Quote from: RPGPundit;588647Aren't all games by definition pastimes?

Yeah, I said as much.

But not all pastimes are games. "Game" has a loose definition, identical to "pastime", and a stricter definition. What I'm saying is that when I see various endless arguments, particularly those with Denners involved, the problem seems to come from a subset of gamers who can't conceive of RPGs as anything but games in the strict sense. They *hate* the idea of pastimes that aren't games. It violates their weird little rigid brains.

And, unfortunately for these miserable few, there are a lot of people who play RPGs as if they were pastimes but not games.

Quote from: talysman;588291He's pointing out that there's a difference between people who play RPGs like a strict game and those who play it as a pastime. And the problem is not that one side is wrong, but that people can't figure out that you shouldn't play with people who aren't using the same approach you plan to use.

Pretty much everyone I've ever played with takes a more middling approach.  They care about both aspects.

Why is this distinction meaningful? What's the purpose of deciding if RPGs are games or pastimes?

Quote from: Mistwell;588810Why is this distinction meaningful? What's the purpose of deciding if RPGs are games or pastimes?

There is no purpose in deciding if RPGs are games or pastimes, other than to decide which you feel like playing tonight and whether a particular fellow player will play the same way.

There *is* a purpose in identifying people who can't accept RPGs as anything other than games in the strictest possible sense. It helps you to avoid them.

All I can say is: Role Playing GAME.

Quote from: RPGPundit;588647I'm a bit confused by the use of language here.  Is someone suggesting that RPGs aren't a game?
Aren't all games by definition pastimes?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mistwell;588810Why is this distinction meaningful? What's the purpose of deciding if RPGs are games or pastimes?

Quote from: MGuy;588833All I can say is: Role Playing GAME.

This, this and that. Basically.

Quote from: jeff37923;587500Hobby.

Double down on hobby.

EDIT: Compare it to miniature wargaming, or model railroading (two other common hobbies). GM's create campaigns, model railroaders create dioramas (or whatever the word is), wargamers create models, terrain, and scenarios. All involve a lot of time doing preparation, a lot of work perfecting details, a lot of time comparing, for example, rules sets (in RPGs and miniatures), scale (in miniatures and model railroading), and so forth.

People have their own preferences, which they defend with bitter vitriol. I recall Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory ranting about model railroad scales, and various people (here and elsewhere, including myself) ranting about RPG systems.

For those outside the hobby, the differences are minute and meaningless. For those inside, an endless source of vexation and drama.

RPG's are a hobby.

I agree that hobby is a better term than pastime, but I do think that what the OP is driving at has some merit. The problem with the 'role-playing game' label that was coined early on in the history of the hobby, was that some people fixate on the word game, and end up trying to limit what the hobby has to offer.

I know the same argument, describing RPGs as toys in comparison to Sim City, which has been called a toy as well.

Still, a winning condition is not considered necessary in all definitions. Personally, I'm OK with a method to evaluate perfomance instead of a winning condition.

Quote from: Mistwell;588810Why is this distinction meaningful? What's the purpose of deciding if RPGs are games or pastimes?

If they are games, then trying to find an optimal strategy for them is worthwhile. Games build towards an objective and measurable end state, and the goal is (Almost) always to be on the winning side, complete with a way of telling if you're on the winning side or not.

But... as we have established at length, "winning" an RPG (Or an SG!) isn't a thing that can be meaningfully discussed. You play an RPG to enjoy the playing of it, not to "win" or "lose".

RPG's don't have victory conditions or end states; what they have is the situation right now (Which includes everything that has previously happened in the campaign) and player / character goals. But even those aren't victory conditions, because players can keep on playing regardless of what happens. If you fail a character goal... well, that's what happened, what happens next? How does everyone react?

The closest thing to an end point would be "a character is made unplayable", and then the player can just make a new one and carry on... but other than that, RPG's just keep on going. Even if you put one aside to play something else for a while, it's not ended, it's just on hold. It can come back whenever people want it to.

(There are some obvious exceptions to this - generally setting-ending events, like activating the Device in 3:16, or The Truth being uncovered in SLA Industries. But they tend to be exceptions, and not part of many campaigns.)

You play RPG's for the sake of playing. And that's fine, because that's what they're good at. If you want to win or lose at something, there are plenty of games that you can play; RPG's present something completely different, and trying to shackle them to win/lose concepts just leaves you with a worse RPG and a worse game.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;588315And he's wrong because he's using an overly-narrow definition of "game" which is bordering on, if not actually, jargon.

Umm, I'm not the game v. pastime person, so no, I wasn't wrong.  My statement was suggested fits the game v. pastime dichotomy, so disagree with that if you want, but I didn't make that argument.  

My statement...

Quote from: MeWhen you are playing a RPG like a competitive sport, with Players V. World, or Players v. Other Tournament Teams, then when you have a party filled with the likes of Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli, someone showing up with Peregrin Took isn't going to garner much goodwill.

...is pretty much the attitude everyone here except the Denners are arguing, ie. different tables have different expectations and cultures.  As an aside, it's kind of funny - the equivalent "basketweaving", "Rulings v. Rules" and "Win at D&D" thread, on the Den itself, have a lot of people challenging the "CharOp Fundamentalists" just like people are here.

Hobby vs. Sport would be a better selection of terms, I think.

But any terminology that suggests that the Roleplaying Games I play aren't, in fact, games, is definitionally problematic and opens the door to the "not a game, so not a real RPG" arguments.

Quote from: talysman;587317I have no opinion on that, and didn't attempt to define what is or isn't an RPG in this thread, so I really don't know what answer to give you.

Exactly. The problem threads are all about some people using "game" loosely, to mean "pastime", and other people using the stricter, second definition. And the second group can't abide people who use rulings, not rules, or who don't give a fuck about game balance, or who are OK with rolling 3d6 in order, because DAMMIT, they aren't playing competitively!

No they don't.

The fictional setting and situation require a certain amount of effort, study and input. Everyone needs investment in what's going on in the fictional world.

You only need enough rules to act as a framework for imagining that world. People can, did, and do play without knowing exactly what that framework is. I didn't know the rules when I first started playing D&D; hell, we were playing whitebox, and I hadn't even *seen* the booklets. And much, much later, when I played a couple times in games written by a friend of mine, I didn't bother to learn all the rules, or even a substantial amount. I payed attention to the world details instead.

Now, if you build a little competitive game by adding stricter, more detailed rules to D&D, you would probably want to study the system in much more detail, because you're goal is different. The problem comes when you then try to go back to original D&D and figure out why people didn't optimize their character builds, or why some people are rolling 3d6 in order. You have to remember that your little competitive game is the special case, not the norm.

Well not quite; when you're reading books and rules and studying them that can be a lot of effort. Financially too - unless you play in a group that shares the cost (never my experience). But either way the GM, ime, is always the one that does the most work.

Quote from: talysman;587317who are OK with rolling 3d6 in order, because DAMMIT, they aren't playing competitively!

Which is why poker hands are dealt out according to a point buy instead of randomly, because poker isn't competitive. Oh wait.

Competitive tournaments in Old School D&D existed and were popular.

Personally, I find old school "roll 3d6 in order, make the best of it, rely on player skill" to be MORE competitive than someone who "wins" because they showed up with a character with the most plusses. Anyone can do that, it requires no skill.

Yeah, there's no question to me that its a game.  Its also a hobby, and people use RPGs to pass the time. None of these things are either contradictory to one another or (at least, I used to think) in dispute.

RPGPundit