TheRPGSite

I recently bought a wargame called Friday Night Fights 2e, because I was in the mood for a boxing game:). And this one has the option to play it solo.

Then, after a match, I noticed that it's got a tactical combat system, which incorporates skill quirks* and personality traits** to make for a better game. It was easy to visualize what's happening.
And Fame is an essential part of it, which reminded me of Flashing Blades.
In fact, the game even recommends being used as a "fistcuffs diversion" during an eventual RPG session.
However, it didn't take me long to realize that I can actually run a modern game with just that, no need for other RPG mechanics!
Yes, they can be nice, but lately, I've been leaning more and more towards mechanics that don't simulate stuff like Intelligence and Charisma (Appearance and Learning are fine). Besides, I can always come up with a throw to resolve non-combat issues.

As I said, I started to think. If you can tell me, just where is the line that separates RPGs from skirmish-level wargames with a group of characters? Many RPGs can totally be used as a boxing simulator, too - in fact, Fight! the Fighting Game RPG begins with this.
We 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?

I've got no real purpose with this thread, other than to hear what you people think about this;).

*Like, Boxing 3 and Brawler is different from Boxing 3 without Brawler.
**Like Scary, Weak-Willed, Fearless, and the like.

Personally 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.

A game like AH's Panzer Blitz / Panzer Leader where the smallest unit represented is a platoon of men pretty solidly sits in wargame territory for me, but something like AH's Squad Leader / Advanced Squad Leader or GW's Warhammer that have individual leader counters / figures it is less clear although I still really consider these wargames.

Once you get down to every counter is an individual and there can be some distinction from one individual to the next (beyond function, rifleman, grenadier, leader etc) it is kind of up to what the game designer claims it is.

AH's Firepower was sold as a war game, but each counter represents an individual soldier who has unique stats (basically they get a mini character sheet and as I recall can gain experience). There are fairly detailed equipment lists with a level of detail that differentiates between an M16, FN-FAL and AK-47. There was body armor and different types of grenades. In the 1980s Firepower could have easily been marketed as a combat focused RPG instead of being sold as a war game.
 
FASA's Behind Enemy Lines was the reverse. It was sold as an RPG and its role play elements are better developed than Firepower, but it could very easily have been marketed as a highly detailed small unit war game.    

When Steve Jackson Games released GURPS prequel Man to Man a year before GURPS became available, we played out a ton of small combats. Really it was just a very detailed small unit combat system, not much of an RPG. The following year we got the full release of GURPS and it made the jump to definitely being an RPG.

The 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.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

i dont know where the line is, but I used to looooove the necromunda skirmish game. Each of my little goliath punks had a nickname, and they accrued injuries and new gear and levelled up and all that jazz. We even kinda roleplayed them a touch in some duels etc.

I would acually be super interested in a solo version of something like necromunda. I wonder if there is such a thing. wiat a minute... computer games.

For 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.

Two 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.

I'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.

Quote from: AsenRG;989095As I said, I started to think. If you can tell me, just where is the line that separates RPGs from skirmish-level wargames with a group of characters? Many RPGs can totally be used as a boxing simulator, too - in fact, Fight! the Fighting Game RPG begins with this.
We 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?

Focus.

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

All 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.

You could use Toon (http://www.sjgames.com/toon/) to run a serious Game of Thrones campaign but it would be a lot of work. To the point where 99.99% of the hobbyists would not bother using their precious leisure time to do this. Far more common are people choosing between games that are closely related. For example there are many Fantasy Roleplaying Games can be used to run a Game of Thrones campaign without much extra work. Including two that were built just for that purpose.

This 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.

A 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.

For me it's simple - you play a role? It's a roleplaying game.

The kind of roleplaying game is another matter entirely. It may be electronic (eg: Final Fantasy), it may be solo (eg: Fighting Fantasy books), it may be in a group around a table with dice and char sheets (eg: D&D), it may even discard hard rules (eg: kids make believe).

So yeah, I would consider the kind of game described in the OP as a roleplaying game, as long as someone is assuming a role. Surely with a different focus than D&D, but still a RP game.

Quote from: Itachi;989211So yeah, I would consider the kind of game described in the OP as a roleplaying game. Surely with a different focus than D&D, but still a RP game.

Except 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.

But each participant is playing a role, right ? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be a role-playing game?

For me the canonical example of the divide between a wargame and a tabletop roleplaying game is the difference between Steve Jackson's Melee/Wizard and the Fantasy Trip. The former is written and presented as a wargame, the latter is written and presented as a tabletop roleplaying game.

However magazine of the time had numerous accounts of hobbyists successfully using Melee/Wizard by themselves as part of a tabletop RPG campaign. And was a factor in Metagaming commission the Fantasy Trip from Steve Jackson.

Quote from: Itachi;989213But each participant is playing a role, right ? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be a role-playing game?

No 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.

In 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.

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.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989390What 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?

The latter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989392The latter.

War game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989391The referee.

And if you didn't like proper doctrine would you have followed it anyway?

Zevious Zoquis brings up a useful point about focus and individuality.

• If the focus of play is predominantly on winning or losing this and any related contests but not on things outside the string of contests, you are playing a wargame.
• If you don't determine details like what happened to your tank commander (dead, maimed, wounded, captured, escaped, still fighting gun in hand) when his tank is taken out of action, you are playing a wargame.

Quote from: Bren;989396And if you didn't like proper doctrine would you have followed it anyway?

Zevious Zoquis brings up a useful point about focus and individuality.

• If the focus of play is predominantly on winning or losing this and any related contests but not on things outside the string of contests, you are playing a wargame.
• If you don't determine details like what happened to your tank commander (dead, maimed, wounded, captured, escaped, still fighting gun in hand) when his tank is taken out of action, you are playing a wargame.

