Quote from: CRKrueger;889864Take 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

This.
German Old Schoolers for a while called their games "Adventure Role-Playing Games" for the sole purpose of differentiating them from the then mainstream trend towards narrativism, storytelling, and other such wankery. Of course what they should have done instead, was to reclaim the term RPG.

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.

There are two major definitions of the word game as a noun (at least that are remotely applicable). From Dictionary.com these are the first and third definitions of the word:

Quote1. an amusement or pastime
2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

For many, if not most, of the casual tabletop RPG players I've played with over the last 40 years, RPGs are more pastimes (definition #1) than activities played according to a set of rules (definition #3). Most of these players show little to no interest in learning the details of the rules (let alone interest in manipulating the rules as widgets). They aren't there for the rules but to pretend be someone else in another world -- they depend on the GM to provide the structure and don't really care about how that structure is provided.

While more "hardcore" players tend to see RPG as Role-Playing GAME (with stress on the word "game"), many casual players see RPG as ROLE-PLAYING game (with the stress on the word "role-playing" and with the meaning of the word "game" more toward the "pastime" definition of the word.)

This is more a side note than an argument, but I do think it is an important to remember that not all tabletop RPG players consider the word "game" in the same way or even consider the "game" part of the name the most important aspect of what they are doing when they play.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;889902German Old Schoolers for a while called their games "Adventure Role-Playing Games" for the sole purpose of differentiating them from the then mainstream trend towards narrativism, storytelling, and other such wankery. Of course what they should have done instead, was to reclaim the term RPG.

Too late.

Quote from: Old One Eye;889901Is this making the rules subordinate to the needs of the campaign?
Or is this playing the rules at the expense of the campaign?

No just adjudicating travel at a different level of detail that you prefer. Travel is something that happens in-game so a referee of a campaign will need some way of adjudicating it. It obvious you were not satisfied with how you handled that part of a campaign so you are changing it.

The question you need to ask yourself is it something your players will find interesting.

For me personally I vary how much detail I go into travelling. The default for me is to throw a map, and move a marker along and just briefly comment on what the players see. Most time it is over and done with in a minute or two. But occasionally I will describe something that interests them and we go from there.

I find this way, among others, give my players the sense they are moving through a larger world with a life of it own. Plus I get to have some fun exercising some creativity that not directly related to the what going on at the moment in the campaign.

Roleplaying games are games that differ from other games by the qualifying element of playing a role.
Such it is possible to loose the game aspect, but it is much easier to loose the role playing aspect.

The other thing is, that once RPGs branched from other kind of games, they still evolved and diversified and with them the tastes of the players until not everyone still works well with everyone else at the same table.
Like chihuahua and St. Bernards both being dogs but not really making nice couples.

The problem is, that the number of players didn´t grow to proportions and now there is a rivalry for attracting gamers and things get "political" quickly.
Which is the main cause for not getting working labels too, because a) everyone wants to keep the main and best known label and some subgroups seem to fear that not getting the label will make the available gamers dropping quickly.
 
In my eyes there are 6 main interest focus groups (similar to threefold and then divided into way and result styles) in the brawl - beside social gaming for when you are just where their friends are and don´t think too much about what you are doing:

Simulation of the way: Here people are asking "What if" and try to find out and experience what happens in their fame world.

Simulation of the result (genre sim): Here people like a certain genre or feel of events and try to recreate and then experience it in persona.

Gamism of the way: This is where you are into challenge and testing their ability to beat the odds and you try to find out who will (fairly) win.

Gamism of the result: This is rather about winning and blowing of steam and feeling good.

Dramatism of the way: This is sharing in the authorship of a story and looking what will result if several people throw together their narrative ideas and efforts.

Dramatism of the result: This is having an ideal narrative vision and trying to reproduce best possible in front of the audience of the other participiants.  

And while there are still some rough edges in my experience it was the easiest to find compromises between Simulationists  of the way and Gamists of the way (and besides this is also the mix nearest to the original - which is not a qualification by itself but probably leading to be not that far away from the other branches than more special tastes, leading to an easier compromise finding)

And each one can loose something of being an RPG, when ist gets to far away from its roots. Double points if you deliberately shift the focus from playing (in) your role and put it someone else.

Regarding rules:
Depending on what branches you want to serve with your game/campaign you have to choose the fitting rules and then these rules (if you have chosen wisely) are very much what your campaign is about.

