Is D&D a roleplaying game?

[GreyBlack]

So something has been gnawing at the back of my mind over the past several months, especially while playing in a friend's AL game. This was also spurred on by this video:

https://youtu.be/jRtXqCUN7VE

After watching this, it's really led me down a path to asking whether or not D&D is truly a roleplaying game. This guy makes a lot of good points; the modern rules really don't mention needing to act in character and it really isn't encouraged in the base rules. You don't _have_ to describe how your character does something, you don't have to give an idea of what your character says... the rules handle everything without you needing to put any extra input in.

So I have to wonder. Is D&D a roleplaying game? Or is it more akin to a dungeon exploration and dice game?

[Knaight]

This guy makes a lot of good points; the modern rules really don't mention needing to act in character and it really isn't encouraged in the base rules. You don't _have_ to describe how your character does something, you don't have to give an idea of what your character says... the rules handle everything without you needing to put any extra input in.

The rules mention both making a character (and the creation of a fictional alter ego, at all, is a pretty major step in the direction of an RPG) and establishing characterization traits for said character. As for the rules handling everything without you needing to put any extra input in, the rules only handle how decisions pan out - they don't make decisions for you.

[CantigThimble]

Roleplaying doesn't require acting, it just requires that you try to make decisions for a character as if you were them. I think the background ideals/flaws/bonds makes it pretty clear that roleplaying is intended.

You could argue that personality traits encourage acting as well.

[Unoriginal]

D&D *defined* what a Roleplaying Game is, and it has not stopped being one since.

Roleplaying, like others have mentioned, isn't acting, but the game gives plenty of how your choices of race/class/background/traits can influence your decision-making.

Arguing 5e isn't a RPG is entirely absurd. It'd be like arguing GURPS isn't a RPG because you can make a character who has nothing but their stats and a couple skill/powers on the sheet.

Also, I have no idea why you mention "the modern rules" in particular. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the first editions didn't have pages of rules about how you needed to describe your actions with flourishes or make in-character speeches. Hell, the first D&D was basically a wargame where you played one person rather than military units.

So no, the only way someone who say "D&D isn't a RPG" could seem like they're having a point is by either severely mischaracterizing what a RPG is, or severely mischaracterizing what D&D is.

[Kalashak]

Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video because I can't stand that guy but yes, DnD is an RPG

[Unoriginal]

Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video because I can't stand that guy but yes, DnD is an RPG

I think we can close this thread, the best answer is here.

[Angelmaker]

Dawnforged dm (the person in the video linked) completely lost me at the basketball analogy. I think he's completely overthinking the issues.

Any system will always have PLAYERS that are either into roll or rolepalying. Case in point: our group has a gunslinger in eberron who completely shuts down any avenue of conversation i want to have with his character. He's only there to roll dice. Whereas the newbie in the party interacts with my characters in a way that gets m character to know the guy, which makes me actually forma. Bond with the player that i couldn't particularly stand before.

I think that the syste, chosen haas no influence whatsoever if your group decides to roll and or roleplay. If you accept the premise that a given system has influence over whether your group roleplays or not, consider a player in a storytelling game, who always narrates in a way that makes him or her kill anyone on sight with the first punch - because that would simply be power phantasy enablement instead of roleplaying.

[Bundin]

It can be one for everyone. It is one for many people, most of the time.

I expect pretty much everyone on this forum to actively seek out and embrace role playing during sessions. However, we are not all the same. I know a few people that approach dnd as an optimization problem board game. Characters are 100% geared for combat, any social encounter is to be 'won', loot is a prime motivator. Often, they descend into murder hoboing, but not always. And while I enjoy good roleplaying, I also enjoy a good combat encounter every now and then, just smashing/zapping/shooting critters into a well stocked tex-mex bbq and salsa buffet. It's easy to forget your character's goals and motivation when the buffet needs some more giant snake steaks :)

As long as everyone at the table is happy with the amount of effort that is put into roleplaying, all is well. It can also be a very competent board game if that's what people want :)

[JakOfAllTirades]

I've been hearing this "D&D isn't a real RPG" nonsense for years.

Never listened to it before, not gonna start now.

[Quoxis]

Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video because I can't stand that guy but yes, DnD is an RPG

Seconded. Entitled, incompetent know-it-all who ignores half the book whenever it fits his agenda, not any better than the sorcerer king guy, while constantly claiming he knows better than anyone, apparently including the entirety of Wotc.
If he says anything about DnD, there’s a good chance he’s wrong anyway and/or interprets it subjectively while pretending his criteria were objective.

