Oh, you're right then. If they're just using rules to mediate a conflict, it doesn't make sense to call it a RP game.

I like estar's discussion of focus, and I like Gronan's analysis of RAWness. However, for me, I think the defining characteristic would be: If, in the playing of an on-the-fence game, you would ever say, "I know the tactically right course of action, but my piece/character/guy would not make that decision," then it is a role-playing game.

Quote from: AsenRG;989095We all know RPGs started as wargames. Have they really changed that much as to really be a separate hobby?
Or are we just creating a needless distinction?

Distinction does not imply perfectly rigid boundaries. Sometimes distinction is just to give people a bit of shorthand of where things stand on a spectrum. An actual spectrum is probably a good analogy- a given color has a specific defined wavelength (actual published RPG product), and a defined broad color ("among the purples," "a storygame") and the later is descriptively helpful, but there will be edge cases where reasonable people can disagree, and oftentimes the distinction can be meaningless depending on the context (this person won't play anything they consider a wargame, this animal species can't see in this part of the spectrum). Musical genres might be another example. Sometimes putting a song into acid jazz rather than improvisational jazz or something like that will be really subjective, and leading to acrimonious overanalysis, but that doesn't mean that a given person might not genuinely like mostly A, mostly not B, and it be useful to have the A-B distinction when you are discussing their tastes.

I'd say the full reality is that it's a subjective label which different people will label differently depending on which measures they use.

For me, I decided about 1980, having played various wargames and then played The Fantasy Trip, that TFT (being about characters and open-ended campaigns) was clearly a different thing from wargames (usually about battles or campaigns with a very accurately limited scope in time, space, rules and objectives). To me, RPGs that don't have mapped tactical combat systems are RPGs that are missing one of my favorite parts of playing RPGs.

Meanwhile, some players who started with RPGs that don't use mapped tactical combat, think that including it in an RPG is like putting a wargame inside an RPG.

And sometimes there are arena games like the boxing game you mentioned, or Avalon Hill's Gladiator, or the first TFT microgame Melee (or I suppose by extension GURPS Man To Man) which some people would call wargames, other might call role-playing games, others might say are both, or describe them as arena combat games. I do think of them as quite different from wargames, as they aren't even squad-level in scale.

Some wargamers even think of tactical-scale or battle-scale games as a different class of games from operational wargames. And certainly many people consider historical miniatures gaming to be a different class of games from map & counter wargaming. Not to mention the divides for sci fi wargaming, naval wargaming, air combat games...

Quote from: Itachi;989216Oh, you're right then. If they're just using rules to mediate a conflict, it doesn't make sense to call it a RP game.

A most succinct definition!

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989255I like estar's discussion of focus, and I like Gronan's analysis of RAWness. However, for me, I think the defining characteristic would be: If, in the playing of an on-the-fence game, you would ever say, "I know the tactically right course of action, but my piece/character/guy would not make that decision," then it is a role-playing game.

To reinforce what Gronan said, since the focus in a tabletop roleplaying game is on a player playing a character interacting with a setting then it follows that anything that character can do in that setting could come up during a campaign. Because that scope is far larger than what a rulebook can reasonably cover invariably the referee will have to make ruling as to the specifics. Furthermore if the rules conflict with how the setting works, then the rules need to be changed. Finally sometime with a given system a better way of resolving something is found. Because there a impartial human referee involved it easier to change rules in midstream compared to when there are two or more players actively competing against each other.

All of this stems from the shift in focus from competing against an opponent to pretending to be a character in some fantastic setting. Not from the rules being used.

Quote from: Skarg;989261And sometimes there are arena games like the boxing game you mentioned, or Avalon Hill's Gladiator, or the first TFT microgame Melee (or I suppose by extension GURPS Man To Man) which some people would call wargames, other might call role-playing games, others might say are both, or describe them as arena combat games. I do think of them as quite different from wargames, as they aren't even squad-level in scale.

There is another good contrasting example Battletech versus Mechwarrior. Not only there the shift in focus I mention but the scale is different as well. Mechwarrior focuses on players playing characters who are pilots of Battlemechs. While Battletech pretty much about fighting a Battlemech (or Mechs plural) against an opponent. The Battletech rules can be and are used often in a Mechwarrior campaign.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989311Because describing Clue as a roleplaying game is not only out-of-joint with the way people actually use the term "role-playing game" in the real world, it obviously robs the term "role-playing game" of its unique meaning.

