I use it to contrast alternative models.

In a traditional RPG, the GM runs the world, and the players play their characters. This doesn't completely preclude players adding setting elements (e.g. a Champion's DNPC or a GURPS Enemy), but it limits them to what the GM allows and it largely / overwhelmingly means the GM will decide how those elements behave in-game.

I think how much non-traditional stuff is allowed in a game before it's non-traditional is a judgement call on the part of whoever's talking. I wouldn't consider mechanics like Champion's to preclude it being traditional. Creating contacts in-game is somewhat less traditional, but I think Twilight 2000 is still definitely traditional from what I recall (never saw the 2nd edition).

I think traditional  / alternative is more accurate than some other ways of categorizing games (indie / whatever-no-indie-is). Story Games vs. Not-Story-Games is okay, but if you're contrasting Story-Games v. RPGs, then you still might find it useful to distinguish between RPGs that follow the traditional model and those that don't.

Cheers,
-E.

There is no such thing as a "Traditional" rpg. RPGs are all constantly evolving. D&D5E is not the same as 1st Edition AD&D. All rpgs emerge from a cross-pollination of ideas that develop trends in different directions. It's a nonsense distinction.

Quote from: Psikerlord;969679dont all RPGs do this?

A couple games that aren't "Story Games" come to mind that don't involve rolling dice:

Different Randomizer than dice: Castle Falkenstein uses standard playing cards. It's a mostly decent system. Love the magic system. There are other games using cards as a primary randomizer, but I haven't played them.

No randomizer: The Marvel Universe Role Playing Game - In this game your character has a power pool, and allocates "stones" from that pool to various attacks and defenses, etc. So, there is no randomizer, but there is some blind allocation and guessing game going on as to where the stones are going, if the character will over-commit pool and be at disadvantage while the pool regenerates, etc. I loved some of the ideas, but... this game needed a 2nd edition badly, IMO.

I'm sure the world of gaming (board games, card games, etc.) has a variety of means of producing outcomes without rolling dice, and a few I don't know about have found their way into some non-Story Game RPGs.

How about the trend of "drama" games emphasizing conflicts of interest between players as exemplified by Hillfolk, Smallville and Monsterhearts ? Would you guys call it traditional?

Quote from: Itachi;969835How about the trend of "drama" games emphasizing conflicts of interest between players as exemplified by Hillfolk, Smallville and Monsterhearts ? Would you guys call it traditional?

I know nothing about those games. However, the idea that each player has their own desires which only sometimes coincide with the rest of the players certainly dates back to early in the hobby's history. I don't know about 'emphasizing' it.

Again, we're getting into some pretty murky water when we start having to define emphasizing or traditional or even story. I'm sure no two people are using them the same way.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;969838Again, we're getting into some pretty murky water when we start having to define emphasizing or traditional or even story. I'm sure no two people are using them the same way.

Yep, totally agree.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;969824There is no such thing as a "Traditional" rpg. RPGs are all constantly evolving. D&D5E is not the same as 1st Edition AD&D. All rpgs emerge from a cross-pollination of ideas that develop trends in different directions. It's a nonsense distinction.

Constantly evolving does not contradict the existence of a tradition. Try again.

Sometimes there is a tendency to equate 'Traditional' with 'normal'. 'standard' or make a value judgement.

Quote from: Itachi;969835How about the trend of "drama" games emphasizing conflicts of interest between players as exemplified by Hillfolk, Smallville and Monsterhearts ? Would you guys call it traditional?

No. I would not. Not if drama/conflict is coded into the mechanics - this actually makes Pendragon slightly iffy, but I'd peg it as trad with some slightly non-trad elements in the Passions etc. Co-operative story-creation games with an emphasis on author-stance are definitely not trad.

Quote from: Voros;969777May 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.'

I don't necessarily mean just novelty dice. For example I sort of like the fancy dice for the recent Aquelarre kickstarter, but I think those are just "the 1 looks like a dragon" or something, but they're still used as numeric dice.

For the "all sides are pictures" dice games, there may be no logical difference in the dice themselves (compared to using numbered dice), though I think it may be an attempt to sell special dice _and_ to cover up the mechanics so people will relate to them differently from the more "traditional" dice systems, which is part of the non-"traditional" design's shift away from trying to get grain on a model of a situation, so you have a game about a situation; to an lower-grain system that is more about the abstract and pliable mechanics and/or simpler comparisons that aren't about modeling a situation. So a "cool story" can be told about what happened. A low-grain number and/or low-grain die roll, with little or no tracking of the situation details or rules about them, and possible use of one or more narrativium-point shifts, leads to a low-grain "level of success" that gives players and the GM license to describe what happened at a certain level of coolness, though it rarely matters how you describe it. At least, that's my impression of what's generally going on, and the special dice and other complex non-representational mechanics seem to all be part of that.

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?

A Fantasy Medieval Wargame with improv in funny voices tacked on?

A GM-run RPG, where he acts as a neutral referee and the players play one or several characters in a campaign world that is controlled by that GM. Also, rules mechanisms should entirely reflect things that can happen in the game world, not on a meta level (e.g. FATE), because that goes beyond the scope of playing characters in a campaign world. Personally, there is some leeway on the second point for me: I can accept Luck points in DCC and maybe even "Hero" points to a degree, though I think it shouldn't go further than that to qualify as "traditional".

I like to start from a solid understanding of what makes a "Game" before I consider what makes a specific game a "Roleplaying Game".

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 fall outside of Game territory (say a theatrical Play with a script/"goal" but little-to-no uncertainty, or simple "let's pretend" Play with no preestablished goals and plenty of uncertainty).

Now that we have defined Game-space, I would say that:

Roleplaying Games are games where 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 by describing situations and outcomes and choosing strategies for all NPC Agents (Non-Player Characters).

The other Players control an Agent (usually one, the "Player Character", sometimes more than one). Players choose their strategies by associating themselves with the in-game setting presented by the GM's fictional narrative and considering their PC's role in the story, their character goals, and the resources and game mechanics available to that PC.

The usual Uncertainty lies in if the PCs as a group will succeed in the Goal for the current Session of Play (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.

Pretty close to the others' definitions.

Quote from: Telarus;969981Roleplaying Games are games where 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 by describing situations and outcomes and choosing strategies for all NPC Agents (Non-Player Characters).

The other Players control an Agent (usually one, the "Player Character", sometimes more than one). Players choose their strategies by associating themselves with the in-game setting presented by the GM's fictional narrative and considering their PC's role in the story, their character goals, and the resources and game mechanics available to that PC.

Might want to cover Roleplaying in version 2.0

Quote from: NeonAce;969826A couple games that aren't "Story Games" come to mind that don't involve rolling dice:

Different Randomizer than dice: Castle Falkenstein uses standard playing cards. It's a mostly decent system. Love the magic system. There are other games using cards as a primary randomizer, but I haven't played them.

No randomizer: The Marvel Universe Role Playing Game - In this game your character has a power pool, and allocates "stones" from that pool to various attacks and defenses, etc. So, there is no randomizer, but there is some blind allocation and guessing game going on as to where the stones are going, if the character will over-commit pool and be at disadvantage while the pool regenerates, etc. I loved some of the ideas, but... this game needed a 2nd edition badly, IMO.

I'm sure the world of gaming (board games, card games, etc.) has a variety of means of producing outcomes without rolling dice, and a few I don't know about have found their way into some non-Story Game RPGs.

As long as there's some kind of random aspect (cards, dice, whatever), I think you can call it an RPG. If you completely take the random out, I think it should probably end up in some other catergory.