Yes, if I didn't like proper doctrine I would have done it anyway.  Soldiers are trained in a certain way.  Just like my T34/76 had only a two man turret so I could either lay and fire the gun OR give orders to my crew, and my T34/76 had no radio so I was dependent on flag signals from my platoon leader.  Vicissitudes of war.

In FNF, after a couple wins, when your fighter is visiting a bar, does he have to worry about being slipped a micky by the hot chick who's all over him, but is really working for the Russian Mob?

Didn't think so.

People are trying to be so fucking clever with the sophistry about definitions, they're making themselves look like idiots.

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

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

I am always treading the border of this. There is definitely a continuum at play, but there are definite areas past the murky borders. I am with CRKeruger on this - "In FNF, after a couple wins, when your fighter is visiting a bar, does he have to worry about being slipped a micky by the hot chick who's all over him, but is really working for the Russian Mob?" That is definitely an RPG!

Again, it's a subjective label. They're concepts, not things. "Wargame vs. RPG" is not going to have one true objective detailed definition that will result in all games being able to be labeled a wargame or not, or an RPG or not. A game can have elements associated with both or neither, and different people can and do have different associations/meanings for each term.

I know wargamers who avoid RPG's, miniatures wargames, and tactical-level wargames, and mean "operational-level historical hexmap" when they say wargame, but who also do their best to play from within a conception of the mindset of the (or a) general or command authority group in the historical situation, moreso than they are trying to win. I'd say that they are roleplaying in a wargame, but only in the context of the wargame situation (i.e. no, they don't roleplay situations outside the wargame situation, unless it's a historical thing like Admiral Yamamoto being shot down, or a general having certain characteristics).

Quote from: Skarg;989548Again, it's a subjective label. They're concepts, not things. "Wargame vs. RPG" is not going to have one true objective detailed definition that will result in all games being able to be labeled a wargame or not, or an RPG or not. A game can have elements associated with both or neither, and different people can and do have different associations/meanings for each term.

Blam! Skarg hits it in the head. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;989423People are trying to be so fucking clever with the sophistry about definitions, they're making themselves look like idiots.

Sophists always get a bum rap. I blame Plato.

Quote from: estar;989374Again 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.

I think that's the best approach, indeed.

QuoteFor 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.

Yeah, that's the part that's confusing. Hey, I'm (relatively) new to this whole wargame thing:D!

QuoteBlackmoor 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.

Sounds logical, from what I've seen:).
But then, we have campaigns that sometimes combine war campaigns and individual actions by the PCs, are they a mix, too?

QuoteAgain is your focus on beating your opponent? Or the rule engine if you are playing solo? Then you are playing a wargame.

Actually, no. I've got a character who has a personality, and sometimes I feel he would do something that I wouldn't, because I can calculate the probabilities...and he sees an opponent who outboxes him and then covers. "Stop running and slug me, damn you! I want you to stay in one place so I could crush your bones!"
(Combine Aggresivity 5 with the quality Scary and Brawler, and you get that kind of character...:D)

QuoteUnless 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.

I have rules about training, possibly overtraining, and kinda about managers and finances.
But who says you need the rest to be covered by specific rules? I'm pretty sure I've played RPG campaigns where rivals and friends weren't covered by the rules.

QuoteGMless 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.

OK, I'm going to disagree. You play on a table, you're roleplaying. That's tabletope roleplaying to me, even if we're all asking the Mythic table instead of the Referee.

QuoteRoleplaying 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

"Adjudicated", I guess? Do you mean that tabletop RPGs actions are adjudicated by a human referee and rules (because it seems part of your post was lost)?

QuoteSure 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.

Sure, and I can make the people that attend the gym, I have a list of antagonists, and there are options for managers, too...
As you said it yourself, and I agree, using FNF for a boxing-focused campaign would be extremely easy;).

Quote from: Dumarest;989377Q: 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.

Sure, and you shouldn't care, but that's a thread about theory:p!

Quote from: Bren;989396And if you didn't like proper doctrine would you have followed it anyway?

Zevious Zoquis brings up a useful point about focus and individuality.

• If the focus of play is predominantly on winning or losing this and any related contests but not on things outside the string of contests, you are playing a wargame.
• If you don't determine details like what happened to your tank commander (dead, maimed, wounded, captured, escaped, still fighting gun in hand) when his tank is taken out of action, you are playing a wargame.

First of all, I know I'm playing an wargame:)! It's just way more similar than the last time I tried playing another wargame (Warhammer, if you're wondering). So, this thread is me being genuinely surprised.

I agree with the latter point, but the former makes me wonder. What about those campaigns where everything in the lives of, say, superheroes, determines how well they can beat the crap out of each other.

Quote from: CRKrueger;989423In FNF, after a couple wins, when your fighter is visiting a bar, does he have to worry about being slipped a micky by the hot chick who's all over him, but is really working for the Russian Mob?

Possibly. Or at least, that's a possible interpretation of the rules about overtraining;).

Quote from: Skarg;989548Again, it's a subjective label. They're concepts, not things. "Wargame vs. RPG" is not going to have one true objective detailed definition that will result in all games being able to be labeled a wargame or not, or an RPG or not.

I know, but that's really annoying, isn't it;)?

QuoteA game can have elements associated with both or neither, and different people can and do have different associations/meanings for each term.

How dare they:D!

QuoteI know wargamers who avoid RPG's, miniatures wargames, and tactical-level wargames, and mean "operational-level historical hexmap" when they say wargame, but who also do their best to play from within a conception of the mindset of the (or a) general or command authority group in the historical situation, moreso than they are trying to win. I'd say that they are roleplaying in a wargame, but only in the context of the wargame situation (i.e. no, they don't roleplay situations outside the wargame situation, unless it's a historical thing like Admiral Yamamoto being shot down, or a general having certain characteristics).

