Simulation & Roleplaying, works as a good definition of the RPG experience; in my opinion.  It could also work well, as a title for a Generic Roleplaying  System.  No genre specified.

Quote
Yeah people seem to conflate two related, but very separate schools of RPG-ing under the banner of "story-gaming". The first is the GM-as-storyteller model generally associated with stuff like Vampire: the Masquerade, where a GM is expected to use illusionism, contrivance and railroading to produce a "good story". The second would be the "shared storytelling" school, where the players are given mechanical control over the world and the narrative. The two are definitely related, as they both spring out of the desire to make RPGs tell "better stories", but they're attacking that goal from opposite directions. Personally, I only include the latter school in my definition of "story-gaming", as I think it has to have that fundamental difference in mechanical approach to justify being considered a different type of game. The former is frankly just the mainstream way of playing RPGs these days.

Yeah I agree. Distinction between trad and storygame while not always perfect seems useful in discourse.

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 19, 2023, 03:49:18 AM

As opposed to games more generally, I mean.

Some degree of gamism/rules are gonna be in pretty much any game, I feel. So while necessary I wouldn't call the presence of such category defining.

Likewise, it can't be just that and then narrative, story or the like, because CYOA gamebooks have both that AND the first item mentioned. Heck, even video games have both and can often tell a better prewritten story than a gamemaster can on the fly. Likewise a pure narrative approach would not only lose out to novels, cinema, interactive storytelling like Netflix's Bandersnatch, and the like in appeal, but also likely cease to qualify as a game, losing the G in TTRPG.

But in a TTRPG you can interact with a simulated world and attempt pretty much anything you can think of trying. Which is made possible via the presence of a (usually GM) simulated reality of some sort, even if it typically isn't our own reality being simulated. Simulationism.

Likewise you immerse yourself in a character that can act roughly whatever way within the confines of the game. Basically, you have a lot of roleplaying options that are defined and limited only by the rules and scenarios of the game, as they apply to your character, and by the group's social mores. (By this I don't mean you have to be a method actor to play a TTRPG, though I guess some folks could be and many groups and players may enjoy seeing that. What I mean instead is that a core part to a TTRPG is that you get to play at least one character. And that character can typically try to do or be a wide breadth of things that other gaming mediums wouldn't really be able to handle or account for, hence a big part of the appeal.) Roleplaying.


Am I missing some perspective on all this? Or could it really be in a sense just that simple?

A key issue is that two things existed before the TTRPGs as we know them:

Wargames (these have simulation--the little cannon represents a cannon)

and

Drama class exercises and parlor games where people play improvised roles ("Let's all pretend we're on a sailing ship"). These have simulation because part of the fun is the power of imagining alternate circumstances.

To distinguish the thing we call TTRPGs you need to show how neither of those historical precedents are what you're talking about.

I'd say a TTRPG--commercially and historically speaking--is a wide group of activities which have elements in the overlap of wargame and improv acting games. All RPGs have at least one element from each thing--even ones without war have, say, rules for simulating objects and their properties.

Quote from: Klava on August 25, 2023, 04:50:14 AM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 24, 2023, 02:02:04 PM
The distinguishing feature of RPGs is constantly arguing about what makes an RPG. 

i know, right? never understood that part of the discussions like this. one would think that the most productive way to go at it would be the usual - start as simple as you can, lay down the basics, agree on your definitions and expand  from there.

role playing game: it's a game designed to facilitate roleplaying.
done.

Eh. Even this seems loaded to me. I would characterize it as a game that is engaged via roleplaying. The difference is your definition seems to be saying we gotta get the rules just right so that we can roleplay. "Bad" rules might then mean a failure to facilitate roleplay, and therefore not an RPG. Whereas my definition is saying is more like, here's a bunch of stuff, and the way you use it is via roleplaying. And from there you'll see if it makes for a fun game or not.

A lot of people seem to have the general idea that roleplaying games are roleplaying + game, like they're two different dials that we mix according to taste, and if you zero out the game then you're just doing amateur improv, and if you zero out the roleplay then you're just playing a board game or tabletop wargame or some such. And I don't necessarily argue with what happens if you zero one or the other out. But I think there is more of a connection between the two components beyond just being there. And because I think they're connected, something like GNS theory to me comes off as not only wrong, but completely the opposite of what's correct. Like you literally don't become better at one of those things by diminishing one of the other two. Rather the three become stronger in tandem.

Which is correct? Who's to say?

I will point out, though, that a ball game is a game that is played using a ball. It's not a game that facilitates balls. And what do you do if you don't like the mix? Add more balls? Board games are games that is played using a board. It's not a game that facilitates boards. And if you add a second board, are you really tipping the balance away from the rules? Or do you not need more rules to say how you navigate from one board to another, or how one board might affect the other?


I agree with your overall point, to start simple. And also acknowledge words often do have multiple meanings, so we understand what a CRPG is even if comic book store guy tells us it doesn't fit the technical definition of RPG. I'm just saying that even starting seemingly simple is going to have debatable points.

Sure, probably. Are you going to use this information for something?

