The Forge Archives

Over in this thread, the topic of things that may or may not be RPGs cropped up again. A by-no-means complete list of such things are as follows.

[*]Solo RPGs
[*]Video games, which can include Dragon Warrior-esq CRPGs, King's Quest adventure games, Zork -like interactive fiction, more action orientated Legend of Zelda-esque games and even things like Gauntlet and Magic Sword
[*]MUDs, MORGs, or whatever series of letters are used now and the differences they may represent
[*]LARPS and the like
[*]PBM PBEM PBP PBC or whatever[/list:u]
Now, I personally find that these things tends to have significant differences from typical tabletop play that it's worth considering them as a separate animal. Hell, plenty of them have differences within the individual category. Rather than prattle on, I'll open the floor to comments since this is a topic that just will not go away and, to my knowledge, has not been address at length except in focus instances and the topic then wound up being dropped.

I think the only thing that can be said in response to the question is "what do you hope to achieve by establishing the difference?" LARPs, for example, clearly share origins, much of a player base, typical structures, and all kinds of other things with tabletop RPGs. They're not "the same thing" necessarily, but I'd say that a SIL-West game or whatever is more similar to your average TfOS game than your average TfOS game is to your average Twilight: 2000 game.

Or, in short, the whole category of "RPGs" or "tabletop RPGs" is a very weird and possibly arbitrary one, and I don't think it's possible to identify a single unifying trait without excluding some game generally considered an RPG. Ironically, this game will, 90% of the time, have been published by Hogshead or by someone here on the Forge.

Yeah, seeing as Walt invented modern LARP, I think that's safe to say. :-)

I think that the divisions that do come up are due to comfort zone issues. That is, while LARPers and RPGers often overlap, there are just as often people who've done one, and never the other. And worse, for whom the other mode seems to be "weird". It's a subject of great irony that tabletopers and LARPers make fun of each other. It's like the nerds sitting at their lunch table, one making fun of the other for being a computer geek, and he making fun of the other for their Star Trek fandom.

As the sex newsgroups would say, YKINMK (your kink is not my kink). Why can't we leave it at that? I dunno.

Anyhow, the point is that since there are technical differences in design, and there are differences in demographics due to comfort zones, we tend to separate these sorts of activities. Well, one side would argue that by focusing on one side, you tend to get more directed design. The other side, however, would argue that each side has a lot to learn from the other.

I tend toward the latter myself, while understanding the former. But just having my own viewpoint won't make others instantly accepting of the other form. So at this point, all I can do is be an advocate for gaming ecumenicism. Heck, I'm also an inveterate wargamer, a fact that I only let on occasionally for being fearful of being burned at the stake for heresy. ;-) So, believe me when I say that I have sympathy for the "other forms" being left out of the discussion.

OTOH, I do understand a site like the Forge being dedicated to one form. This dedication makes the site effective, an effectiveness that would be diluted if it tried to do everything. There are other sites for LARP and other forms (no this is not a "separate but equal" issue). All I'm saying is that in considering RPGs people should consider the other forms as well and what lessons they have to offer (not to mention other sorts of games, and other fields entirely).

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Mike

Quote from: James HollowayI think the only thing that can be said in response to the question is "what do you hope to achieve by establishing the difference?"

That remains to be seen. At this point I am interested in focusing on the differences in the hopes of making it more useful to look at the similarities. I am less interested in the comfort zones than the technical differences. Comfort zones are a moving target (anyone recall my post waaaaay back on GO about "Ted" who hated Magic: the Gathering but then became a fan when he actually tried it?) Mostly this is to avoid useless comparasons, much like bad anaologies which get picked apart in discussions because they only work when viewed from the right angle. From every other angle it falls apart. I'm sure we've all seen that sort of thing.

So I want to focus on the differences so that the similarities can be more clear.

Well, in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7440">this thread, I suggested that as far as I'm concerned, the distinctive feature of roleplaying games with respect to wargames is the introduction of "you say it happens, therefore it happens" mechanics (even if these mechanics are tightly constrained).