That's interesting.
Have you asked them about the contradiction?

jeez.


The fact that you can come up with your own rpg rules to bolt on to a wargame doesn't mean the wargame is an rpg.  Any game can be turned into an rpg by ADDING rpg rules of your own to it...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989663jeez.


The fact that you can come up with your own rpg rules to bolt on to a wargame doesn't mean the wargame is an rpg.  Any game can be turned into an rpg by ADDING rpg rules of your own to it...

Who cares what someone else does with a game?

Was that the point of any of this thread?  I don't care what anyone else does with their games.  But don't try and tell me that there's all sorts of confusion about the distinction between an rpg and a war game because you can possibly come up with a bunch of home brew rpg rules and bolt them on top of advanced squad leader...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989760Was that the point of any of this thread?  I don't care what anyone else does with their games.  But don't try and tell me that there's all sorts of confusion about the distinction between an rpg and a war game because you can possibly come up with a bunch of home brew rpg rules and bolt them on top of advanced squad leader...

You seemed worried about it.

As my TRACTICS example was trying to show, the line between is often porous, but usually still pretty clear.  TRACITCS is unambiguously a wargame despite that "What does my tank commander do as standard doctrine" can be very similar to "What does my character do?".

Quote from: Dumarest;989766You seemed worried about it.

Nope.  Not at all.  I didn't start this thread...

Quote from: AsenRG;989609I agree with the latter point, but the former makes me wonder. What about those campaigns where everything in the lives of, say, superheroes, determines how well they can beat the crap out of each other.

If all the campaign is about is beating the crap out of each other then they can't all be superheroes. Somewhere somebody has to be a supervillain. And if all a superhero campaign is about is beating the crap out of somebody it sounds like a kinda crappy superhero setting. Isn't Spiderman supposed to worry about going on a date with MJ or helping Aunt May with the rent while Superman is busy trying not to get caught with his pants down in a phone-booth and Wolverine is trying to remember why he isn't supposed to kill some guy in a bar named Bub?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989145The example I often use (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games) is Arkham Horror: You play a specific, named character with a detailed background. It has character sheets with stats. You mechanically resolve the outcome of actions with those stats. It looks a lot like a roleplaying game, but it's not one. The mechanical decisions you're making are not associated to in-character decisions; those mechanical decisions are not roleplaying; therefore it's not a roleplaying game. (I find this particular example useful because Arkham Horror basically exists right on the cusp of being a roleplaying game; if you made it any more like a roleplaying game by even a smidgeon, it would be a roleplaying game.)

The problem with that assessment is that my decisions are in line with character PoV when playing #ArkhamHorror. In fact I typically find it far less dissonant than supposedly 'real' #RPGs like #Fate or #2d20.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989663The fact that you can come up with your own rpg rules to bolt on to a wargame doesn't mean the wargame is an rpg.  Any game can be turned into an rpg by ADDING rpg rules of your own to it...

Isn't that how #D&D got started?

I'd like to suggest that a level of creativity is implied by the roleplaying game category.  You create a character or at least choose a character and play them according to your interpretation of that character.  That's where things like Arkham Horror and Descent fail utterly to my mind. They literally suck all of the creativity and joy out of the game and turn it into a mere mechanical recreation.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;989851The problem with that assessment is that my decisions are in line with character PoV when playing #ArkhamHorror. In fact I typically find it far less dissonant than supposedly 'real' #RPGs like #Fate or #2d20.



Isn't that how #D&D got started?

Yes.  That's how you make a rpg...you create a bunch of rules for a bunch of stuff the war game doesn't cover.  Because it's just a war game.  That's the point.  Nobody is saying RPGs don't have some wargame in them.  

Here's how this thread sorta went:

OP - "what's the difference between war games and RPGs again?"

A Bunch of Us - "here's a variety of things explaining the differences."

OP - "oh, yeah but I can just add all that rpg stuff to my wargame so what's the difference again?"

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989663jeez.


The fact that you can come up with your own rpg rules to bolt on to a wargame doesn't mean the wargame is an rpg.  Any game can be turned into an rpg by ADDING rpg rules of your own to it...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989760Was that the point of any of this thread?  I don't care what anyone else does with their games.  But don't try and tell me that there's all sorts of confusion about the distinction between an rpg and a war game because you can possibly come up with a bunch of home brew rpg rules and bolt them on top of advanced squad leader...

It's a good thing I'm not telling you that, then (look at the end).

...but purely out of curiosity if you don't care what other people do with their games, WTF are you looking for at a gaming forum:)?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989787As my TRACTICS example was trying to show, the line between is often porous, but usually still pretty clear.  TRACITCS is unambiguously a wargame despite that "What does my tank commander do as standard doctrine" can be very similar to "What does my character do?".

FNF is also a wargame. I was just amazed how close that got (and I was reasoning that if I add a bunch of your "Referee decides" logic to it, I could run an RPG campaign with it. Though yes, at some point I'd need to write down some of those rulings, and ).
And yes, maybe that was old news to some of you wargamers. But I said it already - I had only seen wargames where you control groups of people. Curious how close it gets if the wargame is about a single individual or a group (a stable of boxers and their manager, in this case:D)!

Quote from: Bren;989805If all the campaign is about is beating the crap out of each other then they can't all be superheroes. Somewhere somebody has to be a supervillain.

Sorry, that's just me using "superhero" as a catch-all term for "people with superpowers and weird costumes".

QuoteAnd if all a superhero campaign is about is beating the crap out of somebody it sounds like a kinda crappy superhero setting. Isn't Spiderman supposed to worry about going on a date with MJ or helping Aunt May with the rent while Superman is busy trying not to get caught with his pants down in a phone-booth and Wolverine is trying to remember why he isn't supposed to kill some guy in a bar named Bub?

