1) Tabletop Roleplaying is a game where players have characters in a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee within a campaign. Since 1970s other forms of roleplaying games have developed that alter or substitute the above elements. These other forms of roleplaying games are neither good nor bad.

2) Tabletop roleplaying games are capable of emulating a entire world including fantastic settings.

3) Because of #2 the referee has to pick and choose which aspect of the world to present within a specific campaign. It just not possible for a human referee to perfectly emulate the world.

4) Likewise in designing at set of tabletop roleplaying rules, author has to pick and choose which aspect of a genre or setting to include and at what level of detail. The only thing capable of emulating the entire universe is the universe. Anything else is just an approximation.

5) The referee has the responsibility of ensuring that his chosen mechanics reflects the design of his setting. Do not assume that every element of a given set of RPG rules is suitable for a campaign. Be aware every choices will have positives and negatives.

6) Individual gamers have preferences as to the complexity of the rules and types of campaign they want to play in.

7) It is the referee responsibility to understand the preferences of his players and work out the issues before the start of the campaign.

The referee needs to be prepared to handle situations where the players change their mind about the rules or campaign after a few sessions.

9) Players like when their choices have meaning.

10) When using abstract mechanics the referee has to keep in mind to be consistent with his previous rulings. Inconsistent rulings over the long run will cause the players to feel their choices have no meaning.

11) Detailed rules help consistency at the price of complexity and possibly (but not always) taking longer to resolve. Mastering detailed rules also help players feel their choices have meaning.

12) Regardless of the level of detail all rules require adjudication by the referee. For example in a detailed set of rules, deciding which subsystem or modifiers to apply to the situation.

13) There is no theory of tabletop roleplaying games. There are only techniques that people successfully (or not) applied in specific circumstances for specific reasons.

14) Effective communication is extremely important to tabletop roleplaying games; between the players, between the players and the referee. And like all forms of human communication a variety of techniques are applicable depending on the situation.

14) Everybody needs to follow Wheaton’s Law (Don’t be a dick)

15) Have Fun

Quote from: estar;6034391) Tabletop Roleplaying is a game...

Starts to define something, and then backs away. Very revealing of the author's inablity to decide and commit.

Quote from: estar;6034392) Tabletop roleplaying games are capable of emulating a entire world including fantastic settings.

Perhaps the author meant "incapable", otherwise he's in direct conflict with  #3.

Or Perhaps he's assigning paranormal abilities to the tabletop roleplaying game above and beyond that of the referee (and I assume players) in #3. And yes, I've seen people do this online, I have to consider it a option.

Really can't comment further without knowing.

Quote from: estar;6034393) Because of #2 the referee has to pick and choose which aspect of the world to present within a specific campaign. It just not possible for a human referee to perfectly emulate the world.

The first part seems to be a poorly phrase version of the 'campaign needs a focus'. Ok.

I consider the second to be false, it fails to understand of role of abstraction in game design.

Quote from: estar;6034394) Likewise in designing at set of tabletop roleplaying rules, author has to pick and choose which aspect of a genre or setting to include and at what level of detail. The only thing capable of emulating the entire universe is the universe. Anything else is just an approximation.

Again, I consider the second to be false as it fails to understand of role of abstraction in game design.

Quote from: estar;6034395) The referee has the responsibility of ensuring that his chosen mechanics reflects the design of his setting. Do not assume that every element of a given set of RPG rules is suitable for a campaign. Be aware every choices will have positives and negatives.

A simple statement that house rules may be necessary. Ok.

Quote from: estar;6034396) Individual gamers have preferences as to the complexity of the rules and types of campaign they want to play in.

Inconsistent presentation. This should have been combined with #7 as the reasoning behind it in the same matter done in #3, 4 and 5.

Quote from: estar;6034397) It is the referee responsibility to understand the preferences of his players and work out the issues before the start of the campaign.

Not a very useful statement as 'work out the issues' is meaningful only for the author. Does he mean 'give in', does he mean 'evict offenders', does he mean 'vote amoung the group'?

Again shows indecision and unwillingness to commit.

Quote from: estar;603439 The referee needs to be prepared to handle situations where the players change their mind about the rules or campaign after a few sessions.

Same comment as for #7.

Quote from: estar;6034399) Players like when their choices have meaning.

Ok as far as it goes.