DnD is still an RPG, despite being more „open“ than in Gygax‘ days. You theoretically could play it as a randomized die game, but only if you ignore half of the phb - now where did i see that last...?

[leogobsin]

It may be that people have a perspective where they value the mechanics of play over making inhabiting the role of a character, but it seems hard to say that reading the PHB is what gave them that idea. If they read the PHB cover to cover and took it at face value it seems hard to come to the conclusion that it's not a game about storytelling, consider that the very first sentence they'll read in the introduction is
The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.
Even if you never roll a single die, you're still following the most basic rules of what D&D is, as described in the How To Play section of the introduction:

The DM describes the environment.
The players describe what they want to do.
The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

[Sjappo]

Any system will always have PLAYERS that are either into roll or rolepalying. Case in point: our group has a gunslinger in eberron who completely shuts down any avenue of conversation i want to have with his character. He's only there to roll dice. .
I fall to see the distinction between roll and role playing. Anyway.

Your gunslinger is still playing his role. The player is still making decisions for his character. Which enemy to shoot, to climb the fence, jump it or walk around. All based on your descriptions of the scene, presumably. Therefore he is playing the role of the gunslinger. You might expect something else from this player, but that doesn't invalidate his play style. It only points to a disconnect between DM and player.

[MoiMagnus]

There is litteraly a section about Roleplaying in the PHB, (p185-186), which describe the different way of doing so (descriptive or acting)

[Kane0]

It sure is. Many just happen to confuse acting with roleplaying every now and again.
Or is it conflate?

[BreaktheStatue]

D&D can be almost anything you want it to be, including a roleplaying game. You want to RP your butt-off? Cool. You want to latch onto the crunchy aspects? Cool. Want to balance both? Cool.

My guess is a big motive behind this video was to be contrarian and get clicks, in which case -
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, BUDDY.

[GreyBlack]

So here's something I feel people are missing. I'm not saying that you _can't_ roleplay in D&D. You absolutely can, and we have for years. That's fine. Most of D&D is best when you do in my opinion.

However, the ruleset itself is not necessarily one _for_ roleplaying. The type of roleplaying you do in D&D can be accomplished by simply sitting at a table and talking through an encounter. No dice are needed in order to accomplish this type of roleplaying. Rather, the mechanical crunch of D&D is based around getting to the dungeon and killing the dragon for its loot, along with the mechanical benefits of what that loot does.

Just because you _can_ roleplay in a system does not make the system _about_ roleplaying. In the board game, Pandemic, everyone gets a class that confers mechanical benefits in a squad based manner, similar to D&D; does that make Pandemic an RPG? It can, if you want to roleplay your character going into a village and setting up a quarantine camp, but this provides no mechanical benefits. It's not built into the game itself.

The act of roleplaying, while many consider it synonymous with the game of D&D, is not necessarily required in the game. In my argument, if this is a roleplaying game, wouldn't roleplaying be necessary for success in the game?

[PhoenixPhyre]

TTRPGs are not coextensive with their rules. Unlike a board game, where everything that's part of the game must be defined in the rules, RPG rules merely provide a shared framework for action resolution. The rules are a "some assembly required" kit for each table to build a game on the fly, during play.

[Minty]

I see the point the guy is making, and I think it's a valid one, although he doesn't make it very well.

D&D is a roleplaying game, but not a particularly great one. It is too boardgamey. You can play it without actually roleplaying at all.

My experience is that players who are more into playing a character and experiencing a story than optimising builds and simulating tactical battles, often become frustrated with D&D and gravitate towards other, less mechanics-heavy systems.

I usually go to D&D when I want old fashioned dungeon crawls and hack & slash. The rules are too much effort for games that only require occasional conflict resolution.

[leogobsin]

The act of roleplaying, while many consider it synonymous with the game of D&D, is not necessarily required in the game. In my argument, if this is a roleplaying game, wouldn't roleplaying be necessary for success in the game?

My question for you is, what do you mean by 'success'? Yes, you can perform the mechanics of D&D without roleplaying (I guess) but at that point what are you... doing? Like what does playing D&D if you're not making decisions as though you were a character even look like?

[Anonymouswizard]

Also, I have no idea why you mention "the modern rules" in particular. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the first editions didn't have pages of rules about how you needed to describe your actions with flourishes or make in-character speeches. Hell, the first D&D was basically a wargame where you played one person rather than military units.

