What is an RPG?

Remove all ads!

By your definition, does the simulation have to be realistic by the terms of the real world (excluding stuff like magic or whatnot - but general laws of the universe and such), or make an attempt at doing so?

 

Only "realistic" by the laws of the universe it is set in. For example, the Forgotten Realms is basically our world, circa the middle ages with the addition of magic, the supernatural, monsters etc.
You have to be able to suspend disbelief to an extent to enjoy fantasy so I don't harp on the fact that the FR universe could not exist in any logical way and could be unwoven like a frayed sweater upon scrutiny.
I just concern myself with the obvious stuff...that 500 lbs., 7'6" humanoids do not have diffculties knocking down doors because of low charisma score. If one's ability to knock down a door was based on charisma that would be poor simulation/unrealistic.
I also concern myself with how closely the game simulates/represents the genre in general. This is where AD&D fails miserably because, aside from one or two poorly written Jack Vance books, no mage in fantasy fiction ever had to memorize each instance of a spell-casting in a "fire and forget" manner.
Also things like making Bards "fighters" and/or thieves of some sort is poor. They originally tied bards in with thieving because the Welsch had an undeserved reputation for con-artistry and duplicity(whence the phrase "Welsching on a bet.") and tehy made them warriors, apparently just becuase sokmeone thought "that would be cool" even though it does not jive with either historical or fantasy bards.
Also the save throw system is complete nonsense. No logic behind it at all. And the way D&D implements "Hit points" is also ridiculous.

But that is all for another thread I suppose.

A good example of a well thought out RPG is RuneQuest(particularly 3rd ed.) or even Fantasy HERO. Both systems do different things well but they are both, overall, great simulations of heroic fantasy.

For people who like the simple and abstract, Tunnels and Trolls is a good alternative(and with some house rules implemented it is even appealing to those of us in the "mechanics-heavy" crowd(for lack of a better term).

 

Hmm, well, I think I'm out of things to say (or am just too tired at the moment to think up any more).

Heh. Though I would like to say that I just came from a rather nice session of a post apocalyptic freeform game where we (but your definition, I supposed) simulated the effects of being captured and sold by slavers, and before then how easy it is to die while being shot at. Doesn't this suit your definition of 'simulate' (and thus RPG) as much as any game with dice and stats? We simply decide that it would make a whole lot of sense if, when that guy was shot, that he died - I don't see why random dice rolls or rules have to come into it...

And also, would you consider a game with no real system but with a GM who's rule is law an RPG? As in - the players perform an action and the GM decides (without consulting any rules) whether the character was strong enough or whatever.

For something to be a simulation (by your definition...) all that really needs to be there is logic as to why something happens (I think...). If logic can be applied without rules in order to simulate a situation - is that not an RPG?

Edit: Okay, so I could think up things to say

 

"If logic can be applied without rules in order to simulate a situation - is that not an RPG?"

By that definition, planescape isnt RPG

 

No, you did not(see below).

No. Without quantification(being able to definitively measure Character X's Strength vs. the stuck door's difficulty of being forced open for example) there is no simulation. As for randomness, that is how things are in real life. No matter how good a shot you are with a rifle there is always a chance, however small, that you will miss a water buffalo from 5 yards out.

I am not saying that YOU cannot enjoy sitting around creating a story where one guy just arbitrarily decides what would be the more interesting outcome and viola!

Just that this is not a simulation of any kind. You can call "acting" or efven creative writing attempts at simulation in another sense but not in the sense of simulation gaming. Can you imagine the negative reviews of one of those soccer or baseball management sims if they were as you are advocating? If Baseball Mogul had no mechanics and just came with some pretty pictures and a leaflet that read "Don't use stats. Just get some friends together and tell a story about baseball players and managers trying to be successful from a bussiness and team perspective.", there would be HELL to pay(and rightfully so!)!

Because when people are shot, they do not necessarily die and whether they do or not depends on what sort of wound they recieved and a ton of "chance elements", not on some omnipotent narrator just deciding "Hey it would be cool(or convenient) for us if he died!".

No.

No. This is not a "game" anymore than Monopoly would be a game if there were no dice and it were just a matter of someone arbitrarily deciding "Okay, YOU get Park Place AND Boardwalk but Pete goes bankrupt in three turns without owning anything and Tom just gets some utilities and is out unless I decide to say he owns all the railroads..."