Quote from: estar;60343910) When using abstract mechanics the referee has to keep in mind to be consistent with his previous rulings. Inconsistent rulings over the long run will cause the players to feel their choices have no meaning.

Abstract Mechanics is undefined. May reference judgements overriding or adding to (on the fly) the written rules (as it directly does reference 'abstract mechanics'). If so, consistent rulings would be 'house rules', and the statement is meaningless as once house rules are written- they are consistent (if followed, just like all rules).

Quote from: estar;60343911) Detailed rules help consistency at the price of complexity and possibly (but not always) taking longer to resolve. Mastering detailed rules also help players feel their choices have meaning.

Ok.

Quote from: estar;60343912) Regardless of the level of detail all rules require adjudication by the referee. For example in a detailed set of rules, deciding which subsystem or modifiers to apply to the situation.

Disagree.

At any time the rules should be clear enough that any player can call out modifiers or the subsystem in use. Exceptions are limited to starting terrain modifiers and information unknown to the PCs.

Quote from: estar;60343913) There is no theory of tabletop roleplaying games. There are only techniques that people successfully (or not) applied in specific circumstances for specific reasons.

Disagree.

Quote from: estar;60343914) Effective communication is extremely important to tabletop roleplaying games; between the players, between the players and the referee. And like all forms of human communication a variety of techniques are applicable depending on the situation.

Ok.

Quote from: estar;60343914) Everybody needs to follow Wheaton’s Law (Don’t be a dick)

Meaningless statement as nothing is defined.

Edit: Could simply be disagreeing with any of the above points counts making the statement redundant.

Quote from: estar;60343915) Have Fun

Meaning statement as Fun is not defined.

Edit: Could simply be agreeing with all of the above points counts making the statement redundant.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Meaningless statement as nothing is defined.

you are a grown ass man. if you do not know how to not be a dick, you are mentally impaired. note: i know how not to be a dick. in this instance, i chose to be one.

Quote from: ICFTI;603465you are a grown ass man. if you do not know how to not be a dick, you are mentally impaired. note: i know how not to be a dick. in this instance, i chose to be one.

In my groups, a good part what the OP posted would be considered being a 'dick'. Splitting hairs, refusal to take a stand, etc.

So yes, it has to be defined. In the case of the OP, I suppose it could be assume that it covers any disagreement with the observations. Upon reflection, I should have included that comment in my original reply... of to the edit I go.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Starts to define something, and then backs away.

I defined what I considered to tabletop roleplaying games and noted that there are over forms of roleplaying games that developed from tabletop RPGs.

Since I wanted to talk about tabletop rpgs I didn't feel the need to go into what is a LARP, MMORPG, CRPS, Storytelling game, etc.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Perhaps the author meant "incapable", otherwise he's in direct conflict with  #3.

By focusing on the playing of individual characters tabletop RPGs need to define a setting in which they exist and adventure or give the referee to do the same. Hence the possible scope of emulation for RPGs includes entire universe.

Quote from: gleichman;603463The first part seems to be a poorly phrase version of the 'campaign needs a focus'. Ok.

I am pointing that since the referee is a human being, human limitations require that he pick which elements to focus on for his campaign. It not possible to emulate every detail in a campaign. (even with a computer as in MMORPGs or CRPGs it not possible.)

Quote from: gleichman;603463I consider the second to be false, it fails to understand of role of abstraction in game design.

An abstraction is a form of generalization. By focusing on common characteristics you can create a mechanic or system that cover a lot of different things. However conversely you lose details. The higher the level of abstraction you make a rule the less detail it has.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Again, I consider the second to be false as it fails to understand of role of abstraction in game design.

It is part of why computers can't accurately predict the weather beyond several days. Not only there is not complete data coverage, in order for the prediction to be created in a reasonable time an abstract model has to be used to simulate the future of weather.

Likewise the same problems afflicts high speed aircraft testing and nuclear weapon design.

These same limitations effect any simulation model including tabletop roleplaying game.

In the hands of a person who knows what they are doing and what they are working toward useful simulations still can be created. For tabletop RPGs a good designer can carefully select the elements of the game that when combined will effectively allow a referee to immerse the players into the setting or genre.

Quote from: gleichman;603463A simple statement that house rules may be necessary. Ok.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Inconsistent presentation. This should have been combined with #7 as the reasoning behind it in the same matter done in #3, 4 and 5.

