Quote from: Madprofessor;883056However, I am worried about all of this jargon and vocabulary in principal because A) such arbitrary language creates paradigms that don't necessarily reflect reality and B) lots of people aren't privy or interested in this jargon, in which case the technical language serves as a barrier rather than a facilitator of communication.

I much prefer plain English, warts and all.

As do I.

In the end the idea of the RPG is simple, it is a game centered around a group people pretending to be characters interacting with some setting where their actions are adjudicated by the referee.

Do this over a number of sessions while keeping the same characters from session to session and you got a RPG campaign.

That what Dave Arneson invented and what Gary Gygax built on to create the first ever set of rules for running RPG campaigns.

All Strum and Drang is about how to make that fun and interesting.

The central problem is that it demand a fair, wise, and creative human referee to run the campaign. if the referee is weak in any of those area the campaign suffers.

Because people equate RPGs with the rules, the trend has been to try to fix this with better rules.

My view is that RPGs are NOT about the rules but about the campaign. That the only way to fix RPGs is to teach people how to be better referees. It doesn't matter what you do with the rules or how things are setup if the referee is incompetent.

Some have designed rules to share the responsibility of the referee among the entire group. My opinion that doesn't fix the central issue but just creates a bunch a different issues that has to be dealt.

Managing RPG campaigns has always had a element of team building but it can work with hostile players. People forget that RPG campaign, including the first Blackmoor, were run with players playing on opposing sides and actively competing against one another.

But by trying to share the referee authority it not just one person who has to be fair, wise, and creative but the group as a whole. A considerably more difficult challenge especially for a leisure activity.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056We could at least partially solve point B above by providing a glossary of "accurate" definitions (if such a glossary exists then I would love to see it).  However, whoever constructs such a glossary has immense (too much) power in defining our thought processes about gaming in general.

I think we haven't lost the ability to use plain english in these type of discussion.  

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056Obviously I have missed some very deep theory discussions somewhere, but the implication throughout this discussion is that Ron Edwards and the Forgites are the final authority on RPG vocabulary, and thus thought processes.

Ron Edwards and his crew were the first to put together the first comprehensive theory of RPG. The problem is that it just technobabble and has much relevance to actually running a RPG Campaign or creating products to support people running RPG campaigns as Star Trek physics has to do with running a space program.

Like the background Star Trek a lot of work has gone in to make Edwards' theory sound good. Also it is very consistent with itself much like Star Trek's background is largely consistent with

However like Star Trek in regards to the real life space program. There is little in Ron's theories that is of little use in actually creating a game or running a campaign. And what there is traditional advice on how a group can work together in pursuit of a goal with fancy and made up terms.

However like Star Trek inspires a lot of people to do thing with technology and space. Ron's theories have inspired a lot of people to create new and different games. The ones that are successful (like Fate for example) seem to succeed in spite of Ron's theories.

So I avoid using of any Ron's works or ideas in my own discussion on RPGs.

My view is that the "theory" of RPGs is best advanced by sharing experiences in the form of I had to deal with X or I wanted to do X, I did Y, and Z was the result. A novice referee then can learn from those accounts

The terminology is problematic and murky. A few alternatives:

Stake Resolution - Before you roll, negotiate what's at stake.

What's the opposite? Either the outcome is determined by the procedure used. When you succeed on Climb, there will be climbing. When you hit with a sword, it's d8 damage. Or it is unclear what is going to happen: Diplomacy and Knowledges in many games.


Scene Resolution - A single instance of the procedure will determine how the scene goes on.

What's the opposite? You roll, whenever certain predetermined actions are taken, like attacking is always a roll. Or you roll whenever it suits you (or the GM).

There is also the case of combat systems which are composed of many rolls.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883081I don't mean to thread-jack (if that's a term) but is there really such a shortage of good GMs out there, and if so, how does handing portions of GM power over to players who are likely less qualified to run the game improve the situation? Theoretically? Excuse my ignorance, I am new at this, a short answer will do.

