Quote from: Nerzenjäger;889777But 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.

Here, this was the first film ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Ppp5902Yg

It was exhibited on rooms and theathers of the age exactly like that: no dialogue, no acting, no plot or story. By your argument, every subsequent "film" that deviated from that mold is not really a "film", it's something else. Do you see how problematic this argument is ?

Quote from: Itachi;889792It was exhibited on rooms and theathers of the age exactly like that: no dialogue, no acting, no plot or story. So, by your argument, every subsequent "film" that deviated from that mold is not really a "film", it's something else. Right ?

No, because you concern yourself with what is depicted. Your allegory was faulty in the first place. A motion picture is precisely that, pictures in motion, what you are talking about is a dramatisation. A video game for example has similar attributes, but the interaction in context of a game makes it a different, yet related medium altogether.

Quote from: Itachi;889772that all games in this hobby are RPGs in equal measure.

Are they though...really?  Granted you can stretch the definiton of RPG to mean practically anything, that seems to be some people's entire posting history here .  When you start adding OOC mechanic after OOC mechanic that is meant to be engaged with as a player not simple representing actions of the character, you really are making it less of an RPG aren't you?  

I mean if you add a ton of tactical elements that make combat more boardgamish even if those elements aren't really associated to the character and the setting, but provide tactical challenge and gameplay depth, you're choosing to impact the roleplay in favor of something else, right?  Similarly, if you're adding mechanics that let you author more of what's happening from an OOC 3rd person perspective so you can control and create a story, well then you're consciously reducing the amount of time spent actually roleplaying the character, right?..and you're doing it by specific design.

I fail to see how adding mechanics that prevent roleplay to a roleplaying game can be seen as anything else other than making it less of "only an RPG" and more of a "RPG with non-roleplay elements built for a specific sub-purpose".

Try to come with alternate definitions or sub-types though (like they have with film, cars, pretty much everything else on earth except RPGs)...Holy Christ will people come flying in and go to the mattresses.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889796Are they though...really?

If you have a game where you can play a character and take the character through one or more Adventures using a set of rules then those rules constitute a RPG.

Some RPGs are more tactical, some are more narrative but they are all RPGs.

If you cannot use the rules to play a character in Adventures then it isn;t really a RPG.

Quote from: soltakss;889815If you have a game where you can play a character and take the character through one or more Adventures using a set of rules then those rules constitute a RPG.

Super Mario Bros is an RPG?

Quote from: Lunamancer;889823Super Mario Bros RPG is an RPG?

An electronic one ? Yes.

The concept is the same, only in another media.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889796Are they though...really?  Granted you can stretch the definiton of RPG to mean practically anything, that seems to be some people's entire posting history here .  When you start adding OOC mechanic after OOC mechanic that is meant to be engaged with as a player not simple representing actions of the character, you really are making it less of an RPG aren't you?  

I completely agree that you COULD do this. If a person wanted to, they could take an RPG and bog it down with such complex tactical rules that it functionally ceases to be an RPG.  So for example, treating everything turn based, even out of combat. Having people roll some sort of 'communication' check every time they speak, having combat rules be so complex and detailed that you literally don't have time to do anything else in a game session but fight.  I can see myself playing such a game, realizing that in two hours I haven't made a single non-dicebound decision for my character or described any actions or had the GM describe anything to me, and thinking "Well, this basically isn't even an RPG anymore."

Similarly, you could have a role-playing game that de-emphasizes mechanics arbitration so much that it basically becomes children playing 'let's pretend'. I could see myself after a couple hour session of doing whatever I want, the GM declaring I succeed in all my actions, the GM letting me narrate parts of the setting, and not even glancing down at my character sheet to make sure I actually have he capabilities to do the things I am describing saying "Well, this basically isn't even an RPG anymore."


My point here is that, as far as I am aware, no pen and paper RPG on the market comes anywhere close to being that way (at least in the former sense. In the 90's it seems like some games really were coming pretty damn close to 'let's pretend'), and that it's absurd to go around looking for 'culprits' as if some game that everybody thinks is an RPG might actually not be one because they roll dice in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons.  Moreover, mechanics that exist purely for the sake of making the game a game do not make something less of a role playing GAME, and these mechanics have been with us since the beginning of the industry, in games that nobody (as far as I know) have had any problems calling role playing games.  If some of us, NOW want to re-write history and declare that D&D isn't a real role playing game because it has level up, game balance, and resource management mechanics, then that is obviously just a function of what's trendy now.

Quote, you're choosing to impact the roleplay in favor of something else, right?

Sure, you're impacting the roleplay in favor of the GAME aspect, which as been right there in the design (and in the name, come on) since the beginning.  If you impacted it too much, such that role-playing isn't even a thing that happens in your game anymore, then sure, it ceases to be an RPG.  