Not a very useful statement as 'work out the issues' is meaningful only for the author. Does he mean 'give in', does he mean 'evict offenders', does he mean 'vote amoung the group'?

There no best solution. Every years dozens of books and hundred of papers are written on how to deal with people and their interests. People still haven't figured it out.

The best thing I can say generally is exactly what I wrote. Give me a specific group then I can craft specific recommendations.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Abstract Mechanics is undefined. May reference judgements overriding or adding to (on the fly) the written rules (as it directly does reference 'abstract mechanics'). If so, consistent rulings would be 'house rules', and the statement is meaningless as once house rules are written- they are consistent (if followed, just like all rules).

Groups that prefer games that uses abstract mechanics for example Basic D&D, Fudge, Marvel Superheroes, etc are not going to write down detailed house rules.

Quote from: gleichman;603463At any time the rules should be clear enough that any player can call out modifiers or the subsystem in use. Exceptions are limited to starting terrain modifiers and information unknown to the PCs.

Many groups chose games where this is not the case. So rather than tell them that they are doing it wrong. I chose to say "OK if you are going to do that, here are some things that are useful and some things to watch out for.

Quote from: gleichman;603463Meaning[less] statement as Fun is not defined.

So there is a definition of fun for tabletop roleplaying game?

You define tabletop RPGs as being part of a campaign.

Surely that is not necessary tabletop RPGs can be one offs as you would play at a con or as a break between campaigns.

Since nothing changes about the  form of play the actions of any participants or the core idea of the processes at work surely a campaign is merely an option not a pre-requisite.

the bit about other RPGs is at best a parenthesis.

Therefore rule 1 should look more like

1) Tabletop Roleplaying is a game where players have characters in a setting where their actions are adjudicated by a referee.
(Since 1970s other forms of roleplaying games have developed that alter or substitute the above elements. These other forms of roleplaying games are neither good nor bad.).

Quote from: estar;60343915) Have Fun

This is a tad bit overrated. There's plenty of room for a bit of un-fun in games, and a little un-fun can make the whole experience more worthwhile.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;603491This is a tad bit overrated. There's plenty of room for a bit of un-fun in games, and a little un-fun can make the whole experience more worthwhile.

Not really. I don't like unfun in my entertainment. Unfun means a bad game experience.

I don't consider misfortune, loss, or even character death in the course of the game to be unfun. In a game where both gain and loss, victory and defeat are possible, enjoying all of them as part of the play experience is part of the fun.

Examples of unfun (for me) would be games that go nowhere, tediously boring GMs,or rude players intruding on the good time of others.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;603491This is a tad bit overrated. There's plenty of room for a bit of un-fun in games, and a little un-fun can make the whole experience more worthwhile.

Challenges and otherwise miserable moments are considered fun by many including myself. The fun is because of the knowing that if you succeed you have pushed yourself in someway either mentally in the case of tabletop roleplaying or physically (mountain climbing, long distance hiking, etc). If you fail then you learn something for the next time.

In short the experience as a whole is fun. If it isn't then there little point to the whole exercise.

I'm surprised, you backed away from your normal ad hominem attacks on me and responded reasonably.

I'll try and return the favor.

Quote from: estar;603477I defined what I considered to tabletop roleplaying games and noted that there are over forms of roleplaying games that developed from tabletop RPGs.

Since I wanted to talk about tabletop rpgs I didn't feel the need to go into what is a LARP, MMORPG, CRPS, Storytelling game, etc.

Fair enough as it would have be a rather large wall of text and beyond the scope of your goals- which is why I still feel you shouldn't have mention those other games at all and kept to what was important to you with the matter at hand.

Quote from: estar;603477By focusing on the playing of individual characters tabletop RPGs need to define a setting in which they exist and adventure or give the referee to do the same. Hence the possible scope of emulation for RPGs includes entire universe.

At first this sounded like a repeat of the original conflicting statement, then I caught the grammer error.

It should "the possible choices for emulation are effectively unlimited".

Scope to me always indicates a managable subset (due to the term 'Scope of Work' which is a person thing. But I think other options would be more clear even so) and that isn't what you're going for here.

I'd also drop universe as I feel it misdirections both your thought and the point you're trying to make. More on that later.