Wrong and no. The type of activity you are describing is already INHERANTLY illogical from a gaming standpoint and cannot be otherwise(as a whole). That type of "game", without rules/mechanics just resolves situations the GM dreams up by the GMs own fiat. That is one person creating and story and deciding for himself how everything unravels(with some story suggestings from the "players"). I think maybe the difficulty here is that you are still unfamiliar with simulation games. Go play a few tabletop wargames(Advanced Squad Leader or Warhammer for a less 'hardcore' game) and a few "management sims" or (prefereably turn-based) Tycoon type games. Then go back to your storytelling 'games' and note the differences(I am not saying you will find the simulation games as fun as your games).

 

Alrighty, we are getting somewhere

So, what do you think of 'karma' systems? (Karma systems being those that the characters have stats or skills or whatever, and if the difficulty of the task is less that or equal to (or similar, depends on the system) then the task succeeds). These contain no chance, so are they 'simulations'?

Hmm, I should probably get back to arguing from my point of view rather than yours - because I still do disagree with you about the game having to be a simulation to be an RPG

But anyway - are you saying that a 'game' absolutely must have mechanics/rules in order to be a 'game'?

 

Yes and no. Yes, in a somewhat broad sense they are(in the same way that The Legend of Zelda is a CRPG to some) but the question then becomes "Are they good simulations? Do they rise to the standards of RPGs or wargames?".

I see what you are trying to get at but this is a simpler matter than you make it. RPGs are games of quantified mechanics used to simulate (usually) fictional characters in imagined/fictional situations and environs while allowing for the element of teh largely unquantifiable "chance".

In real life, Oswald had a terribly easy shot on JFK. He was a militarily trained marksman aiming at what was essentially a stationary target less than 300 yards away. In a "Karmic" system he had 7 or 8 skill with the rifle and a difficulty 3 or 4 shot . Many shooters with similar apptitude or even lesser skill would have made the shot using bad sites w/no scope in high wind while someone tickled their nose with a feather. Oswald choked a bit and missed with his first shot before hitting JFK in the throat and head. The "random element" played a signifigant role in game terms. For all we know he saw a dove out of the corner of his eye on the first shot or a fly landed on his arm(or simple stress of what he was about to do).
Point is that a GM arbitrarily deciding " A fly lands on your arm increasing the difficulty enough so that you cannot succede." is lame from a RPGamer's POV. Better that there be a random element and if by some miracle the sniper misses, the GM can explain how he choked/got distracted by a fly/was irritated by sweat running into his eye/whatever.

Game mechanics do not stifle role playing or storytelling. They ENHANCE it!

That is fine but remember that in a broad sense where a RPG can be any number of different activities then you would be correct to say it does not have to be a simulation. The distinction I am making is that "role playing game", amongst the crowd you might hang out with at a WoTC or Games Worshop hobby store(the people who cut their teeth on OD&D and now play 3.5 ed D&D or GURPS etc.) means something very specific and must be a simulation type game.

Again, not in the broad sense of what a "game" is. In that sense, duck, duck, goose!" is a game, Guess how many fingers" is a game and "I bet you can't stuff a whole package of oreos in your mouth!" is a game.
But "game" in the sense of gathering around a table with a board or map(s) and such must have mechanics by the very definition. Especially for an RPG! Otherwise you are simply telling stories or acting or somesuch.

There are basically two types of "game". There is the first type that is a fun activity, often to entertain children, that requires nothing more than people(and maybe some common objects like a stone or pine cone or straws). "Simon says", "One potato, two potato", "which hand is the coin in?", "Red rover", "king of the Hill", Baseball/soccer/football and "Let's go out and pretend we are our favorite heroes from comic books/movies/sports/TV!" are all in this camp.

Then there are the games that have definate rules/mechanics and usually involve purchased materials made specifically to play THAT game. Poker, "Monopoly", Chess, "D&D", "Chutes and Ladders", and "Trivial Pursuit" would fit here.

So why are the "sports" games in the first category? After all they have mechanics and often require specific materials( a basketball for that game, mits and bats for baseball etc.), right?

I do this for a few reasons: 1)Baseballs, soccerballs...Hell ANY kind of ball is a pretty common object. You can go to a school playground right now and find a half dozen either on the roof of the gym or in the bushes to the side of the field. They are as easy to come by as pine cones and rocks almost. 2)The "rules" of ANY sport vary from playground to playground and from neighborhood to neighborhood beyond being analogous to "house rules" of specific D&D or Monopoly sessions . 3)They all depend on the players' physical prowess. They are physical exercise and nothing is being "simulated" really, whereas the second type of "game" does not usually entail performing the activity the game attempts to simulate or evoke(e.g. in Monopoly you use fake money to buy fake property and drive your opponents into the poor house. In D&D you create a character made up of statistics(at it's core, the whole personality and interesting background stuff is optional and subjective) and pit him/her/it against the "dungeons"(situations/monsters/challenges) of the DM but you don't actually chase anyone around witha broadsword.).

