TheRPGSite

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?

Yes, roleplaying is what defines roleplaying games within the subject matter of games generally, and table top defines it further by having a flexible human brain adjudicate the character actions. Simulation is covered under the game part if the mechanics simulate anything, and in the adjudication part in so far as the outcome of an action simulates the reality of the setting.

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

There is a difference between simulation and emulation, though the lines can get fuzzy at times, and some of what a broader simulation is said to encompass would cover a great deal of emulation as well.  In a more narrow sense, simulation is about cause and effect, in the reality being simulated.  Your character does something that is directly linked to a cause, and then in the game that produces an effect that is consist with what is being simulated.  "World as physics", whatever that physics of that reality is, falls under this heading.  In emulation, you do something vaguely related to a cause, and then in the game that later leads to an effect vaguely related to what is being emulated. 

A GURPS character fights a monster.  A D&D character fights a monster.  The GURPS character swings and stabs with a sword, sometimes dodging, sometimes blocking, and when a blow connects, it is directly linked to a hit  A hit does damage to health, and can often seriously injure or kill in one blow.  It heavily simulates the acts of the character fighting the monster.  The D&D character is narrated as doing all that, but the process in the game is more abstract, with rolling to hit against AC, ablating hit points, and some final result of someone going down.  The process isn't direct, but the results are similar.  (There are also some differences of course, in the complexity of the rules, the timing of the blows, etc.  Some of these are directly chasing simulation and some are because the realities being simulated/emulated are different.  The D&D rules presume, for example, that the fights are more drawn out for the in-game time, because it is emulating certain fantasy fiction.)  You can see the fuzzy line in that example, because GURPS while highly simulation, is still an RPG game model, with concessions to other concerns, and D&D, while abstract, is still loosely touching the process of swinging that sword. 

On the bigger question, I would say that the distinguishing factor of TTRPGs is the mixture of roleplaying, game play, and a human referee adjudicating results.  From a practical perspective, that usually leads to a mixture of simulation and emulation somewhere on that fuzzy line.

A TTRPG is a game where you can play and direct the actions of a character within a simulated world managed by a referee, where the world (including environment and NPCs) reacts to the character's actions within the strictures of that world aided by the game rules without being bound to the strictures of a computer program or some other medium.

So the defining characteristics of a TTRPG would be:



• It's a game.
• It has rules.
• It has a simulated world.
• It has two types of participants: Players and Game Masters (GMs, referees, whatever).
• Events within the game/simulated world are controlled by the decisions of one or more intelligent entities (Players and GMs) and affected by the rules.
• Participants may control one or more characters (PCs or NPCs) and/or a simulated world's environment (GMs only, or to a lesser extent players controlling characters with powers capable of such feats).
• Is not bound by programming or mediums other than the game rules (assuming that those count as "programming", which they might depending on how you define that word).

ETA types of participants.

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

As opposed to games more generally, I mean.

I can't think of any TTRPGs that are a simulation.  Role playing yes.  Maybe Papers & Paychecks would be a simulation TTRPG.

I think WOTC is hoping AI will change the prevailing paradigm and replace human game masters. They hope that by eliminating human game masters their strategy of marketing exclusively to players can finally be realized. Mu hahahaha! They key to a successful role plaging game is a game master who can keep the game rolling no matter what kind of whacked out crap the players come up with. An AI system might be able to handle some generic situations but it will fall apart eventually.

As far as simulation goes, what is it a particular game is trying to simulate? Is D&D trying to simulate real humans, elves, and dwarves going into a senseless underground maze on a treasure hunt? In order for something to be considered a good simulation it needs to be compared to whatever it is that it is trying to simulate. Sorry to break the hard news to some fanboys but there is no REAL D&D adventuring to compare the TTRPG to.

Role playing can be done by anyone anywhere. It does not require an assumed persona nor a game of any kind. An emergency evacuation drill is simulationist roleplaying in its purest form. The participants are not playing characters and the drill is simulating something that could actually take place. The participants are simply themselves reacting to the drill ( in game stimuli) as if it were actually happening.

In a tabletop rpg the role playing is done through the lens of a character but the most significant part of the whole thing is GAME. The participants are playing fictional personas for entertainment purposes rather than to simulate anything.

The best distinguishing features are live face to face social interaction which many do not get enough of these days and of course, shared SNACKS! Yes a TTRPG can be played VTT style over the internet but the experience loses something. Noticed facial expressions, some spontaneous moments, and of course, shared SNACKS!

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 19, 2023, 07:55:50 PM

The best distinguishing features are live face to face social interaction which many do not get enough of these days and of course, shared SNACKS! Yes a TTRPG can be played VTT style over the internet but the experience loses something. Noticed facial expressions, some spontaneous moments, and of course, shared SNACKS!

Yes, boxes and boxes of good pizza snacked on throughout the game with lots of good soda.  Been doing that since forever.  NOTHING beats face to face TTRPG's when it comes to gaming.

So, I've been thinking my original query over after reading through what folks have posted.

To clarify, I still stand by my belief that a TTRPG being a game, or even a game with roleplaying, is a necessary qualification, but not a sufficient one. Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character and there are game mechanics. Heck, even CYOA gamebooks don't really feel like they qualify, to my mind, in that they simply cannot handle freestyle action on the part of the player. They provide scenes, but not realities.

I'm not even wholly convinced that this and then human arbitration is sufficient. Most games played in person without a computer have human arbitration, like sports and many of those weirder boardgames and the like. Heck, barring AI even computer games or adventure books have people who decide what is and isn't going to be a valid action, narrative or the like within the game. The game rules exist, there are arbiters and referees whether explicit or in the form of designers, authors, or fellow players; and you can in theory roleplay or get into character or whatever, potentially even as part of the game. That said, I don't think candyland becomes a TTRPG by right of a referee and method acting.

This in turn leads me into the whole simulation question side of things. I don't think simulationism actually means modeling our present IRL reality. Rather, to me it means creating a particular reality or hypothetical, and then following through on what that might mean. This almost always results in an otherwise unobtainable player agency, because the player can act within a given reality freely, insofar as their stats and abilities support this.

On reflection, I think this player agency within a person-created and fully functional reality or world might be the core of what a TTRPG is to me.

Although yes, I will acknowledge that such simulation and reactive flexibility can only be achieved by the minds of real people, and that the goal of a TTRPG, as opposed to its definition, tends to be fun and interaction within the participating community. (Snacks, I will concede, can be pretty awesome and conducive to this goal, for instance. ;) )

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character

No, there aren't.  You RP to a computer screen and an algorithm?  They are computer games.  NOT role playing games.  You push buttons.  The program doesn't do anything if you RP.  And the "NPCs" aren't RPed either.

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 02:36:57 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character

No, there aren't.  You RP to a computer screen and an algorithm?  They are computer games.  NOT role playing games.  You push buttons.  The program doesn't do anything if you RP.  And the "NPCs" are RPed either.

I mean, you pick dialogue, perform actions, can get into character, and more. Interacting with NPCs whose dialogue, actions and more, developed by humans are meant to in turn characterize them. To me that's roleplaying, acting within a role or having your character emerge through actions.

