Eh. The OP is describing the most popular current trend, but it's certainly not the only way to do an RPG.  There are systems out there (original Deadlands, 2d20, Paranoia) that emphasize a gambling/bidding/risk taking aspects to the rules themselves that is their specifically to remind the players that they are playing a game.  There are certainly more ways to look at rules than mere vehicles to carry players along through a setting- though they should be at LEAST that.

Quote from: Agkistro;889480Eh. The OP is describing the most popular current trend, but it's certainly not the only way to do an RPG.

It is actually the only way to "do" an RPG. The fact it is centered around a campaign where the players interact with a setting as their characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee is what distinguish the fact you are playing an RPG from a wargame focused on individual characters.

In short if you not doing the above then you are playing some other type of game not an RPG.

Quote from: Agkistro;889480There are systems out there (original Deadlands, 2d20, Paranoia) that emphasize a gambling/bidding/risk taking aspects to the rules themselves that is their specifically to remind the players that they are playing a game.

Rules are tools used by the referee to adjudicate the consequences of the player's action. They can be designed in a such a way to complement the feel of the genre or setting. The mechanics of Deadland (playing cards) and Paranoia are good examples of RPGs with mechanics designed to evoke the feel of their respective settings.

As for 2d20 it mechanic attempts to emulate risk taking and grittiness and which is probably why Modiphus picked the settings it has released products for. (Conan, John Carter, Acthung! Cthulu, etc).

I consider 2d20 to be of borderline quality compared to Deadlands and Paranoia because it goes too far in requiring the players to think in terms of manipulating game mechanics rather than focusing on roleplaying their characters.

I find a similar problem afflict most games who classified themselves as storygames. To focused on their respective "cute' mechanics which distract from collaborating on creating a story as a group.

 

Quote from: Agkistro;889480There are certainly more ways to look at rules than mere vehicles to carry players along through a setting- though they should be at LEAST that.

You not getting the point of my OP then. You are putting the rules first which is not how it works in RPGs.

For example
You are the referee, I am a medieval fighter, I see an guard in a 10' by 10' room with a treasure chest I want.

I could say

"I am going to swing at the guard with my broadsword."
"I am going to run away."
"I say to the Guard." "Hey! Can i have that chest?"
"I run up to the guard and tackle him."
"I run up to the guard and kick him in the nads."
"I pull out a flask oil and throw it at him."
"I start to do a funny song and dance."
"I shout, Hey! You hear the one about the priest, the rabbi, and the reverend?"

Each system you mentioned along with other RPGs offers a different set of tools for you to use as a referee to adjudicate each of these. Some of the above you won't consider using a rule because the outcome is clear in your mind based on your notes or the circumstances of the encounters.  You have personal preferences and favorites among the different ways to adjudicate the above.

But the one constant is that I described what I do as my character and then you decide how to adjudicate it. And doing this in the context of larger campaign focused on players playing the same individual characters from session to session.

This is fundamental to RPGs and the thing that sets them apart from their progenitors and still sets them apart from other types of games.

Estar, the fundamental to a RPG is acting as a character in an imaginary world, with rules to help people adjudicate things when necessary.

"keeping the same characters in the context of larger campaigns" is not fundamental at all. One-shots, troupe-based games, freeform scenarios and other styles are proof of this. In fact, the concept of a "campaign" is totally optional to the activity of role-playing: I can play one-shots forever and I would still be playing RPGs.

Quote from: estar;889501In short if you not doing the above then you are playing some other type of game not an RPG.

Yes, an RPG has to be minimally doing the above, but various RPGs have mechanics that do more than that, too.  

QuoteRules are tools used by the referee to adjudicate the consequences of the player's action.

But that's not always ALL they do.  The Dark Symmetry/Doom system in 2d20 doesn't exist primarily for this. You could adjudicate the consequences of player's actions just fine without that mechanic at all.

QuoteThe mechanics of Deadland (playing cards)

I'm not speaking just of the fact that Deadlands uses playing cards, I'm speaking of the fact that there are times you hide your cards, times you reveal them, and chip-bidding wars you can get into with the players and GM as I recall.  Does it evoke the setting? Sure, but there are plenty of ways to do that.  Another thing it accomplishes is emphasizing the 'G' in RPG.