Playing cards, you might argue are also common objects and can be used in amultitude of different games. But that is why I only put "poker" or "Blackjack" in the second category and not "card games". Poker requires chips, a deck of standard playing cards with a specific number of cards in the deck and if you are playing "no Limit Texas Hold 'Em in Reno and then go over to Atlantic City to play the same game, the rules remain pretty much entirely the same(there is no casino where a pair beats a full house).

You will no doubt come up with more and more questions to show that there are exceptions or anomolies but this is largely an instinctive affair. One knows a "game" and what classification it belongs to when one sees it. When I discovered RPGs like D&D in 1979 or 80 I knew it was an absolutely different type of game than "Cops and Robbers". I think most people feel the same.

 

Two ends of the same scale. "Cops and Robbers" (actually, let's use a different example, Cops and Robbers is too associated with screwy lameness...) ... The Pool takes the 'role-playing' part to the highest of importance, while D&D takes the 'game' higher. D&D has less focus on taking the role of the character and developing that role than it does on playing out a simulation/game. It may not encourage totally throwing off the character in favour of an in-depth mechanical simulation - but it encourages the simulation over role-playing a character.

The Pool, on the other hand, pushes roleplay - developing a character's personality and such. The game is still there, there are still rules and chance, but it ultimately flows back to making roleplaying more important in the game.

To both - the roleplaying and the game are integral, they just put emphasis on one or the other. And I know you said how useless breaking up words is, but in htis case I think it makes perfect sense to use the definition as-is, and I maintain that 'roleplaying game' is a broad term, regardless of how it was used first.

So, first it was discovered and used for simulation, and then people discovered the other aspects which it could entail, expanding on what they had from the simulation era until it was unrecognisable as its other aspect - but it is still made up of the same elements, but with different proportions (and I'm sure you could throw in a good cooking analogy here about different ratios of whatever ingredient...)

Cops and Robbers is a primitive RPG - it has a low amount of actual roleplaying, and integrates it with the 'fun game' style of game rather then the 'let's sit around the table' kind of game. LARPing is much like this as well, only taking on more roleplaying and being generally more refined. Hybrid of 'roleplaying games' and 'fun games'.

Hmm, I think I quite like this idea I'm forming here (no doubt you can 'refine' *cough*rip it apart *cough* it). Sadly, I won't be on for a week or so, but we can continue debating this oh-so-pointful point then, hmm?

I agree - but some systems work towards enhancing it, while others work towards simulating it. Of course, that's not to say that simulating systems can't work towards enhancing stories or whatever - but they're generally not designed to. And personally, I really dislike karma systems

 

Woah! Just when I thought we were coming to some agreement !

As long as we are trying to avoid "screwy lameness", let's also stay away from D&D as it is still one of the absolute worst and most unrealistic(poor in the "simulation" aspect) RPGs ever created!
The epitome of "screwy lameness"!

(*I am going to substitute "well designed RPG"(think RuneQuest/Call of Cthulhu or HERO/Champions) in place of "D&D" above when responding to this.)

I disagree strongly. You are espousing a false dichotomy with this idea that games with well designed/thought oput and logical mechanics neglect the roleplaying aspect in order to be so. I would say it is the exact opposite! When you do not have the game mechanics to stimulate or incite the characters being played consistently then your 'roleplaying' can be no more(or less) consistent than if you are playing "Cops and Robbers" . The Pool is well done for what it is but even GURPS is better for all out roleplaying because in a system like GURPS(or the much better HERO), when you create a character with disadvantages, you have no choice but to aknowledge these traits consistently. A PC with an irrational hatred of orcs in GURPS will be tempted to launch an attack foolishly against against impossible numbers of orcs whether the player would rather be smart about it or not!
In free form games, not so much. The GM may or may not be attentive enough and consistent enough to enforce such roleplaying on the player but without the mechanics to stimulate and support this there can be no real consistency in the roleplaying.

And besides which not all roleplaying gamers are interested in roleplaying(in fact most probably are not) . Most of us just want to try adn overcome the challenges we are presented with successfully and get our loot adn experience. I know this will cause the free form/storytelling crowd to gasp and shout "BLASPHEMER!" at me as it is antithetical to what they have been parroting for the last decade or more but the fact is, RPGs are tactical simulation games at their core and it just so happens that such character-based tactical simulations are ideal for roleplaying as well.