I don't know if there's a shortage of good GMs but there's come to be a significant contingent of RPGers who approach gaming with the expectation of creating/experiencing a "story", with various amounts of baggage attached to the term. From an early date these expectations were met by published adventures and GMing advice that encouraged linear, pre planned sequences of scenes with various tricks to keep the players on track. In the 90s this style became so dominant that even when people rebelled against it, the question wasn't "why does the GM have a plot that they control" but "why don't we let everyone 'control the plot'"?

As for the second question, it's a matter of taste and expectations, and who you're playing with. At very least it can take a lot of work out of the GM's hands and be the basis for quick impromptu games. But my experience is, it's not the same as a traditional game with a good GM.

QuoteYet it is common knowledge that when they agree on the meaning on terms, communication is faster and less vulnerable to misunderstanding.

Uh, so this was fast and created less confusion? It is faster to communicate in common language than it is to make up a new vocabulary and ask everybody to use it.

QuoteThe whole reason of this thread's existence is that I had perfectly understood what Krueger did not like in Conan 2d20 (and I stress that he is not alone in not liking that kind of mechanics). Yet he conflated the part he dislikes with other stuff that has nothing to do with it. It took five pages to reach the conclusion of "Aaaaah, you meant that. It is not the same thing as this, which is what I do not want in my game."

So he misused your specialized language which caused the confusion.  You meant one thing by your jargon and he meant another.  Still, it's the Jargon that got in the way of communication.

QuoteWith a well-defined common language, we would have reached the same POV five pages earlier.

We have a well-defined common language that is capable of immense complexity: English.

Edwards' GNS jargon is not a common language, nor should it be.

QuoteAnd the discussion is not futile, because there are points that people legitimately question in that particular game. Their doubts cannot be dismissed as prejudice. Language helps a lot in this process.

I don't think the discussion is futile, and I agree that he had legitimate arguments.  You need language to communicate, I agree. Creating a new specialized vocabulary does not help though.  It makes communication more difficult as this thread has shown.

QuoteA common language helps identify these points earlier in the discussion, and focus on nailing down the facts, rather than discuss the wording.

As I said, we have a common language. You are not talking about a common language. You are talking about specialized jargon.

Does a specialized jargon help us "focus on nailing down the facts, rather than discussing the wording"? It seems like this entire thread is discussing language, not gaming.

Do we really need a set of jargon, "a common language" as you say?  I think that both Krueger and yourself have demonstrated that you can use the English language with excellent clarity and efficiency. After all, you used it to split hairs on these invented terms.  

Questions:

Who defines this specialized language?  Do we all have to agree to its definitions, precepts, and paradigms?   Is it okay to talk without the use of this specialized vocabulary?  What if my thoughts can't be accurately expressed using your terms?  Can you understand me if I don't use your language?

Among experts who share the understanding of a jargon, it can be very useful for expressing concisely what would otherwise take a lot of words.

In this case, however, the jargon seems usually not to do that, but instead to get people spending even more words debating what it ought to mean than it would take to specify any aspect that is of real practical utility.

Quote from: Arminius;883104At very least it can take a lot of work out of the GM's hands and be the basis for quick impromptu games. But my experience is, it's not the same as a traditional game with a good GM.

Agreed. It produces different experiences. And both are fun.

What is not fun is hearing the two camps' never ending claims that the experience provided by games designed the other way "is not true roleplaying".

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125We have a well-defined common language that is capable of immense complexity: English.

Do the meaning of the following terms have a meaning in plain English? And does that meaning equate the one we give them when discussing RPGs?

• class
• downtime
• hit point
• immersion
• level

....
[/LIST]

As you can see, there is no way to avoid "jargon" (I prefer technical terms). And they do help the discussion: imagine having to explain that we are not talking about scuba each time one makes a reference to "immersion".

QuoteI don't think the discussion is futile, and I agree that he had legitimate arguments.  You need language to communicate, I agree. Creating a new specialized vocabulary does not help though.  It makes communication more difficult as this thread has shown.

Only if the specialized language has been "loaded" with negativity, that is if the terms have not been used to explain the difference between two approaches/techniques but as the basis for a "UR FAVORITE GAME SUCKS" monologue. Which has happened rather frequently with GNS theories or derivatives (and with OSR in response).

QuoteWho defines this specialized language?  Do we all have to agree to its definitions, precepts, and paradigms?   Is it okay to talk without the use of this specialized vocabulary?  What if my thoughts can't be accurately expressed using your terms?  Can you understand me if I don't use your language?