Clue, more than a lot of RPGs, fails to be a role-playing game. One of the characters is the murderer, but even if I am playing that character, I don't find out until the end of the game along with everyone else. I can't properly roleplay my character if I don't even know that basic fact about them.

I don't believe Monopoly is an RPG either, but I can at least get in character as a ruthless real estate developer while I play.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989145Definition of a roleplaying game: Roleplaying games are self-evidently about playing a role. Playing a role is about making choices as if you were the character. Therefore, in order for a game to be a roleplaying game (and not just a game where you happen to play a role), the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices as if you were the character. If the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which aren't associated to the choices made by the character, then the mechanics of the game aren't about roleplaying and it's not a roleplaying game.

So three years ago at GaryCon I was in a WW2 battle using TRACTICS.

I got separated from my unit, and I asked "What is correct 1941 Soviet doctrine for the commander of a lone tank?"

I was playing the commander of a tank.  Is TRACTICS a RPG?

There's some interesting posts here:).

Quote from: Toadmaster;989116Personally I think in many cases board game (including wargames) / rpg is just a continuum differentiated by the emphasis of the game. Even a board game like Talisman includes many RPG like features and I suppose one could argue it is an RPG, although it would be hard to convince me of that.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. And I know of at least one RPG campaign which was run with the rules from the Bloodsword gamebooks;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989120The key (IMEO) is this phrase from OD&D:

"If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!),"

Wargames state, as in CHAINMAIL, that "it is likely that you will eventually find some part that seems ambiguous, unanswered, or unsatisfactory. When such a situation arises settle it among yourselves, record the decision in the rules book, and abide by it from then on. These rules may be treated as guide lines around which you form a game that suits you. It is always a good idea to amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense -- follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter."

Though a wargame may suggest that the rules could use expansion or clarification, the RPG explicitly states that the rules may be out and out changed at the referee's whim.

The insistence on rules-as-written is more in line with wargaming than RPGs as they were originally conceived.

Honestly, Glorious General, I have to ask.
How does that mesh with Frei Kriegspiegel, that you've told us about? I gather that the Referee there was also free to alter the rules!

(Also, this means I've been playing wargames for most of my roleplaying career. Ah well, I can live with that!)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989145Definition of a roleplaying game: Roleplaying games are self-evidently about playing a role. Playing a role is about making choices as if you were the character. Therefore, in order for a game to be a roleplaying game (and not just a game where you happen to play a role), the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices as if you were the character. If the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which aren't associated to the choices made by the character, then the mechanics of the game aren't about roleplaying and it's not a roleplaying game.

I'm not familiar with Friday Night Fights specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if it meets this definition of roleplaying game. Skirmish-level games often do. And I think that's fine.

It does meet the definition, yes.

QuoteWhere I would draw a distinction is between limited RPGs and general purpose RPGs. And what we generally think of as an RPG is the latter: The latter carries with it both the expectation and the mechanical support for resolving any in-character action chosen by the player. (That doesn't mean that every action needs to go through a mechanical resolution, of course.) A limited RPG, on the other hand, has a very narrow and specific scope. I would assume that Friday Night Fights is a limited RPG: You may be roleplaying in the boxing ring, but the game carries with it neither the expectation nor the mechanical structure for carrying play outside of the boxing ring.

Well, if we're playing with a Referee who believes that only combat and physical actions need to go through a combat resolution, FNF2e totally meets that criteria, too.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989187For a solo version of Necromunda, or similar, look into Chain Reaction or 5150 from Two Hour Wargames also the Iron Keep imprint from Rebel Miniatures. These are a series of extremely solitaire friendly skirmish war-games/quasi-roleplaying games. They really straddle the cusp. Each player gets a "Star" character and may recruit additional "grunts" as supporting cast. The rules include mechanisms for encountering other groups and handling their reactions. As well as characters improving with experience.

Quote from: RunningLaser;989197Two Hour Wargames really blurs the lines between wargame and rpg.  There's been more than a few times where I've thought of just using some skirmish game rules to run an rpg with.

Friday Night Fights is also from Two-Hour Wargames:D!
I guess I should keep them on my radar.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989202I've never had much trouble distinguishing between the 2 myself.  Even a small unit skirmish wargame is still a "unit" of soldiers.  If I'm adopting the role of an individual, and following that individual through a series of scenarios that involve things like interacting with non-player characters, it's a role-playing game.  If I'm moving a military unit around a battle map, it's a wargame.  D&D includes a wargame of sorts, but there's a layer of stuff built around it that makes it an rpg...

games that "blur the lines," blur the lines.  Big whoop.