QuoteAs for 2d20 it mechanic attempts to emulate risk taking and grittiness and which is probably why Modiphus picked the settings it has released products for. (Conan, John Carter, Acthung! Cthulu, etc).

You can declare that if you want to, but what the writers of that rules system have actually said is that these mechanics exist to bring back the idea that an RPG is a *game*, and not a mere simulation. They desire their system to have a competitive/strategic element on the meta level: "Should I take these bonus dice that can hurt me later"?

QuoteI consider 2d20 to be of borderline quality compared to Deadlands and Paranoia.

I don't care.  It's a role-playing game.

QuoteBut the one constant is that I described what I do as my character and then you decide how to adjudicate it. And doing this in the context of larger campaign focused on players playing the same individual characters from session to session.

This is fundamental to RPGs and the thing that sets them apart from their progenitors and still sets them apart from other types of games.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with your insistance that this is the only thing game mechanics are allowed to accomplish.

An RPG can absolutely have rules that exist to be played as games in themselves, and not just to efficiently adjudicate outcomes.  I've given examples.

EDIT: Another really obvious example would be limited spell casts in D&D.   What the hell does that simulate or adjudicate?  The fact that wizards in their  setting get tired after a couple fireballs?  It's their setting; they didn't have to make it that way.   The reality is,  limited spell casts do two things:

1.) Create gameplay where the wizard has to decide when to use their spells and when not to, and
2.) Balance wizards against things that aren't wizards.

Neither of those are 'determining the outcome of a player's declared actions' concerns.  They are game concerns.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560Yes, an RPG has to be minimally doing the above, but various RPGs have mechanics that do more than that, too.

Many RPGs have support for referee preparing or managing the campaign. But they are not rules in the sense of "What I need to do to see if I hit the orc." Or "What happens when I do a funny song and dance." They are tools with a different scope than  adjudicating what the player are trying to do as their characters.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560But that's not always ALL they do.  The Dark Symmetry/Doom system in 2d20 doesn't exist primarily for this. You could adjudicate the consequences of player's actions just fine without that mechanic at all.

My view is Dark Symmetry/Doom is a mechanic that meant to help the referee manage the campaign. By imparting a specific feel to the campaign as the group adventures. The problem I have with it is that is a distraction to the players who wind up thinking out of game how to manipulate it rather than focusing on what they would be doing as their characters given the circumstances. The referee would be better off learning on how to better respond to the what the players do to make the campaign feel like how he wants it to feel. In this case how to make the campaign feel like it is in Howard's Hyboria.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560I'm not speaking just of the fact that Deadlands uses playing cards, I'm speaking of the fact that there are times you hide your cards, times you reveal them, and chip-bidding wars you can get into with the players and GM as I recall.  Does it evoke the setting? Sure, but there are plenty of ways to do that.  Another thing it accomplishes is emphasizing the 'G' in RPG.

I am aware of that. Again it about the referee managing the campaign to impart a specific feel.

In the Society of Creative Anachronism, medieval renactment, they have a term "being in period". Mechanics are a poor tool to impart the feeling being "in period" to a campaign oriented to a specific setting or genre. A referee is better off learning how to do it by tailoring the consquences to what the players attempt to do. This allows bring the full force of his creativity to tailor the campaign for his players.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560You can declare that if you want to, but what the writers of that rules system have actually said is that these mechanics exist to bring back the idea that an RPG is a *game*, and not a mere simulation. They desire their system to have a competitive/strategic element on the meta level: "Should I take these bonus dice that can hurt me later"?

I disagree. When these mechanics are promoted it all about how it makes for a more authentic experience. Read the Conan Kickstarter thread and the rationale for Doom. It about imparting the sense that you are in a Conan story.

But let's suppose you are right that the designers are about putting the game back into RPG. Then they are missing the point of what a RPG is. They would be better off orienting their idea as a war/boardgame.
There are several excellent Call of Cthulu boardgames that have the player play individual characters but don't try to be RPGs.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560I don't care.  It's a role-playing game.