I have to agree with all your post, but I want to pick this out in particular.

The core of 5e is still a wargame, but there's now a lot of stuff built around it. I own a lot of RPGs and there are other ones which don't use a wargame base (ranges and movement based on hard tabletop movements, which 5e still has), and while you can ignore the wargame base of D&D it's still pretty much part of it.


I've been hearing this "D&D isn't a real RPG" nonsense for years.

Never listened to it before, not gonna start now.

I have to agree. Even in my anti-D&D phases 'isn't a real RPG' isn't something I've ever held against it. And I've gone through all of the following reasons:
-Too rules heavy
-Only pseudo-medieval fantasy
-Rules-incomplete
-I personally dislike vancian magic
-I dislike class-based systems
-I dislike level-based systems


On the other hand the video has a point, that if you're not using the rules then you're not playing the game. But I don't think I've ever seen a session of an RPG go by without any skill checks, and I have a tendency to play skill-based systems (where most of what defines a character is their skill ranks, compared to D&D 5e which is power-based). He is strawmanning a lot, the basketball analogy is stupid, and he leaves out the fact that ideally the rules simulate situations which encourage roleplaying, but he's right in that there's nothing in the rules requiring it.

[BreaktheStatue]

So here's something I feel people are missing. I'm not saying that you _can't_ roleplay in D&D. You absolutely can, and we have for years. That's fine. Most of D&D is best when you do in my opinion.

However, the ruleset itself is not necessarily one _for_ roleplaying. The type of roleplaying you do in D&D can be accomplished by simply sitting at a table and talking through an encounter. No dice are needed in order to accomplish this type of roleplaying. Rather, the mechanical crunch of D&D is based around getting to the dungeon and killing the dragon for its loot, along with the mechanical benefits of what that loot does.

Just because you _can_ roleplay in a system does not make the system _about_ roleplaying. In the board game, Pandemic, everyone gets a class that confers mechanical benefits in a squad based manner, similar to D&D; does that make Pandemic an RPG? It can, if you want to roleplay your character going into a village and setting up a quarantine camp, but this provides no mechanical benefits. It's not built into the game itself.

The act of roleplaying, while many consider it synonymous with the game of D&D, is not necessarily required in the game. In my argument, if this is a roleplaying game, wouldn't roleplaying be necessary for success in the game?

It's not absolutely required to succeed, but I don't know of many "RPGs" that do.

I think most systems tend to leave the RP-quality adjudication up to the GM/DM because introducing some sort of deep, universal rules-based judgement of "RP quality" would probably be clunky, dumb, and discarded.

For what it is worth, there ARE loosely defined mechanical ways in DnD for a DM to reward or punish good/bad RP.

For instance, my DM will often confer Advantage/Disadvantage on social skill checks depending on how well we, as players, RP the situation.

And there's always inspiration.

TL/DR: RP quality judgements are best left the hands of DMs, and DnD has tools to reward/punish RP

[GreyBlack]

My question for you is, what do you mean by 'success'? Yes, you can perform the mechanics of D&D without roleplaying (I guess) but at that point what are you... doing? Like what does playing D&D if you're not making decisions as though you were a character even look like?

I would argue: probably about the same. You take your move action, you take your attack action, you take your bonus action, and you pass. Even outside of combat, you take those actions.

Trying to convince a local noble to help? Charisma check. Break into a store? Dexterity check. It's all the same stuff and actions whether inside or outside of combat.

[Anonymouswizard]

I would argue: probably about the same. You take your move action, you take your attack action, you take your bonus action, and you pass. Even outside of combat, you take those actions.

Trying to convince a local noble to help? Charisma check. Break into a store? Dexterity check. It's all the same stuff and actions whether inside or outside of combat.

Here's the thing about Roleplaying Mechanics: they're bloody difficult if not downright impossible.

Do you reward players for remaining in-character? If so how do you determine what's 'in character' for any particular character. Are we going to give them a bunch of personality traits (say Triggers) and let them have a bonus in an appropriate situation? If so how do you determine who activates it, I've seen both player-activated and GM-activated. How do you make sure that Bob the active fighter and Dave the passive wizard get the same benefit? Or do you just have a part of the rulebook that outright bans passive characters like Unknown Armies does?