Quote from: Maarzan;890106Roleplaying games are games that differ from other games by the qualifying element of playing a role.
Such it is possible to loose the game aspect, but it is much easier to loose the role playing aspect.

Not that anyone's ever agreed on definition. I parse the term just as follows: Roleplaying is a present participle functioning as an adjective. Game is the noun. It's a game, plain and simple, but the way you participate in the game is through the playing of a role or roles. In other words, it's not like pieces on a chess where they are moved according to a purpose greater than themselves by a player who can see the whole board and limited to specified and generally enumerated legal moves.

Rather, each "piece" ideally moves according to a purpose of its owned as best the player can provide, under conditions of limited information according to the piece's perspective, and any number of moves are possible, limited only by imagination and what the character could reasonably do or attempt if he were a real person.

Quote from: Lunamancer;890109Not that anyone's ever agreed on definition. I parse the term just as follows: Roleplaying is a present participle functioning as an adjective. Game is the noun. It's a game, plain and simple, but the way you participate in the game is through the playing of a role or roles. In other words, it's not like pieces on a chess where they are moved according to a purpose greater than themselves by a player who can see the whole board and limited to specified and generally enumerated legal moves.

Rather, each "piece" ideally moves according to a purpose of its owned as best the player can provide, under conditions of limited information according to the piece's perspective, and any number of moves are possible, limited only by imagination and what the character could reasonably do or attempt if he were a real person.

Sounds good for me.

The derived from the "game" part is the aspect "shared social activity" that sets a certain amount of socially imbued limits (leading to "my character is cn" not being an excuse for everything"), but besides this, it is on the point.

This is a good thread! I agree that the Campaign is very central to the idea of RPGs (with the caveat that there can be single session "campaigns"). Here's my definition of RPGs:

A Game is a period of structured play (play - an activity engaged in for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose). Let us differentiate Game from other forms of Play (Toys, "Pretend", etc).

Games have:

• Agents ~ a list of players and/or their symbolic representations.
• Strategies ~ moves or series of moves governed by rules, that each player may make and the associated goals, risks and rewards.
• Uncertainty ~ the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable but ultimately quantifiable (if we could predict it 100% of the time in advance, why go through the ritual of acting it out, right?).

Lacking multiple agents, we have Playthings.

Playthings with goals (puzzles, etc) are Challenges.
Playthings without goals are Toys.

Play with multiple agents but lacking one of the other two aspects also falls outside of Gamimg territory. This could be a theatrical Play with a script ("goal") but little-to-no uncertainty, or simple "let's pretend" Play with no pre-established goals and plenty of uncertainty.

Now that we have defined a Game, I would say that:

Roleplaying Games are games where the outcome is a Narrative of the events of a fictional world. One of the Players (usually labeled the "Game Master" or "Dungeon Master") is given authority to interpret the rules as well as advance the narrative of events. The GM does this by describing situations and outcomes and choosing strategies for all NPC Agents ("Non-Player Character").

The other Players control Agents (the "Player Characters") and choose their Strategies by associating themselves with the in-game representation presented by the GM's fictional narrative ("imagining/immersion"). The players learn optimal Strategies by considering the PCs role in the story, their own character goals, the resources and game mechanics available to that PC, and the effect on the 'game-world' of previous Strategies.

The Uncertainty usually lies in if the PCs as a group will succeed in their Goal(s) for the current session of Play (goals may be stated or unstated, GM chosen or collaborated upon) while the GM presents opposition without being emotionally invested in the PC's failure. Uncertainty can also lie in the method used to resolve in-game activities by characters, usually by rolling one or more dice and consulting the game's rules.

Some of the links I mined for this:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134922/what_is_a_game_an_excerpt_from_.php
http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatIsaGame.shtml

Quote from: CRKrueger;889860That'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'm sure that there are. But there are also tons of games that we've all called RPGs since there were such things as RPGs that aren't that way, too. It is just odd to say that deviations from 'rules are only for resolution of character action' makes something less of an RPG when the first RPGs weren't that way.

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

If you say so.  Considering virtually all character advancement systems have rules that must be engaged with in a non-roleplaying manner, I'm still not seeing what the point of the distinction is.  You're still stuck in a place where you have to say that D&D is fundamentally not a role playing game, or is much less of one than whatever ideal you have in mind.  Like we were all doing role playing games wrong for the first decade of the hobby or something.