The first question is the most important. It sounds to me that you accept everything that is not GNS-derived as "common language", even when it does not have the same meaning as it has in everyday English, and consider forgie terms as "jargon".

The problem is that historically the Forge is the source of many (but not all) of the terms we use at the moment. This is simply because they took the time to sit down and give definitions for the terms they used. Sometimes murky definitions, but at least definitions. As the Pundit stated in a thread on this forum, "If we do not give a definition of this, then Ron Edwards will", because Ron, being a damn taxonomist (like me ) has the habit of giving a precise definition of things ingrained in his brain.

If we do not want to use forgie terms, then someone has to provide alternate terms that are useful (and like it or not, forgie terms ARE useful, as Arminius pointed out) and are closer to common use. I see many terms becoming common (ex. associate/dissociate, introduced by Justin Alexander, I find particularly useful) that do not come from the Forge.

As for being able to talk without using a specialized vocabulary... yes, no problem. The only point is when you use a "specific" term and attribute a meaning to it that is different than what the theory says. One common example is "Narrativism", which has a clear, unambiguous meaning in GNS but is used with a gazillion other implications (usually "games that I do not like" ) by people who do not have the faintest idea of what "Story now" means.

Edit: I have just seen on the other thread that someone labeled Chris Lites' answer as using "forge terms". I cannot spot anything but plain English in his replies: no jargon at all! Yet he elicited a negative response.

Do we need any more proof that the problem is not that the terms are "technical", but it is that the terms are "loaded" by the baggage of 10+ years of stupid polemics and flame wars?

{taps mic} is this thing still on? I thought theory moved past this Conflict vs Task resolution thing (let alone GNS) decades ago. Why are folks so stuck on this? Even The Forgites moved beyond these theories, yet here we are arguing about the same old shit again.

Like most RPG theory, Conflict Resolution emerged out of the mismatch of expectations. The central idea was simple: a player should get what they intended on a 'successful' result. Now in Task Resolution, cause and effect are hard coded and known before the action is taken: Hit With Weapon → Do Damage. Pick Lock → Open Safe. Problem was this didn't help participants communicate expectations in cases where things weren't covered by the rules.

With Conflict Resolution, the player doesn't just declare their action, but also the cause and effect. Hit Target → Impress Princess because. Forge Signature → Get Past Border because. Problem is this chain of events can be infinitely subdivided and extended forever in either direction, leaving the decision of where/when to roll somewhat arbitrary, and you can end up achieving the result you wanted yet not in the way you expected, so what exactly is the roll determining?

Now games like Apocalypse World draw the line of uncertainty right between the causes and effects most interesting and relevant to the themes and setting. Make Move → Trigger Result. There is no ambiguity, the stakes are hard coded, and negotiation is unnecessary once you know which move is being made. So it's technically Task Resolution, yet that term seems somehow ill suited here. Luckily Vincent has his own design language for this kinda thing, which surprisingly nobody argues about.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056It is remarkable to me how the industry has become filled with technical jargon.

Most of this jargon came out decades ago and is becoming less defined and more dogmatic with each passing year.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056However, I am worried about all of this jargon and vocabulary in principal because A) such arbitrary language creates paradigms that don't necessarily reflect reality and B) lots of people aren't privy or interested in this jargon, in which case the technical language serves as a barrier rather than a facilitator of communication.

Jargon can be used to communicate concepts more efficiently and accurately (which numerous technical industries do), or it can be used to warp the perception of reality in ways that match cultural touchstones to keep the undesired out (which numerous sociopolitical groups do). Sadly tabletop RPGs apparently have more in common with sociopolitical groups than technical industries.

The Forge was one of the few forums which attempted to treat the field as a technical one, and for that I give them props regardless of how successful they ultimately were.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056However, whoever constructs such a glossary has immense (too much) power in defining our thought processes about gaming in general.

If we have to use someone's specific and invented vocabulary in order to discuss a rules concept and its interaction with playstyle then the PoV of the person or group that crafted the vocabulary will dominate all conversations.