Once you move from a closed system of tokens and actions with those tokens, to an open system, based on, say, verbal descriptions, you are in RPG-land.

This definition has blurry edges.  I can see some kinds of solo gaming counting under this definition -- e.g. T&T solo adventures could qualify, to some degree, because the *are* based on verbal descriptions of imagined events which (by playing the solo) you agree to apply to your character imaginatively.  MUDs would count to the degree that people engage in "roleplaying" -- treating each other's emotes as if they really happened, and so on.  MMORPGs, I'm not so sure anymore.  I'm not familiar enough with MMORPG gaming to say.

And of course this description is based on differentiating RPGs from *wargames* and other such games, and may ignore important borderlines with other activities.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrSo I want to focus on the differences so that the similarities can be more clear.

OK, here's my two cents.  Live-action role-playing physically differs in that it is played over a large area rather than in a single room.  That's about the only absolute difference.  Mechanically, this makes a huge difference in that there is no guarantee that a GM will be present.  Thus, the mechanics need to be resolvable without a GM and using materials that are easily carried.  They avoid stooping over to roll dice on the ground, and rulebooks generally need to be able to fit in pockets.  

In terms of what role-playing really is, I don't think it differs much.  A beginners misconception is that you are limited to what you as a player can do, but that's not terribly true.  The main limitation is mobility.  You as a character can only be where you the player is.  However, you can do all sorts of things.  

MUDs are a little different.  The overwhelming fact of MUDs for me was that players can drop in and out at any time due to real life, which made a big difference in play.  However, there are a number of similarities.  An interesting reference is Richard Bartle's paper on http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm">Players Who Suit MUDs.  In his 1996 paper, he divides MUD players into Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers.  It is interesting to compare with the Threefold and GNS.  

I basically have no experience with solo RPGs (computer or otherwise), so I should probably leave that to other people.  I will throw in a reference to the new http://www.mythic.wordpr.com/">Mythic Roleplaying, which attempts to support solo play.

Yeah, the LARP/RPG line is very fuzzy, really,m when it comes to observable phenomenon.

For example, many LARPS are played in a single room, so that's not even a firm determiner. To be a bit more precise with that, it's precisely the access to the GM that is the better determinant. Basically LARP space can be defined as being indeterminate in size (Killer usually has boundaries of the city limits, or even no limits), while RPGs usually require that the players maintain contact with the final authority(s). I state it that way so that games with multiple GMs, or games like Universalis with distributed authority are addressed.

That said, I've even heard of LARPS where no players are allowed to travel about without a GM present. For some reason they require a judge to be present at all times. So even that's not a pure determinant.

That leaves player proximity. Typically in RPGs players must remain in a single group for most of play, while in LARPs this is almost never true (though for a game like Elevator, it becomes impossible for the players to separate and still be playing the game). Even in standard RPGs, though, there is the exception of the classic GM aside with limited players, or sending some players out of earshot. Again, very fuzzy.

Then there's issues of props, costumes, scenery/ambiance, and full physical acting. These four elements tend to occur more in LARP, but aren't neccessary at all, and they all occur in tabletop from time to time as well (I used music at my last RPG session for a very specific effect).

The one thing that I've seen that is completely unique, AFAICT (though I'm sure somebody will have an example of an exception), is the use of actual physical player skill as resolution. Combat in terms of boffers, for example. But though this is unique to LARP, it is only present in a fraction of LARPs, and as such can't be used except as exclusionary (games with boffer combat cannot be RPGs).

So, my obvious point is that what defines LARP, is a tendency towards the inclusion certain elements not present in tabletop play.  The more of these you have, the more "LARPish" the game is, and the less "tabletopish". And it takes very little usually to get the LARP moniker. As soon as people stand up from the table, there's a notion that it's drifting towards a LARP.