Well, I've found more than a few wargames where you play individual characters.
Guess that's blurring the lines. But how much blurring does it take before there's no difference?

Quote from: estar;989206Focus.


Play the game where one or more players is a winner after achieving some victory conditions then it is a wargame.

There's no "victory condition" on FNF. That is, the match ends, but that's not a victory condition for the campaign.
(And a campaign is presumed - there's a list with something like 33 pre-made opponents you're obviously expected to beat. But even after becoming Number 1, there's nothing to say the game stops there!)

QuotePlay the game where the players are playing characters interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee then it is a tabletop roleplaying game. (In this case the campaign is focused on boxing).

A human referee isn't assumed, though there are references that can be interpreted as at least a nod in that direction, too.
And what about GMless RPGs?

QuoteIf the game is used as part of a campaign where the focus is on a group of people engaged in collaborative storytelling about boxing then it is being used as a storygame.

I don't think that's a supported mode of play;).

QuoteAll three represent a center of what a group could be focusing on for these types of games and not hard and fast lines. Hybrids of varying mixes occur all the time. What make any one thing useful is how much work does it save you in running a campaign focused on what you and your players want to do.

Well, if I want to run a campaign about boxing, it would save me more work than trying to adapt GURPS.

QuoteThis is why for the past couple of years my position is to say; fuck rules, design the campaign you and your group wants to play first. Then figure the best set of rules and stuff to make it happen.

Totally agree! As I said, that thread was me thinking aloud;).

Quote from: David Johansen;989210A wargamer flips the table and storms out if he loses a regiment.  A roleplayer flips the table and storms out if he loses a single figure.

By that criteria, I'm neither:p!

Quote from: estar;989212Except the sole expectation that you and an opponent would fight it out to see if there is a winner which not what roleplaying games focus on. As presented Friday Night Fights is a wargame where the detail is at the level of individual boxers. It could be easily used as the combat engine for a tabletop RPG campaign focused on boxed. Much in the same way that Melee/Wizard were used as the combat engine for the Fantasy Trip.

Yup, that's the most succint explanation.
(And it seems the same or similar engine was used for an RPG, or maybe an wargame/RPG hybrid).

Quote from: estar;989215No they are not playing a role. They are two players fighting it out using a boxing simulation to see who wins. Not pretending to be characters interacting with a setting. Nor there is a referee to adjudicate said interactions.

Actually, it can be played solo, too!
And many people use Mythic to play RPGs solo, too.

QuoteIn case it wasn't clear it could be easily adapted to resolve boxing matches in a roleplaying campaign about the players pretending to be boxers. But that fact doesn't change the fact that product is written, presented, and marketed as a wargame to played between two or more players competing against one another without the need for a referee.

Recently, me and another player used Legends of the Wulin to adjudicate a battle between ourselves...so I don't think the presence of a Referee is a decisive criterion.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;989255I like estar's discussion of focus, and I like Gronan's analysis of RAWness. However, for me, I think the defining characteristic would be: If, in the playing of an on-the-fence game, you would ever say, "I know the tactically right course of action, but my piece/character/guy would not make that decision," then it is a role-playing game.

But then, saying that depends on the player, not the system.

Quote from: Skarg;989261I'd say the full reality is that it's a subjective label which different people will label differently depending on which measures they use.

For me, I decided about 1980, having played various wargames and then played The Fantasy Trip, that TFT (being about characters and open-ended campaigns) was clearly a different thing from wargames (usually about battles or campaigns with a very accurately limited scope in time, space, rules and objectives). To me, RPGs that don't have mapped tactical combat systems are RPGs that are missing one of my favorite parts of playing RPGs.

Meanwhile, some players who started with RPGs that don't use mapped tactical combat, think that including it in an RPG is like putting a wargame inside an RPG.

And sometimes there are arena games like the boxing game you mentioned, or Avalon Hill's Gladiator, or the first TFT microgame Melee (or I suppose by extension GURPS Man To Man) which some people would call wargames, other might call role-playing games, others might say are both, or describe them as arena combat games. I do think of them as quite different from wargames, as they aren't even squad-level in scale.

Some wargamers even think of tactical-scale or battle-scale games as a different class of games from operational wargames. And certainly many people consider historical miniatures gaming to be a different class of games from map & counter wargaming. Not to mention the divides for sci fi wargaming, naval wargaming, air combat games...

All I can take from this post is, the wargaming field is rather divided.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989315So three years ago at GaryCon I was in a WW2 battle using TRACTICS.