By the end of it you end up with a mess of mechanics that still require heavy GM-adjudication and possibly a social combat system. So it's much more efficient to just use a basic set of mechanics that can be used to reward good roleplay rather than try to add game structure to it.

[leogobsin]

I would argue: probably about the same. You take your move action, you take your attack action, you take your bonus action, and you pass. Even outside of combat, you take those actions.

Trying to convince a local noble to help? Charisma check. Break into a store? Dexterity check. It's all the same stuff and actions whether inside or outside of combat.

It sounds like what you're describing is still totally roleplaying, its just using more ability checks than 'normal' D&D play has. You can roleplay without ever talking in character: if you're choosing what your character does and describing that characters actions, then you're roleplaying.

[GreyBlack]

Here's the thing about Roleplaying Mechanics: they're bloody difficult if not downright impossible.

Do you reward players for remaining in-character? If so how do you determine what's 'in character' for any particular character. Are we going to give them a bunch of personality traits (say Triggers) and let them have a bonus in an appropriate situation? If so how do you determine who activates it, I've seen both player-activated and GM-activated. How do you make sure that Bob the active fighter and Dave the passive wizard get the same benefit? Or do you just have a part of the rulebook that outright bans passive characters like Unknown Armies does?

By the end of it you end up with a mess of mechanics that still require heavy GM-adjudication and possibly a social combat system. So it's much more efficient to just use a basic set of mechanics that can be used to reward good roleplay rather than try to add game structure to it.

So I don't disagree that it isn't messier than the current system in some way, but still doable. Maybe just interpret it as a social attack roll; persuasion vs their passive Insight for example, similar to how you make a stealth check versus passive perception. Player tells you what action they want to take, they make the roll (if applicable) and they are told what happens via success or failure. No real structural changes are necessary.

Agreed it is less efficient in some cases, but still something totally within the rules without much (if any) changes to the base game necessary.

[CantigThimble]

So I don't disagree that it isn't messier than the current system in some way, but still doable. Maybe just interpret it as a social attack roll; persuasion vs their passive Insight for example, similar to how you make a stealth check versus passive perception. Player tells you what action they want to take, they make the roll (if applicable) and they are told what happens via success or failure. No real structural changes are necessary.

Agreed it is less efficient in some cases, but still something totally within the rules without much (if any) changes to the base game necessary.

Wait, how is this different to the current system? And how does it make it any more of a "roleplaying game" than it already is?

I mean, I'm going to be honest, this feels more like deliberately setting an odd goalpost for the title of "roleplaying game" for the sake of a provocative video title than it does like an honest inquiry that lead to the conclusion that D&D isn't a roleplaying game.

[Unoriginal]

However, the ruleset itself is not necessarily one _for_ roleplaying.

Yes it is.



The type of roleplaying you do in D&D can be accomplished by simply sitting at a table and talking through an encounter. No dice are needed in order to accomplish this type of roleplaying. Rather, the mechanical crunch of D&D is based around getting to the dungeon and killing the dragon for its loot, along with the mechanical benefits of what that loot does.

Which is why it's a roleplaying game.



Just because you _can_ roleplay in a system does not make the system _about_ roleplaying.

Roleplaying games are not game systems about roleplaying, they're game systems where you roleplay.



In the board game, Pandemic, everyone gets a class that confers mechanical benefits in a squad based manner, similar to D&D; does that make Pandemic an RPG? It can, if you want to roleplay your character going into a village and setting up a quarantine camp, but this provides no mechanical benefits. It's not built into the game itself.

It's a board game. I don't know the rules, but I suppose it has a limited number of choices for the players do to, and a few numbers of set victory/defeat conditions, right?

Roleplaying games have a greater degree of freedom than that. You can decided to do a funny voice and pretend to be Pandemic Squad Member number 1, it's not the same as deciding if your Dwarf Fighter should take offense at the local bully throwing his weight around in the tavern the PCs have decided to stop for the night during one of their travel.



In my argument, if this is a roleplaying game, wouldn't roleplaying be necessary for success in the game?

No. This is not what a roleplaying game is.

A roleplaying game is a game where you play a role. Not a game where your success is dependent on roleplaying.

Sorry to say, but your argument is baseless, or at least require to use a definition of roleplaying games that is not accurate.


I would argue: probably about the same. You take your move action, you take your attack action, you take your bonus action, and you pass. Even outside of combat, you take those actions.

Trying to convince a local noble to help? Charisma check. Break into a store? Dexterity check. It's all the same stuff and actions whether inside or outside of combat.