Dunno, I'm not an expert in the genre (as evidenced by lumping them all under one moniker). But at least in some of the story-based variants, maintaining those relationships, keeping their identities secret, and not killing innocent bystanders, also make them more likely to win a fight against Villain of the Week, or so I've been told!
Which undoubtedly means that the path to winning fights is to have many relationships and having moral dilemmas. At least that's how it works for supers, it seems:D!

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989928Yes.  That's how you make a rpg...you create a bunch of rules for a bunch of stuff the war game doesn't cover.  Because it's just a war game.  That's the point.  Nobody is saying RPGs don't have some wargame in them.  

Here's how this thread sorta went:

OP - "what's the difference between war games and RPGs again?"

A Bunch of Us - "here's a variety of things explaining the differences."

OP - "oh, yeah but I can just add all that rpg stuff to my wargame so what's the difference again?"

Sorry, you were slightly wrong with the second OP reply.
OP (me): "Yeah, but many of those things are also things that some people prefer to play out without formal rules, so where's the difference again? In the mindset, I guess. How...subjective!"
I'm not (despite you seeming to attribute me those claims):
A) Claiming FNF is an RPG.
B) Claiming FNF will be an RPG if I add some stuff to it. (Of course it will be, but that wouldn't be FNF any longer. With enough changes, chess can become an RPG, too...but it's not going to be chess any longer, and chess isn't an RPG).
What I am saying is:
"Hey look, here's a game that does some neat stuff (and arguably reminds me of some RPGs that I like, and is closer to an RPG than some RPG-labelled games I've played). Maybe all of you were aware such games exist, but I thought wargames are just about armies, or at least squads, at war...well, until now. Comment on that revelation, while I go looking for a bunch of other wargames, too".
Clear now?

Quote from: AsenRG;990006It's a good thing I'm not telling you that, then (look at the end).

...but purely out of curiosity if you don't care what other people do with their games, WTF are you looking for at a gaming forum:)?


FNF is also a wargame. I was just amazed how close that got (and I was reasoning that if I add a bunch of your "Referee decides" logic to it, I could run an RPG campaign with it. Though yes, at some point I'd need to write down some of those rulings, and ).
And yes, maybe that was old news to some of you wargamers. But I said it already - I had only seen wargames where you control groups of people. Curious how close it gets if the wargame is about a single individual or a group (a stable of boxers and their manager, in this case:D)!


Sorry, that's just me using "superhero" as a catch-all term for "people with superpowers and weird costumes".


Dunno, I'm not an expert in the genre (as evidenced by lumping them all under one moniker). But at least in some of the story-based variants, maintaining those relationships, keeping their identities secret, and not killing innocent bystanders, also make them more likely to win a fight against Villain of the Week, or so I've been told!
Which undoubtedly means that the path to winning fights is to have many relationships and having moral dilemmas. At least that's how it works for supers, it seems:D!



Sorry, you were slightly wrong with the second OP reply.
OP (me): "Yeah, but many of those things are also things that some people prefer to play out without formal rules, so where's the difference again? In the mindset, I guess. How...subjective!"
I'm not (despite you seeming to attribute me those claims):
A) Claiming FNF is an RPG.
B) Claiming FNF will be an RPG if I add some stuff to it. (Of course it will be, but that wouldn't be FNF any longer. With enough changes, chess can become an RPG, too...but it's not going to be chess any longer, and chess isn't an RPG).
What I am saying is:
"Hey look, here's a game that does some neat stuff (and arguably reminds me of some RPGs that I like, and is closer to an RPG than some RPG-labelled games I've played). Maybe all of you were aware such games exist, but I thought wargames are just about armies, or at least squads, at war...well, until now. Comment on that revelation, while I go looking for a bunch of other wargames, too".
Clear now?

not really.

there's all sorts of different games out there.  The line between wargame and rpg is by no means made of brick.

Much like pornography, "I know it when I see it."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;990045Much like pornography, "I know it when I see it."

:D
I said above, "the difference in intent". But that, too, is like pornography!

I think it's better for me to concede the point;).

An RPG, to be an RPG, has to follow certain landmarks. Core among these is that you play ONE character (or at least, one at a time), and you are meant to immerse in that character. So you are making decisions not based on some external factor ("what would make the best story?", "What would let me win the battle?", etc) but on what that character would do. Finally, part of immersion is that you associate with the character, above and beyond the metagame or the setting or some other goal.

Secondly, there also has to be a 'world'. Most wargames have a world. Very few have individual characters. None have the notion that you would immerse yourself in your character. If they do, to the point where you are expected to make choices not on what you as a  player think is tactically best for winning the battle but on what the character would do, you are at that point playing an RPG.

Quote from: RPGPundit;990787An RPG, to be an RPG, has to follow certain landmarks. Core among these is that you play ONE character (or at least, one at a time), and you are meant to immerse in that character. So you are making decisions not based on some external factor ("what would make the best story?", "What would let me win the battle?", etc) but on what that character would do. Finally, part of immersion is that you associate with the character, above and beyond the metagame or the setting or some other goal.

Secondly, there also has to be a 'world'. Most wargames have a world. Very few have individual characters. None have the notion that you would immerse yourself in your character. If they do, to the point where you are expected to make choices not on what you as a  player think is tactically best for winning the battle but on what the character would do, you are at that point playing an RPG.

It seems to me that the wargamers I know (self included) tend to be interested in the historical situation and that one of their main interests in playing historical wargames is to get an experience and perspective on the mindset of people in that historical situation. When we do approach the decisions in that wargame from an in-character perspective, we may be more or less roleplaying, but I'd still call the game a wargame.