QuoteOne type of game allows me to always roleplay, or not, my choice.

What makes this thing you're describing a game? We're not talking about role-playing, we're talking about role-playing games, so "I can always role-play in it" is not sufficient.

QuoteThe other type of game says 'For this particular mechanic, you can't roleplay, sorry, but look at the cool benefits!"

So like, character creation for example.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889864Take 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.

The problem with this of course is that this abstraction completely fails to describe the actual history of what's happened.  The term "Role-playing Game"  came into existence specifically to describe things that would be excluded based on your distinction.   AD&D is not a blend between an RPG and something else; it is literally the very thing the word "RPG" was created to describe.  

So what's happening here is more like:  Take a thing and call it X. Subtract an inherent element to X that has been there since X was a thing.  Do you still call it X? Most of the time no.

So yeah, feel free to come up with a name other than "Role-playing game" for this thing in which you role-play without any gamist mechanics in it.  Me, I'm happy calling all this stuff RPGs, but you seem to place a greater importance on labels than me.  Maybe the things you like should be called 'role-playing experiences' or 'role-playing parties' or just 'role-playing' instead of role-playing games. You can call them anything you want really- like I said, it's you that things the label is important.

QuoteIt 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.

Look at how silly this reads. Role-playing GAME. It's right there in the WORD.  "Clearly pure role-playing game would be one in which you role-play 100% of the time with no gamist interruptions".   What?

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;889902This.
German Old Schoolers for a while called their games "Adventure Role-Playing Games" for the sole purpose of differentiating them from the then mainstream trend towards narrativism, storytelling, and other such wankery. Of course what they should have done instead, was to reclaim the term RPG.

Well, that was and is impossible, as the defining RPG was Das Schwarze Auge.
And running around telling people Kiesow-style DSA is not even an RPG at all might be true, but terribly ineffective.

Furthermore, I still stand by my old stance that what I engage is as a hobby encompasses Boardgames, Wargames, Miniature Games as well as RPGs. To me, they are not seperate activities, oftentimes.

Quote from: Settembrini;890194Well, that was and is impossible, as the defining RPG was Das Schwarze Auge.
And running around telling people Kiesow-style DSA is not even an RPG at all might be true, but terribly ineffective.

Furthermore, I still stand by my old stance that what I engage is as a hobby encompasses Boardgames, Wargames, Miniature Games as well as RPGs. To me, they are not seperate activities, oftentimes.

Less of a criticism, Sette, but a mere observation. I did actually like term, but today it's meaningless, because even German publishers have gone with the flow and went somewhat old school, even if it was for the wrong reasons (see "Schwarzer Keiler Redux"). I guess my biggest recent disappointment was the new edition of DSA, which is nothing but a missed chance. Hopefully, the more Fuchsian "DSA Classic" they were talking up the last two years will make them see the light.

To your second point: Yes, I call it The Hobby. I'm a Hobbyist, a Hobby Gamer. I even incorporate the new D&D miniatures game for large scale conflict in my current 5E campaign, use D&D Dice Masters as an in-game national tournament the characters can partake in. And of course we all know that games like Diplomacy are basically the Model UN of RPGs anyway.

Quote from: AsenRG;889253I simply don't know an RPG where you can run the game without rulings!

Most any RPG that is not rules dependant on "make stuff up" can be played RAW. IE: Games where there isnt a rule at all for some action that normally youd see in an RPG and can not be covered with existing rules.

Some games give the DM alot of leeway without having to resort to rulings. Stat checks in D&D is a prime example. Its a pretty versatile yet simple rule that can cover a broad array of situations.

I've DMed and played quite a few games RAW without having to resort to rulings or house rules. So yeah. Can be done. Certainly not for every DM. Each group has its own quirks and pure RAW might fail as this thread has had people point out.

Quote from: Agkistro;889641So rules that don't do what you say all RPG rules should do don't count as rules?  I guess that makes you right!

Welcome to EstarWorld. Enjoy your stay.

Quote from: estar;889842Tabletop 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.

Um... Except in pretty much every CRPG out there you can not jump on a table or talk to an NPC or pick up a rock unless it is scripted to allow it to happen. No code? No way. There is no real RP to the CRPG or MMORPG.