It would seem easiest to define 'traditonal' as D&D based as that is the core of the RPG hobby historically.

Quote from: Skarg;969732Well, I thought so, but maybe not, as I have a reaction like vampire in sunlight to some games, but that was what I thought I was seeing when I looked at things like the Firefly RPG, or Mage: The Ascension (i.e. attributes in the 1-5 range), and when I have been reading about some of the narrativium games under discussion in threads here it sounds like they tend to have expensive custom dice with pictures and a system where your character's non-literal attributes determine the number of dice you roll, hoping for certain symbols and not other symbols in a complex but not literal way. That sort of thing seems very non-traditional to me but it's also the opposite of what I generally want and I tend to have very limited knowledge of such so I could be wrong...

May be Numenera (I think) and the new SW game you're thinking of. TOR has mildly unique dice, replacing two numbers with a symbols for Sauron and the other for Gandalf, with appropriately postive and negative effects when rolled. But you can also just use 'regular' dice and treat the appropriate number as the effect.

But as some have said in the SW thread, is there really any difference between these 'gimmick' dice and polyhedron dice? We're use to polyhedron dice now but they use to be difficult to find and were also considered 'weird and confusing.'

Quote from: CRKrueger;969755Useless discussion.  Traditional is one of the terms a Distinction Denier will go the mattresses for every time.  Using it just ensures any point you may try to make will get deliberately obfuscated in definition war.

It's why I asked on a separate thread, had a feeling it was a derailment question.

Quote from: Voros;969776It would seem easiest to define 'traditonal' as D&D based as that is the core of the RPG hobby historically.

What about Runequest? There's not that much of an age difference and I'd say has influenced later game design just as much.

I love Runequest but outside the UK it is more of a cult game isn't it? Not to put it or BRP down. I think the hobby would have benefited tremendously if RQ had been more competitive with D&D.

Quote from: Voros;969785I love Runequest but outside the UK it is more of a cult game isn't it? Not to put it or BRP down. I think the hobby would have benefited tremendously if RQ had been more competitive with D&D.

Good point, just curious for your reasoning. I don't think I can get a right or wrong answer to the overall question lol

Well D&D is the first RPG historically and laid out the basic mechanics of the form that either became standard or inspired others to do it differently. RQ is a pretty clear example, as is T&T that take different approaches on purpose to address what the designers saw as blind spots in D&D. But that still means they learned from and were reacting to D&D to some degree.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;969763Like Amber Diceless?
I guess I let Pundit explain that one to you...

just read the wiki on Amber Diceless. Yep I would call that a "story game".

Quote from: HorusArisen;969645So I've seen the term 'traditional' RPG bandied on a few threads and that got me to thinking what do you define as traditional?

Are you narrow band and this means D&D derived only, or perhaps a more generous inclusion. So what do you mean by traditional?

Characters have stats, theres usually a DM, rolling dice, each player has their own character, the GM handles most or even all of the in-world stuff and the players interact with it via the characters. Usually live, but could be online.

D&D is the UR example. Despite all its claims, Vampire is a traditional RPG.

Dragon Storm is not as it approaches an RPG from a very different approach. Ruins World is not as there is no GM and no interaction with the game world. It isnt even an RPG. Pretty much every dungeoncrawler board game is not an RPG. Even those rare few with DMs. Past that you get the hybrids like Fighting Fantasy style gamebooks which I do not consider RPGs because the character cannot interact with the game world other than what paths are allowed. Then there are the weird ones like Mythic what use an oracle system or other oddities to resolve things. These are very not traditional.

Quote from: Omega;969802Despite all its claims, Vampire is a traditional RPG.

Vampire never made any such claims. It doesn't even recognise the term 'traditional rpg'. It refers to itself as a 'storytelling game' for sure, because it has ambitions towards telling stories as a value and has obvious differences to D&D in it's genre and gameplay, but it expressly describes itself as a 'roleplaying game' also. It predates the notion of any distinction between 'traditional' and 'non-traditional' RPG.