But your response kind of connects with what I was thinking earlier, I feel. It sounds like the world doesn't feel living to you, like you are restricted both in agency and the world's simulated responses. To you it sounds like both of those things are an assumed part of Roleplaying. For me I'd probably call them fully simulating an immersive reality.

The simplest definition of RPG for me involves something like:

A - It is a game;
B - It involves playing a role for most players;
C - And there is a relation between the two things, i.e., they are not completely separated.

Or, in other words: CRUNCH IS FLUFF. "What defines role-playing games is that the fluff is always important to the crunch, and vice-versa; Role-playing games require BOTH role-playing AND games IN COORDINATION".

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/03/rpg-and-design-iii-crunch-is-fluff.html

RPGs must include abstraction AND simulation, but abstraction MUST give in to concrete simulation at some point.

Can you trip an ooze with your trip attack? Well, maybe the rules allow it (as in 4e), but you NEED to have an explanation for that **within the fiction**.

You can have an entire TTRPG session without snacks. Most game sessions I ever participated on involved no snacks (though, we often, but still not always, ate something after the game). And restricting the concept to just face to face interactions is an arbitrary limitation that ignores the demonstrable fact that you can play a TTRPG online, or technically even by mail (though, that last one is kinda stretching it, I think). Even removing computer programs as game mechanisms is kinda arbitrary, but it wouldn't be a TTRPG (as in tabletop) specifically if a computer was a requirement, as opposed to just an aid.

Snacks and the emotionality of muh shared experiences is a byproduct of TTRPGs, but not a distinguishing feature itself. In fact, those elements can be present in 100% ANY shared activity, without exception whatsoever. Shit, even going to a FUNERAL can, and often does have those. So they can't possibly be a distinguishing feature of TTRPGs.

The distinguishing features necessarily have to be something that's intrinsic to the game, and that sets it apart from other activities. And "roleplaying" on its own can't be it either since, as the OP correctly points out, even participating on a fire drill is technically a form of "roleplaying". And since most (every?) elements found in TTRPGs can also be found elsewhere in some form or another that means that the distinguishing features almost inevitably have to be a combination of elements rather than any single thing.

And one of those things—the most crucial of them, I believe (aside from it being a "game")—is the presence of a simulated world that reacts to the interactions of participants within it in a spontaneous, non-preprogrammed way. Presumably with a referee that's an intelligent entity (not necessarily human, but potentially other hypothetical intelligent species, or even a true AI) capable of judging those interactions and extrapolating their impact upon the game world. Otherwise you just end with any type of video game, or even board games or non-gaming activities potentially applying for the definition.

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?

Just roleplay your character. It IS that simple. I'm continually amazed by players who fail at games just because they can't do that.

Roleplaying: act out or perform the part of a person or character.

If you can't do that, just go play video games or something  :o

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdWp1YWZzZWtoYWkxdDg4MGltcHI1cW10bXQ2ZzNuc2twM3l6bTZvbyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/WmtfHnpq45MKkMI5zU/giphy.gif)

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

On reflection, I think this player agency within a person-created and fully functional reality or world might be the core of what a TTRPG is to me.

Technically, it's true that player agency is the important thing, but in the context of role playing, there is no true player agency without a human referee.  So the distinction collapses.  And people get all wound up about player agency as a buzzword, thinking it is about getting to do whatever they want with no consequences as opposed to the reality of it.

On the softball field, you've got a human referee, but no agency to act outside the constraints of the rules.  On the Monopoly board, you can roleplay being the dog or hat all you want, but the dog can't burn down the house on Baltic avenue to protest the hat's rent, much less get sent to jail for it.  If you had a human referee to the Monopoly game, then maybe you can burn down Baltic avenue, but unless you roleplay as the dog or something else, there's player agency but no "character agency", and it still isn't an RPG.

Besides, it's not just having a human referee.  It's having a human referee who adjudicates player actions and the results for the character.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 21, 2023, 03:19:23 PM
The simplest definition of RPG for me involves something like: ...

Wrong.  That is not the definition that is used for games like D&D.

Try again

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 21, 2023, 04:14:29 PM
Technically, it's true that player agency is the important thing, but in the context of role playing, there is no true player agency without a human referee.  So the distinction collapses.  And people get all wound up about player agency as a buzzword, thinking it is about getting to do whatever they want with no consequences as opposed to the reality of it.

On the softball field, you've got a human referee, but no agency to act outside the constraints of the rules.  On the Monopoly board, you can roleplay being the dog or hat all you want, but the dog can't burn down the house on Baltic avenue to protest the hat's rent, much less get sent to jail for it.  If you had a human referee to the Monopoly game, then maybe you can burn down Baltic avenue, but unless you roleplay as the dog or something else, there's player agency but no "character agency", and it still isn't an RPG.

Besides, it's not just having a human referee.  It's having a human referee who adjudicates player actions and the results for the character.

EXACTLY

Quote from: Theory of Games on August 21, 2023, 03:55:52 PM

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?

Just roleplay your character. It IS that simple. I'm continually amazed by players who fail at games just because they can't do that.

Roleplaying: act out or perform the part of a person or character.

If you can't do that, just go play video games or something  :o

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdWp1YWZzZWtoYWkxdDg4MGltcHI1cW10bXQ2ZzNuc2twM3l6bTZvbyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/WmtfHnpq45MKkMI5zU/giphy.gif)

I mean, I do actually enjoy roleplaying. I'm not the best at it but I'd at least consider myself middling. Heck, it was part of the original speculative definition given in my pondering on what makes TTRPGs distinct from games in general.

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 04:19:15 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 21, 2023, 04:14:29 PM
Technically, it's true that player agency is the important thing, but in the context of role playing, there is no true player agency without a human referee.  So the distinction collapses.  And people get all wound up about player agency as a buzzword, thinking it is about getting to do whatever they want with no consequences as opposed to the reality of it.

On the softball field, you've got a human referee, but no agency to act outside the constraints of the rules.  On the Monopoly board, you can roleplay being the dog or hat all you want, but the dog can't burn down the house on Baltic avenue to protest the hat's rent, much less get sent to jail for it.  If you had a human referee to the Monopoly game, then maybe you can burn down Baltic avenue, but unless you roleplay as the dog or something else, there's player agency but no "character agency", and it still isn't an RPG.

Besides, it's not just having a human referee.  It's having a human referee who adjudicates player actions and the results for the character.

EXACTLY

On the one hand, I agree that this is something I didn't properly touch on and was effectively missing. Only people can presently effectively arbitrate and simulate full agency within a fictional world. I think that the human imaginative element should probably be part of the definition, not least given that pen and paper games are perhaps most often played within one or more persons' head(s). As well as possibly to distinguish from if someone ever somehow develops an AI or full dive experience that doesn't rely on that kind of thing.

I don't know if the player and referee not being bound directly by rules is enough, though, even when combined with roleplaying. Is Calvinball a TTRPG if roleplaying is involved? Is giving the candyland referee the ability to make up rules on the fly necessarily gonna make your group of candyland method actors TTRPG players? I feel like it could do that, but not that it necessarily would. I agree there must be players roleplaying their characters, but I also feel it is necessary to have a simulated reality and immediate world for them to act in. As a game, this all will also involve rules that may be as loose or as crazy descriptive as may make sense to the design team, and I acknowledge that TTRP-Gs are also by definition games in nature

But I think going back to what Scooter had said about computer games, the key is that the world will react to just about anything. He would probably say to all your roleplaying, I would likely say to  both player action and the world's own internal actors and factors within the mind of the gm, VisionStorm might say to cause and effect chains. Point being, at that point in order for this to happen one must simulate or emulate or whatever the immediate hypothetical reality in question. One must craft a reality or world at the very least least insofar as it applies to the players, their perceptions in game, and their actions.