Definitions are not mind control. We still get to decide which words we used to describe things (at least so far). The problem is people fighting over word definitions instead of engaging with their meaning, and that's not vocabulary's fault.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056I see this happening all over these forums. This thread is a perfect example.  CRKrueger was trying to make a point about the interaction of the mechanics of the new 2d20 Conan game with the setting, but he had to create this separate discussion and define terms for 5 pages just to talk about it.

That thread was a trap from the start, covered in the pretense of unbiased discussion but designed to attack a specific mechanic. And CRKrueger was not using jargon to elucidate but to obfuscate.

Quote from: CRKrueger;880783if there is no difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution... Why do they need different names?

You don't need different names to discuss the conceptual difference between TR and CR, and both terms are ridiculously unclear and should have dies out ages ago. I see this same outlandish thinking in computer science too, where some people insist that class, type, kind, and sort (which only escapes use as a noun because it's already in use as a verb) must have meaningful differences just because they exist.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056Obviously I have missed some very deep theory discussions somewhere, but the implication throughout this discussion is that Ron Edwards and the Forgites are the final authority on RPG vocabulary, and thus thought processes.  No offense to anyone on this discussion, but to an outsider trying to understand what is going on, the whole thing smacks of thought police trying to push their design agendas by defining RPG design language and forcing others to discuss games on their terms.

The irony is that despite being the antithesis of The Forge, this site has just as much of an agenda and is the only one left on the entire internet where these theories are discussed in any significant way.

Quote from: estar;883096I think we haven't lost the ability to use plain english in these type of discussion.

One man's plain English is another man's WTF. And I don't think most gamers realize how much jargon they already use which looks like complete moonspeak to outsiders.

Quote from: estar;883096Ron Edwards and his crew were the first to put together the first comprehensive theory of RPG. The problem is that it just technobabble and has much relevance to actually running a RPG Campaign or creating products to support people running RPG campaigns as Star Trek physics has to do with running a space program.

All the products that met player needs and players finally able to point out why they weren't having fun say otherwise. Sadly though, no crew has put together the next comprehensive theory of RPG, because I'm going to have tremendous fun pointing out how their models are based on or already exist on The Forge

Quote from: estar;883096Ron's theories have inspired a lot of people to create new and different games. The ones that are successful (like Fate for example) seem to succeed in spite of Ron's theories.

Well that's a strange exception to make. How so?

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125So he misused your specialized language which caused the confusion.  You meant one thing by your jargon and he meant another.  Still, it's the Jargon that got in the way of communication.

No, it was CRKrueger, using jargon to obfuscate and misdirect instead of clarify. And he knew damn well that the conflict resolution James was talking about was not the Forge definition.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125It makes communication more difficult as this thread has shown.

No, it's the unwillingness to reach consensus on what words mean because someone thinks it's some sort of contest to be won.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125We have a well-defined common language that is capable of immense complexity: English.

Define 'well-defined', preferably in English.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125I think that both Krueger and yourself have demonstrated that you can use the English language with excellent clarity and efficiency.

I'll grant you that clear English is vastly underused in these discussions. Then again, clear jargon is vastly underused in these discussions. The issue is clarity though, not vocabulary.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125Creating a new specialized vocabulary does not help though.

Apparently all the scientists, engineers, mathematicians, programmers, and medical doctors who rely on specialized vocabulary didn't get the memo (or if they did it wasn't written with the right jargon).

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125Who defines this specialized language?

Who cares, as long as it's consistent and not exclusive?

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125Do we all have to agree to its definitions, precepts, and paradigms?

How can we have a meaningful discussion otherwise?

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125Is it okay to talk without the use of this specialized vocabulary?

Sure, as long as people aren't deliberately using it to establish tribal bounds and status.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125What if my thoughts can't be accurately expressed using your terms?

Then use different words. Better to have new words than shoehorn new meanings onto existing ones.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883125Can you understand me if I don't use your language?

Yes, but are they willing to understand you if you don't use their language?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883242Jargon can be used to communicate concepts more efficiently and accurately (which numerous technical industries do), or it can be used to warp the perception of reality in ways that match cultural touchstones to keep the undesired out (which numerous sociopolitical groups do). Sadly tabletop RPGs apparently have more in common with sociopolitical groups than technical industries.