Again, this is false. You have a false dichotomy that says that it is a case of either/or. Either the game is heavy on the mechanics OR it encourages roleplaying.
Fact is that the games with the most logical and exhaustive game mechanics are the ones that most fully enable roleplaying(for those who care for such).

This is again, wrong. You seem to misunderstand what I meant when I explained that breaking down words into literal compopnenets was poor for understanding the usages of words.

Let's try again.

"Bird-brain" : This term is, quite literally meaning "the physical brain of an avian". When two zoologists are discussing some remains of a bald eagle they found, this term means exactly what the literal break-down suggests.

But when Tom and Charlie are out fishing and Tom drops his tackle box in the lake adn Charlie calls him a "bird-brain", you will not unnderstand what the meaning of the term in this usage is by breaking down into literal components. The usage in this case indicates "Someone behaving stupidly".

Likewise "Roleplaying game" means what you literally interpret from breaking the term down, when someone dresses up in an ape suit for his girlfriend and plays "Beauty and the Beast" in the bedroom or when a psychaitrist takes on the role of a patient's overbearing mother to get at the root of some psychological issue or any number of other activities.
"Roleplaying game" within the tabletop gaming crowd of D&D/Warhammer/Battletech/ etc. measn something different and very specific. These games have mechanics that quantify things(traits adn attributes) and randomizers(usually dice) to resolve tasks of varying probability.

I think these "other aspects" you are refering to have ALWAYS existed and long before D&D. Sure some of these "games" now borrow a few things from roleplaying games but they are inessence the same activities that have existed for hundreds of years(acting, storytelling, and literal "roleplaying" sans game).

Exactly! And it is not at ALL a "roleplaying game" in the same way as D&D or RQ or Gurps is a roleplaying game. It is a roleplaying game in the same way that "Honey, grab this riding crop and spank me with it like I am your horse!" is a roleplaying game. Two different usages.

I have a somwhat harsher and less flattering definition of LARPing but I will just stay away from this one . Needless to say that "refined" is not what i would call it!

Sure

That makes two of us.

 

Hmm, sure, let's throw out D&D too, though sadly the only other rules-heavy game I know any great deal about is an obscure free system called Pathwanderer - so if I manage to misrepresent a whole heap of things, well, yay

Okay, so yes, games with rules heavy simulating mechanics does not necessarily mean that roleplaying is going to be ditched in favour of a pure simulation. Indeed - as you say, the game may benefit in the roleplaying factor. But to say that The Pool ect style of rulesets diminishes roleplaying ... well, that's a bit of a stretch

With your GURPS vs The Pool in that - The player, the GM, or another player can simply call for a roll of conflict if they believe that the issue is important. Solets say Orc hater dude has - 'irrational hatred of orcs' as a trait. GM sees this, throws in some orcs and goes 'Alrighty! Roll!"
Now, orc hater dude, hating orcs as he does, states 'I attempt to kill them all!', adds trait dice to his pool and rolls ... and fails. GM narrates that he charged in too crazilly, his hatred of orcs getting the better of him and he puts himself at risk.

Of course, these kinds of games are probably more likely to be lenient in forcing these kinds of rolls - if the players believe the conflict to be insignificant (not adding anything to the character concept or game) then likely they will simply skim it. I don't see that as a failure of roleplaying, it is more like getting to the roleplaying that everyone thinks matters.

Very true - that would be the 'gamist' way of playing Character-based tactical simulations and roleplaying are very close to each other - one highlights the 'game' part of 'roleplaying game', the other the 'roleplaying' --- both of them are still RPGs.

Those two examples only take the 'roleplaying' part into account. If the game part is also present then it's an RPG

Heh, well, I can't say that I really think all too highly of LARPing either, really.

 

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between a "gamist" and the more popular term "gamer?"

 

Okay - gamist != gamer in any sense.

'gamist' is a piece of The Forge's terminology for a player is is primarilly interested in the challenges which a game has to offer (as opposed to roleplaying or simulating). A 'gamer' is just someone who plays a game.

 

Minor quibble here(and I am sure you were not intending this) but I must point out that NO GM worth hios salt(whether playing GURPS, HERO. D&D, RQ or any other RPG) is going to simply "throw in some orcs" just because he wants to exploit some disadvantage a PC has taken for his fondness of rules-mechanics or whatever. A RPG Gm/DM, regardless of system favored will, ideally, set out to create a compelling scenario/module for the players first and if their PCs happen to have ad's and disad's which pose tactical considerations then great!