So I do indeed feel like roleplaying, at least one human adjudicator and it being a game are necessary parts of the definition, especially after hearing what everyone has said. I would however probably go a step further and say a simulated reality or imaginary world must also exist, and react to basically whatever the characters are allowed to attempt with their agency. Their agency in turn being tied to the idea that they exist within said world, and can do things that make sense to the imaginer(s) of said world with respect to what is there and how it works. World arbitration, simulationism, an imaginary concrete reality,  or some other such term for this.

(That said, I will also admit that definitions are pretty subjective to begin with. And it has been quite cool and interesting to hear other folks definitions for and takes on various related things.)

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:44:46 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 02:36:57 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character

No, there aren't.  You RP to a computer screen and an algorithm?  They are computer games.  NOT role playing games.  You push buttons.  The program doesn't do anything if you RP.  And the "NPCs" are RPed either.

I mean, you pick dialogue, perform actions, can get into character, and more. Interacting with NPCs whose dialogue, actions and more, developed by humans are meant to in turn characterize them. To me that's roleplaying, acting within a role or having your character emerge through actions.

But your response kind of connects with what I was thinking earlier, I feel. It sounds like the world doesn't feel living to you, like you are restricted both in agency and the world's simulated responses. To you it sounds like both of those things are an assumed part of Roleplaying. For me I'd probably call them fully simulating an immersive reality.

Thats more storygaming than RPing with a PC game. Storygamers will claim reading a book is really real Role Playing! ad nausium.

With a PC game all you are doing is making a selection. Sure you can go with a personality and stick to it. But only as far as the code allows and you can not deviate from that if you want to advance the story.

Most PC/Console RPGs are really just interactive novels/movies with some RNG combat tossed in along the way.

Quote from: Omega on August 22, 2023, 05:53:58 AM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:44:46 PM

Quote from: Scooter on August 21, 2023, 02:36:57 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 21, 2023, 02:28:18 PM

Like, there are plenty of computer rpgs where you roleplay a character

No, there aren't.  You RP to a computer screen and an algorithm?  They are computer games.  NOT role playing games.  You push buttons.  The program doesn't do anything if you RP.  And the "NPCs" are RPed either.

I mean, you pick dialogue, perform actions, can get into character, and more. Interacting with NPCs whose dialogue, actions and more, developed by humans are meant to in turn characterize them. To me that's roleplaying, acting within a role or having your character emerge through actions.

But your response kind of connects with what I was thinking earlier, I feel. It sounds like the world doesn't feel living to you, like you are restricted both in agency and the world's simulated responses. To you it sounds like both of those things are an assumed part of Roleplaying. For me I'd probably call them fully simulating an immersive reality.

Thats more storygaming than RPing with a PC game. Storygamers will claim reading a book is really real Role Playing! ad nausium.

With a PC game all you are doing is making a selection. Sure you can go with a personality and stick to it. But only as far as the code allows and you can not deviate from that if you want to advance the story.

Most PC/Console RPGs are really just interactive novels/movies with some RNG combat tossed in along the way.

Yes, one cannot INTERACT (act in such a way as to have an effect on another; act reciprocally.) with a computer NPC because it isn't conscious of your existence and cannot THINK.  Thus RPing has NO effect.  You could say the same about playing a slot machine.  Therefore, computer games are NOT RPG's.  By definition.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 08:36:34 AM
Yes, one cannot INTERACT (act in such a way as to have an effect on another; act reciprocally.) with a computer NPC because it isn't conscious of your existence and cannot THINK.

is that interaction really all there is to roleplaying though? i think at least as much RP is happening inside ones head as it is between the person RPing and another - maybe more depending on the cirsumstances. computer games therefore do fasilitate at least that part of RP, don't they?

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:09:02 AM


is that interaction really all there is to roleplaying though? i think at least as much RP is happening inside ones head as it is between the person RPing and another - maybe more depending on the cirsumstances. computer games therefore do fasilitate at least that part of RP, don't they?

Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME.  One can "RP inside ones head" while playing slots but that doesn't make slots a role playing game.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

orly? so there's no roleplaying without interaction at all because... you said so?

kthxby

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg. There are computer based rpg games though. Generally in these games your role playing is done with other players, thus interactive else any other role playing done in the game by yourself or with scripted npcs is no different from what you can do at the grocery store, no game needed.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:35:24 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Sure an actor rehearsing is role playing, so is the person going to the store but neither are playing an rpg. Role play in many forms is possible without interaction. Its the game part that is missing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:51:07 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:35:24 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Sure an actor rehearsing is role playing, so is the person going to the store but neither are playing an rpg. Role play in many forms is possible without interaction. Its the game part that is missing.

the game is there providing for environment, context and immersion. it's there in place of the script, decorations, music and other stuff that actor i mentioned may be using while rehearsing. doesn't that count?

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

Except that it wasn't. And for someone who likes to pretend that they're the smartest guy around you do make a lot of moronic statements. Such as claiming that you can't INTERACT with a computer NPC and then claiming that people who don't understand what you're saying are somehow deficient in their understanding of the English language. When you literally can "INTERACT" with a computer NPC, or even a door handle for that matter, because INTERACTION does not actually require a conscious actor and you can in fact interact with an inanimate object according to the actual definition of the word "Interaction".

Shit, a chemical substance can "interact" with another substance or material. There's NOTHING about the word INTERACTION that necessitates a conscious entity on either side of the engagement. And you don't require a conscious entity to "roleplay" either. The word "roleplay" predates the advent of roleplaying games by freaking decades. And it has a lot of uses beyond the way TTRPG gamers use it. Throwing it around without defining the specific way you're using it, like it's self evident, doesn't explain shit.

You idiots (you and "Theory" of Games) don't know WTF you're talking about. Yet you love to treat people like shit, like they're the retards, when they're not (but there's definitely a retard in these discussions. It just isn't them).

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 22, 2023, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

Except that it wasn't. .

I guess technically since the person receiving the communication was not intelligent enough to understand it.  If someone cares to rewrite it so even a turnip can comprehend that would be great.

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 05:09:23 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 22, 2023, 10:12:43 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:18:42 AM

Quote from: Scooter on August 22, 2023, 09:10:56 AM
Irrelevant question.  Why? Because if you cannot INTERACT there is NO RPing within the game and therefore it is NOT a ROLE PLAYING GAME

you repeated the same statement with no additional explanation given at all. "RP must be interactive" - why?

Already explained.  Your deficiency in English language comprehension doesn't mean it hasn't been adequately explained.

Except that it wasn't. .

I guess technically since the person receiving the communication was not intelligent enough to understand it.  If someone cares to rewrite it so even a turnip can comprehend that would be great.

You literally making up your own definition of words and treating them as self evident isn't other people not being intelligent enough to understand WTF you're saying. It's you not knowing WTF you're talking about and being too much of a retard to understand that you're the retard. Then blaming other people for not getting your made up nonsense.

