Okay, so a thought just recently popped up in my mind.

Some games spell everything out for the players ie have a lot of these pieces(Shadowrun Comes to mind). Some games don't (D&D, Mage: the Awakening).

A lot of people define the 2 essential pieces of an RPG as this

1. System (mechanics for playing the game)
2. Setting (explanation of the world players inhabit)

Now, some games come with other pieces, which some consider essential or non essential and I'm curious what people think of are essential ingredients to a good RPG. Ingredients like:

DM/GM/ST/REF - As a world representitive and referee, providesrs of actual play. Final arbitor in all decisions.

Character Creation Rules/Balance - I know people say there is no such thing as balance, but a semblance of fair or limitation for character creation. A few RPG's actually don't have these.

Setting Detail- D&D does not come with a setting, but rules for making one, WoD comes with a meta setting, Exalted has a fully fleshed out setting history all the way down to small intrigues between minute servant characters.

Chance Mechanisms - Dice, Cards, Driedels etc. Most games yes, however, some well recieved games have not used them, leaving only character strategy and/or GM decision to determine outcomes.

Social Mechanisms - Mechanics for social interaction. The debate rages whether having them supports or denies the act of roleplaying. These seem to be applied to at least a minumum degree in most games.

Genre - Some games are universal, most games play to a specific genre. Genre's are specific ingredients unto themselves, but 'some genre' is more successful then no genre, and where really does the crossover happen (i.e. the Buffy RPG, how many Non RPGers played the RPG and how may RPG players started watching the show? Or, how many D&D players read fantasy Novels because of D&D or how many Fantasy readers started playing D&D?)

Fantasy - This seems to be the an ingredient no-one leaves out of RPG's, not just Elves and trolls, but a fantastic element of some kind is always present. Either the characters are not average, or more than average things are going on around them or both.

Strategic Combat - Most games have combat with strategy (rather than JUST luck) as a major factor in determining the outcome. The only games I've seen without strategic combat have no combat at all.

Escalating Player Power - Most RPG's have it, most other tabletop games don't. If a players only piece is his character sheet, is this is the only way for him to visually see his characters progress outside of his own imagination.

Visual Play Aids - As simple as a thematic character sheet, all the way up to maps, gameboards, minis, props portraits etc. Considering RPG's are usually judged by the quality of their writing.


Just my thoughts questions, comments and opinions on the extra ingredients to a RPG.

Personally I don't believe that there are any essential ingrediants for a good RPG.  Different RPGs do different things and I've played RPGs that I consider good with various combinations of the ingrediants that you mention.  However I'll have a crack at your ingrediants, one at a time, viewed entirely through the lens of my own, personal preferences.

DM/GM presence:

I've got no real opinions either way on this one.  I think for a more traditional RPG then a GM is necessary but, equally, if a game is designed right then distributing GMing duties equally amongst the players can work absolutely wonderfully.  I have equally high regard for WFRP, Nobilis and Polaris for instance.  The first is very traditional, the second has such high powered players that, whilst the GM (or HG) has the traditional role, their powers are comparatively diluted and the third has no single GM with players taking on the role jointly in a round-robin style from scene to scene.

Character balance:

I do, personally, prefer things to be reasonably balance in a mechanical sense.  It can be very boring if your character is massively incompetant compared to the rest of your group, especially in a more traditional game like D&D.  Of course it doesn't always have to be that way and in games that lean further towards the pure roleplaying side of things (i.e. eschewing the tactical/strategic game side of the hobby to a greater or lesser extent) then mechanical balance becomes less of an issue.  (Note: I'm not saying that D&D players don't 'roleplay,' I've played the game extensively and such claims are bollocks.  I'm just saying that part of the fun of D&D and its ilk is the tactical side of gaming the system, something that you get short chamnged on if your particular character is mechanically weak through no fault of your own.)

