As my TRACTICS example was trying to show, the line between is often porous, but usually still pretty clear.  TRACITCS is unambiguously a wargame despite that "What does my tank commander do as standard doctrine" can be very similar to "What does my character do?".

Quote from: Dumarest;989766You seemed worried about it.

Nope.  Not at all.  I didn't start this thread...

Quote from: AsenRG;989609I agree with the latter point, but the former makes me wonder. What about those campaigns where everything in the lives of, say, superheroes, determines how well they can beat the crap out of each other.

If all the campaign is about is beating the crap out of each other then they can't all be superheroes. Somewhere somebody has to be a supervillain. And if all a superhero campaign is about is beating the crap out of somebody it sounds like a kinda crappy superhero setting. Isn't Spiderman supposed to worry about going on a date with MJ or helping Aunt May with the rent while Superman is busy trying not to get caught with his pants down in a phone-booth and Wolverine is trying to remember why he isn't supposed to kill some guy in a bar named Bub?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;989145The example I often use is Arkham Horror: You play a specific, named character with a detailed background. It has character sheets with stats. You mechanically resolve the outcome of actions with those stats. It looks a lot like a roleplaying game, but it's not one. The mechanical decisions you're making are not associated to in-character decisions; those mechanical decisions are not roleplaying; therefore it's not a roleplaying game. (I find this particular example useful because Arkham Horror basically exists right on the cusp of being a roleplaying game; if you made it any more like a roleplaying game by even a smidgeon, it would be a roleplaying game.)

The problem with that assessment is that my decisions are in line with character PoV when playing #ArkhamHorror. In fact I typically find it far less dissonant than supposedly 'real' #RPGs like #Fate or #2d20.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989663The fact that you can come up with your own rpg rules to bolt on to a wargame doesn't mean the wargame is an rpg.  Any game can be turned into an rpg by ADDING rpg rules of your own to it...

Isn't that how #D&D got started?

I'd like to suggest that a level of creativity is implied by the roleplaying game category.  You create a character or at least choose a character and play them according to your interpretation of that character.  That's where things like Arkham Horror and Descent fail utterly to my mind. They literally suck all of the creativity and joy out of the game and turn it into a mere mechanical recreation.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;989851The problem with that assessment is that my decisions are in line with character PoV when playing #ArkhamHorror. In fact I typically find it far less dissonant than supposedly 'real' #RPGs like #Fate or #2d20.



Isn't that how #D&D got started?

Yes.  That's how you make a rpg...you create a bunch of rules for a bunch of stuff the war game doesn't cover.  Because it's just a war game.  That's the point.  Nobody is saying RPGs don't have some wargame in them.  

Here's how this thread sorta went:

OP - "what's the difference between war games and RPGs again?"

A Bunch of Us - "here's a variety of things explaining the differences."

OP - "oh, yeah but I can just add all that rpg stuff to my wargame so what's the difference again?"

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989663jeez.


The fact that you can come up with your own rpg rules to bolt on to a wargame doesn't mean the wargame is an rpg.  Any game can be turned into an rpg by ADDING rpg rules of your own to it...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989760Was that the point of any of this thread?  I don't care what anyone else does with their games.  But don't try and tell me that there's all sorts of confusion about the distinction between an rpg and a war game because you can possibly come up with a bunch of home brew rpg rules and bolt them on top of advanced squad leader...

It's a good thing I'm not telling you that, then (look at the end).

...but purely out of curiosity if you don't care what other people do with their games, WTF are you looking for at a gaming forum:)?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;989787As my TRACTICS example was trying to show, the line between is often porous, but usually still pretty clear.  TRACITCS is unambiguously a wargame despite that "What does my tank commander do as standard doctrine" can be very similar to "What does my character do?".

FNF is also a wargame. I was just amazed how close that got (and I was reasoning that if I add a bunch of your "Referee decides" logic to it, I could run an RPG campaign with it. Though yes, at some point I'd need to write down some of those rulings, and ).
And yes, maybe that was old news to some of you wargamers. But I said it already - I had only seen wargames where you control groups of people. Curious how close it gets if the wargame is about a single individual or a group (a stable of boxers and their manager, in this case:D)!