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:59:12 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:51:07 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 22, 2023, 09:35:24 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 09:29:25 AM
You can role play all by yourself if you like, heck you can do it while going to the grocery store. That doesn't make what you are doing an rpg.

when an acrtor rehearses a role alone - isn't that a kind of role playing? some computer games facilitate similar process imo, and rather well - that's my point.

Sure an actor rehearsing is role playing, so is the person going to the store but neither are playing an rpg. Role play in many forms is possible without interaction. Its the game part that is missing.

the game is there providing for environment, context and immersion. it's there in place of the script, decorations, music and other stuff that actor i mentioned may be using while rehearsing. doesn't that count?

The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 21, 2023, 03:19:23 PM
The simplest definition of RPG for me involves something like:

A - It is a game;
B - It involves playing a role for most players;
C - And there is a relation between the two things, i.e., they are not completely separated.

Or, in other words: CRUNCH IS FLUFF. "What defines role-playing games is that the fluff is always important to the crunch, and vice-versa; Role-playing games require BOTH role-playing AND games IN COORDINATION".

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/03/rpg-and-design-iii-crunch-is-fluff.html

RPGs must include abstraction AND simulation, but abstraction MUST give in to concrete simulation at some point.

Can you trip an ooze with your trip attack? Well, maybe the rules allow it (as in 4e), but you NEED to have an explanation for that **within the fiction**.

I've generally defined an RPG similarly, but in terms of player behavior:

QuoteAccording to the Oxford English Dictionary, a role-playing game (abbreviated RPG) is ``a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters, usually in a setting created by a referee, and thereby vicariously experience the imagined adventures of these characters.''

Of course, this begs the question of what it means to "take on the role" of an imaginary character. In many games you have a character which is really a token without personality. For example, in the boardgame Clue ™ your token is a suspect in a murder mystery. In a video game, your token might be a fighter pilot.

In my opinion, the difference between a token and a role-played character is this: Hypothetically, a person watching the game looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and your reply is "No, my character wouldn't do that." If this happens, or is capable of happening, then at some level you are playing a role-playing game. This simple distinction puts a world of difference between RPGs and other games.

A lot of games have mechanics that aren't explained with in-game fiction. The classic for me is AD&D magic users not being able to use armor. There was no in-game fiction, and it was unclear what happened if a magic user did wear armor.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 06:11:24 PM
The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

no. i'm talking about computer game being to a gamer playing what script, decorations, music etc. would be to an actor rehearsing - a set of stuff to fasilitate roleplaying. some call those kinds of computer games "role playing games", you know >_>.

p.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 02:47:05 AMp.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

True. But you're not the only one who's communicating poorly. And at least you have the humility to owe up to it instead of being a dick about it, then blaming others for not understanding what you're saying while implying that they're the ones who're retarded.

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 02:47:05 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 06:11:24 PM
The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

no. i'm talking about computer game being to a gamer playing what script, decorations, music etc. would be to an actor rehearsing - a set of stuff to fasilitate roleplaying. some call those kinds of computer games "role playing games", you know >_>.

p.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

In that case, in a computer game without other players you doing the same thing as an actor rehearsing alone. There may other aspects to the game to play but your role playing by yourself has no effect on them. You can both role play AND do other things in the game but your role playing or lack of role playing does not affect the rest of the game. If what you are doing to role play has no affect on the outcome of the game then it really isn't an rpg even though role play is technically possible while doing so if that makes sense.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 23, 2023, 07:20:48 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 02:47:05 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 06:11:24 PM
The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

no. i'm talking about computer game being to a gamer playing what script, decorations, music etc. would be to an actor rehearsing - a set of stuff to fasilitate roleplaying. some call those kinds of computer games "role playing games", you know >_>.

p.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

In that case, in a computer game without other players you doing the same thing as an actor rehearsing alone. There may other aspects to the game to play but your role playing by yourself has no effect on them. You can both role play AND do other things in the game but your role playing or lack of role playing does not affect the rest of the game. If what you are doing to role play has no affect on the outcome of the game then it really isn't an rpg even though role play is technically possible while doing so if that makes sense.

would you describe roleplaying taking proper effect on aspects of the game for me please. some examples, maybe?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 23, 2023, 07:20:48 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 02:47:05 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 06:11:24 PM
The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

no. i'm talking about computer game being to a gamer playing what script, decorations, music etc. would be to an actor rehearsing - a set of stuff to fasilitate roleplaying. some call those kinds of computer games "role playing games", you know >_>.

p.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

In that case, in a computer game without other players you doing the same thing as an actor rehearsing alone. There may other aspects to the game to play but your role playing by yourself has no effect on them. You can both role play AND do other things in the game but your role playing or lack of role playing does not affect the rest of the game. If what you are doing to role play has no affect on the outcome of the game then it really isn't an rpg even though role play is technically possible while doing so if that makes sense.

Technically the way you play your role in a video game "RPG" can affect the outcome of the game, since different events throughout the game (potentially even the ending) might be affected by the way you play your character, depending on what type of things have been scripted in the game. The difference is that in a video game all events or possible outcomes are limited by the script and the game's capabilities and programming. While in a TTRPG they are limited only by what the GM allows and possibly by the game's rules or the setting. And possible events and outcomes in a TTRPG are potentially limitless within the bounds of the setting and what's possible in the game world, based on the GM's judgement.

What sets TTRPGs apart is player agency and the GM's ability to adjudicate player actions to allow potentially limitless events and outcomes within the simulated world. While in a video game everything has to be scripted before hand and is inherently limited by programming. So that player actions and all events and outcomes are fundamentally limited by what has already been programmed and scripted into the game. But there's technically "role playing" and even a simulated world that reacts to player actions. But those actions and reactions are limited by programming, while in TTRPG they're only limited by what the GM allows and what players come up with.

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 08:40:03 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 23, 2023, 07:20:48 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 02:47:05 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 06:11:24 PM
The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

no. i'm talking about computer game being to a gamer playing what script, decorations, music etc. would be to an actor rehearsing - a set of stuff to fasilitate roleplaying. some call those kinds of computer games "role playing games", you know >_>.

p.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

In that case, in a computer game without other players you doing the same thing as an actor rehearsing alone. There may other aspects to the game to play but your role playing by yourself has no effect on them. You can both role play AND do other things in the game but your role playing or lack of role playing does not affect the rest of the game. If what you are doing to role play has no affect on the outcome of the game then it really isn't an rpg even though role play is technically possible while doing so if that makes sense.

would you describe roleplaying taking proper effect on aspects of the game for me please. some examples, maybe?

Certainly.

EXAMPLE-Your DM describes a room to you with various contents, and other entrances & exits. There is a trap on one item of furniture in the room and if noise is made while searching, an NPC in an an adjoining room will show up to investigate.

How you describe your character entering, and searching the room has potential game effects. Will you find or set off the trap? Will you make noise drawing the NPC in the next room possibly leading to a social or combat encounter? These are game affecting roleplay actions.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 23, 2023, 09:17:51 AM
What sets TTRPGs apart is player agency and the GM's ability to adjudicate player actions to allow potentially limitless events and outcomes within the simulated world. While in a video game everything has to be scripted before hand and is inherently limited by programming. So that player actions and all events and outcomes are fundamentally limited by what has already been programmed and scripted into the game. But there's technically "role playing" and even a simulated world that reacts to player actions. But those actions and reactions are limited by programming, while in TTRPG they're only limited by what the GM allows and what players come up with.