We can also run combats (or entire wars) with little-to-no roleplaying using an RPG system but avoiding roleplaying and playing just to win objectives.

i.e. it seems to me that just as we can have war, tactical mapped gameplay and simulationist features in an RPG, there can be some roleplaying in a wargame.

And RPG and wargame are still just abstract ideas, not different classes of actual things, and ideas that can overlap in a game and in a player's approach to them, so it's aways going to be somewhat subjective.

War-games have rules-based "hard" win-conditions that allow claiming certain outcomes, defined by the rules or agreed upon by the players prior to play. RPGs have "soft" in-setting win-conditions that are defined by the player-characters from within in the current situation.

Quote from: AsenRG;990006Dunno, I'm not an expert in the genre (as evidenced by lumping them all under one moniker). But at least in some of the story-based variants, maintaining those relationships, keeping their identities secret, and not killing innocent bystanders, also make them more likely to win a fight against Villain of the Week, or so I've been told!
Which undoubtedly means that the path to winning fights is to have many relationships and having moral dilemmas. At least that's how it works for supers, it seems:D!

Those games sound like they might fit in the category of "a kinda crappy superhero setting."

Quote from: RPGPundit;990787Core among these is that you play ONE character (or at least, one at a time)...

That's not required. Troupe play is a thing. But one character at a time is the most common and probably the easiest way for people to play RPGs.

Quote from: Skarg;990881It seems to me that the wargamers I know (self included) tend to be interested in the historical situation and that one of their main interests in playing historical wargames is to get an experience and perspective on the mindset of people in that historical situation. When we do approach the decisions in that wargame from an in-character perspective, we may be more or less roleplaying, but I'd still call the game a wargame.

You can argue, certainly, that in some wargames where, say, you are meant to try to put yourself in the head of Napoleon or Robert E. Lee or whatever, you are incorporating an element of role-play.  But I think that unless you are also making a character sheet for Napoleon, it's still a wargame with some role-play element, and not an RPG.

Quote from: SkargIt seems to me that the wargamers I know (self included) tend to be interested in the historical situation and that one of their main interests in playing historical wargames is to get an experience and perspective on the mindset of people in that historical situation. When we do approach the decisions in that wargame from an in-character perspective, we may be more or less roleplaying, but I'd still call the game a wargame.

Quote from: RPGPundit;991727You can argue, certainly, that in some wargames where, say, you are meant to try to put yourself in the head of Napoleon or Robert E. Lee or whatever, you are incorporating an element of role-play.  But I think that unless you are also making a character sheet for Napoleon, it's still a wargame with some role-play element, and not an RPG.

I quite agree with you on that. I wrote the above to quibble with the last part of what you wrote before :

Quote from: RPGPundit[No wargames] have the notion that you would immerse yourself in your character. If they do, to the point where you are expected to make choices not on what you as a player think is tactically best for winning the battle but on what the character would do, you are at that point playing an RPG.

So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

It might be generally true (although I can see a roleplaying game with a relatively objective win condition), but it doesn't seem like a defining difference.

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

Seems like you have plenty of RPG sessions that can be one-shots, specificly module related or defined by what level you'll stop at. Even longer campaigns can be set around defeating a certain opponent or accomplishing some specific act.

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

I've never played an RPG with a "win condition." Winning has always been beside the point. Maybe that's just me and the people I know, though.

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

I can't really comment. I don't know enough about wargames to know whether there are exceptions to this rule.
I know for a fact that AD&D had tournament modules with win conditions, though.

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

It's an clever try that usually matches, but it's only about one aspect, and I don't think it really makes a game an RPG or a wargame, nor matches all examples.

* Educational RPGs often have pre-defined VCs/objectives without being wargames, and still being mainly about experiencing a role, though they aren't open-ended RPGs like D&D etc.

* There are RPG adventures and campaigns that do have objectives or goals which can even be agreed upon by the players beforehand. In fact, one of the recurring divides in this forum is about GM's who design campaigns and adventures with goals and objectives for the PCs, and players who agree to accept what the GM has come up with for their group's objectives/goals, even if their PCs may not always know what those are at first, or if the PCs as written might likely prefer to do something else (in fact, some players think having your PC want to define and pursue their own objectives instead of conforming to the group can be condemed with the (mis-applied) label "My Guy Syndrome").

* While most wargames do have defined/agreed objectives, wargamers can be (and sometimes are) played without formal agreed VCs/objectives, and doing so doesn't make them not wargames.

I might tend to call a wargame also an RPG at the point where each player runs a specific character with some non-military aspects and goals, though I'm not sure the line is really clear there either. For example, there's an optional mode in the original wargame Squad Leader where players have one specific leader to be their main tracked character from battle to battle, which seems near where I'd draw the line (I'd still say that one's a wargame, but I have tweaked the play mode just a bit and run it as what I considered an RPG).

Cool, I get where you all are coming from. I'm basing this on my definition of "a game" (a period of play with defined rules in which the outcome is uncertain - but ultimately quantifiable).

With games like chess/poker/etc the uncertainty is resolved through play and the "outcome" after the play session is usually one of the predefined possible outcomes - a team or player "winning" (the specifics of this having been defined and agreed upon before play).

With games like D&D, & other RPGS, the outcome is uncertain (and ultimately quantifiable after the play session), but the questions of "have we the players accomplished our goals" is developed from within the play situation. The RPG players are defining their own goals (within the situation defined by the GM) - instead of relying on goals defined purely from an out-of-character/rules based perspective.

In an RPG session, the GM may think "they have to kill Villain X or they don't 'win'..." but the PCs may come up with a plan that neutralized Villain X without killing him. And the GM certainly didn't say to them "the goal of this play session is to kill Villain X" at the start of the session (unless this is a horrible railroad - and then aren't we basically playing a boardgame with an imaginary board??).