Setting detail:

I prefer some setting myself.  Nothing too detailed though.  Broad brush strokes that allow you to fill in details yourself tend to be more my thing.  I'm not a fan of creating a home brew world totally from scratch, mostly because I'm lazy .  Equally too much setting can lead to feeling that your 'doing it worng' if you mess up setting details.  That's not a very rational worry but ti is one that can crop up.  Saying that I love WFRP .

Randomisers:

Randomisers are usually desireable but not essential.  As I mentioned earlier I'm a big fan of Nobilis, which is a purely resource management system.  Mortal Coil seems to work in a similar way although I've not tried out the conflict rules in that in any meaningful way (the game I played in only had 2 conflicts, it was immense fun though!)  Equally rolling dice is fun!  (I prefer dice to drawing cards/whatever for purely aesthetic reasons.)  Still, my luck with dice is legendarily poor so I'm, sometimes glad of the chance to ditch the randomness.  It's usually fun though.

Social conflict mechanics:

I think I prefer my games with these to be honest.  I don't like them to be too intrusive (an argument between characters or with an NPC shouldn't devolve into a dice roll immediately) but I think that they should be there.  Otherwise you can easily end up with the problem of a back and forth argument between players where there's no incentive for either of them to give in and no mechanics to determine who wins or loses or, in some ways worse, you can get the problem that the loudest, most confident voice at the table gets to run the show.  That isn't fair on the other players, period.

Genre:

Again I prefer my game to have some form of genre affiliation.  I'm not a big fan of universal systems like GURPS (although I played Savage Worlds last week and the system seemed neat) but, equally, if the system works as a universal system with appropriate supplimental bolt-ons then fair play to it.  I don't mind learning new systems for new games but some people like to stick to a single system and a universal system with genre/setting specific suppliments fulfills that need (plus the suppliments can be full of shiny goodness to steal for other games!)

Fantasy:

Fantasy isn't essential but there's a reason the the VAST majority of RPGs (and certainly all of the big, successful ones) contain elements of the fantastic.  (Note: I'm not defining fatasy in terms of LotR, etc., alien visitations to an otherwise vanilla modern day Earth would count as having fantastical elements IMO.)  It is those elements that help set the games apart from roleplaying your ordinary life.  So, yes, fantastical elements are a desireable trait for me.  On the other hand I had good fun playing Contenders the other day and that has no fantasy in it at all in the base game (although some might argue that it's closer to a card game with extra flavour but that's a debate for another thread.)  Not only that but I could see a mob game or a straight historical game with no fantastical elements at all being great fun.

Strategic combat:

Again I think that this depends on the game.  I think for more traditional RPGs then strategic combat is essential and damn good fun.  However for certain indie games it is far less important and, whilst 'combat' occurs it doesn't appear in the traditional sense.  Where combat and its outcomes are dictated by exactly the same system as is used to resolve any other conflict then strategy is largely irrelevant; it instead becomes all about setting the scene in a favourable manner and who has the most relevant traits/edges/whatever the hell you want to call 'em.  So, yeah, depends on the game.  I like both, depending on what mood I'm in.

Escalating player power:

I like my characters to grow and that growth to be refelcted in the mechanics.  However that growth doesn't necessarily have to correspond to my characters abilities increasing.  In most games it does and indeed should (I don't know about you but I'd get pretty damn bored of running around as a lvl 1 D&D character forever) but if a game is designed for short term play of a few sessions then it's not relaly important.  Indeed it can be fun to see your character deteriorate in the right game.

Visual aids:

Whilst not essential you can't really go wrong with some good visual aids.  The most basic (and closest to essential) is to have a clean, well designed and thematic character sheet.  Past that props are always cool, who doesn't liek getting that note or map handed to them for real rather than just having it read out?  Especially if it's been appropriately 'aged' or uses a relevant font or whatever.  Minis are less relevant although well painted ones are always a nice addition and bloody useful in some games (D&D combat really is better with them an a battlemat, although you can play perfectly well without.)

So, in summary, I don't see any element as completely essential and different mixes of the different elements can produce some very good but very different gamers.  Chalk me up as a fan of variety!