There have been a number of solo modules for various games - including Tunnels & Trolls, D&D, and others. 3rd edition GURPS even included a solo module as its introduction to play.

So there's a question here. If someone plays the GURPS solo introductory module, are they playing an RPG?

I don't think there's a definite answer to that. There are going to be fuzzy edges no matter what one's definition.

Quote from: jhkim on August 23, 2023, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 23, 2023, 09:17:51 AM
What sets TTRPGs apart is player agency and the GM's ability to adjudicate player actions to allow potentially limitless events and outcomes within the simulated world. While in a video game everything has to be scripted before hand and is inherently limited by programming. So that player actions and all events and outcomes are fundamentally limited by what has already been programmed and scripted into the game. But there's technically "role playing" and even a simulated world that reacts to player actions. But those actions and reactions are limited by programming, while in TTRPG they're only limited by what the GM allows and what players come up with.

There have been a number of solo modules for various games - including Tunnels & Trolls, D&D, and others. 3rd edition GURPS even included a solo module as its introduction to play.

So there's a question here. If someone plays the GURPS solo introductory module, are they playing an RPG?

I don't think there's a definite answer to that. There are going to be fuzzy edges no matter what one's definition.

Now this is quite the interesting hypothetical, from my perspective.

I'd definitely call it an rpg, since it's a game that involves roleplaying, and that's roughly my definition of the rpg category, as opposed to the more specific TTRPG term my earlier definition stuff might apply to.

As for whether it would be a TTRPG by my own definition (of course noting that mine is not the only definition and I would rather enjoy hearing people's own thoughts on jhkim's thought experiment here)...

It definitely has the game elements. You play a character and get into that role, and do things in-character, so for me that satisfies roleplaying. Also making decisions that impact the plot and way that things turn out, all in a world in your own head. So there is potentially a simulated world to some degree (depends on whether you have the arbitration authority and you're putting in the effort to make one, so maybe make that conditional), and you may or may not have the authority of arbitration (some solo gamebooks are rpg CYOAs with no flexibility whilst others have rules and plot hooks and the like but encourage you to effectively arbitrate and gm for yourself, I guess like with ironsworn maybe? So with two conditionals it's not an automatic TTRPG by my definition. But it might not automatically be disqualified, if it could meet simulation and human arbitration guidelines, which I don't know if many or even much of any do in practice.

I'll see the solo GURPS example and raise:  You are planning an RPG session with new players.  None of them know the rules.  As part of introducing them to the mechanics, you give them some pre-generated characters and walk them through a few round of combat, which doesn't "count".  Is that playing an RPG?

My answers is that loosely speaking, yes--strictly speaking, no.  It's fuzzy, because as part of that walk-through, you might show them how adjudicating works, and the players might start to get into their characters.  However, to me, this example is to playing an RPG--as going to the store, buying a book, pouring a drink, propping up in your chair, and opening the cover is to reading.  It's adjacent to the activity but not the activity itself.

Likewise, making a character is not playing an RPG, though in many cases it would be a necessary prerequisite to playing one.  So much so, that I'd have no objection to loosely throwing it into the thing.  Usually, those kind of distinctions don't really matter all that much.  They do when you want to tease out the essential nature of the thing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 23, 2023, 05:23:07 PM
I'll see the solo GURPS example and raise:  You are planning an RPG session with new players.  None of them know the rules.  As part of introducing them to the mechanics, you give them some pre-generated characters and walk them through a few round of combat, which doesn't "count".  Is that playing an RPG?

My answers is that loosely speaking, yes--strictly speaking, no.  It's fuzzy, because as part of that walk-through, you might show them how adjudicating works, and the players might start to get into their characters.

My impression is that your definition puts together two things:

(1) the players getting into their characters, and
(2) the GM doing uniquely human adjudication.

There are a number of cases of one without the other, which can blur things.

There are GM-moderated wargames that verge into RPGs, along the lines of "Free Kriegspiel", where a player can try out-of-the-box tactics - but they're not role-playing personalities to their characters. I've played in some Battletech and Star Fleet Battles that edged on this. One of my introductions to RPGs for my son was "Monster Island" - which is human-GMed kaiju battles, which didn't feature much personality.

Conversely, there are times when the players are role-playing, but there isn't uniquely human guidance. This isn't just solo dungeons. I've had times when the GM was largely just mechanically handling the rules and reading from the published module - particularly as a kid or when a kid was GMing (like the first time my nephew GMed). i.e. They just read off what's in the next room according to the map and description. Despite this, the players still all got into playing their characters, with various in-character discussion between them.

Quote from: jhkim on August 23, 2023, 06:35:34 PM
My impression is that your definition puts together two things:

(1) the players getting into their characters, and
(2) the GM doing uniquely human adjudication.

There are a number of cases of one without the other, which can blur things.

Yes, because the subject and the OP are asking about the distinguishing features of table-top RPGs.  Thus I think the blurry things aren't in the middle of the Venn diagram. 

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 23, 2023, 02:04:01 PM

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 08:40:03 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 23, 2023, 07:20:48 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 23, 2023, 02:47:05 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2023, 06:11:24 PM
The game? You lost me there. You were discussing an actor rehearsing alone. Are you talking about making a game out of that?

no. i'm talking about computer game being to a gamer playing what script, decorations, music etc. would be to an actor rehearsing - a set of stuff to fasilitate roleplaying. some call those kinds of computer games "role playing games", you know >_>.

p.s. one thing that scooter dipshit is right about is my english - it is kinda poor, apologies for that,

In that case, in a computer game without other players you doing the same thing as an actor rehearsing alone. There may other aspects to the game to play but your role playing by yourself has no effect on them. You can both role play AND do other things in the game but your role playing or lack of role playing does not affect the rest of the game. If what you are doing to role play has no affect on the outcome of the game then it really isn't an rpg even though role play is technically possible while doing so if that makes sense.

would you describe roleplaying taking proper effect on aspects of the game for me please. some examples, maybe?

Certainly.

EXAMPLE-Your DM describes a room to you with various contents, and other entrances & exits. There is a trap on one item of furniture in the room and if noise is made while searching, an NPC in an an adjoining room will show up to investigate.

How you describe your character entering, and searching the room has potential game effects. Will you find or set off the trap? Will you make noise drawing the NPC in the next room possibly leading to a social or combat encounter? These are game affecting roleplay actions.

very good, thank you.

judging by that reply, tough, i'd guess that you are not much of a computer gamer, are you? becuase, literally, all of what you described has been happining in those for the longest time. the game describes the room to you - by showing it on the screen - with all the stuff, light sources, furniture, doors and windows. will you push "stealth" button before entering? will you push "search" button - which will slow you to a crawl, but may give you better chances of finding traps? did you acquire a guard badge and uniform before, so, if you fail at stealth you can try and persuade the guards that you are one of them? quite literally, all of this will happens in what some call  "computer rpgs".

launch a Fallout 2 game. create a character with very high strength, endurance and agility, give him "heavy handed" perk and dump as much of the skill points as the game will allow into unarmed combat skill. play through a couple ot starting locations.
now, create a female character with bellow average intelligence, very high charisma, very high luck, give her "sex appeal" perk and dump most of the points into speech. play through the same locations.
then get back to me and tell me that your GM is as good at reflecting "roleplaying actions" in your tabletop game as Fallout 2 is while not even being worthy of the name "rpg" according to some of the posters in this thread.