Quote from: estar;603477I am pointing that since the referee is a human being, human limitations require that he pick which elements to focus on for his campaign. It not possible to emulate every detail in a campaign. (even with a computer as in MMORPGs or CRPGs it not possible.)

Just a repeat, and again I disagree.

Quote from: estar;603477An abstraction is a form of generalization. By focusing on common characteristics you can create a mechanic or system that cover a lot of different things. However conversely you lose details. The higher the level of abstraction you make a rule the less detail it has.

I could nitpick over word choice (not liking generalization for some reason or 'common characteristics') but will let it slide.

Quote from: estar;603477It is part of why computers can't accurately predict the weather beyond several days. Not only there is not complete data coverage, in order for the prediction to be created in a reasonable time an abstract model has to be used to simulate the future of weather.

This is at the heart of a couple points where we disagree. We're talking about created fantasy worlds and you reach for instead for a example intended for a real existing world. It's a common and fatal error in game analysis and fantasy simulation.

If I say that the Bay of Belfalas will see a Force 5 hurricane a dozen years from the current in-game date- oddly enough the Bay of Belfalas will see a Force 5 hurricane a dozen years from the current in-game date. There is no chance of failure.

What's missing (if the hurricane it is naturally occuring ) is why. But that's covered by the agreed to abstraction and thus no body worries about or cares such details.

The GM (and the rules for where they hold sway) are always right, because the world is a fictional creation they are in 100% control of. There is no test possible by even the most advance test aircraft in the setting that would prove them wrong. It's good being God.

Thus concepts of being unable to know all the influences and the casual chain and effect are removed from consideration. The only thing the GM needs concern himself with are the effects that appear at the campaign's abstraction layer and likely even a subset of those as only those effecting the characters in play matter at any one time.

Quote from: estar;603477There no best solution. Every years dozens of books and hundred of papers are written on how to deal with people and their interests. People still haven't figured it out.

Then I wouldn't say anything. As is it comes across as "And world peace would be helpful to your game", a nice saying- but without meaning to the reader.

Quote from: estar;603477Groups that prefer games that uses abstract mechanics for example Basic D&D, Fudge, Marvel Superheroes, etc are not going to write down detailed house rules.

Then they will fail to be consistent.

In addition such groups on breaking the abstraction layer built into their game, and that at it's most basic means they are play the wrong game.

Two failures in one.

Quote from: estar;603477Many groups chose games where this is not the case. So rather than tell them that they are doing it wrong. I chose to say "OK if you are going to do that, here are some things that are useful and some things to watch out for.

If a group is playing a game that doesn't allow them to be aware of even what modifiers or game mechanic are in use- then they are not playing a game at all.

Instead they are listening to the GM Narrarate something that's he's privately used rules to determine.

A waster of player time, although I imagine many have been drawn into such. It fails my own personal definition of what an RPG is.

Quote from: estar;603477So there is a definition of fun for tabletop roleplaying game?

That's what I asked you. You included the statement, and that means you should offer the means to reach it.

If the means were the observations themselves, the statement is redundant.

If the means are something else, it should be included or referenced; if you can't- the observation should be removed as useless.

Quote from: jibbajibba;603481You define tabletop RPGs as being part of a campaign.

Surely that is not necessary tabletop RPGs can be one offs as you would play at a con or as a break between campaigns.

I thought about omitting mention campaigns. But decided to include it as a one-shot can be easily be considered a very short campaign and the broad picture is that campaigns (multiple sessions with continuity of characters) are the way most gamers players experience tabletop roleplaying games.

In short a true tabletop roleplaying game will support campaign play, even if it used to run a one-shot game. If a game doesn't support campaign play then it is not likely a tabletop roleplaying game.

The best example I can give is the difference between Metagaming's Melee and the later Fantasy Trip. The first is a wargame of individual combat while the latter is a tabletop roleplaying game.

I am sure exceptions can be found. I am also sure that a game selling itself as a tabletop roleplaying game and doesn't support campaign play will be viewed as a deficient design by the market unless there are some special circumstances around the game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;603481You define tabletop RPGs as being part of a campaign.

Surely that is not necessary tabletop RPGs can be one offs as you would play at a con or as a break between campaigns.

I would agree with estar that the concept of campaign is key to the original definition of an RPG.

Historically people had been role-playing during wargames or mystery games for years before D&D appeared. They remained wargames and mystery games.