Because this topic is often filled with theory bullshit, I will attempt, in my fullest, to leave it bullshitless. With that I dive forward.

Quote from: KrakaJakDM/GM/ST/REF

Yes, necessity or it isn't an RPG.

QuoteCharacter Creation Rules/Balance

Of course there has to be a way to make your character, but "balance" is the topic that will forever haunt every RPG. "Balance" is not necessary.

QuoteSetting Detail- D&D does not come with a setting, but rules for making one, WoD comes with a meta setting, Exalted has a fully fleshed out setting history all the way down to small intrigues between minute servant characters.

You have to have a setting, of course. What, are you characters going to attack darkness? *chuckle*

QuoteChance Mechanisms - Dice, Cards, Driedels etc. Most games yes, however, some well recieved games have not used them, leaving only character strategy and/or GM decision to determine outcomes.

Yes, you need chance mechanisms, preferably dice.

QuoteSocial Mechanisms - Mechanics for social interaction. The debate rages whether having them supports or denies the act of roleplaying. These seem to be applied to at least a minumum degree in most games.

No. Social "mechanisms" should not be part of the rules. The best thing the rules can do is make suggestions about how your group should act, but any game that *MAKES* you roleplay is lame.

QuoteGenre

RPGs do not have to have a specific genre to be successful, though Fantasy is the most popular.

QuoteFantasy - This seems to be the an ingredient no-one leaves out of RPG's, not just Elves and trolls, but a fantastic element of some kind is always present. Either the characters are not average, or more than average things are going on around them or both.

See above. What, you've never played Fallout?

QuoteStrategic Combat - Most games have combat with strategy (rather than JUST luck) as a major factor in determining the outcome. The only games I've seen without strategic combat have no combat at all.

This isn't monopoly. Hell, even Monopoly has strategies.

QuoteEscalating Player Power

I think you mean "Level up". It's been around since the beginning.

QuoteVisual Play Aids - As simple as a thematic character sheet, all the way up to maps, gameboards, minis, props portraits etc. Considering RPG's are usually judged by the quality of their writing.

It helps keep play fast and intuitive, but certainly not required.

Quote from: KashellYes, necessity or it isn't an RPG.

Says who? Not that I agree or disagree, but explain yourself. There are plenty of people out there who do not agree with this statement. There are RPG's out there without a GM role in it and plenty of people who enjoy them.

Quote from: KashellOf course there has to be a way to make your character, but "balance" is the topic that will forever haunt every RPG. "Balance" is not necessary.

Some RPG's do not have rules for creating characters (try Inquisitor). You just stat out the character as you imagine him or explain your concept to the group. Character creation is strictly for a semblance of balance. So you contradict yourself by saying this.

Quote from: KashellSee above. What, you've never played Fallout?

Fallout is a fantastic (ie unreal) setting. I'm talking more along the lines of "realistic". Or even more so, "mundane". Plain people doing ordinary things.

Quote from: KashellI think you mean "Level up". It's been around since the beginning.

But does it need to be in an RPG to be successful? Or can a RPG with static character stats for a long term campaign be successful?

I came up with another ingredient for discussion.

Campaign Based Play- Most RPG's are built for long term campaign play. However, there have been quite a few games either leaned toward (like AFMBE) or only supportive (Like Ninja Burger) of one shot play. Is there any other model for an RPG out there besides the Campaign and the one-shot?

Quote from: KrakaJakI came up with another ingredient for discussion.

Campaign Based Play- Most RPG's are built for long term campaign play. However, there have been quite a few games either leaned toward (like AFMBE) or only supportive (Like Ninja Burger) of one shot play. Is there any other model for an RPG out there besides the Campaign and the one-shot?

A lot of the current crop of indie games (both Forge-associated and not) work with a model of short term play, i.e. 'campaigns' specifically geared towards only lasting a few sessions.  As an example PTA has 2 default 'season' lengths defined in the book, either 5 episodes or 9 episodes.  So, yes, there is another model out there however there aren't a whole lot of options past one shots, short term play and long term play (without further breaking long term play down anyway; a long campaign could last for months or it could last for years for instance.)