Well said.

And it isn't an either or. Members of technical industries also use knowledge of jargon as a proxy for assessing education, training, certification, experience, and apprenticeship.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883242The Forge was one of the few forums which attempted to treat the field as a technical one, and for that I give them props regardless of how successful they ultimately were.

Except that Forge Theory is disconnected from how RPG Campaigns are played and managed. The main issue is that people preferences in terms of RPG Campaigns are much more nuanced than Forge theory makes it out to be. The reason for this that the life inside of a RPG Campaign mimics of that of real life. The players and referee use the same processes they do in real life to evaluate, plan, and act within the setting of the campaign. No campaign is rarely about just one thing.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883242One man's plain English is another man's WTF. And I don't think most gamers realize how much jargon they already use which looks like complete moonspeak to outsiders.

I think what outsiders have a problem with is the idea you can simulate a life of adventure with pen & paper. Let's Pretend is considered a childhood game for a good reason as the lack of challenge quickly causes an individual lose interest as they grow older.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883242All the products that met player needs and players finally able to point out why they weren't having fun say otherwise. Sadly though, no crew has put together the next comprehensive theory of RPG, because I'm going to have tremendous fun pointing out how their models are based on or already exist on The Forge

My comprehensive theory on RPG is that there isn't one because RPGs are fundamentally about a group of people cooperating with other to bring alive a virtual reality. In the real world there is no theory about how to get people to cooperate with each other. There is are a series of best practices and and examples that a person can draw on to adapt for their own circumstances.

The same with RPGs, the best we can do is document best practices. What happened, why was it done in the first place, what actions where taken, and what were the positive outcomes, and what were the negative outcome.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883242Well that's a strange exception to make. How so?

Fate succeeds not because it is a RPG focused on the narrative. Because it has a simple game engine that can be used as is or expanded to make a RPG with detailed mechanics. For example the Fate Fractal, the idea that anything you want to detail in your campaign can be represented as a Fate Character which can be comprised of Fate Characters.

IT has a designer who skilled at creating a community around the game. It under the Open Game Licensed backed by a company who encourages participation. It has a wide variety of easily learned setting that are unique. Plus a handful of detailed settings. All of them using the same game.

Fate is basically a Fudge RPG done for the most part right. Also Fate is a Generic Universal RPG that is actually comprehensible to the average gamer.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883242Like most RPG theory, Conflict Resolution emerged out of the mismatch of expectations.

I call bullshit.

Dungeon Masters were creative and unique in their approaches to the game. What happened is some people liked one style better than another, gave it a name, made it make sense by unrealistically pigeonholing what everyone else was doing, then making up "mismatch of expectations" as the bullshit reason to justify why it was a superior approach.

QuoteThe central idea was simple: a player should get what they intended on a 'successful' result. Now in Task Resolution, cause and effect are hard coded and known before the action is taken: Hit With Weapon → Do Damage. Pick Lock → Open Safe.

The central idea is broken. A shaman can be very successful at doing a rain dance. It still does nothing to bring the intended rain.

Ironically, the very reason why this central idea is broken invalidates your characterization of Task Resolution. The effect is not known before the action is taken. Sure. Some effects are common, expected, and even standard. But you don't actually know until you try.

QuoteProblem was this didn't help participants communicate expectations in cases where things weren't covered by the rules.

I'm not sure this statement actually means anything. Why is communicating expectations important? What's wrong with a player having his character open a chest expecting it to be full of treasure and not trapped only to end up being wrong? It seems to me that's part of the game.

And what does it matter whether something is or isn't "covered by the rules." Where is it carved in stone that players need to know all of the rules in the first place? Do you hold a written exam before a new player can earn a seat at the table? Are veteran players rendered mute and incapable of communicating just because they haven't committed the DMs guide to memory?

QuoteWith Conflict Resolution, the player doesn't just declare their action, but also the cause and effect.

Traditional gaming: "I jab at the orc with my pike to hold him at bay."

Explain how what you're describing was ever anything new in RPGs without mischaracterizing what gaming was like before high-minded jargon came along.

QuoteAll the products that met player needs and players finally able to point out why they weren't having fun say otherwise.