But measuring an RPG purely in terms of how much role-playing you do when the word 'game' is right there in the name is just fuckin weird to me.

QuoteI fail to see how adding mechanics that prevent roleplay to a roleplaying game can be seen as anything else other than making it less of "only an RPG" and more of a "RPG with non-roleplay elements built for a specific sub-purpose".

Maybe it would help if I put it like this:  EVERY role-playing game is an "RPG with non-roleplay elements built for a specific sub-purpose".  That's why we call it an RPG and not an RP.  If you lose the RP, it ceases to be an RPG. But if you lose the G, it ALSO ceases to be an RPG.

Quote from: jux;889770So the OP basically tries to say:
 - RPG rules should only include rules of "physics"

Not quite, I focus on rules that are the "physics" so to speak. But physic is a misnomer because the purpose it to adjudicate something that the player does as a character. In some campaign will have nothing to with reality or anything based in the real world.  For example superhero, magic, or cartoons.

Also rules and games can used to aid a referee or player to prepare for a campaign, or be used to manage a campaign. For example Traveller has mini-games for starship creation, world generation, handling interstellar trading. For the players Traveller has a life path system for generating an experienced character. D&D has random encounter tables as a simplistic example. Pendragon and Ars Magica have mechanics for handling what happen during in a year of game time during the campaign.

But they are tools in used to run a tabletop RPG campaign. Hence my assertion that the point is to play the campaign not the rules.

Quote from: jux;889770- the "cute" story gamey rules is something to avoid in RPGs

Because I view them as a distraction from the player thinking what his character would do given the circumstance and the background of the campaign.

Quote from: jux;889770So as there is already topic in the forums - is there anything to innovate and improve in RPGs? Apparently not, right?

People think different, a new generation has different ways of looking at the world and what entertains them and so on. There will be always be need for a diverse range of designs for how to adjudicate things in a RPG campaign.

None of it is innovation and improvement in the sense my 2016 IPhone is better in many ways than my 2010 iPhone. What important that we have more diversity in how we can manage, prepare, and adjudicate our RPG Campaigns. And that is a very good thing to have.

Quote from: jux;889770All 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.

There are better ways of aiding the referee (novice or experienced) than to use meta-rules.

The key thing to remember in most cases there are a number of equally plausible consequences for what the players do or not do as their character. To impart a specific feel to the campaign, pick the outcome that best matches that.  

Yes there are actions to which there is only one plausible consequence but in my experience that is not as common as people think it is. And very rare when it comes to the things that drive a campaign. As this usually involves NPCs and PCs interacting with each other with all its complexity and choices.

How to do the above can be taught not just in a general way but for specific circumstances, genres, and types of campaign. And it is far more useful and more importantly flexible than any set of mechanics.

Quote from: jux;889770And in the end, you can still meta-game in your traditional system. You can manipulate GM and he can manipulate you.

Sure, people are involved so it happens. However it not considered an ideal.

Quote from: jux;889770I think the main challenge for RPG rules is to help GM, not players.

I agree, however I see metagame mechanic as a distraction from that. The key to fixing the issue is to make a human referee not a better game.

Quote from: Itachi;889824An electronic one ? Yes.

This is more of a general comment on how I view the differences

The concept is the same, only in another media.

Tabletop RPGs are a game where players interact with a setting as their character with a human referee adjudicating their actions.

Computer RPGs are a game where a player interact with a setting as a character with a computer adjudicating their actions.

The fact one uses a computer and the other a human referee is the source of all the differences between the two types of RPGs.

An MMORPG is nearly the same as a Computer RPG except that instead of "a player" it is players like tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: jux;889770But 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.

+1

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;889777But 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.

Actually, the comparison is very apt. When motion pictures added sound, lots and lots of artists, producers and other filmmakers, proclaimed it was useless and will destroy motion pictures:p.

Quote from: Agkistro;889830I completely agree that you COULD do this. If a person wanted to, they could take an RPG and bog it down with such complex tactical rules that it functionally ceases to be an RPG.  So for example, treating everything turn based, even out of combat.

See: Torchbearer;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;889796Are they though...really?  Granted you can stretch the definiton of RPG to mean practically anything, that seems to be some people's entire posting history here .  When you start adding OOC mechanic after OOC mechanic that is meant to be engaged with as a player not simple representing actions of the character, you really are making it less of an RPG aren't you?  

I'm in mild disagreement with this. I mean I see where you're coming from but in my opinion you're losing more than you gain by following that train of thought.

My two main problems:

A) An RPG is a Role Playing **GAME**. So you need to have a game element, which means a structure. It is debatable (and endlessly debated) how much of a structure the "ideal" RPG needs, but some of that structure needs to be in place and by its very existence it will force OOC interactions at the table.