Its not a traditional rpg unless it has significant groups of people arguing with strangers about it online.

The definition of tabletop roleplaying game is straight forward, it is a game where one or more players as their characters interact with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

I got into a discussion on this on a another forum and made this diagram. If you will note there are multiple things that a referee COULD use to adjudicate with. No all of them are required although some are found to be useful and essential by the vast majority of referees. The only ones that I would argue as required is making a ruling on the basis of how the setting works and of course using one's own reason.

This is why Amber Diceless is a tabletop RPG. Because while it doesn't have dice it does have procedures for players and referees to use to resolve the actions the player takes as their characters.

In addition the rules that everybody focuses are the least important part of this whole process EXCEPT in one very important regard and that is enjoyment of the game. Because RPGs are a form of entertainment Hobbyists have strong preferences for particular sets of rules.  There is nothing wrong with this except when one things the whole category is defined by what that game covers.

People need to realize that the Dave Arneson, who invented the tabletop roleplaying game, started out by designing a campaign first and working up a set of rules second. Dave did not have a set of rules fixed in stone. They were continually changing as he made rulings in response to the crazy shit that Gronan and other players in the Blackmoor tried to pull off. What was constant was the Blackmoor setting itself as a fantasy medieval world.

Third in terms of rules there are little difference between tabletop roleplaying games and wargames. One only needs to look at the campaigns that were being run in the early 70s, and later at stuff like Battletech/Mechwarrior or Melee/Wizard and the Fantasy Trip.  What makes a tabletop RPG what it is is the dominant focus on players playing individual characters living out their lives within a setting. I say living out their lives as RPG campaigns are generally open ended. Focus on winning scenarios and competition then you are entering wargame territory shift the focus to the exploits of individual characters  then you are entering tabletop roleplaying territory. One needs to remember that in Blackmoor, the first tabletop RPG campaign there were bad guy PCs who fought against the good guy PCs as well as the NPCs that Dave ran. The difference between a tabletop RPG campaign and a wargame campaign is not a firm line but a gray muddle.

Finally While I feel the definition I offer is straightforward, the implementation of it also for very diverse games. What characters the players play? What do they focus on when interacting with a setting? What the setting about? What tools the referee uses to adjudicate what the players do as their characters? How does the referee uses the tools he uses? There multiple equally correct answers to all of these and when combined can make Campaign A a very different feel than Campaign B. My observation is that when people set out to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign that the pieces they choose combined into the definition I give in the first paragraphs.

While the definition of is simple, often it is the simple ideas that hard to develop. The genius of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax was to figure this out and present in a way, Dungeons & Dragons, that the rest of us can learn how to run these types of campaigns ourselves. And again the fucking rules everybody focuses on and beats each other up on are the least important part of making this work.

Quote from: HorusArisen;969645So I've seen the term 'traditional' RPG bandied on a few threads and that got me to thinking what do you define as traditional?

Are you narrow band and this means D&D derived only, or perhaps a more generous inclusion. So what do you mean by traditional?

The only constant I've found in the definition is that people use it when comparing it to X, the subject at hand. So anything from 'Try new BlahDiddyBlah, unlike traditional games, it cures cancer and gives your gaming experience nice, minty fresh breath!' to 'Storygames, unlike traditional game... .' It's really not very informative, and usually just adds to the flavor of what the person was going to say anyways.

Quote from: Voros;969795Well D&D is the first RPG historically and laid out the basic mechanics of the form that either became standard or inspired others to do it differently. RQ is a pretty clear example, as is T&T that take different approaches on purpose to address what the designers saw as blind spots in D&D. But that still means they learned from and were reacting to D&D to some degree.

That's a really valid point. So certainly a reasonable argument to use D&D (I'd say pre WotC) as the most solid example of what is traditional in form.

Quote from: Nexus;969806Its not a traditional rpg unless it has significant groups of people arguing with strangers about it online.

Lol best definition so far