sense as it is one) than it does with board games.

This just reminds me of your claim that Blades in the Dark wasn't an RPG from another thread.

This whole RPG purity test is the most obnoxious thing that has ever come from the community.

RPG purity test... that is a good way of summarizing it, actually.
 
but I'm a bit confused by the use of "one-shots" here - lots of RPGs are played as one-shot adventures.
Yes however Arneson was one of the first to run a Braunstein as a campaign. I believe there was also a Wild West Braunstein run as a campaign however from all accounts Arneson was the larger and more popular campaign.
 
Yes however Arneson was one of the first to run a Braunstein as a campaign. I believe there was also a Wild West Braunstein run as a campaign however from all accounts Arneson was the larger and more popular campaign.
That can't be correct. As everyone knows, Westerns are 1000% superior to fantasy.
 
Yes however Arneson was one of the first to run a Braunstein as a campaign. I believe there was also a Wild West Braunstein run as a campaign however from all accounts Arneson was the larger and more popular campaign.


But what makes a "one-shot" not an RPG is I guess my question. Like if you play a one-shot adventure of D&D at a con, are you not playing a role-playing game?
 
But what makes a "one-shot" not an RPG is I guess my question. Like if you play a one-shot adventure of D&D at a con, are you not playing a role-playing game?
Nothing whatsoever. Not in any useful definition of RPG I've every used. I think someone who wants to claim that is using a very, um, lets call it bespoke definition.
 
Nothing whatsoever. Not in any useful definition of RPG I've every used. I think someone who wants to claim that is using a very, um, lets call it bespoke definition.


I mean, it certainly has no bearing on my personal definition, I'm just curious what perspective Rob is coming from, because I can't wrap my head around it. Usually even if I don't agree with someone I can at least understand their PoV, that one throws me for a loop
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top