Quote from: Bren;989805If all the campaign is about is beating the crap out of each other then they can't all be superheroes. Somewhere somebody has to be a supervillain.

Sorry, that's just me using "superhero" as a catch-all term for "people with superpowers and weird costumes".

QuoteAnd if all a superhero campaign is about is beating the crap out of somebody it sounds like a kinda crappy superhero setting. Isn't Spiderman supposed to worry about going on a date with MJ or helping Aunt May with the rent while Superman is busy trying not to get caught with his pants down in a phone-booth and Wolverine is trying to remember why he isn't supposed to kill some guy in a bar named Bub?

Dunno, I'm not an expert in the genre (as evidenced by lumping them all under one moniker). But at least in some of the story-based variants, maintaining those relationships, keeping their identities secret, and not killing innocent bystanders, also make them more likely to win a fight against Villain of the Week, or so I've been told!
Which undoubtedly means that the path to winning fights is to have many relationships and having moral dilemmas. At least that's how it works for supers, it seems:D!

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;989928Yes.  That's how you make a rpg...you create a bunch of rules for a bunch of stuff the war game doesn't cover.  Because it's just a war game.  That's the point.  Nobody is saying RPGs don't have some wargame in them.  

Here's how this thread sorta went:

OP - "what's the difference between war games and RPGs again?"

A Bunch of Us - "here's a variety of things explaining the differences."

OP - "oh, yeah but I can just add all that rpg stuff to my wargame so what's the difference again?"

Sorry, you were slightly wrong with the second OP reply.
OP (me): "Yeah, but many of those things are also things that some people prefer to play out without formal rules, so where's the difference again? In the mindset, I guess. How...subjective!"
I'm not (despite you seeming to attribute me those claims):
A) Claiming FNF is an RPG.
B) Claiming FNF will be an RPG if I add some stuff to it. (Of course it will be, but that wouldn't be FNF any longer. With enough changes, chess can become an RPG, too...but it's not going to be chess any longer, and chess isn't an RPG).
What I am saying is:
"Hey look, here's a game that does some neat stuff (and arguably reminds me of some RPGs that I like, and is closer to an RPG than some RPG-labelled games I've played). Maybe all of you were aware such games exist, but I thought wargames are just about armies, or at least squads, at war...well, until now. Comment on that revelation, while I go looking for a bunch of other wargames, too".
Clear now?

Quote from: AsenRG;990006It's a good thing I'm not telling you that, then (look at the end).

...but purely out of curiosity if you don't care what other people do with their games, WTF are you looking for at a gaming forum:)?


FNF is also a wargame. I was just amazed how close that got (and I was reasoning that if I add a bunch of your "Referee decides" logic to it, I could run an RPG campaign with it. Though yes, at some point I'd need to write down some of those rulings, and ).
And yes, maybe that was old news to some of you wargamers. But I said it already - I had only seen wargames where you control groups of people. Curious how close it gets if the wargame is about a single individual or a group (a stable of boxers and their manager, in this case:D)!


Sorry, that's just me using "superhero" as a catch-all term for "people with superpowers and weird costumes".


Dunno, I'm not an expert in the genre (as evidenced by lumping them all under one moniker). But at least in some of the story-based variants, maintaining those relationships, keeping their identities secret, and not killing innocent bystanders, also make them more likely to win a fight against Villain of the Week, or so I've been told!
Which undoubtedly means that the path to winning fights is to have many relationships and having moral dilemmas. At least that's how it works for supers, it seems:D!



Sorry, you were slightly wrong with the second OP reply.
OP (me): "Yeah, but many of those things are also things that some people prefer to play out without formal rules, so where's the difference again? In the mindset, I guess. How...subjective!"
I'm not (despite you seeming to attribute me those claims):
A) Claiming FNF is an RPG.
B) Claiming FNF will be an RPG if I add some stuff to it. (Of course it will be, but that wouldn't be FNF any longer. With enough changes, chess can become an RPG, too...but it's not going to be chess any longer, and chess isn't an RPG).
What I am saying is:
"Hey look, here's a game that does some neat stuff (and arguably reminds me of some RPGs that I like, and is closer to an RPG than some RPG-labelled games I've played). Maybe all of you were aware such games exist, but I thought wargames are just about armies, or at least squads, at war...well, until now. Comment on that revelation, while I go looking for a bunch of other wargames, too".
Clear now?

not really.

there's all sorts of different games out there.  The line between wargame and rpg is by no means made of brick.

