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! :D
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.
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
Quote from: RPGPundit;589291Yeah, 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.
It depends on what you mean when you say "game". I'm a big fan of words being fuzzy in definition, rather than strict, and context is everything... but for the purpose of this thread, I'm using the word "game" in its strictest sense, because what I'm discussing is the people who can *only* think of RPGs as games in the strictest sense, and who fail to grasp that many people are playing RPGs as just a pastime, and almost everyone else gets more or less game-y depending on how they feel about the situation.
And I see the many ongoing arguments about RPGs or how to play them as basically being an entrenched battle between rigid-brained people, who think RPGs must be played as games, and sane people, who don't. Look at good ol' MGuy, who chimed into this thread with the extremely brilliant observation that "role-playing game" contains the word "game", so an RPG is a game. Small wonder that MGuy is also one of the people who bitches about the lack of balance between fighter and wizard, or that some people don't optimize their characters for the best damage output.
Quote from: Ladybird;588902If 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.
Who wins hacky sack?
Who wins a pickup game of basketball where you don't keep track of the score?
Who wins family board game night, where the goal is to hang out with the family and have a good time?
I don't see this distinction as meaningful. Whether you call an RPG a game or a pastime will not impact how it's played, as people will just play it however they're going to play it regardless of the label. I don't see what purpose there is to coming up with a label.
Quote from: Mistwell;589317Who wins hacky sack?
I have no idea what this is.
QuoteWho wins a pickup game of basketball where you don't keep track of the score?
Nobody, because you're not actually playing basketball. You're playing "let's shoot some hoops"; and like an RPG, you're playing because you enjoy playing.
QuoteWho wins family board game night, where the goal is to hang out with the family and have a good time?
Nobody, because the games are being used to aid the socialising. Someone would win each individual game that you played, and someone could even win more than anyone else, but nobody would win the evening; you can't win "hanging out with people you like", because it's not a game.
If you start caring about who wins the most games, though, then someone can win that competition. But they're winning the "win the most games" game, not "hang out with people you like".
QuoteI don't see this distinction as meaningful. Whether you call an RPG a game or a pastime will not impact how it's played, as people will just play it however they're going to play it regardless of the label. I don't see what purpose there is to coming up with a label.
Because RPG's are not games as such, coming up with ways to "win" them is a pointless endeavour. You play RPG's because you like playing RPG's; introducing win / lose elements into them makes them worse at being RPG's, and they still don't end up as good at being games as actual games do.
The problem with the "winnable game" mentality is that it's 100% metagame. Do you win at life? Ask Bill Gates if he's "won", he'll say he still has shit to do. Can your characters be victorious in combat, can they win wars, can they defeat their opponents? Sure. But you the player don't win the game because the game has no set end unless you're playing it like a game of Magic the Gathering, which of course is what the Denners are doing. :D Which is why they can't stand character death and why they play a game where the GM wears kid gloves if played RAW.
Out of interest, does anyone know when the term 'role-playing game' was first used?
It's not in any of the original booklets that I can see (OD&D). It is mentioned in 1980 Basic rulebook, but not as the name of the product (to quote; main header "Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game", subheader "The Original Fantasy Role Playing Game"), but nowhere in the book that I can find does it explain exactly what a role playing game actually is. So somewhere after the first books and before basic, the term was taken up, and I assume gained some kind of meaning. Does anyone know more?
Quote from: CRKrueger;589392The problem with the "winnable game" mentality is that it's 100% metagame. Do you win at life? Ask Bill Gates if he's "won", he'll say he still has shit to do. Can your characters be victorious in combat, can they win wars, can they defeat their opponents? Sure. But you the player don't win the game because the game has no set end unless you're playing it like a game of Magic the Gathering, which of course is what the Denners are doing. :D Which is why they can't stand character death and why they play a game where the GM wears kid gloves if played RAW.
I can win battles without winning a war. I can win over a few people at a party without declaring the end of it. I can win multiple times at Call of Duty and not quit for the day.
Krueger your definition of win includes ending the game and you can do that in DnD. When you beat the last bad guy and the campaign ends you can call that the win and end state of the game. "Winning" can mean a lot of things. I'd say Bill Gates is pretty much "winning" at life pretty fuckin' hard. The fact that he keeps playing is that the game of life doesn't end because you win.
There are a lot of "win" conditions in RPGs. You "win" if you survive the dungeon, you win if you go up in level, you win if you experience immersion with your character, etc.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;589698There are a lot of "win" conditions in RPGs. You "win" if you survive the dungeon, you win if you go up in level, you win if you experience immersion with your character, etc.
RPGPundit
No, those are "personal triumphs", not "win conditions". If you survive a dungeon - for example - you haven't beaten anyone. Your character hasn't died, and you've got something that you wanted from the session, but you're not going to stop playing; what happened was what happened, an event in the life of your character. If you hadn't survived, you wouldn't have lost, you would have died... and that's what would have happened. Without deliberate permission from the GM, RPG's do not stop, they just keep on going. The campaign world keeps on existing, life keeps happening.
Compared to other types of media, RPG's are probably closest in some respects to games (Due to all those damn rules), but they're still very different. Shackling them (And by extension, their players) to the concept of "win" and "lose", as CRKrueger points out above, means that players have to think about "winning" and "losing", rather than "playing" and "immersing". Make it all about the play, though, and you're free from that; you can concentrate on the character, and play that character as hard as you can. It doesn't matter if they would make a non-optimal decision, for example; the concept of "optimal" doesn't even exist if you're playing simply for the sake of play. You do something, because it's the correct thing to do, it's what the character would do. You, the player, might know they're making a horrible mistake... but if you wanted the characters to act in perfect ways and always get what they want, write a book. RPG's are the wrong medium for that.