Were they finally able to point out why they weren't having fun? Or did they just think they were? Because I've seen nothing but misdiagnosis after misdiagnosis.

QuoteSadly though, no crew has put together the next comprehensive theory of RPG, because I'm going to have tremendous fun pointing out how their models are based on or already exist on The Forge

Really? I've been running a pretty simple one. Situation, Action, Resolution. Of course, it's not RPG specific. That describes everything. Action consists of means and ends, where the ends is a state preferable to that of the current situation. Resolution applies the laws of nature to the concrete means chosen to produce the new situation.

In a game, the resolution replaces the laws of nature with the rules of the game. The rules are important for coordinating multiple participants, for they all share a common "situation" space, despite their different desired ends. So resolution takes the various means as input and creates a single outcome. There are two levels to a game. In-Game and Out-Of-Game. An injured player in a sport is an example of how something out-of-game can effect the game itself.

In a role-playing game is simply identifying that the characters portrayed are portrayed as themselves living, breathing beings who also follow the situation-action-resolution paradigm. So in the RPG there are three levels of play going on. In-Character, Out-of-Character (but in-game), and out-of-game (things like Billy not showing up to play this week because he has to visit his aunt in the hospital).

And that's all there is to it. The in-character level is the bread-and-butter of RPGs. It's not all there is. The other two levels exist regardless. But it is what defines an RPG as separate from other types of games.

In this view, the traditional GM is equal parts master and servant. Master in the sense that he makes a disproportionate number of out-of-character choices. Servant in the sense that he takes on all those burdens to enable players to focus on in-character play.

QuoteApparently all the scientists, engineers, mathematicians, programmers, and medical doctors who rely on specialized vocabulary didn't get the memo (or if they did it wasn't written with the right jargon).

When Nassim Taleb wrote in plain English, he was criticized. He then re-wrote the same things in formalized mathematics. He was then declared to be brilliant. Either way, he learned to tell when someone has read his work and when they have not. He began writing titles to his chapters that had nothing to do with the chapter itself because he knew reviewers were just reading the chapter titles and making up what they thought the chapter was about.

What he learned from his experience in publishing is that plain English is actually something more people will read and gain a better understanding. Jargon, people praised him because mathematicians don't want to admit they can't read their own language. So they couldn't criticize him otherwise they'd be discovered to have not understood formalized writing.

Just because technical vocations use jargon is not evidence that jargon is a more effective way of communicating highly technical information. Even there, the main point still seems to be to keep out laypersons and make the profession itself seem more important and untouchable than it really is.

I do not wish to engage in a lengthy debate about the usefulness of CR: everyone is free to think whatever he or she wishes about game theories. I avoided the thread JHKim linked for this reason. This thread was about which attributes were inherent to CR and which were simply "more liked by CR advocates and thus more widespread in games that use Conflict Resolution", instead.

However, I have one single, punctual comment to make:

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265And what does it matter whether something is or isn't "covered by the rules." Where is it carved in stone that players need to know all of the rules in the first place?

Personally, I work under the general assumption that in any game (not just RPGs) players are supposed to know the rules and use them to regulate their gaming. A "players need not know all the rules" statement would certainly elicit hilarity in a chess or monopoly forum. I am still wondering to see why it should be regarded as something normal in a RPG forum .

Quote from: RosenMcStern;883270Personally, I work under the general assumption that in any game (not just RPGs) players are supposed to know the rules and use them to regulate their gaming. A "players need not know all the rules" statement would certainly elicit hilarity in a chess or monopoly forum. I am still wondering to see why it should be regarded as something normal in a RPG forum .

Because the focus of RPGs is the campaign not the game. The game is just one tool to help the referee decide the result of something the players want to do as their character. The referee can decide the result of the action on the basis of other factors other than the rules.

This demonstrated by the fact that in the development of RPGs it was campaign, Blackmoor, that came first not the game.

Without the campaign an RPG is just a wargame/boardgame about individual characters.

The clearest example is the difference between Metagaming's Melee/Wizard and The Fantasy Trip. The two use nearly identical rules, but Melee/Wizard are presented and sold as wargames while The Fantasy Trip is presented and sold as a tabletop roleplaying game.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;883270Personally, I work under the general assumption that in any game (not just RPGs) players are supposed to know the rules and use them to regulate their gaming. A "players need not know all the rules" statement would certainly elicit hilarity in a chess or monopoly forum.