The problem is that, in the "rules-lite" system, it MUST necessarily(in order to BE "rules lite" and not end up like GURPS/HERO) have a very limited numer of such "traits" for each PC. So a PC in The Pool (if I am remembering and characterizing this correctly for the most part) will only have 4 or 5 traits important to his narrative. Therefore "Triskedecophobia"(and the laundry list of such quirky irrational fears and behaviors of an OCD) cannot be accomadated alongside "Out for revenge against the Emporer", "Has a knack for Magery", "Has an IQ comparable to Hawking", etc. or SOME some equally important(to a RP GAMER) consideration is going to be left out.

I mean(sticking with GURPS vs. The Pool for comparisons sake) a character in a GURPS fantasy campaign is compelled to 'roleplay' from a tactical/simulation perspective BECAUSE of the rules/mechanics whereas a character in The Pool will, at some point, invariably fall prey to the inconsistency of the narrator(or whatever he is called).

I think "forcing" is somewhat hyperbolic though.

Undoubtedly. And therein is the distinction between a "Role Playing Gamer" and a drama club participant or some such. I honestly am not trying to be coy or insulting in anyway here. It is just that the whole POINT of the evolution/revolution of role playing games like D&D(and later D20), RQ/CoC, Champions/HERO, , and such...regardless of specific setting, was that we finally had a means of allowing the 'fun' of "Cops and Robbers" without the subjectivity that, let's face it ALWAYS resulted in the "I shot you!/ No you didn't!" argument.

In D&D(though dated by the time RQ rolled around in 1978 and is OBVIOUSLY inferior by more modern standards) we had a means of resolving the time-worn conflict and moving beyond to tired playground fisticuffs. Your Elf has a DEX(or WIS or whatever) of 17 and is level 7 while my Thief has a "Hide in Shadows" of XX and is level 6 ?

Roll a dice and compare rather than baldly assert that "I am a veteran bad-ass like Clint Eastwood who would NEVER miss a dumb ass, two-bit thief like you running down the street!" and then fight over it !

I think we agree on this for the most part. My contention is just that I see an annoying(for me) trend over the last several years towards people with a rather elitist and yet inexplicably "r0L3pL4Y1nG OWNZ j00!!!111" mantra.

I see more lazy design decisions justified through so-called "roleplaying" and "Keep It Simple Stupid(KISS) notions( see RuneSword II.


Will try to get to your other points later...

 

Nitpicker Just grabbing a random simple scenario, sheesh...

I wouldn't say that a game must necessarily leave few skills open - but in rules-lite the rules governing the skills are more likely to be short. And in The Pool the character can have as many traits as his player can manage to mention in the character story (and then in the 15 words each session) - rules-heavy games are usually limited in the number of skills/traits someone can select as well, The Pool's way isn't all that different from these, only the limit is defined more by the player than the ruleset.

And if the gamer is interested in roleplaying out a character with a certain trait (such as Triskedecophobia or whatever), then they are sure to add it in over or beside whatever gives their character power. If their interest is in kicking arse then they'll take more powered traits - but in The Pool not having über-traits isn't so much of a problem for survival as in systems that lean closer to gamism or tactical-sim because losing a roll can just be something going wrong in the plan. Orc Slayer could have his mad charge fail and simply slip over, rather than take a hit - so long as he has noticeably failed. A bard-like character charging orcs could have to swing his harp to block the orc's attack and have it smashed up because of his ineptness at combat, while if he hits it could be narrated as a lucky hit - this kind of play gives more power to the player to decide how his character is like, rather than many games that have - well, the usual style of combat.

Hmm, I went off on a tangent there ... but anyway. If a player would find a concept interesting for his character, then it is viable to choose it over more 'useful' traits - and at every opportunity he could find an interesting way to roll for this trait and thus have it used - while in many systems such a trait would probably become useless except for very specific GM-made scenarios requiring it.

Okay, just to pretend I agree with this point (which I don't) - how would it make something any less of a roleplaying game if the GM was inconsistant?

Probably, but you get the idea.

*Blink* So ... playing out the bits that no one is interested in is what defines an RPG...?

Yes - but this is not how it is in practical non-dysfunctional freeform/rules-lite/whatever. There are resolution rules for conflicts either in a formal ruleset or as decided upon by the group. Even in freeform games in which I play there is a system - just not a formal one with rules (it's more like - okay, you say when the character you're controlling gets hit/whatnot) - and it does work. You exaggerate a problem that may not even be there in the first place - and one no worse than many problems in dysfunctional simulating groups.

I can see how it might be annoying, but no worse than the '51mu|4710n9 pwnz j00!!!111' one

And being annoying doesn't make it less of an RPG

 

Sorry it took so long to get back to this...

