I recently bought a wargame called Friday Night Fights 2e, because I was in the mood for a boxing game:). And this one has the option to play it solo.

Then, after a match, I noticed that it's got a tactical combat system, which incorporates skill quirks* and personality traits** to make for a better game. It was easy to visualize what's happening.
And Fame is an essential part of it, which reminded me of Flashing Blades.
In fact, the game even recommends being used as a "fistcuffs diversion" during an eventual RPG session.
However, it didn't take me long to realize that I can actually run a modern game with just that, no need for other RPG mechanics!
Yes, they can be nice, but lately, I've been leaning more and more towards mechanics that don't simulate stuff like Intelligence and Charisma (Appearance and Learning are fine). Besides, I can always come up with a throw to resolve non-combat issues.

As I said, I started to think. If you can tell me, just where is the line that separates RPGs from skirmish-level wargames with a group of characters? Many RPGs can totally be used as a boxing simulator, too - in fact, Fight! the Fighting Game RPG begins with this.
We all know RPGs started as wargames. Have they really changed that much as to really be a separate hobby?
Or are we just creating a needless distinction?

I've got no real purpose with this thread, other than to hear what you people think about this;).

*Like, Boxing 3 and Brawler is different from Boxing 3 without Brawler.
**Like Scary, Weak-Willed, Fearless, and the like.

Personally I think in many cases board game (including wargames) / rpg is just a continuum differentiated by the emphasis of the game. Even a board game like Talisman includes many RPG like features and I suppose one could argue it is an RPG, although it would be hard to convince me of that.

A game like AH's Panzer Blitz / Panzer Leader where the smallest unit represented is a platoon of men pretty solidly sits in wargame territory for me, but something like AH's Squad Leader / Advanced Squad Leader or GW's Warhammer that have individual leader counters / figures it is less clear although I still really consider these wargames.

Once you get down to every counter is an individual and there can be some distinction from one individual to the next (beyond function, rifleman, grenadier, leader etc) it is kind of up to what the game designer claims it is.

AH's Firepower was sold as a war game, but each counter represents an individual soldier who has unique stats (basically they get a mini character sheet and as I recall can gain experience). There are fairly detailed equipment lists with a level of detail that differentiates between an M16, FN-FAL and AK-47. There was body armor and different types of grenades. In the 1980s Firepower could have easily been marketed as a combat focused RPG instead of being sold as a war game.
 
FASA's Behind Enemy Lines was the reverse. It was sold as an RPG and its role play elements are better developed than Firepower, but it could very easily have been marketed as a highly detailed small unit war game.    

When Steve Jackson Games released GURPS prequel Man to Man a year before GURPS became available, we played out a ton of small combats. Really it was just a very detailed small unit combat system, not much of an RPG. The following year we got the full release of GURPS and it made the jump to definitely being an RPG.

The key (IMEO) is this phrase from OD&D:

"If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!),"

Wargames state, as in CHAINMAIL, that "it is likely that you will eventually find some part that seems ambiguous, unanswered, or unsatisfactory. When such a situation arises settle it among yourselves, record the decision in the rules book, and abide by it from then on. These rules may be treated as guide lines around which you form a game that suits you. It is always a good idea to amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense -- follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter."

Though a wargame may suggest that the rules could use expansion or clarification, the RPG explicitly states that the rules may be out and out changed at the referee's whim.

The insistence on rules-as-written is more in line with wargaming than RPGs as they were originally conceived.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

i dont know where the line is, but I used to looooove the necromunda skirmish game. Each of my little goliath punks had a nickname, and they accrued injuries and new gear and levelled up and all that jazz. We even kinda roleplayed them a touch in some duels etc.

I would acually be super interested in a solo version of something like necromunda. I wonder if there is such a thing. wiat a minute... computer games.

For a solo version of Necromunda, or similar, look into Chain Reaction or 5150 from Two Hour Wargames also the Iron Keep imprint from Rebel Miniatures. These are a series of extremely solitaire friendly skirmish war-games/quasi-roleplaying games. They really straddle the cusp. Each player gets a "Star" character and may recruit additional "grunts" as supporting cast. The rules include mechanisms for encountering other groups and handling their reactions. As well as characters improving with experience.

