Quote from: GnomeWorks;318934You could easily play OD&D in an entirely meta sense. Yes, players have to have the back-and-forth with the DM to gain an understanding of the environment, but that does not have to be done in-character.

Gaining an understanding of the environment is not the same thing as interacting with it.

I'm not talking about asking the referee to describe a room. I'm talking about characters interacting with other characters, both player and non-. I'm talking about making decisions as a group. I'm talking about setting and achieving, or failing to achieve, goals, based on the events of the game.

Have you ever heard of En Garde!? (Yes, the exclamation point is part of the title.) It was set of fencing rules developed by GDW. As they played it around the office and at home, the players discovered that most of the fun came from interacting with one another through their characters, so they added rules that fleshed out the characters, giving them careers to follow, mistresses to be courted, and so on. I consider it to be a good example of the transitional state between a minis game and a roleplaying game: players make choices about what they want their "playing pieces" to do, but the resolution is entirely handled by the dice, whereas a roleplaying game gives the players greater latitude in how they plan and implement what they want their characters to do.

Before you argue, "Well, that's not necessarily roleplaying," consider why they added those rules to En Garde in the first place: it was the natural outgrowth of playing the game. I can pretty well imagine how it began: win a duel against another player, a smattering of trash-talk follows, now a rivalry develops and factions form, duplicity sets in, questions about what characters do when they're not fighting in the streets arise, now we have careers and clubs and mistresses . . . . Roleplaying developed as an extension of the game.

Tell me, have you had that same experience playing Monopoly? Or Jenga? Or Heigh-ho Cherry-O?

OD&D begins with the assumption that the experiences that flowed from the experience of playing En Garde! are inherent to the game. It's not something that simply happens without reference to the rules, and playing the game without those interactions is not playing the game as it was designed or intended.

Quote from: Melan;318947It would be the same thing as a definition of cola that excluded Coca-Cola: potentially entertaining but practically worthless.

Not really the same thing.  Cola is well defined; there is no real controversy over what constitutes 'cola'.

Presumably, then, you have a solid definition:  What is it about OD&D that makes it a 'role playing' game for you?

Quote from: The Shaman;318948I'm not talking about asking the referee to describe a room. I'm talking about characters interacting with other characters, both player and non-. I'm talking about making decisions as a group. I'm talking about setting and achieving, or failing to achieve, goals, based on the events of the game.

Arkham Horror, Outbreak, any number of similar Eurogames or pseudo-Eurogames.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923Let me try a different approach. You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG. You admit that it is possible to remove all roleplaying from an RPG, thus reducing it to its mechanical elements, a state that puts it roughly on par with Monopoly. If you RP in Monopoly, that does not make Monopoly an RPG. So why does roleplaying in OD&D make it an RPG?

Can you give us some examples of what you do consider to be an RPG? Is there such a thing?

Quote from: StormBringer;318963Not really the same thing.  Cola is well defined; there is no real controversy over what constitutes 'cola'.

I'm sure there are some cola afficionados out there who would say Diet Coke isn't really cola. Because they use their very own narrow definition of cola. So it is quite similar to this situation.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318972I'm sure there are some cola afficionados out there who would say Diet Coke isn't really cola. Because they use their very own narrow definition of cola. So it is quite similar to this situation.

Yes, exactly, a very narrow definition that absolutely excludes Diet Coke or some other variation.  That doesn't mean it is necessarily an accurate definition.

Cola is typically some citrus oil, cinnamon and vanilla, according to Wikipedia.  So, any one person can say "Well, Diet Coke only has 4% vanilla instead of 4.2% like regular Coke, therefore it isn't a 'cola'", but that person would be seen as unnecessarily splitting hairs.  If you use a certain product as a baseline, that is one thing, but if you are crafting a definition that necessarily includes a certain product, it is circular reasoning.  OD&D, for example, doesn't have a skill system.  Is the exclusion of a skill system indicative of an RPG?  Then there is a metric tonne of games that aren't RPGs.  Is it the addition of role assumption?  Ok; I am Klaarg, Master of Twigs.  Now pick-up-sticks is a role playing game.

If you think the definition of 'role playing game' is self evident, then enlighten me.  I am hearing a lot of "Of course OD&D is a role playing game", what I am not hearing is an explanation as to why that statement is accurate.

There're also folk who think that you're Luc Besson's third best film. Doesn't make them right.

Edit: That was at least 1.015% more funny without Stormbringers post in the way.

Quote from: StormBringer;318963Not really the same thing.  Cola is well defined; there is no real controversy over what constitutes 'cola'.

There is no substantial controversy over what constitutes a "roleplaying game" either, except in nitpicky Internet communities. Sorry.

Quote from: StormBringer;318963Presumably, then, you have a solid definition:  What is it about OD&D that makes it a 'role playing' game for you?