Neither chess nor Monopoly use a GM as the interface between the players and the setting. Because there is a GM, the player may not need not know the rules because they can tell the GM what they are attempting and allow the GM to select or create an appropriate game rule to resolve any uncertainty about the outcome.

Chess and Monopoly, like most (all?) board games, have a narrow and well-defined scope of play. A player in chess cannot decide to have his pawns try to build a trebuchet to hurl captured enemy pawns at the opposing king even though this was something that happened in actual warfare, because chess is not supposed to model actual warfare. And the building of artillery or the hurling of 'dead' pawns is not allowed in the rules. In Monopoly one cannot decide to have the Flat Iron crush the Dog's skull and loot his player's Monopoly money and holdings nor can one build a new railway line to try and break up the monopoly of the existing rail line cards.

Aside from a few niche products, RPGs do not have a narrow nor a well-defined scope. The GM must adjudicate attempts by creative players to build trebuchets, rob the rich, or attempt to break up monopolies based on fairness, common sense, subject matter and historical knowledge, and any existing rules.

I am wondering why anyone on an RPG forum would be confused about these obvious differences between an RPG and chess or Monopoly.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;883270Personally, I work under the general assumption that in any game (not just RPGs) players are supposed to know the rules and use them to regulate their gaming. A "players need not know all the rules" statement would certainly elicit hilarity in a chess or monopoly forum. I am still wondering to see why it should be regarded as something normal in a RPG forum .

Well, how about Magic: The Gathering? The individual cards contain rules text. And not only that, but they supersede the rules in the rule book. If you are not aware of the cards in your opponent's deck, you don't know all the rules for that particular match. If you are not aware of the existence of certain cards, you don't know all of the rules for the game in general.

How about computer games? Or even CRPGs in particular? You don't need to see the code to be able to play the game. You don't know the exact rules by which everything reacts. You can figure a lot of them out over time, but knowing the rules is NOT a per-requesite to playing the game.

RPGs are not unique in this regard.

Quote from: Anon AdderlanWith Conflict Resolution, the player doesn't just declare their action, but also the cause and effect.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265Traditional gaming: "I jab at the orc with my pike to hold him at bay."

Explain how what you're describing was ever anything new in RPGs without mischaracterizing what gaming was like before high-minded jargon came along.

I'm not speaking for Anon, but I can speak to what I see as differences between D&D and, say, Trollbabe or Dogs in the Vineyard.

In D&D, I can state what I want when I try an action - but the statement of intent isn't connected to the mechanics. A good DM will often take intent into account, but still, whether you succeed or fail is often based on a GM judgement call - not the die roll per se.

For example, if you jab at the orc with your pike to hold him at bay, there are many possible results:

1) The orc is wounded and stays back
2) The orc is wounded but pushes ahead anyway
3) The orc isn't hurt but backs away
4) The orc dodges the spear and gets past

For example, as DM, I might make a ruling that you can roll a regular hit - and if you hit then the orc has to either back up or take damage (maybe with some bonus damage). However, whether the orc takes the damage or backs up is my call as DM. (So it's either #2 or #3.)

Alternately, I might say that to first make a hit roll to get in the way. If you hit, then I might say make a check against Strength to hold him back with the hit.


In Tb/DitV, you would declare your intent, and then begin rolling off against dice that are determined by me. There is a known procedure for the roll-off, and if you succeed, then the orc is definitely held back - and if you don't then the orc gets through. However, whether he is wounded or not isn't covered by the mechanics (probably).


I don't actually like the required declaration of intent / goals, because often characters have multiple and/or complicated intent in a fight. Often, in a fight, my intent might be something like "I want to hold the orc back, unless it seems like everyone else is getting overwhelmed, in which case I'll let him through and try to hit him in the back". Further, priorities might shift during the fight - like if I see my buddy get killed, then maybe I change my mind and my only priority is getting revenge.

Tb/DitV have problems with changing intent partway through a conflict - requiring the GM to make alternate rulings.