Basically that's where the line is drawn mentally. At the point at which all elements are thought to be in the minds of the players it's tabletop. In such cases, even props and such are only there so that the players can incorporate them in envisioning the shared imaginative space. In LARP, OTOH, these elements that are included, are intended to not be "interpereted" quite so much, and are taken a lot more literally. That is, the players themselves, the props, the scenery, all are intended to become the "scene" that the players are viewing, the idea being that you do not then have to imagine these elements in the scene.

To put it better, in LARP, the scene is real, and the players only have to imagine certain elements being incorporated into that real scene. In tabletop, the scene is completely imaginary, and the elements presented in real life are intended to be projected into that space.

At least that's always been my impression of both forms (and I'll note that I've played way more RPGs than LARPs). I think the comfort issue comes precisely from this difference. In an RPG, you aren't directly "responsible" for what's envisioned as a player. That is, you can say, "I talk to the girl suavely, and get her to tell me the secret". That can't happen in LARP. So in a tabletop game, you are buffered from the performance to the extent that you like, and each player relies on their own interperetation of the imagined space.

LARPs, OTOH, have the advantage that you don't have to imagine as much. Like TV, or other presentational media, the image is there (mostly) before you. And as you are "in" the action, you can become immersed in what's going on more completely (if I might be allowed to use that term here).

So, people who prefer LARPs, it seems to me, wonder why the RPGers would spend so much effort imagining things when they could just act them out, etc. And the RPGers see all the effort to do the portrayal as uneccessary, and wonder why the participants don't just sit at a table and collectively imagine the happenings.

Just my observations on what differentiates the two.

Mike

To follow up on LARPS above, here's a thought on wargaming:

Quote from: ejhOnce you move from a closed system of tokens and actions with those tokens, to an open system, based on, say, verbal descriptions, you are in RPG-land.

I'd state that a bit differently. I'd say that RPGs start when there are rules that address doing "anything", rather than rules that address only doing specific actions allowed by the rules. That is, in a wargame you only have certain limited options on how to proceed with the elements that the player controls. In an RPG, the player can have his controlled elements do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, and there are rules to cover that. Even if they're just to say things like "easy tasks like crossing the street are automatically accomplished, and the GM decides when this is true. Otherwise use the resolution system."

It's this basic ability to do things not enumerated specifically in the rules that seems to differentiate the two sorts of games. By this definition, I'd say that most CRPGs are actually wargames, and that includes MMORPGs. Sure you can use diplomacy and social abilities to manipulate other players in MMORPGs, but you can do that in a game like "Diplomacy" as well.

Yes, I'm saying that Role-playing per se has nothing to do with the line that separates the two forms, ironically. This also means that RPGs can be (and often are) played as wargames in practice. I see no intrinsic difference between a very mechanicstically run game of Basic D&D, and a game of "Gladiator" from Avalon Hill. I do think that this is a drift from the intention of the design of even the most mechanistic RPGs, however, which seem to me to all suggest that things outside the suggested actions can be performed.

Mike

That is what I was trying to say, Mike.  If it didn't sound like that then I wasn't expressing myself clearly.

It's not when the system of tokens goes away, it's when the system of tokens moves from closed to open, that you have an RPG.

In Melee, the two fighters can't make friends and decide to fight their way out of the arena and to freedom.

In the Fantasy Trip, they can.

Despite the fact that as long as the fighters decide to keep fighting in an ordinary manner, exactly the same rules would govern their fight in The Fantasy Trip as in Melee.  The difference is that those rules are a closed system in Melee but an open system in TFT.  If you do something not covered by the rules in Melee, you're no longer playing the game.  In TFT, you are.

I http://www.puddingbowl.org/ed/archives/001108.html">just blogged about this, actually.

Like I said, I was agreeing with you Ed, just putting my own spin on it ("I'd state that differently"). I thought of precisely the same example, and as it happens, Ron and I had a disagreement a while back on whether or not Melee constituted an RPG or not. He said it does, as it happens.

Mike

Can you point me to the thread?  I want to see his reasoning.