Much like pornography, "I know it when I see it."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;990045Much like pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I said above, "the difference in intent". But that, too, is like pornography!

I think it's better for me to concede the point;).

An RPG, to be an RPG, has to follow certain landmarks. Core among these is that you play ONE character (or at least, one at a time), and you are meant to immerse in that character. So you are making decisions not based on some external factor ("what would make the best story?", "What would let me win the battle?", etc) but on what that character would do. Finally, part of immersion is that you associate with the character, above and beyond the metagame or the setting or some other goal.

Secondly, there also has to be a 'world'. Most wargames have a world. Very few have individual characters. None have the notion that you would immerse yourself in your character. If they do, to the point where you are expected to make choices not on what you as a  player think is tactically best for winning the battle but on what the character would do, you are at that point playing an RPG.

Quote from: RPGPundit;990787An RPG, to be an RPG, has to follow certain landmarks. Core among these is that you play ONE character (or at least, one at a time), and you are meant to immerse in that character. So you are making decisions not based on some external factor ("what would make the best story?", "What would let me win the battle?", etc) but on what that character would do. Finally, part of immersion is that you associate with the character, above and beyond the metagame or the setting or some other goal.

Secondly, there also has to be a 'world'. Most wargames have a world. Very few have individual characters. None have the notion that you would immerse yourself in your character. If they do, to the point where you are expected to make choices not on what you as a  player think is tactically best for winning the battle but on what the character would do, you are at that point playing an RPG.

It seems to me that the wargamers I know (self included) tend to be interested in the historical situation and that one of their main interests in playing historical wargames is to get an experience and perspective on the mindset of people in that historical situation. When we do approach the decisions in that wargame from an in-character perspective, we may be more or less roleplaying, but I'd still call the game a wargame.

We can also run combats (or entire wars) with little-to-no roleplaying using an RPG system but avoiding roleplaying and playing just to win objectives.

i.e. it seems to me that just as we can have war, tactical mapped gameplay and simulationist features in an RPG, there can be some roleplaying in a wargame.

And RPG and wargame are still just abstract ideas, not different classes of actual things, and ideas that can overlap in a game and in a player's approach to them, so it's aways going to be somewhat subjective.

War-games have rules-based "hard" win-conditions that allow claiming certain outcomes, defined by the rules or agreed upon by the players prior to play. RPGs have "soft" in-setting win-conditions that are defined by the player-characters from within in the current situation.

Quote from: AsenRG;990006Dunno, I'm not an expert in the genre (as evidenced by lumping them all under one moniker). But at least in some of the story-based variants, maintaining those relationships, keeping their identities secret, and not killing innocent bystanders, also make them more likely to win a fight against Villain of the Week, or so I've been told!
Which undoubtedly means that the path to winning fights is to have many relationships and having moral dilemmas. At least that's how it works for supers, it seems:D!

Those games sound like they might fit in the category of "a kinda crappy superhero setting."

Quote from: RPGPundit;990787Core among these is that you play ONE character (or at least, one at a time)...

That's not required. Troupe play is a thing. But one character at a time is the most common and probably the easiest way for people to play RPGs.

Quote from: Skarg;990881It seems to me that the wargamers I know (self included) tend to be interested in the historical situation and that one of their main interests in playing historical wargames is to get an experience and perspective on the mindset of people in that historical situation. When we do approach the decisions in that wargame from an in-character perspective, we may be more or less roleplaying, but I'd still call the game a wargame.

You can argue, certainly, that in some wargames where, say, you are meant to try to put yourself in the head of Napoleon or Robert E. Lee or whatever, you are incorporating an element of role-play.  But I think that unless you are also making a character sheet for Napoleon, it's still a wargame with some role-play element, and not an RPG.