Couple of points here:


1)"Rules heavy" is a bit of a misnomer. It implies a game that has tons of rules just for the sake of having tons of rules, as if the rules/mechanics which exist serve no necessary function. Perhaps "Comprehensive" would be a better descriptive term as it describes games which account for a greater deal of simulation than the "rules-lite"/Freeform stuff.

2)There is a WORLD of difference between "Let the players decide on their own limitations arbitrarily by some '15 word limit rule'." and a RPG. The former is not really any different than improvisational acting which is not a "game" in the context of this discussion. When an RPGer says "Feel like doing some gaming this weekend?" they mean something ENTIRELY different than "Let's pretend we are bank robbers who just hit the armored car service!"

Again, definitions/lbels/categories have to be useful to be of any value. If "roleplaying game" is anything from The Pool to Dungeons & Dragons to "Me Tarzan. You Jane. Tarzan want nookie!" then it is an absolutely useless category. I will not go so far as to say that The Pool is absolutely NOT an RPG but I will say it IS a RPG in the same way that Monopoly is a "business simulation"(or "Tycoon" game).

How is that any different from the way RPGS resolve such conflicts, aside from being less logically consistent?

Oh and you are wrong about RPG characters being handicapped by taking "non-uber" skills. It all depends on the GM. It is possible adn relatively easy to run a game session or even a mini-capaign in which no violence occurs at all in GURPS or HERO for example(especially if you are using those rulesets to run a Skyrealms of Jorune campaign or somesuch!). The ONLY difference here(and it is an important one) is that standard RPGs have definitive mechanics for handling things like character interation, debate resolution, bartering etc. May not be quite as simple as "I decide my character has the 'fast-talking' trait and so he easily convinces the store owner to give him a deal on loam!" but it avoids the "cops and robbers" dillema I spoke of earlier("MY character is more persuasive than YOURS so he should be dating the princess!"/"No WAY! My character studied for 4 years at mynktabolot's "School of Charm" so the princess would NEVER choose you over me!").

I know you will say that such dillemmas are theoretically avoidable by having "mature roleplayers" at the table but even so we are left with the inconsistency factor. One's sense of fairness or desire to behave maturely does not lead to sensible resolution of conflict. Only arbitrary decisions.

And how badly did he fail? Did he step on his own shoe-lace and land face-first on a carelessly discarded ivory tusk, killing himself? Did he fail to connect with the charge but still gracefully avoided any potential nastiness?
These questions and a thousand more can be easily and simply resolved within a "comprehensive" ruleset but not so with the "rules lite" set. Not only will GMs be inconsistent within their OWN GMing but Darwin forbid you should ever have another GM fill in some night! Your clumsy, superstitious orc who is remarkably proficient at wooing princesses but is frequently overcharged by fletchers will be transformed into the graceful skeptic who princesses hate and fletchers give good deals to out of fear and respect, in the blink of an eye! They only way to really handle this will be to have the "cops and robbers" argument(or at least a signifigant break in play while you try and clue the new guy into what's what and who's who, with limited success) because you have no defintive rules to cover these situations.

Standard RPGs do not get 'bogged down' in looking up charts and tables for such things either. For the most part, even the most 'realistic' system out there will use the same simple mechanic to resolve almost ANY situation(determine probability. generate random number and compare against probability. Note degree of success/failure and apply result as narrative).

Yes this is more complex than simply sitting around a table telling stories(in a sense anyway) but ALL "games" are so! That is what makes them GAMES instead of chat sessions or drama club! Football is more complex than "I am going to pretend I just impressed a big crowd at the stadium!" but they are two different activities. Those who enjoy playing football are enjoying a different type of activity than the "pretender"/storyteller is enjoying.

I don't even begin to follow you!? How does the standard RPGer not have as much "power" to determine his character? A critical hit/near miss/glancing blow/etc. are all narrated in the same way as you indicate for rules-lite systems. The only difference being that the results are not someone's arbitrary and inconsistent whims but rather sensible probabilities based on simple calculations(My skill with beating someone about the face with a harp vs. the target's skill at ducking mad harpist's swings).

ANY system is capable of exploitation by those who seek out such(far easier to do this with "rules-lite" systems because the fewer boundires/logical constraints placed, the more 'wiggle-room' an exploiter has to work with) and ANY system can be as "roleplayer-friendly" as you believe The Pool is.
it ALL depends on the GM and players. standard/comprehensive systems just help matters along by providing consistency and balance and "rules-lite" systems are less taxing on those who are not as enthusiastic about 'gaming' as they are about "roleplaying"/acting/storytelling.