Quote from: Klava on August 24, 2023, 02:37:10 AM


very good, thank you.

judging by that reply, tough, i'd guess that you are not much of a computer gamer, are you? becuase, literally, all of what you described has been happining in those for the longest time. the game describes the room to you - by showing it on the screen - with all the stuff, light sources, furniture, doors and windows. will you push "stealth" button before entering? will you push "search" button - which will slow you to a crawl, but may give you better chances of finding traps? did you acquire a guard badge and uniform before, so, if you fail at stealth you can try and persuade the guards that you are one of them? quite literally, all of this will happens in what some call  "computer rpgs".

launch a Fallout 2 game. create a character with very high strength, endurance and agility, give him "heavy handed" perk and dump as much of the skill points as the game will allow into unarmed combat skill. play through a couple ot starting locations.
now, create a female character with bellow average intelligence, very high charisma, very high luck, give her "sex appeal" perk and dump most of the points into speech. play through the same locations.
then get back to me and tell me that your GM is as good at reflecting "roleplaying actions" in your tabletop game as Fallout 2 is while not even being worthy of the name "rpg" according to some of the posters in this thread.

I have played some computer games, Including Fallout. What you are describing are scripted responses to your character that depend heavily on the shit your character is front end loaded with. Computer games are great entertainment but don't scratch the same role playing itch that playing a live tabletop rpg does. There are a lot of things you can do in a computer game but you are limited in scope by the programming. The role playing you get to do is limited by what the programmers thought of.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2023, 07:45:41 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 24, 2023, 02:37:10 AM

very good, thank you.

judging by that reply, tough, i'd guess that you are not much of a computer gamer, are you? becuase, literally, all of what you described has been happining in those for the longest time. the game describes the room to you - by showing it on the screen - with all the stuff, light sources, furniture, doors and windows. will you push "stealth" button before entering? will you push "search" button - which will slow you to a crawl, but may give you better chances of finding traps? did you acquire a guard badge and uniform before, so, if you fail at stealth you can try and persuade the guards that you are one of them? quite literally, all of this will happens in what some call  "computer rpgs".

launch a Fallout 2 game. create a character with very high strength, endurance and agility, give him "heavy handed" perk and dump as much of the skill points as the game will allow into unarmed combat skill. play through a couple ot starting locations.
now, create a female character with bellow average intelligence, very high charisma, very high luck, give her "sex appeal" perk and dump most of the points into speech. play through the same locations.
then get back to me and tell me that your GM is as good at reflecting "roleplaying actions" in your tabletop game as Fallout 2 is while not even being worthy of the name "rpg" according to some of the posters in this thread.

I have played some computer games, Including Fallout. What you are describing are scripted responses to your character that depend heavily on the shit your character is front end loaded with.

right. i also only described the very beginning of the game. if you play much further, Fallout 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. is it all scripted? well, duh. but "rp having no effect on the aspects of the game" - no, that's not the way i'd describe that at all.

QuoteComputer games are great entertainment but don't scratch the same role playing itch that playing a live tabletop rpg does.

i'd hazard a guess that you forgot "for me" in that sentence. maybe it was implied? i can't tell if you are going full scooter on me here, hopefully not.

QuoteThere are a lot of things you can do in a computer game but you are limited in scope by the programming. The role playing you get to do is limited by what the programmers thought of.

and i never said or remotely implied otherwise. one thing computer rpgs lack completely is live on-the-spot reactions - for obvious reasons. which takes us full circle back to my first post:
roleplaying happens, at least partially, in the theater of the mind - that much i think you and i did agree on. a set of stuff designed specifically to facilitates that part alone i, personally, would still call a role playing game. not everybody needs an audience or human interaction to enjoy roleplaying.

Quote from: Klava on August 24, 2023, 08:57:49 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2023, 07:45:41 AM

Quote from: Klava on August 24, 2023, 02:37:10 AM

very good, thank you.

judging by that reply, tough, i'd guess that you are not much of a computer gamer, are you? becuase, literally, all of what you described has been happining in those for the longest time. the game describes the room to you - by showing it on the screen - with all the stuff, light sources, furniture, doors and windows. will you push "stealth" button before entering? will you push "search" button - which will slow you to a crawl, but may give you better chances of finding traps? did you acquire a guard badge and uniform before, so, if you fail at stealth you can try and persuade the guards that you are one of them? quite literally, all of this will happens in what some call  "computer rpgs".

launch a Fallout 2 game. create a character with very high strength, endurance and agility, give him "heavy handed" perk and dump as much of the skill points as the game will allow into unarmed combat skill. play through a couple ot starting locations.
now, create a female character with bellow average intelligence, very high charisma, very high luck, give her "sex appeal" perk and dump most of the points into speech. play through the same locations.
then get back to me and tell me that your GM is as good at reflecting "roleplaying actions" in your tabletop game as Fallout 2 is while not even being worthy of the name "rpg" according to some of the posters in this thread.

I have played some computer games, Including Fallout. What you are describing are scripted responses to your character that depend heavily on the shit your character is front end loaded with.

right. i also only described the very beginning of the game. if you play much further, Fallout 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. is it all scripted? well, duh. but "rp having no effect on the aspects of the game" - no, that's not the way i'd describe that at all.

QuoteComputer games are great entertainment but don't scratch the same role playing itch that playing a live tabletop rpg does.

i'd hazard a guess that you forgot "for me" in that sentence. maybe it was implied? i can't tell if you are going full scooter on me here, hopefully not.

QuoteThere are a lot of things you can do in a computer game but you are limited in scope by the programming. The role playing you get to do is limited by what the programmers thought of.

and i never said or remotely implied otherwise. one thing computer rpgs lack completely is live on-the-spot reactions - for obvious reasons. which takes us full circle back to my first post:
roleplaying happens, at least partially, in the theater of the mind - that much i think you and i did agree on. a set of stuff designed specifically to facilitates that part alone i, personally, would still call a role playing game. not everybody needs an audience or human interaction to enjoy roleplaying.

Well, < FOR ME> the joy of role playing is because of spontaneous action and coloring outside the lines in a manner that currently, only a human GM can facilitate. Pushing option buttons can be a lot of fun to see where a game goes next but doesn't satisfy that role playing hunger.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2023, 11:18:19 AM
Well, < FOR ME> the joy of role playing is because of spontaneous action and coloring outside the lines in a manner that currently, only a human GM can facilitate. Pushing option buttons can be a lot of fun to see where a game goes next but doesn't satisfy that role playing hunger.

very good, thank you for this exchange. the no true scotsman bs thrown all around these forums by some was getting kinda old.

The distinguishing feature of RPGs is constantly arguing about what makes an RPG.  ;)

There's a difference between "roleplaying games" the way the term is used in the context of TTRPGs and the way that the term is used in other games that might be tangentially related to TTRPGs, but are not TTRPGs in the strictest sense (and this includes the afore mentioned "solo adventures", as well as video game "RPGs" and board games or wargames with "roleplaying" elements).