(Competitive RPG play is... different, and interesting, and a bit wierd. I approach it as a chance to play an RPG with a bunch of strangers, and my personal goal is "not feel like I would have better spent the weekend cowering in a ball in my hotel room". So far I've came out of it okay.)
Amusingly, the dictionary definition of game is:
"an amusement or pastime"
To Win. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/win?s=t)Number of definitions applicable to various things you can do in an RPG, or life, over and over again.
Quote from: RPGPundit;589698There are a lot of "win" conditions in RPGs. You "win" if you survive the dungeon, you win if you go up in level, you win if you experience immersion with your character, etc.
Quote from: Ladybird;589721No, those are "personal triumphs", not "win conditions".
I'd be willing to call them "ad hoc win conditions". What I commented on was the absence of built-in, "hard" win conditions that cause the game to end. The important distinction between that and an ad hoc win condition is that players pick ad hoc goals, can have multiple win conditions, and can abandon a goal at any time. "Screw it, this dungeon is too hard. Let's hire ourselves out as caravan guards and come back to this one later." Or: "Forget about killing the vampire, let's make a deal!"
The munchkin is a particular example of someone who doesn't get that. Munchkins try to "beat" the dungeon and the other players because they've mi-identified something as a "hard" win condition, in other words, no deviation from that goal is allowed, and other goals/other people are to be ignored. So they kill all monsters for the XP instead of figuring out what to do, grab the best magic items for themselves, and go PvP as soon as possible.
Oh, and as usual, MGuy is wrong.
RPGs are a pastime to me. Most of the time I spend with RPGs does not involve playing them. It's usually spent reading about them, shopping for them, and preparing for my online games. I bet I spend about 15-20% of my time actually playing.
Quote from: talysman;589756Oh, and as usual, MGuy is wrong.
Yup because going by actual definitions of the words being used are indeed wrong.
"It's just a stupid game."
No where does the dictionary definition of "game" say that a win condition that ends the game is a requirement for something to be a game. It's a total red herring.
There are a couple of important points: first, there are games where you can "win" without necessarily beating someone else.
Second, the idea of a game where one doesn't traditionally defeat other (human) opponents, or where the game as such doesn't end, has become part of our lexicon in a huge way. Many computer games (and not just computer RPGs) haven't got the traditional model of "win conditions" (even though many of those same games have somewhat more traditional "lose" conditions). And these are in some cases the main games people under a certain age tend to play these days.
So I'm saying that the point of view people have about "win conditions" in this thread are antiquated.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;589956There are a couple of important points: first, there are games where you can "win" without necessarily beating someone else.
Second, the idea of a game where one doesn't traditionally defeat other (human) opponents, or where the game as such doesn't end, has become part of our lexicon in a huge way. Many computer games (and not just computer RPGs) haven't got the traditional model of "win conditions" (even though many of those same games have somewhat more traditional "lose" conditions). And these are in some cases the main games people under a certain age tend to play these days.
So I'm saying that the point of view people have about "win conditions" in this thread are antiquated.
You're missing the point. I already talked about RPGs without "win conditions", which is what I'm talking about as "RPG as pastime". What I'm saying is that there's a group of people who see RPGs as *requiring* win conditions, and see win conditions as objective rather than subjective, so they take exception to people who don't play that way. And I'm accusing the people with this particular problem of being the source of most of the conflict in the myriad eternal debates.
Here's something from my first post, with emphasis added.
Quote from: talysman;587283A 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.
The point is not "this is how you define the word 'pastime' and 'game', and anyone who says otherwise is wrong". It's "here are two types of play I see in the RPG community, and I'll use the word 'pastime' for the first, more inclusive type and 'game' for the second, narrower type, then discuss the way i see opinions on these types affecting communication." Getting hung up in the official definition of the word "game" is a distraction; call the first one "Fred" and the second "Barney", if you want.
Focus on what I'm saying about people's understandings of Fred vs. Barney. Barney is stricter than Fred. Some people almost always play Fred. Some people choose to play Fred or Barney, based on how they feel, and even in the middle of playing Fred, they may temporarily switch to Barney until they've met (or given up) some goal. But there's this group of "Barneyites" who can't think of RPGs as anything but "Barney", don't like it when people play in a non-Barney way, call books with non-Barney elements "broken", "unbalanced", "incoherent", or "brain-damaged", and fight with people online if they say anything even vaguely non-Barney.
Does that make sense to you now?
Quote from: RPGPundit;589956So I'm saying that the point of view people have about "win conditions" in this thread are antiquated.
They're not antiquated, they're simply wrong. Having a win condition that ends the game has never been a defining qualifier if something is a game or not.
Quote from: talysman;590129Does that make sense to you now?
So your big conclusion is that arguments about RPGs are caused by playstyle and expectation clashes?
Isn't that kinda a known quantity at this point?
Quote from: talysman;590129You're missing the point. I already talked about RPGs without "win conditions", which is what I'm talking about as "RPG as pastime". What I'm saying is that there's a group of people who see RPGs as *requiring* win conditions, and see win conditions as objective rather than subjective, so they take exception to people who don't play that way. And I'm accusing the people with this particular problem of being the source of most of the conflict in the myriad eternal debates.
And, I suppose, you take exception to them talking about it in this forum. So this is yet another rehash of the "denner invasion" fooferaw.
Except I think this is something of a strawman; I don't think that non-denner gamers don't feel like there are "winning" elements, and I can't be sure but I suspect that most of the "denners" probably feel like there are far more elements to the game than just "winning".
RPGPundit