Quote from: KrakaJakSays who? Not that I agree or disagree, but explain yourself. There are plenty of people out there who do not agree with this statement. There are RPG's out there without a GM role in it and plenty of people who enjoy them.

An " RPG " without a GM is a game without a world, monsters, loot, story points, etc....

I assume, we're talking about tabletop RPGs here. Video game "RPGs" are simply complex adventure games.

QuoteSome RPG's do not have rules for creating characters (try Inquisitor). You just stat out the character as you imagine him or explain your concept to the group. Character creation is strictly for a semblance of balance. So you contradict yourself by saying this.

As most RPGs use some sort of mechanism to determine randomness (usually dice) it's hard to imagine a RPG without character creation rules, stats, skills, etc. Even as you described Inquisitor (which I've never even remotely heard of), that does have "Character creation rules", because you have to decide which stats your character will use. That's a decision. That's a rule.

I'm saying Balance in an RPG will always be the killer subject. "Why is skill Zeta5 more powerful than skill Beta12?" will always be the complaint and the cry of every power gamer. In general, I'm of the opinion that balance should not be around a single type of character, but rather, in the game as a whole. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "whoever cries loudest wears the fattest crown."

QuoteFallout is a fantastic (ie unreal) setting. I'm talking more along the lines of "realistic". Or even more so, "mundane". Plain people doing ordinary things.

Personally, one of the quotes I live by is, "Nothing good can come by hanging out with ordinary people." The ordinary is boring, even in real life, much more in games. I can imagine it now,

"Ok Paul, roll your Construction Worker check."

"WHOO HOO! NATURAL 20!"

"Ok, when you nail the board this time, your beer belly jiggles, and you get it right in place."

QuoteBut does it need to be in an RPG to be successful? Or can a RPG with static character stats for a long term campaign be successful?

Look at D&D -- the most successful RPG of all time. Look at so called "RPGs" that are video games, such as Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger. Leveling up, or getting more powerful is pretty important, I'd say.

Quote from: KrakaJakCampaign Based Play- Most RPG's are built for long term campaign play. However, there have been quite a few games either leaned toward (like AFMBE) or only supportive (Like Ninja Burger) of one shot play. Is there any other model for an RPG out there besides the Campaign and the one-shot?

I don't see anything wrong with how you play a setting. I've seen some damn good 5 or 10 part "campaigns", some good one-shots, and long campaigns all.

Of course, the most rewarding is the long campaigns, in my opinion.

Quote from: KashellAn " RPG " without a GM is a game without a world, monsters, loot, story points, etc....

Really?  My own play experiences tell me differently.  Besides, I would hardly consider all of those things necessary either, certainly not all at once anyway.

Look at Polaris as an example, it has no GM yet has a world, monsters and plenty of story.  The only thing that it doesn't really have is the taking of phat loot from corpses which, whilst it can certainly be fun, isn't exactly a requirement.

Quote from: KashellI'm saying Balance in an RPG will always be the killer subject. "Why is skill Zeta5 more powerful than skill Beta12?" will always be the complaint and the cry of every power gamer. In general, I'm of the opinion that balance should not be around a single type of character, but rather, in the game as a whole. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "whoever cries loudest wears the fattest crown."

And yet you don't like social mechanisms in your game?  I find that interetsing as, to me, one of the main reasons for having some kind of 'social combat' system (for want of a better term) is to prevent exactly that kind of thing, i.e. loudest player gets his way all of the time scenarios.

Of course maybe you meant something different by 'social mechanisms' in your initial post?  It did read somewhat like you were assuming they meant some kind of mechanics to dictate the form and method of your roleplaying, however that's not what most people mean when they talk about social mechanics.  They're generally referring to a system to determine who wins an argument (and even then I would suggest that most groups don't bust them out unless neither participant in the in-character argument is willing to back down.)