"Roleplaying Games" in the TTRPG sense refers to games where you play a character who's hypothetically a "real" person with full agency that exists within a simulated world/"reality" capable of spontaneously reacting to their actions.

"Roleplaying Games" in any other sense involves some type of game (including introductory solo adventures for TTRPGs) where you play a character who technically plays a role, where that character only has limited agency and the simulated world/"reality" is limited to scripted events when reacting to the character's actions. Those types of games or scenarios (e.g. solo adventures) are not "RPGs" in the sense normally meant in the full context (as opposed to abridged contexts, such as solo adventures) of TTRPGs.

This is not a No True Scotsman. These are fundamental differences in the way the same term is used in different contexts. You can't "roleplay" in the way the term is used in a TTRPG when playing a game that doesn't allow full agency or is capable of spontaneously reacting to your character's actions in a non-scripted manner.

One minor pedantic disagreement I have with some people arguing on what might be called the "non-TTRPGs are not RPGs" side of this discussion is that achieving "Roleplaying" in a "TTRPG" sense (for lack of a better term) requires a "human GM" to facilitate the experience. Theoretically, it could also be facilitated by a non-human entity with comparable intelligence, including a True AI. Also, this could theoretically take place in a computer game, assuming that that game was run by an intelligent entity capable of spontaneously reacting to your character's actions in a non-scripted manner.

But if your character isn't a "real" person in the simulated world and doesn't have full agency and the simulated world is not capable of spontaneously reacting to your character's actions in a non-scripted manner, then the "roleplaying" that takes place isn't "roleplaying" in the way that the term is used in TTRPGs.

I guess with that definition, improv and improv games that involve collaboratively creating a scenario and its characters... might more closely fit the specific type of roleplaying one would typically see in TTRPGs as regards player agency and world interactivity/simulation than computer rpgs even with heavier choice, interaction and consequence mechanics? Mainly because of the depth of options and opportunities for scenario interaction afforded. (Though for the game part of rpG or ttrpG, I could maybe see it going the other way.)

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.  ;)

Well, it gets very difficult to nail down the terms.  To an avid story gamers, they are playing focused RPGs that are careful to home in on either a narrativism, gamism, or simulation model.  Though probably not the latter.  To me, a story game is where the participants play a game that simulates playing an RPG.  :P

Quote from: KindaMeh on August 24, 2023, 02:35:57 PM
I guess with that definition, improv and improv games that involve collaboratively creating a scenario and its characters... might more closely fit the specific type of roleplaying one would typically see in TTRPGs as regards player agency and world interactivity/simulation than computer rpgs even with heavier choice, interaction and consequence mechanics? Mainly because of the depth of options and opportunities for scenario interaction afforded. (Though for the game part of rpG or ttrpG, I could maybe see it going the other way.)

LARPs (which are improv games) are closely related to TTRPG and sorta meet that definition. So I guess there might be an overlap in that regard. Will have to think it over, but my immediate reaction is that the definition of "roleplaying" in LARPs at least is basically the same as in TTRPGs.

ETA: LARPs are the only type of games that (I think) meet the same definition of "roleplaying" as in TTRPGs that I can think of.

I had totally forgotten about LARPing and LARPGs. I feel like the latter might actually fit my TTRPG definition at times, in fact, which is weird but kinda fits for me. I was mostly thinking of improv games like they do in drama classes and the like, but you've opened up yet another line of pondering for me, lol.  ;D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 24, 2023, 02:58:47 PM

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.  ;)

Well, it gets very difficult to nail down the terms.  To an avid story gamers, they are playing focused RPGs that are careful to home in on either a narrativism, gamism, or simulation model.  Though probably not the latter.  To me, a story game is where the participants play a game that simulates playing an RPG.  :P

I'll admit that storygamers are a sizable faction in TTRPGs. But given how storygaming narrativists sacrifice player agency and a living world to the gods of the story the GM wants to tell, and even GNS gamists (arguably not necessarily storygamers) may burn rational cohesion and weaken player agency or in-game realism on the altar of balance and mechanics above all else...

I'd almost say they'd rather read a book (maybe a CYOA if the gm is more generous about choice consequences) or do campfire storytelling if a narrativist, or play a well-balanced computer or board game if a gamist, then simulate a living world or roleplay characters acting with agency within said world. This is not to say that simulationism is the One True Way (TM), but I do feel like when you attempt to abandon player roleplaying agency and the world and simulated reality it takes place in you are effectively minimizing (though I'd perhaps argue you won't fully be able to eliminate them without leaving the TTRPG genre) core parts to what makes TTRPGs great and unique.

So yeah, I think there is absolutely something to your statement here.

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.

and then you can flesh it out:
table top rpg is...
computer rpg is...
mmo rpg is...
what-have-you rpg is...

why would some people get their pants in a knot and start smuggling totally arbitrary shit into something as simple as that is beyond me.

QuoteBut given how storygaming narrativists sacrifice player agency and a living world to the gods of the story the GM wants to tell, and even GNS gamists (arguably not necessarily storygamers) may burn rational cohesion and weaken player agency or in-game realism on the altar of balance and mechanics above all else...

I must admit it's funny how SG-RPG critique widely waver between "it sacrifices player agency for GM story" to "it gives players too much power to override GM decisions".

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 07, 2023, 05:25:34 AM

QuoteBut given how storygaming narrativists sacrifice player agency and a living world to the gods of the story the GM wants to tell, and even GNS gamists (arguably not necessarily storygamers) may burn rational cohesion and weaken player agency or in-game realism on the altar of balance and mechanics above all else...

I must admit it's funny how SG-RPG critique widely waver between "it sacrifices player agency for GM story" to "it gives players too much power to override GM decisions".

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. 

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.

Quote from: Zak S on November 14, 2023, 04:11:29 AM
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.

Can you directly link drama classes with RPG development with any evidence?  To my knowledge, the drama class connection came after D&D was on the market.  I would be interested in learning about one of the early designers bringing in theater exercises as part of game play.

Quote from: BadApple on December 22, 2023, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: Zak S on November 14, 2023, 04:11:29 AM
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.

Can you directly link drama classes with RPG development with any evidence?  To my knowledge, the drama class connection came after D&D was on the market.  I would be interested in learning about one of the early designers bringing in theater exercises as part of game play.

I absolutely am not claiming that the creators of RPGs were trying to reproduce or copy anything from a drama class or learned anything from one--I'm just saying that all the games people call tabletop RPGs share elements with acting exercises (most obviously: you play a single character and decide their actions).

They resemble these games (and even earlier improv forms like commedia del'arte) in some respects, but I don't know of any case where they grew out of them.

Just, in trying to define an RPG in any way that couldn't also refer to a bajillion other things which nobody calls RPGs, you basically point to this stretch of activities that lies in the center of a Venn diagram with wargames on one side and improv theatre on the other.

Like wargames: there is chance, often simulated violence and genres characterize the game, there are attempts to create rules which simulate or at least refer to real-world or genre-defined environmental and tactical conditions, and an attempt to achieve something where success is in doubt and measurable (you die or don't, you level up or don't, etc) often in competitive ways.