You're describing regular D&D roleplaying.

Though ability checks outside combat aren't "actions" as the game define it, and the checks are needed only when the attempt has a chance to fail and the consequences for failure matter.

[sophontteks]

Just a heartfelt congrats to anyone who managed to watch that video.

"Also I'm not scripting this."
Yeah buddy, that's pretty obvious.

[Drazhar]

I believe it is what you make it. I know it's a lazy answer, but it's true. The rules are in place set a ground work to play the game with, a way to keep us together, otherwise we would all end up playing some wacky rules and none of it would make sense. And as I like to remind my players, I am the DM and the rules start and stop with me. I love this game and will always let the fun and RP parts superceed the rules and game mechanics. I would rather let my character take what could be interpreted as an addition action for the sake of an epic moment for the story.

As of late power gamers have been making their way to D&D and treating it as more of a Dark Souls game and want to sqeeze everything out of a build and the game mechanics. THOSE are the people that I would say can suck the fun out of the game and of course take the RP out of it. I also would point towards AL as another accomplice to this misconception.

Anyways this is my QUICK two cents.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Power gamers" are not a new phenomenon. They've been with us since the beginning.

[GreyBlack]

Wait, how is this different to the current system? And how does it make it any more of a "roleplaying game" than it already is?

I mean, I'm going to be honest, this feels more like deliberately setting an odd goalpost for the title of "roleplaying game" for the sake of a provocative video title than it does like an honest inquiry that lead to the conclusion that D&D isn't a roleplaying game.

Roleplay, as a verb, means "act out or perform the part of a person or character."

If you don't necessarily act in character, or if you don't have to by mechanics, then no roleplaying is occurring.

It's a pretty firm line there. I argue that, if this is a roleplaying game, then roleplaying would be necessary. Otherwise, yes. It would be a board game or, at best, a roleplaying game in the same vein as, say, World of Warcraft; you still take on a ROLE within your party/raid, but you aren't acting in character.

That's not a bad thing, mind. It's simply a change in how one approaches the game system. Again, you can still roleplay and not be in a roleplaying game.

[Drazhar]

"Power gamers" are not a new phenomenon. They've been with us since the beginning.

True! But I would argue that there have been a bit more than average as of late.

[GreyBlack]

True! But I would argue that there have been a bit more than average as of late.

Late 3.x would like to have a word.... :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Roleplay, as a verb, means "act out or perform the part of a person or character."

If you don't necessarily act in character, or if you don't have to by mechanics, then no roleplaying is occurring.

It's a pretty firm line there. I argue that, if this is a roleplaying game, then roleplaying would be necessary. Otherwise, yes. It would be a board game or, at best, a roleplaying game in the same vein as, say, World of Warcraft; you still take on a ROLE within your party/raid, but you aren't acting in character.

That's not a bad thing, mind. It's simply a change in how one approaches the game system. Again, you can still roleplay and not be in a roleplaying game.

By that standard, there are no (or very few) roleplaying games. As such, it's a bad standard because it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

And from your definition (1st sentence) to the second sentence is a huge leap. You can perform the part of a person without staying "in character". Not to mention that that's only one definition, for a completely different media type (plays/movies). Since you can't actually act in character (are there orcs to fight in real life? No. So you can't actually act like that character would. You can only describe what that character is doing.), the definition is useless for this purpose.

Different media, different styles need different definitions. A better RPG-focused one is "making decisions for a specific, identified character in an imagined world based on their previously-established traits." And that's done in spades, and is a core part of the ruleset of all RPGs.

[Unoriginal]

Roleplay, as a verb, means "act out or perform the part of a person or character."

If you don't necessarily act in character, or if you don't have to by mechanics, then no roleplaying is occurring.

It's a pretty firm line there. I argue that, if this is a roleplaying game, then roleplaying would be necessary. Otherwise, yes. It would be a board game or, at best, a roleplaying game in the same vein as, say, World of Warcraft; you still take on a ROLE within your party/raid, but you aren't acting in character.

That's not a bad thing, mind. It's simply a change in how one approaches the game system. Again, you can still roleplay and not be in a roleplaying game.

You're basically taking all of the RPGs since Gygax and Anderson, crossing all the text out, and then going "now I'm going to define what roleplaying games actually are."

[Jormengand]

It's not a good RPG that encourages strong role-playing, but it is an RPG.