Quote from: KashellPersonally, one of the quotes I live by is, "Nothing good can come by hanging out with ordinary people." The ordinary is boring, even in real life, much more in games. I can imagine it now,

"Ok Paul, roll your Construction Worker check."

"WHOO HOO! NATURAL 20!"

"Ok, when you nail the board this time, your beer belly jiggles, and you get it right in place."

See now that's just being silly for the sake of it.  No one is suggesting anything like that.  You could have a perfectly fun rpg that involved no fantastical elements whatsoever.  Are you telling me that a game about 1920's mobsters couldn't be fun?  How about a game set during one of the multitude of wars throughout history?  Exploring deepest, darkest Africa in the early part of last century?  None of that needs to contain any element of fantasy to be a fun game, at least IMO.

Quote from: Geoff HallDM/GM presence:

I've got no real opinions either way on this one.  I think for a more traditional RPG then a GM is necessary but, equally, if a game is designed right then distributing GMing duties equally amongst the players can work absolutely wonderfully.  I have equally high regard for WFRP, Nobilis and Polaris for instance.  The first is very traditional, the second has such high powered players that, whilst the GM (or HG) has the traditional role, their powers are comparatively diluted and the third has no single GM with players taking on the role jointly in a round-robin style from scene to scene.

If a game does not have a GM who has the piower over the story and the plot then it isn't an RPG. I can see how people might enjoy games that don't have GMs, but they are not roleplaying games, they are just the same as sitting round a fire and telling ghost stories. But the people who write those games try to tell us that they ARE roleplaying games and they they ARE better than games that have a GM. So evceryone shouting and making a mess of things with nobody to stop them, it just cannot work. If you have a GM they can make things run smoothly and give a better game for everyone. Games without a GM are like the communism of gaming: thye do not work ion the real world.

Thanks
Frank

Quote from: FranklinSo evceryone shouting and making a mess of things with nobody to stop them, it just cannot work.

...And that is precisely why a working set of rules to regulate the actions taken by the PCs is far more necessary in an RPG than any form of strictly enforced central authority. As long as the group has achieved a consensus on the system and the setting, the role of the GM isn't vital, always assuming that the game in question wouldn't suffer from the absence of pre-existing private information and its gradual unveiling during the session (as in the old problem of GMless whodunits). As with randomizers, this is just one of those things that isn't really integral to roleplaying games; traditional roleplaying games, yes, but not all of them.

Quote from: FranklinIf a game does not have a GM who has the piower over the story and the plot then it isn't an RPG. I can see how people might enjoy games that don't have GMs, but they are not roleplaying games, they are just the same as sitting round a fire and telling ghost stories. But the people who write those games try to tell us that they ARE roleplaying games and they they ARE better than games that have a GM. So evceryone shouting and making a mess of things with nobody to stop them, it just cannot work. If you have a GM they can make things run smoothly and give a better game for everyone. Games without a GM are like the communism of gaming: thye do not work ion the real world.

Thanks
Frank

What complete and utter rubbish!

Let me start out by stating that I don't think either kind of game is superior; I like plenty of games with GMs (I believe that I put WFRP 2nd Ed. as my top game in my top 10 on these very forums) but I also like some games that don't have a GM.  The idea that those games devlove into everyone shouting and making a mess of things is, quite frankly, laughable and if they do it says rather more about your group than it does the games themselves.  It's perfectly possible to have an RPG with distributed GMing (i.e. the players share the duties in some form or another) and have it run smoothly and be immensely fun.  Not everyone starts power tripping the moment they realise there isn't some central figure in control :rolleyes: .

In certain situations having a GM-less game is an advantage, specifically if you have a group of creative individuals but no one who likes to GM (which is, annoyingly, precisely the situation that I find myself in at the moment.)  In that case the choice shouldn't have to be between no game and 1 poor sod doing something that they don't enjoy and, with GM-less games, it doesn't have to be.  Of course if you have someone who enjoys being the GM then cool, play a game with a GM, there are lots of excellent ones out there and if someone finds GMing fun then all the better.