One of the key changes that sparked the new hobby of RPGs was the persistent campaign when what happen before carried on to what happened latter.

This alone wasn't enough of course (as wargames had again used connected scenarios defining a 'campaign', which is where RPGs get the campaign btw). To this was added character advancement, an open boundary world in place of a defined scenarios, and GM to manage the open nature of the creation. Those features and a single man scale in combination produce the RPG.

And I'd contend that those features remain the requirement for a game to be called an RPG.

Quote from: gleichman;603550Fair enough as it would have be a rather large wall of text and beyond the scope of your goals- which is why I still feel you shouldn't have mention those other games at all and kept to what was important to you with the matter at hand.

I acknowledge your opinion but disagree because of prior experience in discussing what are roleplaying games. It important that to know that my definition only applies to the games known tabletop roleplaying game. And not one of the number of related game forms that focuses on the playing of individual characters.

If one is seeking a definition that covers all games descended from Dungeons & Dragons then it would simply be Roleplaying Games are games that focuses on the playing of individual characters.

Quote from: gleichman;603550This is at the heart of a couple points where we disagree.

Concur

Quote from: gleichman;603550We're talking about created fantasy worlds and you reach for instead for a example intended for a real existing world. It's a common and fatal error in game analysis and fantasy simulation.

Probably I didn't explain myself clearly. I include the example of weather prediction because it show the limits of the human being in handling all possible circumstances. This includes creating the required tools beforehand which in the case of RPGs are the design of the mechanics. At somepoint something unforeseen will happen and the referee will have to make a judgment call and make up a rule to resolve the action.

It is why I disagree that it is possible to create a set of rules that cover all circumstance a referee will encounter. Indeed I found many of your Usenet posts that showed that you were undergoing a iterative process of development in creating Age of Heroes. You and your group found a problem, decided how to handled and wrote it down to use in the future. Wash, rinse, and repeat for decades. Arriving to the present day where you have the current version (5?) of your Age of Heroes rules.

However even with that much development it doesn't cover the entire scope of a fantasy world. Every published set of rules have gaps. Even Harn/Harnmaster, which has the most coverage of medieval life in tabletop roleplaying games, has gaps. Where there are gaps the referee has to make a judgement call based on his knowledge and experience.

So while indeed the referee, as far as his setting goes, is akin to God as you stated. The referee is a human being who lack the omniscience of God. Without omniscience there will be gaps in the mechanics used to implement the referee's setting.

As tabletop RPGs are games where players can attempt anything it follows that at some point the referee will have to make a new rule.

You say that it is possible to prepare for all contingencies beforehand by careful design of the mechanics. I disagree with the sole focus on mechanics.

My alternative is the referee handle this by learning a set of general principles and combining them into specific rulings. Some of these are mechanics some are not. That way they can handle anything the players throw at him. A well designed set of mechanics are an invaluable aid in this. But mechanics are only one element of a broader picture.

For example why do women cry in your campaign? This a not a pun or a joke. Seriously what circumstances would you roleplay a NPC women crying? Do you have a table for this? Modifiers that effect this? An abstract mechanic? Would you use your life experience to decide when to roleplay a woman crying?

Quote from: estar;603572I acknowledge your opinion but disagree because of prior experience in discussing what are roleplaying games.

Fair enough.

Quote from: estar;603572It is why I disagree that it is possible to create a set of rules that cover all circumstance a referee will encounter.

I will go you one step further, and say that even if it was possible- it would be highly undesired.

My position is this- it is possible to create a set of rules that cover all the circumstances the GMs desires to be covered in an objective manner. This includes all of combat and skill resolution. There should be no need for GM rulings on the fly in those areas in any game system.

Quote from: estar;603572For example why do women cry in your campaign?

Item #6 from my manifesto: I reject rules that make decisions for the characters. Players should make decisions for their characters.

Decisions and expressions are role-playing, and role-playing is a player controlled activity. Thus I would never use rules (or GM decision) to enforce a woman crying in my campaign, that's completely under the control of the player owning that character.

Quote from: gleichman;603579Decisions and expressions are role-playing, and role-playing is a player controlled activity. Thus I would never use rules (or GM decision) to enforce a woman crying in my campaign, that's completely under the control of the player owning that character.

Sorry for not being clear. I am talking about NPCs not PCs. Character that are under your control as the referee.