Two Hour Wargames really blurs the lines between wargame and rpg.  There's been more than a few times where I've thought of just using some skirmish game rules to run an rpg with.

I've never had much trouble distinguishing between the 2 myself.  Even a small unit skirmish wargame is still a "unit" of soldiers.  If I'm adopting the role of an individual, and following that individual through a series of scenarios that involve things like interacting with non-player characters, it's a role-playing game.  If I'm moving a military unit around a battle map, it's a wargame.  D&D includes a wargame of sorts, but there's a layer of stuff built around it that makes it an rpg...

games that "blur the lines," blur the lines.  Big whoop.

Quote from: AsenRG;989095As I said, I started to think. If you can tell me, just where is the line that separates RPGs from skirmish-level wargames with a group of characters? Many RPGs can totally be used as a boxing simulator, too - in fact, Fight! the Fighting Game RPG begins with this.
We all know RPGs started as wargames. Have they really changed that much as to really be a separate hobby?
Or are we just creating a needless distinction?

Focus.

• Play the game where one or more players is a winner after achieving some victory conditions then it is a wargame.
• Play the game where the players are playing characters interacting with a setting with their actions adjudicated by a human referee then it is a tabletop roleplaying game. (In this case the campaign is focused on boxing).
  
• If the game is used as part of a campaign where the focus is on a group of people engaged in collaborative storytelling about boxing then it is being used as a storygame.
  

All three represent a center of what a group could be focusing on for these types of games and not hard and fast lines. Hybrids of varying mixes occur all the time. What make any one thing useful is how much work does it save you in running a campaign focused on what you and your players want to do.

You could use Toon to run a serious Game of Thrones campaign but it would be a lot of work. To the point where 99.99% of the hobbyists would not bother using their precious leisure time to do this. Far more common are people choosing between games that are closely related. For example there are many Fantasy Roleplaying Games can be used to run a Game of Thrones campaign without much extra work. Including two that were built just for that purpose.

This is why for the past couple of years my position is to say; fuck rules, design the campaign you and your group wants to play first. Then figure the best set of rules and stuff to make it happen.

A wargamer flips the table and storms out if he loses a regiment.  A roleplayer flips the table and storms out if he loses a single figure.

For me it's simple - you play a role? It's a roleplaying game.

The kind of roleplaying game is another matter entirely. It may be electronic (eg: Final Fantasy), it may be solo (eg: Fighting Fantasy books), it may be in a group around a table with dice and char sheets (eg: D&D), it may even discard hard rules (eg: kids make believe).

So yeah, I would consider the kind of game described in the OP as a roleplaying game, as long as someone is assuming a role. Surely with a different focus than D&D, but still a RP game.

Quote from: Itachi;989211So yeah, I would consider the kind of game described in the OP as a roleplaying game. Surely with a different focus than D&D, but still a RP game.

Except the sole expectation that you and an opponent would fight it out to see if there is a winner which not what roleplaying games focus on. As presented Friday Night Fights is a wargame where the detail is at the level of individual boxers. It could be easily used as the combat engine for a tabletop RPG campaign focused on boxed. Much in the same way that Melee/Wizard were used as the combat engine for the Fantasy Trip.

But each participant is playing a role, right ? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be a role-playing game?

For me the canonical example of the divide between a wargame and a tabletop roleplaying game is the difference between Steve Jackson's Melee/Wizard and the Fantasy Trip. The former is written and presented as a wargame, the latter is written and presented as a tabletop roleplaying game.

However magazine of the time had numerous accounts of hobbyists successfully using Melee/Wizard by themselves as part of a tabletop RPG campaign. And was a factor in Metagaming commission the Fantasy Trip from Steve Jackson.

Quote from: Itachi;989213But each participant is playing a role, right ? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be a role-playing game?

No they are not playing a role. They are two players fighting it out using a boxing simulation to see who wins. Not pretending to be characters interacting with a setting. Nor there is a referee to adjudicate said interactions.

In case it wasn't clear it could be easily adapted to resolve boxing matches in a roleplaying campaign about the players pretending to be boxers. But that fact doesn't change the fact that product is written, presented, and marketed as a wargame to played between two or more players competing against one another without the need for a referee.