D&D, and many RPGs, are pastimes, not games.

I have to say this because bullshit arguments (like the "Rulings, not Rules" thread) are making it clear that some people don't get this distinction. A game is a pastime, but not every pastime is a game, even if it's the kind of pastime that has a few rules.

A pastime is something to just pass the time. It's entertainment. It may have some rules, but sometimes not many, and sometimes the rules are ad-hoc. There may not be a definite ending point; maybe you just play until lunch is over. There may not be a win condition; the point probably isn't to beat the other guy, but just to keep playing, and to be as creative and interesting while playing as you can.

A game is a pastime that you *can* win, or at least can lose. It has a definite end point. It has definite rules. Cheating is wrong. Getting into a situation where it's unclear if someone is cheating or playing fairly, or where some has won or lost, is a scary thing; you can have an impartial ref make a ruling, but it's something you try to avoid.

We all call RPGs "games", in the informal sense of "something with rules". But not all things with rules (like "Exquisite Corpse") are actual games, in the sense of something you play to win. And many RPGs, definitely D&D, are more like Exquisite Corpse than Chess or Tennis. You're supposed to be having fun imagining this fantasy world and posing problems for each other, and although you can "win" at a particular challenge (get past the room with the inflatable wumbles,) winning challenges is not the main goal; keeping play going as long as everyone wants to play is the goal.

It's like this one "game" that practically everyone has played: batting a balloon back and forth. Sometimes, you and some other people are sitting around and you happen to have a balloon... so you bat it across the room. And someone else bats it. And soon everyone joins in. No one's really keeping score, because that's not the point. The only rule at the start is "keep it going, don't let it stop". Letting it stop may technically be "losing", but trying to bat the balloon in such a way that another person can't bat it back is bad form: you aren't supposed to be trying to make other people lose, you're supposed to enjoy the creative lengths people go to when the balloon goes awry.

Jerks who talk about character builds and damage output and whether the wizard is overpowered don't get that. They think beating the other guy and finishing the "game" as quickly as possible is the point.

RPGs are a game where you can't win. Or rather, either everyone wins or no one does.

I don't see the contradiction, or the need to split hairs.

Pandemic is also a game where everybody [strike]wins[/strike]loses.

I hate people talking about their awesome build. And their rpg characters too!

Games are games. But rpg's, especially if you're the gm, require a certain amount of effort study and input (depends on the game). You get out what you collectively put in. This can be frustrating if your players are inclined to view gaming as a pastime. Mine do, which is understandable and unfortunate.

Quote from: talysman;587283D&D, and many RPGs, are pastimes, not games.

Yes, for many of us, D&D is a pastime. And "pastime" is one of the two major definitions of "game" in many dictionaries, the other being a competitive contest played according to rules.

So Paranoia isn't an RPG?

Quote from: TristramEvans;587306So Paranoia isn't an RPG?

I 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.

Quote from: RandallS;587305Yes, for many of us, D&D is a pastime. And "pastime" is one of the two major definitions of "game" in many dictionaries, the other being a competitive contest played according to rules.

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!

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;587297Games are games. But rpg's, especially if you're the gm, require a certain amount of effort study and input (depends on the game). You get out what you collectively put in. This can be frustrating if your players are inclined to view gaming as a pastime. Mine do, which is understandable and unfortunate.

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.

Semantics is also a pastime, for some people. But it's kinda like D&D; whether you "win" is highly debatable.

RPG's aren't games, because there is no objective victory condition beyond "not feel you wasted your time". RPG's are toys; they're objects that you use to create your own games with.

Why I prefer it as a hobby.

Hobby.

Addendum:

I think every single argument about RPGs can be traced back to an argument about games vs. pastimes.

Rules vs. Rulings? Check.

Character Skill vs. Player Skill? Check.

Linear Fighter vs. Exponential Wizard? Check.

Cooperative Play vs. PVP? Check.

Character optimization? Check.

Edition wars? Check.

The munchkin is really just a hardcore gamer trying to win the game as quickly as possible, or pulling passive-aggressive nonsense because he's pissed off about the game not being very game-like.

The Basket-weaving thread is dealing with this issue, too. Check out this quote from CRKrueger from somewhere in the middle of that thread:

QuoteWhen 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.

He'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.

False dichotomy.

 Nothing in the definition of "game" says there must be the possibility to win or lose, and it further equates game and pastimes as synonyms and says games are played for the amusement of the participants. Nothing more. The ability to lose or win is not a defining feature of a game.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Game?s=t

I think the "RPG as Sport vs. RPG as War" comparison made on ENWorld some time back is actually a lot better.

Quote from: talysman;588291Character Skill vs. Player Skill? Check.

That one is actually closer to a comparison of craps vs. chess.

QuoteHe'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 he's wrong because he's using an overly-narrow definition of "game" which is bordering on, if not actually, jargon.

I'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: 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

Yeahm, this thread is an odd duck of theorywank.