more than mechanics alone

Hey everyone,

Recently, Scott Knipe sent me to RPG.net to see a thread entitled "http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=61&i=34592&t=34592">Top 5 Free Rpg's" on which GB Steve made some very nice comments about http://www.123.net/~czege/WFD.html">The World, the Flesh, and the Devil. (Thanks Steve!) And in another post to the thread, Brian Gleichman made the following observation:

I haven't seen much in the free rpg games that I like enough to say that it's better than the others.

I might manage a five worst free rpgs...

It struck me as a fairly glib statement, more intended to convey a cynical outlook than to be taken seriously. But in actually thinking about it seriously, I'm realizing just what a difficult task it would be...much harder than picking great RPG's.

And the reason is because in order to do it, you have to come up with a way of distinguishing between actual games, and mechanics or system or setting ideas that aren't actual games. The internet, and online discussion forums are rife with clever (and not so clever) system mechanics...not games, but incompletely realized tinkering with dice resolution, combat, and character attribute mechanics. If you were going to create a list of the five worst free games, you would need to have a rationale for where you'd draw the line. I suspect that some people would consider The World, the Flesh, and the Devil to fall below the line as something that isn't a game, because it lacks a setting. I tend to disagree, but I can't seem to figure out exactly what makes it a game when other setting-less things things clearly aren't games.

So the question is, how do you tell the difference between a bad/broken free game and an incomplete game? What are the minimum required characteristics for a roleplaying game?

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-23 20:47 ]