The GM sets out the conflicts, the PCs (as a "team") set their own goals and choose how to engage with the conflicts. We as players share our character's sense of accomplishment when an in-game objective is achieved because of the close association of our character with ourselves (immersion, etc). There are modern board-games that get close to this (RoboRally was a favorite of mine due to the 1 player = 1 robot setup, and all the quirky stuff that happens to the poor bots), but none of them assume a flexible 1-or-many session "campaign" with continuity.

Tournament-play RPGs almost edge back to the Wargaming side of things.... exactly because they had to add more objective "how to keep score" rules. And that's because you may be playing an RPG at the table you are sitting at, but you are COMPETING with all the other tables playing through the same module, and there were rules in place that you agreed to before beginning that defines which table will "Win".

The elements you are talking about are certainly there, interesting, and related to the question. However they don't map exactly to how I think of the definitions of game/wargame/RPG. e.g.:

* I don't define "game" as having a period or necessarily including an outcome, nor a quantifiable one. I do agree on it being "play" and having rules.
* Related to that, my experience of both RPGs and wargames (and board games) is that while there often are both agreed goals and often other goals invented by players for themselves, that those aren't fundamental to them being games, don't necessarily define or limit the type of game they are, and can be set aside when players (or any type of game) find aspects of play that are more interesting to them.

* Yes in an RPG often players invent their own goals or ignore spoon-fed ones, but there are also RPGs where formal goals are defined or even enforced to some degree, but to me that doesn't make it not an RPG (it just makes it a more constrained one). I might agree that the part of the game about fulfilling a forced objective is a boardgame-like element and not so much a roleplaying-like element, but depending on what it is, it could fit in an RPG (e.g. where the premise is a PC is a Knight sent by King Arthur to devote himself to seek the Holy Grail - taking that goal to heart could be a required condition and that could be a roleplaying element because the game is about roleplaying that - you're just not being given a choice about that part of your character - that might make it an RPG some people don't want to play, but it's still an RPG.) No?

Quote from: Telarus;992037The GM sets out the conflicts, the PCs (as a "team") set their own goals and choose how to engage with the conflicts. We as players share our character's sense of accomplishment when an in-game objective is achieved because of the close association of our character with ourselves (immersion, etc). There are modern board-games that get close to this (RoboRally was a favorite of mine due to the 1 player = 1 robot setup, and all the quirky stuff that happens to the poor bots), but none of them assume a flexible 1-or-many session "campaign" with continuity.

These seem to me mainly like common situations that nonetheless have ready exceptions and that don't define the type of game, e.g.:
* Players in sandboxes can ignore many GM conflicts/goals and also start their own conflicts.
* Some players also tend not to set their own goals and prefer to be told how to engage things by a GM, NPC boss, or PC leader, to some degree.
* There are board game players and wargamers who also identify/associate with whatever they represent in those games, and share a sense of accomplishment with that imaginary entity.
* There are examples of board games and wargames with flexible 1-or-many session campaigns with continuity. (e.g. Avalon HIll's Squad Leader, Gladiator, IIRC Wooden Ships & Iron Men, too.)

Quote from: Telarus;992037Tournament-play RPGs almost edge back to the Wargaming side of things.... exactly because they had to add more objective "how to keep score" rules. And that's because you may be playing an RPG at the table you are sitting at, but you are COMPETING with all the other tables playing through the same module, and there were rules in place that you agreed to before beginning that defines which table will "Win".

* I agree that Tournaments add a non-roleplaying element... but I'd tend to call that element just a "competitive" and/or "tournament" OOC/meta element. It wouldn't occur to me to call it a "wargaming" element or a "boardgame" element. And there is a "scorekeeping" aspect, and many/most wargames do also have that, but I don't think that's what has them be wargames.

By the way, there are PLENTY of skirmish level wargames where you play one and only one character, and they are unambiguously wargames.  For instance, among my collection I have at least two gladitorial combat games where you play a single character, and the game has no provisions for absolutely anything outside of combat -- not even naming gladiators.  They are purely about two poor chumps hacking each other to death.

So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

Quote from: Voros;994170So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

Wargames can't be storygames? That... seems fairly reasonable. Storygames would seem to me to be what happens when you shift the focus of an RPG away from the wargame aspects that an RPG retains.

Quote from: Voros;994170So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

It about focus not mechanics whether it is a wargame, tabletop roleplaying game, or storygame.

Mister Tragically Hip is trying to derail yet another thread.  Don't let him.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994003By the way, there are PLENTY of skirmish level wargames where you play one and only one character, and they are unambiguously wargames.  For instance, among my collection I have at least two gladitorial combat games where you play a single character, and the game has no provisions for absolutely anything outside of combat -- not even naming gladiators.  They are purely about two poor chumps hacking each other to death.

There are several solitaire wargames that I tend to relate to also as tactical roleplaying experiences. The situation is about managing your squad or submarine or whatever, and no other players and generally no extra-curricular activities and you generally stay on mission and fight things and manage damage and resources, but to me they conjure the experience of being in command and that's much of what I like about RPGs. I wouldn't categorize them as RPGs though. But if you wanted to, you could extend/expand them to be roleplaying games.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994257Mister Tragically Hip is trying to derail yet another thread.  Don't let him.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1652[/ATTACH]

Amusing that you think I 'derail' threads by daring to (mildly) poke fun at the assumptions of the regulars. Such a sensitive lot.

Guess you'd prefer if everyone just jerked each other off here like  at DF and TBP?

Here being 'hip' is to like pre-3.0 D&D only, recommend Gurps for anything and everything, hate the ambigiously defined 'storygamers' who are out to destroy our games and have an irrationally big Hate On for the dreaded SJWs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994003By the way, there are PLENTY of skirmish level wargames where you play one and only one character, and they are unambiguously wargames.  For instance, among my collection I have at least two gladitorial combat games where you play a single character, and the game has no provisions for absolutely anything outside of combat -- not even naming gladiators.  They are purely about two poor chumps hacking each other to death.