Yes 2d20 is a RPG, it just has some mechanics that are a poor fit for what it trying to do and distract from it being a RPG.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with your insistance that this is the only thing game mechanics are allowed to accomplish.

In a tabletop RPGs mechanics are a tool. And there are three things they do well and complement the purpose of playing tabletop RPG.

1) They help adjudicate the action of the players as their character in a consistent manner. For example Harnmaster Combat rule.
2) They help the referee prepare his campaign. For example Traveller Subsector generator, the Fate Fractal.
3) They help the referee manage his campaign. For example random encounters.


IN the OP I said that the purpose of RPG is to experience a campaign not to play a set of rules. The rules are tools, and as tools I judge them on the basis of whether help the players and the referee have a better campaign.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560An RPG can absolutely have rules that exist to be played as games in themselves, and not just to efficiently adjudicate outcomes.  I've given examples.

If the campaing is run to play the game then the players are wargaming not roleplaying. The difference between how Arneson ran his Napoleanic campaign and his Blackmoor campaign that the Napoleanic campaign was used to generate to a series of miniature wargame scenario in the context of a larger grand strategy game. Blackmoor in contrast the point was to play one's character within in the Blackmoor setting. Blackmoor happened to have a lot of miniature wargaming but it was a consquence of the player having their character organize armies or lead troop in pursuit of their individual goals.

It is a blurry line, sure it was blurry. My impression from reading the various accounts and having experience what my friends and I did in our neck of the wood if you were there it was all just a mashed up mess of people trying to do what fun. It wasn't really clear that a roleplaying game developing until the Blackmoor dungeon became popular. Even then what it looked like is a bunch of characters abandoning what they were doing as military leaders in favor of trying to loot the various level of Blackmoor. In fact several of the bad guys players took advantage of this and sacked Castle Blackmoor causing all the good guy players to be exiled to Glendower.

But the thing regardless of whether they were trying to roleplay or wargame, the attitude was the idea first the rules second. For example Arneson's Napoleanic campaign was kitbashed out of Diplomacy, miniature wargaming and his own original rules.

My point in stressing this is that when it comes to tabletop roleplaying if you want a better experience then think of an insteresting campaign first, and then assemble the rules that best enabled it to be played. If you go with the rule first and try to make the campaign from that then you will have as good of a time.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560EDIT: Another really obvious example would be limited spell casts in D&D.   What the hell does that simulate or adjudicate?

It magic, it works how the referee says it work. There no real life example to contradict how the referee sets up magic to work in his campaign like there is for the difference between a 8 inch smoothbore cannon and a 12 inch rifled cannon.




 

Quote from: Agkistro;889560The fact that wizards in their  setting get tired after a couple fireballs?  It's their setting; they didn't have to make it that way.

 No they didn't, but the fact you don't like it is OK. That your personal preference at work which is fine. Note when I said that an RPG is about players interacting with a setting as their characters with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. I didn't qualify any of that. What setting do you play? How do you adjudicate? What characters do you play? All of that is personal peferences. The only right answer is the one that feel right for you and what your group agrees on.
 
 Note I don't even qualify the interacting as needing to be realistic. A Toon Campaign works just as well as a angst ridden Vampire campaign in this regard.
 
 I come down hard on mechanics like Doom, Fate Points because that distracts players from interacting wiht setting. Instead they are thinking about how to manipulate the game.
 
 

Quote from: Agkistro;889560The reality is,  limited spell casts do two things:

1.) Create gameplay where the wizard has to decide when to use their spells and when not to, and
2.) Balance wizards against things that aren't wizards.

Or they reflect the view of the referee, in this case Gygax, how magic ought to work which doesn't work with your view. Which is why D&D didn't remain the only RPG ever made. Dozens thought Gygax was stupid for designing the RPG the way did and came out with their own version. And the hobby benefited enormously.

Quote from: Agkistro;889560Neither of those are 'determining the outcome of a player's declared actions' concerns.  They are game concerns.

I make a character named Mezzo the Magnificant.

"Hey Gary, so Mezzo is the son of moderately properous merchant in the City of Greyhawk. He wants to be a wizard. How do I go about it?".