Sorry, was in personal correspondance regarding an article, and I can't remember what it was. I do remember being swayed by it some, FWIW; but that may have been kneejerk.

Ron?

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesI'd say that RPGs start when there are rules that address doing "anything", rather than rules that address only doing specific actions allowed by the rules. That is, in a wargame you only have certain limited options on how to proceed with the elements that the player controls. In an RPG, the player can have his controlled elements do "anything" that they might be able to do in terms of what they are, and there are rules to cover that.  
...
It's this basic ability to do things not enumerated specifically in the rules that seems to differentiate the two sorts of games. By this definition, I'd say that most CRPGs are actually wargames, and that includes MMORPGs.

Hmm.  I would say that this mainly differentiates tabletop role-playing from other forms.  Strictly by your definition, Free Kriegspiel (cf. http://home.freeuk.com/henridecat/ ) is an RPG.  The main thing that differentiates Free Kriegspiel and tabletop play from other games is the presence of a GM as interpreter and arbiter of "anything" statements.  In contrast, say, live-action RPGs typically avoid this -- because without a GM it is difficult to resolve.  For example, if the combat rules don't allow throwing dirt in someone's face, well, you can't do that.  Similarly, Baron Munchausen has no GM and also lacks the "do anything" quality.  

My usual definition has been that an RPG is any game where hypothetically someone looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and you answer "No, my character wouldn't do that".  i.e. The move is legal by the rules, but you don't take it because you think it is contrary to the personality of your character.  

However, I understand that this may be too touchy-feely for some people.

Quote from: John Kim
Hmm.  I would say that this mainly differentiates tabletop role-playing from other forms.  Strictly by your definition, Free Kriegspiel (cf. http://home.freeuk.com/henridecat/ ) is an RPG.  The main thing that differentiates Free Kriegspiel and tabletop play from other games is the presence of a GM as interpreter and arbiter of "anything" statements.  In contrast, say, live-action RPGs typically avoid this -- because without a GM it is difficult to resolve.  For example, if the combat rules don't allow throwing dirt in someone's face, well, you can't do that.  Similarly, Baron Munchausen has no GM and also lacks the "do anything" quality.

In traditional RPGs, the "do anything" quality is sometimes limited too.  The important distinction that I was trying to make and I think Mike was getting on board with is that in an RPG there is two-way feedback between the world-as-imagined and the world-as-played-out-with-tokens.  In a game of Monopoly, it doesn't matter to the rules at all that what they represent is rent and real estate speculation.  They might as well be a bizarre and highly abstract representation of an armwrestling match for all it matters to play.  But once the way things are played depends on the way things are imagined, as well as vice versa, you're in RPG territory.  Once the rules explicitly allow for this, those are RPG rules.

This may not be a *sufficient* criterion for an RPG, but I think it's a *necessary* one.

And yes, by this definition Free Kriegspiel would definitely count.  Which is fine with me.

Quote
My usual definition has been that an RPG is any game where hypothetically someone looks over your shoulder and suggests a move, and you answer "No, my character wouldn't do that".  i.e. The move is legal by the rules, but you don't take it because you think it is contrary to the personality of your character.  

However, I understand that this may be too touchy-feely for some people.

I think it's actually an instance of the same criterion.  You're letting the way you play be affected by things in the imaginary world that aren't necessarily accounted for in any explicit way by the rules.

Of course, this requires an additional distinction.  You could do that in any game.  You could do that in Monopoly.  "My real estate baron wouldn't do that!"  You're describing something that is a criterion for RPG-style play, but it doesn't necessarily say anything about the rule set you're playing in.

I'd say that you have indeed identified a tipoff to RPG-style play, and an RPG is one which allows for and encourages RPG-style play, such that your criterion will tend to hold.

So I think I'm agreeing with you here.

Hello,

Regarding the Melee/TFT thing, my recollection is that Mike convinced me of his position as stated here in this thread. So, nothing to see here, move along.

Best,
Ron