Ugh. A roleplaying game is a game in which participants interact with a referee-created imaginary environment through verbal commands describing the actions of an imagined agent. There may be more comprehensive or well-worded definitions, but this one will have to be generally acceptable. The defining feature of roleplaying games is not characterisation but emergent interaction with a fictious environment.

Quote from: Melan;318980There is no substantial controversy over what constitutes a "roleplaying game" either, except in nitpicky Internet communities. Sorry.

I spend about half an hour each day, at least, pondering how to save causality from destruction at the hands of a British empiricist from the 18th century.

I'm a philosophy major. Worrying about things no one else gives two shits about is what I do.

QuoteThe defining feature of roleplaying games is not characterisation but emergent interaction with a fictious environment.

So you're saying that... the RPG-ness of a game is not found anywhere within the game itself, but is an emergent property upon putting the system into use? I get the feeling that I'm missing what you're saying, a bit.

Quote from: Melan;318980Ugh. A roleplaying game is a game in which participants interact with a referee-created imaginary environment through verbal commands describing the actions of an imagined agent. There may be more comprehensive or well-worded definitions, but this one will have to be generally acceptable. The defining feature of roleplaying games is not characterisation but emergent interaction with a fictious environment.

So, not MUDs or MUSHes if rooms are open for creation to all? Chess, if I describe the board as an otherworldly plane where the battle for survival depends on the army at your command?  No LARPs because the environment isn't fictitious or created by a referee?  What if the imaginary environment emerges from a joint anthology-like storytelling game with no defined referee?

'Emergent interaction with a fictitious environment' opens the door to any game being a 'role playing game'.  The environment of streets in Monopoly, while based on Atlantic City, are certainly fictitious.  Is the standard act of buying a property or bargaining to pay rent when you are out of money an 'emergent interaction'?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318984I spend about half an hour each day, at least, pondering how to save causality from destruction at the hands of a British empiricist from the 18th century.

I will save you that 30mins each day, then:  Quantum physics presents strong evidence that causality is probably an illusion.  

The basic definition of emergence from Wikipedia:

QuoteIn philosophy, systems theory and science, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.

That describes rather well what roleplaying games "do" - or what makes them special. But what matters more is the
relationship, the way impulses are sent through the referee to affect the environment, and the way the environment's rules and effects are applied back to the agent.

Also, this is turning into sophistry, and I will now go to sleep.

Quote from: StormBringer;318990So, not MUDs or MUSHes if rooms are open for creation to all? Chess, if I describe the board as an otherworldly plane where the battle for survival depends on the army at your command?  No LARPs because the environment isn't fictitious or created by a referee?  What if the imaginary environment emerges from a joint anthology-like storytelling game with no defined referee?

'Emergent interaction with a fictitious environment' opens the door to any game being a 'role playing game'.  The environment of streets in Monopoly, while based on Atlantic City, are certainly fictitious.  Is the standard act of buying a property or bargaining to pay rent when you are out of money an 'emergent interaction'?

Sorry, but I will not engage with your Forge-level obfuscation and anti-communication tactics. Roleplaying games have commonly understandable and commonly accepted features, and they are entirely adequate for their definition, self-explanatorily including OD&D among their ranks. In some obscure cases, you might need addiitonal qualifiers, but really, these cases are as rare as having to say 2+2 is only 4 for certain values of 2 and 4.

Learn the common vocabularity and use it.

Quote from: Melan;318995The basic definition of emergence from Wikipedia:

That describes rather well what roleplaying games "do" - or what makes them special. But what matters more is the

PLAYER ---> AGENT <---> REFEREE <---> ENVIRONMENT

relationship, the way impulses are sent through the referee to affect the environment, and the way the environment's rules and effects are applied back to the agent.

Also, this is turning into sophistry, and I will now go to sleep.

I am familiar with emergence.  There are many things in role-playing games that are not emergent, and many emergent things in other games that don't make them role-play.

And yes, it is a bit of sophistry, but GnomeWorks expressed some doubt as to what unique aspect of play comprises a 'role-playing game', and the responses generally seem to indicate that the answer is self-evident, and obviously applies to OD&D.  When pressed for specifics, however, the replies look like they are generic attributes that can be applied to any game.  The Shaman mentions that one is not expected to role-play in Monopoly, but you aren't prevented from doing so.  Also, we don't know who or what is doing this 'expecting'.

In the description above, is a referee necessary?  That would discount free-form role play found in forums and blogs all over the web.  MUDs and MUSHes don't have a referee to adjudicate every interaction with the environment.

I don't think things are quite so obvious or straightforward as they are assumed to be.

Quote from: Melan;318997Learn the common vocabularity and use it.

Is that like common sense?  A wonderful dismissal, but it doesn't hold up well if you look at it closely?