Gary tells me

"Well Rob, your character needs to get a spellbook. Since you are starting at best you can cast one first level spell a day. After which you need to sleep and in the morning relearn the spell from the spellbook. However to get a spell in the spellbook in the first place you need to find an existing spellbook or magical scroll with the spell in it. Then you can copy it for X gold pieces. Or you can spend some time and more gold pieces to do magical research and create the spell yourself to go into your spellbook. If you don't have your spellbook in the morning then you can't re-learn the spell."

So I want to interact with Gary's Setting as Mezzo by learning how to be a wizard. Gary adjudicated it by describing how magic worked in in-game terms. He also has formatted the above as a concise set of rules to use as a reference during the campaign.

RPGs are unlike any game ever made. Their focus is completely different. Which is why I wrote the OP.

Quote from: estar;889627Many RPGs have support for referee preparing or managing the campaign. But they are not rules in the sense of "What I need to do to see if I hit the orc." Or "What happens when I do a funny song and dance."

So rules that don't do what you say all RPG rules should do don't count as rules?  I guess that makes you right!

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure the way the rest of us define 'rule', these things that are in the corebook that involve numbers and rolling dice that you are obligated (as much as to any mechanic) to perform are, indeed, rules.

QuoteThe problem I have with it is that is a distraction to the players who wind up thinking out of game how to manipulate it rather than focusing on what they would be doing as their characters given the circumstances.

Yeah, I can definitely see why you'd have a problem with it given what you've said about the purpose of rules in an RPG. And you're not the only one.  Nevertheless, systems like that do exist and they are part of RPG rules.  That was my only point- not all RPGs do it the way you advocate.

QuoteBut let's suppose you are right that the designers are about putting the game back into RPG. Then they are missing the point of what a RPG is.

As defined by you? Yeah, apparently.  But that doesn't change the fact that, as defined by you, plenty of RPGs have been 'missing the point of what an RPG' is practically since the beginning of the industry.

QuoteThey would be better off orienting their idea as a war/boardgame.

Based on what? The fact that they aren't doing it the way you would do it if you were in charge? Who cares?  Based on the fact that their game won't be as fun if they don't do it your way? Who says?

QuoteIN the OP I said that the purpose of RPG is to experience a campaign not to play a set of rules.

Yeah, and you were wrong about that.  It may be the most popular purpose of an RPG these days, or it may be a core element, but it's certainly not the only purpose of every RPG on the market.

QuoteIt magic, it works how the referee says it work. There no real life example to contradict how the referee sets up magic to work in his campaign like there is for the difference between a 8 inch smoothbore cannon and a 12 inch rifled cannon.

Don't dodge my point please.  Yes, the designers of D&D could have made magic work however they wanted- they could have had wizard get unlimited casts of their spells, in the same way that a warrior gets unlimited swings of his sword.  But they didn't, and the REASON why they didn't, is twofold:

1.) To balance the game, and
2.) To give wizards interesting gameplay choices to make in the form of resource conservation.

These are explicitly not 'to adjudicate decision making and experience a campaign' based reasons- and we are talking about the very foundation of role playing games here.
 

QuoteNo they didn't, but the fact you don't like it is OK.

Who said I didn't like it? What are you talking about?

QuoteOr they reflect the view of the referee, in this case Gygax, how magic ought to work which doesn't work with your view.

Now you're just deliberately avoiding acknowledging the point I've made.

Limited spell casts exist precisely for the reasons you said rules in RPGs should not exist.  Face it.

QuoteDozens thought Gygax was stupid for designing the RPG the way did and came out with their own version. And the hobby benefited enormously.

Remember all that stuff you just got done saying about how me not liking something is ok, and your personal preferences are nothing more than that? it actually didn't apply to anything I said, but it applies perfectly here.  

I actually don't really care what you think about Gygax as a game designer.  The fact remains that RPG rules for the sake of enhanced gameplay and NOT adjudication or campaign-experience have existed from the start, and limited spellcasts in D&D are a prime example.

QuoteSo I want to interact with Gary's Setting as Mezzo by learning how to be a wizard. Gary adjudicated it by describing how magic worked in in-game terms. He also has formatted the above as a concise set of rules to use as a reference during the campaign.