Yeah, and this thread is, in retrospect, me yelling "why did nobody tell me skirmish wargames exist", so these are really interesting from and RPG point of view. I got some experience with them, bought a couple new ones, and yeah, the ones I've got aren't RPGs, but can easily be developed into such:).
Which is good enough for me. And I can easily see myself playing them. After all, I don't have to only play RPGs, right;)? These are going to be fun diversions.

Quote from: Voros;994170So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

Actually, most people said wargames aren't RPGs, and there's that;).

Quote from: Voros;994302[ATTACH=CONFIG]1652[/ATTACH]

Amusing that you think I 'derail' threads by daring to (mildly) poke fun at the assumptions of the regulars. Such a sensitive lot.

Guess you'd prefer if everyone just jerked each other off here like  at DF and TBP?

Here being 'hip' is to like pre-3.0 D&D only, recommend Gurps for anything and everything, hate the ambigiously defined 'storygamers' who are out to destroy our games and have an irrationally big Hate On for the dreaded SJWs.

So, I'm only like one quarter hip:D? Or less? I like only pre-2e D&D, but I like lots of clones, and I like 13th Age and Fantasy Craft!

Quote from: AsenRG;994311Yeah, and this thread is, in retrospect, me yelling "why did nobody tell me skirmish wargames exist", so these are really interesting from and RPG point of view. I got some experience with them, bought a couple new ones, and yeah, the ones I've got aren't RPGs, but can easily be developed into such:).

I also dig skirmish games, the 2e-D&D rules by Douglas Niles turned me on to them. Any recommendations? Or perhaps add them to the Wargames thread in Othergames that needs some love.

QuoteActually, most people said wargames aren't RPGs, and there's that;).

I noticed, I was just surprised to see anyone claim otherwise considering how strict some are about defining RPGs. And my post was in jest.

QuoteSo, I'm only like one quarter hip:D? Or less? I like only pre-2e D&D, but I like lots of clones, and I like 13th Age and Fantasy Craft!

I prefer B/X and BECMI myself but like elements of 1e, 2e and 5e as well. Not even familiar enough with 3e or 4e to really comment on them but I don't really 'hate' a system I happen to dislike.

Quote from: Voros;994170So wargames can be RPGs but storygames never...okay.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;994257Mister Tragically Hip is trying to derail yet another thread.  Don't let him.

Quote from: Voros;994302Amusing that you think I 'derail' threads by daring to (mildly) poke fun at the assumptions of the regulars. Such a sensitive lot.
...
Here being 'hip' is to like pre-3.0 D&D only, recommend Gurps for anything and everything, hate the ambigiously defined 'storygamers' who are out to destroy our games and have an irrationally big Hate On for the dreaded SJWs.

Agree in theory on the irrational fear of storygames (although that does not mean that the are RPG necessarily, that depends on whether on not things on a spectrum with unclear boundaries can ever truly be separable). There are a few GURPS die-hards, but just a few (and very few people can muster up enough anti-GURPs bile to counter that). The SJW panic seems to have been blessedly swept into the politics threads for the time being.

However, I would not pat yourself on the back for "daring" to speak truth to power or anything. You got through a convoluted thread of people vaguely disagreeing-but-not-really about what makes something a game and whether this hobby which evolved from the wargaming hobby can truly have a distinct boundary... and interjected a random 'but-what-about-MY-pet-cause?'.
That's not brave, that's random.

I appreciate that you do not, as some who come on this board to shake up the status quo, use your outsider status as an excuse to bash those things loved by those you feel have wronged you (while somehow maintaining a self-image of victim). However, taking a thread about where the boundary between wargames and RPGs exists and trying to shoehorn in your favorite victimized subgroup is roughly the same as the guy who finds out that they are allergic to wheat and tries to turn every thread on a cooking forum into a discussion about that.

That, y'know,  and the fact that the whole 'I'm amused by you guys. Since you're acknowledging my antics, I must be getting under your skin, you're must be so sensitive' routine was stale in '02, and we all know better by now and see it for the rhetorical costume that it is.

I agree that this is a very partisan board in very many ways. And it could definitely use some people on the opposite sides of most of the issues (who were brave enough to speak up) to challenge assumption and generally improve the overall rigor of the debates. Groupthink and universal agreement are the harbingers of intellectual laziness. I just don't see what injecting 'but what about issue X?' into a relatively unrelated thread actually does to further any meaningful debate.

Guess I should have put one of these on my original post. :D

Next time I'll make sure to include more Nerdpenises in my posts so everyone doesn't feel the need to take them so seriously.

So much for Gronan's wish that I not derail the thread!

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

I'm down with #1, that seems like a no brainer.  On #2, I think that might be true some of the time.  But I know sometimes my group jokes that we are at the table to roll some dice and have the GM tell us some shit.  I guess you could roughly define the "win condition" as have fun, but that feels a bit too fluffy.

Quote from: Voros;994315I also dig skirmish games, the 2e-D&D rules by Douglas Niles turned me on to them. Any recommendations? Or perhaps add them to the Wargames thread in Othergames that needs some love.

There's a nice group on FacepalmBook named "Solitaire Wargames" which is full of mini-reviews and pictures of solitaire wargames people like.

Quote from: Voros;994315I also dig skirmish games, the 2e-D&D rules by Douglas Niles turned me on to them. Any recommendations? Or perhaps add them to the Wargames thread in Othergames that needs some love.

