Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen he said that the "game" part was the difficult part, I think Clash meant that explaining to a non-rpger why we need rules for roleplaying is the difficult part, and/or getting the rules right for the kind of roleplaying you'd like to do is difficult.

Bingo!

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what I've found in describing rpgs to non-rpgers. When I describe what happens at the game table, with characters and adventures and choices, that all makes sense to them. But then they ask, "yeah, but that's a big pile of books, why do you need all those rules for that?" If I point them to some rules-light game, they say, "why do you need any rules."

I usually give them HeroQuest's thing of how when you're watching a movie or reading a book, part of the fun of it is not knowing what'll happen next, and that since with an rpg session you control what happens next, to have the same uncertainty you need rules and dice, but... well, it doesn't usually convince them.

Really it's just one of those things you have to see or experience to "get."

Yep! The rules thing really throws non-gamers. Explaining Roleplaying is dead easy. Explaining Gaming is dead easy. Combining the two is where the muddle hits.

-clash

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what I've found in describing rpgs to non-rpgers. When I describe what happens at the game table, with characters and adventures and choices, that all makes sense to them. But then they ask, "yeah, but that's a big pile of books, why do you need all those rules for that?" If I point them to some rules-light game, they say, "why do you need any rules."

Years ago, that was easy enough to explain to anyone who had ever played cops and robbers and had the typical, "Bang, I shot you!"  "Did not!" exchange.

I never, ever encountered a problem with explaining RPGs to anyone. It´s important to know whom you are talking to, though.
Relate to their experiences, and all will be well.
A helpful thing might be, that

Don´t expect everyone to like it, though. Some people get what it´s about and shun it for what it is. That´s just the way it is.

I'm finally beginning to get a glimpse of the problem:

What you call "rules-and-ref-mediated-pretense" I simply call "story".
The basic roleplaying technique (found in every RPG, from D&D, over to the WoD to (most of) those crazy-Forge-games) is the same.

It's not about creating a story, its being part of one.
And don't make the mistake of confusing a story with a narrative, because thats a different animal altogether.

The idea is, that the characters can do anything they want in the game and it would still be a story, simply because we are suckers for the dramatic and wouldn't allow it any other way.
If the fighter chops off the dragons head in mid-flight is just as interesting as if he fails to do so and plummets to his death (or rather: because we make it interesting...)
The idea, that a certain outcome is required for the session to qualify as a story is a flawed assumption to begin with.
The session may not (in a literary sense) make for a very good story, but it will always be a story (and while it may not be great in a literary sense it has its own value, because it thrills and entertains the players and the GM).

The only way for it NOT to be a story, would be if neither the players nor the GM CARE about what happens in the session...but I think we would agree, that any kind of roleplaying falls flat if that happens...

Hello, all, I'm the author of the linked article.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe article is about... hold on... HOW TO DESCRIBE RPGS TO SOMEONE WHO ASKS.

Thank you, OG, for nailing it. My little article isn't trying to define RPGs, or state what they mean to an given gamer, or do anything high-falutin'; please don't read so much into it, folks!

It's just a short spiel I've used in the past to answer non-gamers' most basic question about our hobby. They generally don't know (or even care) about story-vs-experience-vs-mediated pretense and other philosophical musings; they just want a quick peek, using examples they're immediately familiar with, into what goes on in this odd-sounding "game" that  lacks all the standard components of the table-top games they know (like player-vs-player competition, scores, a fixed game board, step-by-step rules, even "winning").

There are other great, much-used explanations of gaming (the "Cowboys and Indians" comparison, to name one), and if the listener remains interested, deeper trails to pursue (the nature of roleplaying, etc.). I'm only tossing out one quickie intro that I've used, and which – while it's very unlikely to be original – I don't recall having seen anyone else put into print before.

Anyway, thanks for the attention, all. I'm completely new to this site, and will enjoy poking around.

T. Bone
Plenty of GURPS stuff and more at the Games Diner:
http://www.gamesdiner.com

EDIT: First paragraph removed due to excessive insinuation.  

For me there's plenty of Story to enjoy in RPGs, as well as plenty of Gaming.   They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned.   And the fact is, I enjoy the RPG more when the story actually turns out to be good in it's own right.   Am I saying that the way I enjoy RPGs is the Best and Only way and that people who don't care about the Story as compared to the Gaming aspect are having BadWrongFun?  Nooooo... because that would be totally asinine.  

What I am saying is that Story can have it's place in RPGs and people can enjoy that aspect just as much as the Gaming, without that being some sort of "issue".   If you enjoy the Gaming aspect more, great.  If you enjoy the Story aspect more, great.  If you like them both equally, great.  If you hate both of them - then go become an accountant or something.  Yah?

Thanks T.Bone.

A friend of mine pointed out the article to me as a possible way to explain RPGs to non-gamers (our gaming club is running demos at the local book fair), so it is used the way you intended.
 
I think the article succeeds in what it attempts to do and even I as a "experienced" gamer really enjoyed reading and thinking about it (especially since it is to my knowledge the first article with a satisfactory explanation as to why RPG mechanics work the way they do).
That you don't get mired in theory culture is a good thing in my book.

You are very down-to-earth in describing what most RPGs are like (although the term "story" is controversial for historical reasons), without drawing conclusions based on these observations- which avoids the pitfalls of the "real" theory (like GNS or Pundits' 3-and-1/2 obvious facts) of excluding playstyles that don't fit the model.