[Matrix_Walker]

Of course, it is a roleplaying game, it's just not an ass about it. It keeps it accessible to new wallflower players by not enforced by rule while leaving the 'actors at heart' free to dance.

[Anonymouswizard]

So I don't disagree that it isn't messier than the current system in some way, but still doable. Maybe just interpret it as a social attack roll; persuasion vs their passive Insight for example, similar to how you make a stealth check versus passive perception. Player tells you what action they want to take, they make the roll (if applicable) and they are told what happens via success or failure. No real structural changes are necessary.

Agreed it is less efficient in some cases, but still something totally within the rules without much (if any) changes to the base game necessary.

That's exactly what the basic rules do.

Sure, D&D makes 80% of a character their combat abilities, while something like The Dark Eye or Victoriana where 80% of your character is their skill ranks lends itself more to out of combat solutions, but D&D does have noncombat stats as well as the combat abilities.

More detailed social combat systems do exist but they're rather hit and miss and vary wildly in function.

[Jophiel]

Compared to when I played 1st Edition, D&D has a lot more mechanical rules for things that were previously left between the DM and Player and typically handled via roleplaying. An easy example would be having to come up with a convincing argument to be let into the city versus "roll Persuasion". It's reasonable to use those mechanical rules since it lets players do things beyond their own abilities (be a glib and witty bard when you're really not that quick-witted or charming) and eliminates feelings like the DM is unfairly dismissing your efforts. But it also means that "I use Persuasion (+7) on the guard" is as valid as "I tell the guard, 'Dear sir, there is a great evil...'" yadda yadda which probably rankles people who are expecting everyone to conform to the latter.

And then there's AL which is great for a lot of reasons but roleplaying isn't one of them and any character backstory, etc is pretty much for your own edification.

I guess I feel like modern D&D provides more routes around traditional roleplaying as a means of expanding its base but I certainly wouldn't say it's "not a roleplaying game".

[GreyBlack]

Compared to when I played 1st Edition, D&D has a lot more mechanical rules for things that were previously left between the DM and Player and typically handled via roleplaying. An easy example would be having to come up with a convincing argument to be let into the city versus "roll Persuasion". It's reasonable to use those mechanical rules since it lets players do things beyond their own abilities (be a glib and witty bard when you're really not that quick-witted or charming) and eliminates feelings like the DM is unfairly dismissing your efforts. But it also means that "I use Persuasion (+7) on the guard" is as valid as "I tell the guard, 'Dear sir, there is a great evil...'" yadda yadda which probably rankles people who are expecting everyone to conform to the latter.

And then there's AL which is great for a lot of reasons but roleplaying isn't one of them and any character backstory, etc is pretty much for your own edification.

I guess I feel like modern D&D provides more routes around traditional roleplaying as a means of expanding its base but I certainly wouldn't say it's "not a roleplaying game".

I feel like this may be the root of my problems; the shortcuts around traditional roleplaying and increased emphasis on the battlemat are off putting, but we do see this problem extending back even to 3.x.

Really, there are 2 elements which really may put (at least modern) D&D into the "RPG" camp more fully than anything else people have mentioned; unfortunately, one of those elements happens to be one many players discount. Specifically, I'm talking about the modern background traits, and the alignment system.

That said, I do have to ask myself how many players feel that either system is important to how they experience the game. Neither (generally speaking) really influences how the game is played at some tables.

[Hypersmith]

Very much so. Other systems set up narrative and character interaction elements better with things like fate points, but that isn't what makes or breaks a roleplaying game. It's about people having characters they can represent the abilities of with some numbers, but the character itself is brought to life by the players, and that isn't restricted by 5e. It's not like you're told not to roleplay, or told you have to dungeon dive and collect loot to be legitimate, or to stick to the system.

Doesn't encourage strong roleplaying, but it does bring roleplaying naturally with it.

[Knaight]

However, the ruleset itself is not necessarily one _for_ roleplaying. The type of roleplaying you do in D&D can be accomplished by simply sitting at a table and talking through an encounter. No dice are needed in order to accomplish this type of roleplaying. Rather, the mechanical crunch of D&D is based around getting to the dungeon and killing the dragon for its loot, along with the mechanical benefits of what that loot does.

Just because you _can_ roleplay in a system does not make the system _about_ roleplaying. In the board game, Pandemic, everyone gets a class that confers mechanical benefits in a squad based manner, similar to D&D; does that make Pandemic an RPG? It can, if you want to roleplay your character going into a village and setting up a quarantine camp, but this provides no mechanical benefits. It's not built into the game itself.