I got separated from my unit, and I asked "What is correct 1941 Soviet doctrine for the commander of a lone tank?"

I was playing the commander of a tank.  Is TRACTICS a RPG?

And this illustrates nicely my point that whether you ever say "what would my character do?" depends on the player;).

Quote from: AsenRG;989358Guess that's blurring the lines. But how much blurring does it take before there's no difference?

Again it about the focus. It not complicated. Pay attention to the goal of what being done and that will answer the question. Not the text of the rules.

For an example of something that truly blurs the line is Gronan example about considering what a lone Soviet tank commander would do. That could be part of a campaign with a human referee with characters (in the form of unit commanders) being kept track by their players. But the campaign backbone is a series of interlinked World War II scenarios set on the eastern front played in part with wargame rules. But the campaign also features behind the lines politics, logistics and perhaps even R&D. This setup hovers between a RPG campaign and a wargame campaign. But ultimately the side of the line that it fall on rest on its primary focus. Is there expectation of a victory? Or it more on character development with the campaign being open ended? And note that a campaign can change from one to the other without changing players, characters or setting. In college I had several Battletech campaigns go back and forth. Mostly to the wargame side as Mechwarrior 1st edition had issues.

Blackmoor from what I read started out as a sophisticated fantasy wargaming campaign with everybody playing a specific character. The both the good guys and bad guys were players with a few NPCs run by Dave. But the whole things was hugely addictive due to the fact that Dave was a seat of his pants referee so went along, for the most part, with whatever crazy scheme his players came with. My view that the point at which Blackmoor became firmly a tabletop roleplaying campaign is when the Blackmoor dungeon became wildly popular. Popular enough to the point that "good" guys started to ignore what the "bad" guys were doing and lost Castle Blackmoor and thus the wargame side of the campaign. But it didn't end there it just continued on in a new location, Glendower. Rather learn their "lesson" by being exiled from Blackmoor. They promptly started poking around to find more dungeons.

Blackmoor was both a wargame and a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

Quote from: AsenRG;989358There's no "victory condition" on FNF. That is, the match ends, but that's not a victory condition for the campaign.
(And a campaign is presumed - there's a list with something like 33 pre-made opponents you're obviously expected to beat. But even after becoming Number 1, there's nothing to say the game stops there!)

Again is your focus on beating your opponent? Or the rule engine if you are playing solo? Then you are playing a wargame. Unless you have rules there about training, managers, finances, rivals, friends, loved ones, you know all the stuff that goes into a Rocky movie basically then everything you describe sounds like a wargame. But if you add those things then it is a roleplaying game.

Quote from: AsenRG;989358A human referee isn't assumed, though there are references that can be interpreted as at least a nod in that direction, too.
And what about GMless RPGs?

GMless RPGs are not tabletop roleplaying games. They are more like computer roleplaying games. Instead of a software program or a human being  acting as referee, you have a rules engine that dictates what the setting and its NPCs are doing. Roleplaying Games have diversified in several distinct forms. LARPS, MMORPGS, CRPGS, Tabletop RPGs, GMless RPGs, etc. What unites them is a focus on playing an individual character interacting with a setting. Where they differ how actions are adjud


I don't think that's a supported mode of play;).

Quote from: AsenRG;989358Well, if I want to run a campaign about boxing, it would save me more work than trying to adapt GURPS.

Sure but to run a RPG campaign focused on boxing you are going to need more than just a set of fight rules. Because the point is to pretend to be a boxer in some city set within the present or the past (like the last century). So you have your gym, your manager, the people that attend the gym, any antagonist, etc, etc.

Q: What's the difference between an RPG and a wargame, again?

A: I don't really care as long as I'm enjoying them. Somebody told me Dawn Patrol was a war game and not an RPG, yet amazingly it had no effect whatsoever  on my enjoyment.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989315I got separated from my unit, and I asked "What is correct 1941 Soviet doctrine for the commander of a lone tank?"

As you were separated from your unit, who did you ask?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989315So three years ago at GaryCon I was in a WW2 battle using TRACTICS.

I got separated from my unit, and I asked "What is correct 1941 Soviet doctrine for the commander of a lone tank?"

I was playing the commander of a tank.  Is TRACTICS a RPG?

What would have happened if that lone tank had been destroyed.  Would you have determined if the driver survived and if so decided that "you" (as the driver) got out and ran to a nearby farm where the elderly farm couple took you in and hid you from the enemy troops passing by...or was your tank simply dead and removed from the battle?

Quote from: Bren;989384As you were separated from your unit, who did you ask?

The referee.