Except that you and I both know full well that the reason a level one wizard gets 1 first level spell per day is to balance them against 1st level fighters and to force them to make interesting gameplay choices about when to spend their resources.  If you're going to sit there and tell me that Gygax envisioned a universe in which people advanced through 'levels' and in which 'low level' magical people could only use their discrete list of magical abilities a fixed number of times, and then set about coming up with rules to describe it, then we should stop because I don't trust you to be arguing in good faith anymore.  Limited spellcasts is to create GAME balance and resource management GAME choices.  Xp and level progression are to create GAME progression. These are all game-entertainment based rules.  They are not to adjudicate anything, or to facilitate experiencing the setting.

QuoteTheir focus is completely different. Which is why I wrote the OP.

I understand. You were just incorrect about a few things.

Estar sounds like my grandfather, who believes music is whatever style was around in his youth (usually jazz) and these new styles are not really music.

Quote from: Itachi;889681Estar sounds like my grandfather, who believes music is whatever style was around in his youth (usually jazz) and these new styles are not really music.

If by Jazz you mean early stuff like Jelly Roll Morton, then sure. If by Jazz you mean that modern wander aimless through some notes stuff...you can tell your grandad to get the hell off my lawn.  

Frankly, the premiss that adding-board game elements or story-game elements to an RPG makes it "more" of an RPG is (or seems) absurd.

To stay with the analogy, it's like saying that adding rap and country to Mozart makes it more "classical" because you like rap and country.

Lets see, let's add to our RPG by... playing monopoly!  Then it will be more of an RPG because we'll also be playing monopoly! Yea! :duh:

You might like 2d20 because you like board-games and story-games, there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make it "more" of an RPG.  It makes it less of an RPG.

Why?

QuoteOriginally Posted by Itachi
the fundamental to a RPG is acting as a character in an imaginary world, with rules to help people adjudicate things when necessary.

My emphasis on Itachi's words.

When you are playing the board game elements that have been introduced into the RPG - you are out of character and not playing the RPG.

When you are collectively spending baubles to take turns making up stories about the characters you are out of character and not playing the RPG.

The more things you add to the RPG that take you out of what makes an RPG special (and indeed an RPG) - like playing a character in an imaginary world - then the game is less of an RPG.  It is still a game, but it is less of an RPG.

2d20 is a strategy game where you make up stories about a character.  It barely registers as an RPG.

An RPG is different from other types of games.  That's why it D&D was so revolutionary when it came out.  What estar has described is not "the most popular current trend," Agkistro. It is how RPGs were played from the beginning.  It may not have been perfectly articulated, but estar has been attempting to describe is the essence of what makes RPGs different from other games.  You are arguing that making a game similar to non-RPGs makes them more like RPGs.

If you like a heavy dose of board game in your RPG, fine. Just own it.  Don't try to tell me that traditional RPGs are lesser RPGs because your favorite RPG is also a board game.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889718Frankly, the premiss that adding-board game elements or story-game elements to an RPG makes it "more" of an RPG is (or seems) absurd.

That does sound kind of absurd.   Who said that?

QuoteYou might like 2d20 because you like board-games and story-games, there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make it "more" of an RPG.  It makes it less of an RPG.

Oh. Weird.  When you said it was absurd, I thought you were gonna say that the idea of something being "more" or "less" of an RPG in the first place was absurd.  But it looks like you buy into that.

I dunno.

All I can say is, I've ran a few sessions of 2d20 games and 2nd edition D&D, and they seem to be exactly as much RPGs as every other RPG I've run in the past 25 years or so.

QuoteThe more things you add to the RPG that take you out of what makes an RPG special (and indeed an RPG) - like playing a character in an imaginary world

But playing characers in an imaginary world is just 'let's pretend'.  That's not an RPG either.  An RPG is an inherently composite activity with several components taken from other passtimes- it's a little bit like a board game, a little bit like improvisational theater, and a little bit like war.  Different RPGs are going to emphasize different elements to different degrees.

Quote2d20 is a strategy game where you make up stories about a character.  It barely registers as an RPG.

Maybe the way you run it.

QuoteWhat estar has described is not "the most popular current trend," Agkistro. It is how RPGs were played from the beginning.