B) By going your route, you could define a "perfect RPG" as something which has 100% role-playing and 0% of anything else. But that means that every time you e.g. make an OOC joke at the table, eat a snack, excuse yourself to go to the bathroom etc. you're acting in a way which makes for a worse RPG. My own personal experience is that a fun RPG session has lots of different things going on at the table and immersion is only one of those and often not the main factor.

YMMV, of course, but it seems to me you're essentially trying to "objectivize" the idea that the only "true RPG" is the perfect-immersion-based RPG.

I'll be the first one to admit that an objective definition of what is an RPG is an extremely hard task. Personally, the only hard and fast rule I find useful (as in: "if I find it in the book it's likely I'm reading an RPG") is that RPG's game structures are never static; they use dynamic rulesets which allow them to tackle any kind of in-game situation, most of which, obviously, can't be anticipated by the author.
Or, the tl;dr version: "RPGs must have rule zero". Anything beyond that becomes problematic from a theoretical point of view.

Quote from: Luca;889855A) An RPG is a Role Playing **GAME**. So you need to have a game element, which means a structure. It is debatable (and endlessly debated) how much of a structure the "ideal" RPG needs, but some of that structure needs to be in place and by its very existence it will force OOC interactions at the table.

The game is this. The players play individual characters interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee. The is called a RPG campaign, the details of preparing, managing, and adjudicating are written up in a rulebook which is a combination of traditional game rules, game aides, flavor, and advice.

The idea is simple the execution is not which is why we have multiple RPGs with diverse ways of doing the above. And it begins with the campaign first and the figuring out what you need including which rules are you going to use.

Quote from: Agkistro;889830EVERY role-playing game is an "RPG with non-roleplay elements built for a specific sub-purpose".

That's the point where we disagree.  You see any rule at all, as a non-roleplaying element.  But there are tons of RPGs where the only purpose the rules serve is resolution of character action.  That's it, period.

I roleplay the character, I choose as the character what to do, and the rules determine what happens with a randomizer to take into account chaos, physics calculations etc.  I don't HAVE to roleplay to play such a game, but the game mechanics don't deliver any choices from a point of view other than my character.

That's a fundamentally different form of roleplaying game from one that deliberately places rules that must be engaged with in a non-roleplaying manner.

One type of game allows me to always roleplay, or not, my choice.
The other type of game says 'For this particular mechanic, you can't roleplay, sorry, but look at the cool benefits!"

Quote from: Luca;889855B) By going your route, you could define a "perfect RPG" as something which has 100% role-playing and 0% of anything else. But that means that every time you e.g. make an OOC joke at the table, eat a snack, excuse yourself to go to the bathroom etc. you're acting in a way which makes for a worse RPG. My own personal experience is that a fun RPG session has lots of different things going on at the table and immersion is only one of those and often not the main factor.

The difference of course being, all the OOC activity you describe above is completely player choice, absolutely none of it determined by game mechanics.

Quote from: Luca;889855YMMV, of course, but it seems to me you're essentially trying to "objectivize" the idea that the only "true RPG" is the perfect-immersion-based RPG.

Eh, I go back and forth on this, but really, when you come down it, it doesn't quite seem right lumping games that have no mechanics that force OOC thinking with those that do force OOC thinking, and calling them both "roleplaying games" without some form of qualifier like Tactical RPG, or Narrative RPG or whatever.

Take any type of item/thing there is, call it X.  Then come up with something that is a blend of X and Y.  Do you still call it X?  In almost any case I can think of, no you don't.  You come up with a name for the new thing you've created, or perhaps even multiple names depending on the blend of X and Y.

It just seems logical to take a game whose mechanics allow you to Roleplay 100% if you desire as the base standard for the term Roleplaying Game.
Anything that introduces OOC, non-roleplaying decisions through mechanics should be termed something else.
James Bond 007 - Genre RPG
D&D 4e - Tactical RPG
Fate, 2d20 - Narrative RPG

Look at the hellstorm over 4e.  People still call it "not a RPG", only because there isn't a term for the type of RPG it is, because the type of RPG it is, is quite different from the type other forms of D&D were.

Better terms are needed.

Most adventures entail in-game travel.  I have always taken a "rulings" approach to handling travel, lots of handwave and some ad hoc encounter rolls and some throwing shit out as it comes to mind (thunderstorm on the horizon, or whatever).

My next campaign, I want to try out making travel more of a formal procedure and have scribbled down notes on the rules to be used.  I will clearly be shifting from a rulings to a rules paradigm in relation to in-game travel.

Is this making the rules subordinate to the needs of the campaign?
Or is this playing the rules at the expense of the campaign?