Because "consistency" is one of those defining criteria of a RPG! RPGs would not even exist if wargames had simply been arguments over how Hitler could have conquered much of Europe if he had simply avoided Russia or people improvisationally acting out roles as Hitler, Rommel, Churchill etc.
The whole REASON for the quantified mechanics in the first place was to get away from the inconsistency of "Cops and Robbers"!

Who is "no one" and what are the "bits" you are refering to? In any case, the answer is NO.

Waitaminute here...so you are saying that a few people gahtered around a table, making up a story where the "roleplayers" arbitrarily decide when good and bad things happen for them should be considered a RPG?!? By that same logic, me hitting a cow with a 2X4 is a "board game"! After all, "board" is at least 50% of the very classification and a 2X4 IS a "board". I COULD have decided my swing was off and chosen to miss the Cow but meh! Why bog down the "game"?

Your style of "arbitrary decisions made by players" is grounded in several presumptions which are probably false. 1)That what YOU think would be good for the "story" is what everyone else would appreciate. 2)That SOMEONE's decisions(when conflicting desires arise) are better in a given situation than someone else's. WHy not just let a 'difficulty 7 stuck door' BE a 'Difficulty 7 stuck door' and let the 'Strength of an ogre(Str. 9) barbarian' attempt to break it down with his 75% chance of doing so? How is a player's groundless fiat/whim more satisfying here? 3)
This is exactly the qualities that make for grade B movies! WHen the dragon is large enough to step on the Empire State building in one scene and yet can peer through a bathroom window in anotehr scene you have bad storytelling and a bad movie. Such inconsistencies usually stem from a lack of quantification or lack on effort to figure out exactly how big the dragon is and how small bathroom windows are. So too are alleged "games" made bad when there are no consistent mechanics. Any "game" by definition, whether it be Monopoly, Chess, Candyland, Twister or D&D has more or less consistent quantified mechanics for resolution. Can you imagine Monopoly or Chess where the player simply decides for himself how far his pieces can move?!?

Same thing applies to RPGs man.

I am not saying that roleplayers(you guys) have it any "worse" or "better" than "role playing GAMERS" do. I am just pointing out that they are two completely different activities. You want simple roleplaying without rules/mechanics? Fine. I don't blame you anymore than I blame someone who would rather "chew gum" than "Chew me out" because there is no comparison. They are different acitivites guy. RPGs CAN and usualy DO involve storytelling and even roleplaying but that is because the game mechanics of these tactical simulations are ideal for such activity.
A pair of Levis jeans may be ideal for getting good price discounts on fast food when worn by the right girl but the core defintion of "Blue Jeans" is not "Device for getting free food". They are pants. Clothing to be worn.

The big difference is that the one you allude to DOESN'T EXIST! Go to ANY RPG message board and count how many times someone posts some elitist nonsense about freeform/rul;es-lite/homebrew games being superior to (what they refer to as) "Hack-n-slash"/Munchkin games/Dungeon crawls" and then try and find a SINGLE thread(and don't say me in this thread which is an anomoly in the extreme because my defneses of standard RPGs are reactions, not provocations) wherein someone posts "Simulation-elitist" nonsense.

Nope. But being "less of a RPG" makes this elitist attitude(not saying YOU are guilty of such. Just that it is RAMPANT in recent years) all the more annoying!

 

Back along during this thread, the idea of paintball was brought into the debate. Hmm ... some are for, and some are against, as far as defining paintball as an RPG.
In my case, I come down on the "for" side--at least in my life.
It's my job, actually. Sometimes it's paint, sometimes lasers, always it's a roleplaying game, and I get paid for it--by the US Army. My assignment right now (three years, this particular job) is to terrorize US forces in a training environment before they go to major campaign theaters. I ambush, suicide-bomb, assassinate, poison, whatever, to get the job done--all within the strictures of the game rules, known in Defense lingo as the EXROE/EXRID.
If killed, I'm out of the game. If captured, I am interrogated, incarcerated, even roughed up depending on the mood of the other players.
For an RPG fan, I guess you could say I've got the ultimate job ... the world's biggest, multi-billion-dollar Massively Multiplayer Offline Live-Action Role-Playing Game.
I just recommend you don't dismiss any particular activity, or admit any activity, without full info--even cops and robbers could be a full-scale RPG. Stick to the merit of individual cases, that's all.

 

No. You are roleplaying...but you are NOT roleplaying GAMING. That is the distinction you guys keep missing. I am not saying that what you do is not a game and I am certainly not saying that you are not roleplaying in some sense. But you are not playing a roleplaying game anymore than someone taking a dump is playing "craps".