Yes, take Pandemic. First, consider the characters - is there anything in the rules about giving them personality? Is there anything vaguely akin to ideals, bonds, even alignment? No.

More than that though, take the core structure of the game. Where D&D requires the description of the local setting fiction by the GM, and the interaction with that setting fiction by the players through their PCs Pandemic doesn't. Instead Pandemic requires a series of mechanical interactions, built around the decision each round of which four actions to take then the upkeep phase that changes the board. That's the difference, and it's that core structure that makes D&D an RPG.

Heck, forget Pandemic. Take Descent - a game about a party of adventurers clearing a dungeon, while one player plays dungeon opposition. It's a much more similar game, superficially, but the core structure is still more like Pandemic than D&D, and so it's a boardgame and not an RPG.


Very much so. Other systems set up narrative and character interaction elements better with things like fate points, but that isn't what makes or breaks a roleplaying game. It's about people having characters they can represent the abilities of with some numbers, but the character itself is brought to life by the players, and that isn't restricted by 5e. It's not like you're told not to roleplay, or told you have to dungeon dive and collect loot to be legitimate, or to stick to the system.
I'd push back pretty hard on this - not the bit about the character being brought to life, but the whole idea that characters with abilities represented by numbers being at all required. There are several RPGs that don't do that at all, from focusing on things other than abilities (e.g. defining characters by their relationships), or by using the rules more for the core structure of who determines what when. Your definition would claim that Fiasco isn't an RPG, for instance, which is clearly ridiculous.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This also all ignores the fact that roleplaying and rules/mechanics are completely unrelated things. Lots of training sessions involve roleplaying through a situation. You might even be playing yourself (as in a lot of therapy). None of these have rules that require staying in character or provide mechanical rewards/punishments for doing so/failing to do so.

You may say "but games need rules!", to which I respond: freeform. There are no mechanical rules, but it's still a game. So is playing house (which is a simple form of roleplaying that entirely lacks any fixed rules or mechanics).

[Nifft]

D&D is an abbreviation, not a game at all.

[CantigThimble]

Would you consider any computer RPGs to be 'true RPGs'? Is Baldur's Gate an RPG or is it just a really fancy board game?

[Unoriginal]

D&D is an abbreviation, not a game at all.

Actually, it's an initialism

*put on my pedantry glasses*

[sophontteks]

I think the big thing that makes 5e a roleplaying game is that your playing a character other then yourself. And there really isn't much to say beyond that.

Wiki says it best.
"A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game[1][2] and abbreviated to RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting"

[Nifft]

Actually, it's an initialism

*put on my pedantry glasses*

I believe the ampersand's pronunciation precludes that appellation.

[leogobsin]

Actually, it's an initialism

*put on my pedantry glasses*


I believe the ampersand's pronunciation precludes that appellation.

*puts on my meta-pedantry glasses*
Also, something being an initialism doesn't mean it's not an abbreviation; an initialism is a type of abbreviation.

[Unoriginal]

*puts on my meta-pedantry glasses*
Also, something being an initialism doesn't mean it's not an abbreviation; an initialism is a type of abbreviation.

that's the joke.

[Nifft]

that's the joke.

Actually, a joke requires humor.

*puts on pedant clown-nose*

[MoiMagnus]

Would you consider any computer RPGs to be 'true RPGs'? Is Baldur's Gate an RPG or is it just a really fancy board game?

I do, should I change the definition to include Baldur's Gate / Skyrim / ... into RPG.
I put the limit at Tactical RPG, like Fire Emblem, which I consider to be a different genre than RPG.

From that point of view, D&D (particularly the 4th edition) oscillate between RPG (non-combat) and Tactical RPG (combat).

But I guess the underlying point of the video is that RPG have two big families:
+ Technical RPGs (like D&D), where rules reward tactical and strategical behavior
+ Narrative RPGs (like Paranoia, or rule-free RPGs), where rules reward acting and improvisation

I've seen people considering Technical RPG as "bad board games", and other considering Narrative RPG as "bad improvisation theater". I personnaly like both, and prefer Technical ones for campaign, and Narrative ones for one-shot scenarios.