Quote from: Geoff HallWhat complete and utter rubbish!

Let me start out by stating that I don't think either kind of game is superior; I like plenty of games with GMs (I believe that I put WFRP 2nd Ed. as my top game in my top 10 on these very forums) but I also like some games that don't have a GM.  The idea that those games devlove into everyone shouting and making a mess of things is, quite frankly, laughable and if they do it says rather more about your group than it does the games themselves.  It's perfectly possible to have an RPG with distributed GMing (i.e. the players share the duties in some form or another) and have it run smoothly and be immensely fun.  Not everyone starts power tripping the moment they realise there isn't some central figure in control :rolleyes: .

So, if you have a group of people playing a game without a GM, then everyone is going to give everyone else equal time and everyone is going to get their go? No your not. It's that kind of idea that is utter rubbish. There will always be people who are more forceful than the rest and will have more to do and end up running tghe game. So why not make them the GM and run the game PROPERLY in the first place?

No game without a GM can possibly work because that's not the way people work.

QuoteIn certain situations having a GM-less game is an advantage, specifically if you have a group of creative individuals but no one who likes to GM (which is, annoyingly, precisely the situation that I find myself in at the moment.)  In that case the choice shouldn't have to be between no game and 1 poor sod doing something that they don't enjoy and, with GM-less games, it doesn't have to be.  Of course if you have someone who enjoys being the GM then cool, play a game with a GM, there are lots of excellent ones out there and if someone finds GMing fun then all the better.

I have never, ever seen a group where there is no one who wants to GM. In fact I've never heard of a group where there is no one who wants to GM. If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering? Surely at least one person has enough skill and imagination to run a game? If nobody wants to do that then a game without a GM is a pretty poor excuse.

Thanks
Frank

Quote from: FranklinSo, if you have a group of people playing a game without a GM, then everyone is going to give everyone else equal time and everyone is going to get their go? No your not. It's that kind of idea that is utter rubbish. There will always be people who are more forceful than the rest and will have more to do and end up running tghe game. So why not make them the GM and run the game PROPERLY in the first place?

No game without a GM can possibly work because that's not the way people work.

If the game has a well structured set of rules it can work perfectly fine, that's all there is too it.  I've played games without a GM that were really fun and not dominated by any of the players.  All it requires is a decent set of rules and people who are willing to be grown up about the whole thing.  Like I say, no GM != instant power tripping and derailing of fun.  Is it really so difficult for you to conceive of people gaming together and being happy to let each other have their share of the limelight without someone telling them to do so?  Really?

Quote from: FranklinI have never, ever seen a group where there is no one who wants to GM. In fact I've never heard of a group where there is no one who wants to GM. If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering? Surely at least one person has enough skill and imagination to run a game? If nobody wants to do that then a game without a GM is a pretty poor excuse.

~Shrugs~ So what?  To be fair most of the time I've gamed there's been someone happy to GM but certainly not all of the time.  I've gone to game club sessions where the regular GM hasn't felt like it and none of the other regulars wanted to and been left with no game at all for the evening.  Equally in my group none of us enjoy GMing, it really is as simple as that.  Sure, one of us usually bites the bullet and does it for a bit but the games tend not to last that long as the GM isn't enjoying their role.  Combine that with extreme lack of time to actually prep for games and you get a situation where it's often either no game, someone doing something that they just don't enjoy to please the rest of the group or playing with a no/low prep GM-less game.  As to the comment "If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering?"  Gee, I don't know, maybe because we enjoy the hobby as players and would quite like to play some roleplaying games?

Quote from: FranklinNo game without a GM can possibly work because that's not the way people work.

Well ... how do you explain the people who play GMless games and have a good time?  Are they just deluding themselves somehow?  Are they actually playing GMed games?  Are they actually not enjoying themselves?

Even if there weren't evidence that GMless games can work, you'd be in a pickle trying to prove a negative.  But given that people have plenty of actual play experience of these games producing fun, challenging and dramatic results ... man ... you've really got a hard row to hoe here, with this argument.