Well, I've played two so far, and own maybe one more that I haven't read yet, all by Two-Hour Wargames (and am in the process of considering a few more). Don't you think it's a bit early for me to give recommendations:)?
I can only say I like the approach of Two-Hour Wargames to martial arts/boxing combat. Spot an opportunity, position yourself relative to the enemy, attack, deal damage, with or without special effects along the way (depending mostly on how you position yourself). Makes total sense to me, frankly;).

QuoteI noticed, I was just surprised to see anyone claim otherwise considering how strict some are about defining RPGs. And my post was in jest.

The Jest-O-Meter was broken, I think.

QuoteI prefer B/X and BECMI myself but like elements of 1e, 2e and 5e as well. Not even familiar enough with 3e or 4e to really comment on them but I don't really 'hate' a system I happen to dislike.

Well, other than popularizing the rollX+/-1keepX method of dealing with bonuses/penalties, which I've been familiar with for a decade, I don't know what makes 5e "everyone's second favourite edition" (other than "it's the current edition", of course). But that might be just me;).
 

Quote from: Skarg;994571There's a nice group on FacepalmBook named "Solitaire Wargames" which is full of mini-reviews and pictures of solitaire wargames people like.

I like the name FacepalmBook:D!
Are all skirmish games solitaire? Seriously asking, so far the overlap I've seen is 100%, but I kinda realize that three games don't make for an in-depth research;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;994590Are all skirmish games solitaire? Seriously asking, so far the overlap I've seen is 100%, but I kinda realize that three games don't make for an in-depth research;)!

No, I think most skirmish games are not solitaire, though almost anything can be played solitaire if someone wants to (...).

Skirmish itself isn't a very consistent term. Some people use it to mean games (or miniatures games) with a fairly small number of units/figures and a fairly small map. Others may mean the subject of the scenarios is actually about skirmishes. Others mean each unit represents one person. ...

Quote from: Dumarest;989377Q: 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.

Dawn Patrol is another good example, as is Carwars. Both can easy be played as a straight wargame fly / drive around and shoot stuff or fleshed out in play and be very RPG like. Even with the later expanded RPG rules Carwars is a rather weak RPG, but we managed to have a lot of fun playing several long running campaigns that sure felt like an RPG to me. I only have a passing familiarity with Dawn Patrol but understand it is very much the same kind of thing, with some playing it as single combats and others running extensive ongoing campaigns.

Also agree with part two, I'm far more worried about whether I'm having fun, than labeling games, but I do think it is an interesting question. Since RPGs are really nothing more than formalized rules for "lets pretend" I doubt there will be a satisfying definitive answer.

Quote from: Telarus;991814So, nobody want to comment on my idea?

- Wargames have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" that are either laid out in the rules, or decided and agreed upon by all players before hand.

- Roleplaying games have "win conditions" or "objective conditions" defined by the player-characters from within the situation.

I'm going to disagree with that. I've played wargames where the defined "win" conditions can be vague or at least debatable and RPGs where the "win" conditions were fairly well spelled out by the GM (destroy the widget or the world will be devoured by darkness (the players lose).

I would agree that wargames do tend to spell out "win" conditions, and RPGs don't. I don't like always and nevers, as the only thing you can count on is there are always exceptions and you can never list all of them. :)


On the wargame end I think it is worth pointing out that even with real world battles, win / lose is often not clear.

Quote from: Skarg;994599No, I think most skirmish games are not solitaire, though almost anything can be played solitaire if someone wants to (...).

Skirmish itself isn't a very consistent term. Some people use it to mean games (or miniatures games) with a fairly small number of units/figures and a fairly small map. Others may mean the subject of the scenarios is actually about skirmishes. Others mean each unit represents one person. ...

So what you're telling me is that it's the same terminology mess that we have in RPGs, right;)?

(Also, thank you for the answer. But it is so similar to the discussions what is and isn't an RPG, I couldn't avoid a smile!)

For me an RPG is a game in which you can choose any course of action you want but you don't get to choose if that action succeeds.

This excludes wargames, board games and CRPGs in that those games have a set list of actions you can take while in RPGs the sky is the limit, it also excludes improv acting and a lot of story games that either let you choose the result of your actions or so abstract your choices that your ability to choose to try to do whatever you want becomes meaningless.

You could make a wargame try to be like an RPG; you can make a storygame try to be like an RPG. But they'll both kind of suck at it.

Quote from: Toadmaster;994632Dawn Patrol is another good example, as is Carwars. Both can easy be played as a straight wargame fly / drive around and shoot stuff or fleshed out in play and be very RPG like. Even with the later expanded RPG rules Carwars is a rather weak RPG, but we managed to have a lot of fun playing several long running campaigns that sure felt like an RPG to me. I only have a passing familiarity with Dawn Patrol but understand it is very much the same kind of thing, with some playing it as single combats and others running extensive ongoing campaigns.

(One of, or I think the) very first world books for GURPS was Autoduel, for roleplaying in the Car Wars "universe". Or is that what you meant by "the later expanded RPG rules"?)

Quote from: Skarg;995415(One of, or I think the) very first world books for GURPS was Autoduel, for roleplaying in the Car Wars "universe". Or is that what you meant by "the later expanded RPG rules"?)

Autoduel was GURPS, CARWARS had RPG expansion rules years before GURPS existed. In addition to expanded rules providing skills and abilities, there was also a road atlas series providing details of the world of CARWARS and a number of published adventures that were much more than just arena duels.

Unfortunately Autoduel is actually one of the weakest GURPS books ever made, I found it very unsatisfying. They would have been much better off tying it directly to CARWARS integrating the CARWARS vehicle rules with GURPS instead of providing a very simplified vehicle system into GURPS (this was before GURPS Vehicles).

HERO System offered their own version a couple years before GURPS as well with Autoduel Champions. It also had issues, but was a far better effort than GURPS Autoduel.