The term "role playing game" is very specific adn refers to a game that uses statistics/quantification to simulate an experience(usually playing a fantastic hero in a fantastic environment who fights against fantastic villains). These games are played sitting down(for the most part) for a reason. No RPGamer wants to actually grab a 15 pound broadsword and go swinging it at otehr folks with 15 pound broadswords and even if we DID, there is no way for us to actually grab a spellbook and send a fireball to our enemies via an icnantation.

But we CAN do this in a GAME! In a RP GAME you do not have to be able to actually lift a sword or wear plate armor but in the exercises YOU describe(paintball adn laser tag) one DOES have to be able to physically perform the actions which makes it not a simulation but a reality.

 

Hmm ...
Roleplaying. As in, playing a role other than yourself, in a situation which may be fantastic (forgotten realms, arhurian legend), realistic (various GURPS scenarios), or a combination of the two. Fantasy not required; plausibility recommended (internal logical consistency, at least) but also not required.
Game. As in, "A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules."
Seems to me, anything which meets both definition--roleplaying, and game--qualifies.
War-games are the ultimate roleplaying games, in that the results are used to plan real actions abroad. Nowhere in the definition of the word "game" is there a requirement that the activity be pursued for the purpose of fun.
When Joe Smith grabs a paintball gun and goes out to shoot as his friends, he is playing a game, but not a roleplaying game--as he is still just Joe Smith, albeit with paintball gun. Completely freeform, rule-free roleplaying is not a game--no rules, no strictures.

However, when my compatriots go out armed with assault rifles, blank rounds, and lasers/gps tracking equipment, they are playing a roleplaying game--They are not Sergeant Brady or Private Smith or Lieutenant Johnson; they go out with ID cards reading Hamad Al-Abed, Jubai Hamed, et cetera. So they are roleplaying. The rules are real, they are balanced due to constant playtesting, and they are documented. So it is a game.
Specifically, it is a Roleplaying Game. How can you refute that?
I'm just one of a small subclass of people who get paid for full-time RP gaming. The purpose is different, yes, stipulated. But look into the initial name of the company that made Dungeons and Dragons: TSR. TACTICAL Studies Research. I love D&D, GURPS, others, but I accept the fact that the games are side-effects of a few phenomena: 1. The fertile imagination of J.R.R. Tolkein (and others, but he was the godfather), and the desire of the various military organizations of the industrialized world to have some way of knowing ahead of time if they would win a given war with a given resource base and a given tactical/strategic situation. The marriage of the two brought us the RPGs intended for fun and entertainment, but they did not come first, not by decades.
The bottom line, as stated above, in a single bullet statement:
If it involves roleplaying, and it has a codified stricture of rules, then it's RPG.

 

Breaking down words into their literal components can be fun but is poor for understanding words and terminology.
For example: "Politics" comes from the Greek "poly" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "small, blood-sucking insects/arachnids".
But all jokes aside, politics does NOT mean "Many small blood-sucking insects".

Another example is "Key grips" on a movie set. These are not guys who sit around gripping keys all day.

Similarly "Roleplaying game" is a specific term that refers to quantified tactical simulations, ala D&D, RuneQuest, Villains & Vigilantes etc.
At least in THIS discussion, the term is not apllicable to dressing up in a dominatrix outfit and spanking someone. The usage of Role Playing Game, amongst gamers is pretty specific. If it were not so then the term would be meaningless and of no value.

Exactly! RPGS derinved from tabletop wargames. The only real difference in them is that wargames first were about simulating conflicts between regiments, battalions etc.. Then 'squad-based' games came about simulating tactical skirmishes of small units.
Then RPGs came about which further broke down the simulkating to individual characters. Rather than having armies composed of different units(tanks, infantry squads etc.), RPGs featured characters composed of various attributes.

Sure there is room for evolution but there IS a line to be drawn on far you can deviate from the core and still call something a Role Playing Game.

Nope. Almost ANY actiuvity can be characterized as a RPG then. Eating pie is a RPG if I tell you I am trying to eat likea gremlin and then throw in some(lame) codified rules(i.e. I must slobber profusely while tearing into pie).

The reason we employ such terminology is to easily distinguish things so that I know what someone is talking about when they say "i want to play a RPG". By YOUR broad definition, I can have no idea what they mean when they say such a thing. They could mean anything from Monopoly to Paintball.

 

Yikes, dude. Enjoy your deviant little world, my friend. I'm going back to my gremlin pie, followed by a little Monopoly.

And then, I might blow something up, just for fun.

But I'll use a different name, so I can call it RP.

Enough of this black/whit always/never debate; enjoy having the last word, dude.