I guess I kinda ignored the other half of storygaming. Was more just thinking of stuff like the Giovanni Chronicles. (If you haven't already looked into that, don't. As a campaign, it's garbage.) And yeah, I got a little off topic and preachy there.

As for that latter question, I was mainly just interested in what makes a TTRPG a TTRPG, and what the core experience was/is. Definitions are interesting to me. If we care so much about the hobby and its community, I guess it's in a sense worth trying to figure out what the hobby is.

That and when I first started this thread I was admittedly feeling a bit overconfident in my suspicions, lol.

QuoteI guess I kinda ignored the other half of storygaming. Was more just thinking of stuff like the Giovanni Chronicles. (If you haven't already looked into that, don't. As a campaign, it's garbage.) And yeah, I got a little off topic and preachy there.

I've read very through review. Yeah bad design altogether.

QuoteAs for that latter question, I was mainly just interested in what makes a TTRPG a TTRPG, and what the core experience was/is. Definitions are interesting to me. If we care so much about the hobby and its community, I guess it's in a sense worth trying to figure out what the hobby is.

I'm gonna say this - does painters community benefited more from painting more, or from trying to make some set in stone definition.

I mean, personally I felt like I learned some things from this thread. I also do think painting styles, while relatively simpler to define I suspect, can probably benefit at times from theoretical discussion on core techniques, color, perspective and the like. Likewise, I think models like the cultures of play you referenced earlier can be good tools for understanding one's gaming style and core assumptions made therein. I also just enjoy hearing people's thoughts on what the hobby is to them and what its core features or initial historical development may have been. Kind of just a community thing and a nice way to occupy time from my perspective. Obviously, if anyone isn't particularly interested, I'm not going to force a reply or their participation, but I do think at least some degree of interest was there for a bit.

"an intelligent entity capable of spontaneously reacting to your character's actions in a non-scripted manner" is what I am taking from this discussion. Captures about how far my thought has evolved on this topic.

On the topic of AI, I believe while folks like myself dither about the impact AI will have on ttrpgs it has already moved on and is evolving the ttrpg "space" to the point where there will no longer be GMs looking for players or players looking for GMs, it will be players looking for the "best" AI. Written text, the content which gets sold commercially, will evaporate along with sales. Just speculation. I have nothing to base this on. What the guy who wrote the above said, that makes sense to me. Good one.

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 19, 2023, 12:17:34 PM
I mean, personally I felt like I learned some things from this thread. I also do think painting styles, while relatively simpler to define I suspect, can probably benefit at times from theoretical discussion on core techniques, color, perspective and the like.

Reducing painting down to its minimal elements leave you with color, texture, and form(shape). The arrangement of these three principles are all the concrete elements of painting. So I have experienced in my painting pursuits, for what it is worth.

Quote from: Zak S on November 14, 2023, 04:11:29 AM
To distinguish the thing we call TTRPGs you need to show how neither of those historical precedents are what you're talking about.

I'd say a TTRPG--commercially and historically speaking--is a wide group of activities which have elements in the overlap of wargame and improv acting games. All RPGs have at least one element from each thing--even ones without war have, say, rules for simulating objects and their properties.

You just made the distinction!

I agree that TTRPG's is a hobby with a whole range of things tossed in, even more than what happens strictly at the table. What makes for "good simulation" and "immersion" is highly dependent on the quality of the GM and partially with the players themselves. Think of the corollary hobbies that exist now which one could argue are cribbed from Drama Production that people regularly use to create "Simulation" and "Immersion" - be it props, miniatures, painting of those miniatures is its own hobby, 3d-printing is now a thing, hell all the video production that goes into streaming games, among other things.

For high-quality TTRPG's you need a nice balance of immersion and simulation techniques, I more I think about it, I find it tricky to fully remove those qualities fully from drama and fiction-crafting methods... and yet it is different. My wife (a book editor) and I discuss it all the time, in reference to GMing in relation to player agency and author-agency. And while there is some overlap, there are certainly some big no-no's.

TTRPG's are a hobby that GM's can use literally anything they feel inspired by to emulate (for good or bad) in bringing more "authenticity" to their game. The question I now have, is do you think GM'ing itself is a skill or an art?

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2023, 11:13:27 AMThe question I now have, is do you think GM'ing itself is a skill or an art?

Yes. And also a craft.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 20, 2023, 12:07:04 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 20, 2023, 11:13:27 AMThe question I now have, is do you think GM'ing itself is a skill or an art?

Yes. And also a craft.

I'd agree with that too.

QuoteFallout 2 wil start tracking a lot of the choices you make, reputations you gain with in-game factions, even little things like weapons you prefer to use - arguably, more stuff that any human GM possibly could - and reflect that in the situations and possible resolutions it presents to the player.

All stuff that my GM does, and not for one player, but for six. And with far more intelligence and consistency than any computer. Video games are utterly underwhelming, and fallout is among the most mediocre and forgettable of the lot. Bizarre that you would think to use it as an example when it supports the opposing argument.

I would say that a role-playing game is pretty much just what it says on the tin.  It's a game where you play the role of a character.  It has both the role-playing part and the game part.  You can pick around the edges and complicate things with edge cases and semantics but I don't see much point in it.  That's a sufficient definition.  We all know what we are talking about here.