Well, from the beginning RPG's had features like arbitrary limits on how often you can use your abilities in order to create resource management game play and to address character balance concerns.  From the beginning RPGs have had challenge codes and treasure codes to dictate to the GameMaster what sorts of encounters were fair to pit against his players, and what sort of rewards were fair to give his players for overcoming those encounters.  From the beginning RPGs have kept score based on how many bad guys the players kill.

So apparently from the beginning RPGs have barely registered as RPGs.  Which is why I say this 'what counts as an RPG' horseshit is merely an expression of a popular trend- because it manifestedly has not always been the case.

QuoteDon't try to tell me that traditional RPGs are lesser RPGs because your favorite RPG is also a board game.

If you think I said something like that you need to read more carefully.  I've been arguing against somebody who thinks he gets to declare what counts as an RPG and what doesn't.  I haven't been replacing his fastidious baloney with more of my own.

Got to agree with Agkistro. Different people find different stuff easy to relate to from an in-character point of view, even if many people on this board tend to agree which one work best for them:).
Then again, this board does have a pretty uniform culture;).

So the OP basically tries to say:
 - RPG rules should only include rules of "physics"
 - the "cute" story gamey rules is something to avoid in RPGs

So as there is already topic in the forums - is there anything to innovate and improve in RPGs? Apparently not, right?

But why most of the RPG games (sessions, campaigns) suck? Does RPG have to suck? Because the GM will suck - there is no such superhuman GM, that can continue to entertain the players forever. He will miss something. If he is beginner, he will get the very first thing wrong.

All these "cute" meta-rules are actually something to help GM with. To help enrich the story and not fail. It breaks the immersion of players? Like for example you can manipulate a "risk level". With bad GM, you may not have any risk taking in your game.

And in the end, you can still meta-game in your traditional system. You can manipulate GM and he can manipulate you.

I think the main challenge for RPG rules is to help GM, not players.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889718Frankly, the premiss that adding-board game elements or story-game elements to an RPG makes it "more" of an RPG is (or seems) absurd.

But Agkistro never said that. On the contrary: He said that stating a game is "more" an RPG because it contains element X or Y is absurd, and that all games in this hobby are RPGs in equal measure. The one who is advocating certain games are more RPGs than others because reasons is Estar, since the beginning.


*Edit*: And the argument the hobby began through that "adjudication-only" style and thus it have more weight or something is moot because 1. Gamist elements were there from the beginning (see classes, levels, vancian casting), and 2.the hobby expanded a long way from it, both rules and styles-wise, and trying to say one style is more valid than the other just because it came first is like saying the old black-and-white mute Charlie Chaplin movies are TRUER movies than what we have nowadays.

Quote from: Itachi;889772trying to say one style is more valid than the other just because it came first is like saying the old black-and-white mute Charlie Chaplin movies are TRUER movies than what we have nowadays.

But it isn't though, because Chaplin films didn't define what constitutes a motion picture. Role-playing Game (as in Hobby Adventure Role-playing Game specifically, not the other known uses) was used to describe what D&D does.

Quote from: Itachi;889539Estar, the fundamental to a RPG is acting as a character in an imaginary world, with rules to help people adjudicate things when necessary.

"keeping the same characters in the context of larger campaigns" is not fundamental at all. One-shots, troupe-based games, freeform scenarios and other styles are proof of this. In fact, the concept of a "campaign" is totally optional to the activity of role-playing: I can play one-shots forever and I would still be playing RPGs.

That's a fair enough objection. It's a common bad habit for people to toss around the word "fundamental" when people really mean, "but I really, really want it this way." Even SCOTUS does it all the time and they should know better. So I'm sure misuse of the word can be forgiven here.

In any event, the ongoing campaign may not be "fundamental" to RPGs, but it has always been a major selling point. Even supporters of hyper-specialized RPGs that follow "a different game for a different itch" philosophy, when presented with the dilemma that in doing so you're killing this major selling point, agree that it's a problem.

It's not fundamental. YOU don't have to play that way. But for purposes of appealing to a large enough market, the RPG pretty much has to be able to handle the ongoing campaign