Like improve theatre: you play a single character, you decide their actions based on an invented personality or set of characteristics (stats, etc), the character remains consistent (at least until you die) but deals with a series of different situations created at least partially by someone else, you play as a member of an ensemble together with other people.

Pretty much every game which has everything from column A and everything from Column B is sold and marketed as a role-playing game.

Quote from: Zak S on December 22, 2023, 10:28:24 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 22, 2023, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: Zak S on November 14, 2023, 04:11:29 AM
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.

Can you directly link drama classes with RPG development with any evidence?  To my knowledge, the drama class connection came after D&D was on the market.  I would be interested in learning about one of the early designers bringing in theater exercises as part of game play.

I absolutely am not claiming that the creators of RPGs were trying to reproduce or copy anything from a drama class or learned anything from one--I'm just saying that all the games people call tabletop RPGs share elements with acting exercises (most obviously: you play a single character and decide their actions).

They resemble these games (and even earlier improv forms like commedia del'arte) in some respects, but I don't know of any case where they grew out of them.

Just, in trying to define an RPG in any way that couldn't also refer to a bajillion other things which nobody calls RPGs, you basically point to this stretch of activities that lies in the center of a Venn diagram with wargames on one side and improv theatre on the other.

Like wargames: there is chance, often simulated violence and genres characterize the game, there are attempts to create rules which simulate or at least refer to real-world or genre-defined environmental and tactical conditions, and an attempt to achieve something where success is in doubt and measurable (you die or don't, you level up or don't, etc) often in competitive ways.

Like improve theatre: you play a single character, you decide their actions based on an invented personality or set of characteristics (stats, etc), the character remains consistent (at least until you die) but deals with a series of different situations created at least partially by someone else, you play as a member of an ensemble together with other people.

Pretty much every game which has everything from column A and everything from Column B is sold and marketed as a role-playing game.

Ok, I see now what you were saying.  The way I read it made it seem to me that you were suggesting that TTRPGs were derived from war games and improv.

To me, a role playing game need only have two conditions; one is that the players assume a role and the other it has some structure to it that it isn't just free form.  If a player has any third party control over the character or the ability to influence the game world other than through the PC then the player isn't role playing.  With this in mind, there's a wide variety of games that meet this criteria like solo journal RPGs, share character games (Everyone is John), and various levels of structure and focus.

Quote from: BadApple on December 22, 2023, 04:41:33 PM

Quote from: Zak S on December 22, 2023, 10:28:24 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 22, 2023, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: Zak S on November 14, 2023, 04:11:29 AM
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.

Can you directly link drama classes with RPG development with any evidence?  To my knowledge, the drama class connection came after D&D was on the market.  I would be interested in learning about one of the early designers bringing in theater exercises as part of game play.

I absolutely am not claiming that the creators of RPGs were trying to reproduce or copy anything from a drama class or learned anything from one--I'm just saying that all the games people call tabletop RPGs share elements with acting exercises (most obviously: you play a single character and decide their actions).

They resemble these games (and even earlier improv forms like commedia del'arte) in some respects, but I don't know of any case where they grew out of them.

Just, in trying to define an RPG in any way that couldn't also refer to a bajillion other things which nobody calls RPGs, you basically point to this stretch of activities that lies in the center of a Venn diagram with wargames on one side and improv theatre on the other.

Like wargames: there is chance, often simulated violence and genres characterize the game, there are attempts to create rules which simulate or at least refer to real-world or genre-defined environmental and tactical conditions, and an attempt to achieve something where success is in doubt and measurable (you die or don't, you level up or don't, etc) often in competitive ways.

Like improve theatre: you play a single character, you decide their actions based on an invented personality or set of characteristics (stats, etc), the character remains consistent (at least until you die) but deals with a series of different situations created at least partially by someone else, you play as a member of an ensemble together with other people.

Pretty much every game which has everything from column A and everything from Column B is sold and marketed as a role-playing game.

Ok, I see now what you were saying.  The way I read it made it seem to me that you were suggesting that TTRPGs were derived from war games and improv.

To me, a role playing game need only have two conditions; one is that the players assume a role and the other it has some structure to it that it isn't just free form.  If a player has any third party control over the character or the ability to influence the game world other than through the PC then the player isn't role playing.  With this in mind, there's a wide variety of games that meet this criteria like solo journal RPGs, share character games (Everyone is John), and various levels of structure and focus.

well, there's nothing wrong with saying that that's your definition it isn't the one that I would use in the kind of context that were in like an RPG forum because it includes thousands of activities completely unrelated to what we're talking about when we say RPG.

For example, a person participating in  aknock, knock joke fits your definition.

Quote from: Zak S on December 22, 2023, 04:59:45 PM

Quote from: BadApple on December 22, 2023, 04:41:33 PM

Quote from: Zak S on December 22, 2023, 10:28:24 AM

Quote from: BadApple on December 22, 2023, 09:40:56 AM

Quote from: Zak S on November 14, 2023, 04:11:29 AM
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.

Can you directly link drama classes with RPG development with any evidence?  To my knowledge, the drama class connection came after D&D was on the market.  I would be interested in learning about one of the early designers bringing in theater exercises as part of game play.

I absolutely am not claiming that the creators of RPGs were trying to reproduce or copy anything from a drama class or learned anything from one--I'm just saying that all the games people call tabletop RPGs share elements with acting exercises (most obviously: you play a single character and decide their actions).

They resemble these games (and even earlier improv forms like commedia del'arte) in some respects, but I don't know of any case where they grew out of them.

Just, in trying to define an RPG in any way that couldn't also refer to a bajillion other things which nobody calls RPGs, you basically point to this stretch of activities that lies in the center of a Venn diagram with wargames on one side and improv theatre on the other.

Like wargames: there is chance, often simulated violence and genres characterize the game, there are attempts to create rules which simulate or at least refer to real-world or genre-defined environmental and tactical conditions, and an attempt to achieve something where success is in doubt and measurable (you die or don't, you level up or don't, etc) often in competitive ways.

Like improve theatre: you play a single character, you decide their actions based on an invented personality or set of characteristics (stats, etc), the character remains consistent (at least until you die) but deals with a series of different situations created at least partially by someone else, you play as a member of an ensemble together with other people.

Pretty much every game which has everything from column A and everything from Column B is sold and marketed as a role-playing game.

Ok, I see now what you were saying.  The way I read it made it seem to me that you were suggesting that TTRPGs were derived from war games and improv.

To me, a role playing game need only have two conditions; one is that the players assume a role and the other it has some structure to it that it isn't just free form.  If a player has any third party control over the character or the ability to influence the game world other than through the PC then the player isn't role playing.  With this in mind, there's a wide variety of games that meet this criteria like solo journal RPGs, share character games (Everyone is John), and various levels of structure and focus.

well, there's nothing wrong with saying that that's your definition it isn't the one that I would use in the kind of context that were in like an RPG forum because it includes thousands of activities completely unrelated to what we're talking about when we say RPG.

For example, a person participating in  aknock, knock joke fits your definition.

Saying that a knock knock joke fits my definition stretches it to the breaking point but I get what you mean.  In the end, there's a lot of subjectivity to what an RPG is and I'm ok with that.  Not every game or every table is suitable for every player.