[LudicSavant]

So something has been gnawing at the back of my mind over the past several months, especially while playing in a friend's AL game. This was also spurred on by this video:

https://youtu.be/jRtXqCUN7VE

After watching this, it's really led me down a path to asking whether or not D&D is truly a roleplaying game. This guy makes a lot of good points; the modern rules really don't mention needing to act in character and it really isn't encouraged in the base rules. You don't _have_ to describe how your character does something, you don't have to give an idea of what your character says... the rules handle everything without you needing to put any extra input in.

So I have to wonder. Is D&D a roleplaying game? Or is it more akin to a dungeon exploration and dice game?

I'll add my own vote that D&D is indeed an RPG.

I'll also advise that you take Dawnforgedcast with a rather generous helping of salt. They tend to say things like "There are no tanks in D&D" (followed by saying how they think you should make the best tank in D&D in the very same video) or come up with metrics for determining the balance of races which say that Lizardfolk, of all things, are the most overpowered race.

[Quoxis]

Actually, a joke requires humor.

*puts on pedant clown-nose*

I never asked this before, but can anyone sig this? This is too great to not be saved and shown to to the world. I‘ll volunteer, if i must.

[Derpaligtr]

So something has been gnawing at the back of my mind over the past several months, especially while playing in a friend's AL game. This was also spurred on by this video:

https://youtu.be/jRtXqCUN7VE

After watching this, it's really led me down a path to asking whether or not D&D is truly a roleplaying game. This guy makes a lot of good points; the modern rules really don't mention needing to act in character and it really isn't encouraged in the base rules. You don't _have_ to describe how your character does something, you don't have to give an idea of what your character says... the rules handle everything without you needing to put any extra input in.

So I have to wonder. Is D&D a roleplaying game? Or is it more akin to a dungeon exploration and dice game?

More of a combat game that allows people get their roleplaying fix. The rules for roleplaying pretty much falls to "well, ask your DM or whatever, screw you".

[LudicSavant]

I think some people ignore a lot of the noncombat rules since they're in the DMG. For example, pretty much all of the social interaction rules are in the DMG, as well as things like 5e's equivalent of the old "take 20" rule. I just talked to someone the other day who had been playing 5e for years who was stunned to learn that these rules existed, and admitted that he and his group had just mostly skipped the DMG assuming it was just all flavor stuff and magic items.

The misunderstanding is at least partly understandable, since a lot of things that used to be in the PHB (like a lot of the skill rules) are now scattered about the DMG (which in previous editions had little in the way of rules relevant to players save for magic items, so people kinda just skimmed or skipped it), but come on. People should fully read the books before determining that the books don't include things.

[Minty]

Would you consider any computer RPGs to be 'true RPGs'? Is Baldur's Gate an RPG or is it just a really fancy board game?

No, at least not any singleplayer ones. And multiplayer ones only qualify because roleplaying can be done between humans entirely through chat rather than the mechanics of the game.

Baldur's gate is an adventure game with D&D combat mechanics and scripted stories (and so are a lot of people's tabletop games, for that matter).

[Eric Diaz]

Yes, it is.

And you're playing D&D even if you never roll a dice.

There are two methods of play discussed in this video. I'll call them:

a) playing your character sheet;

b) playing WITHOUT LOOKING AT your character sheet (or dice, etc);

The video focuses on the distinctions between the two, as if they were two separate things.

However, the special thing about RPGs is not "A" or "B", but the LINK between the two.

For example (without rolling any dice):

> The goblin says "get out of my way".
> Player says: "I flex my muscles and tell him that in Cimmeria we eat goblins for breakfast".

No dice rolled, no looking at the sheet BUT the player is ROLEPLAYING a strong barbarian warrior, in a way he COULDN'T do if his sheet says "str 8 wizard".

Example of pure "a" playing are a bit more difficult (except, maybe, for combat), but pure "a" play is pretty much impossible - how can you decide what to do without relying on "fiction", "non-mechanics" description?

You can fight an orc without asking his size or color; you cannot search through a room without asking for beds, chairs, etc (all non-mechanical bits).

[sophontteks]

No, at least not any singleplayer ones. And multiplayer ones only qualify because roleplaying can be done between humans entirely through chat rather than the mechanics of the game.

Baldur's gate is an adventure game with D&D combat mechanics and scripted stories (and so are a lot of people's tabletop games, for that matter).
Witcher 3 was an amazing RPG. Loved roleplaying the great Geralt. Maybe you just haven't played any good ones?


More of a combat game that allows people get their roleplaying fix. The rules for roleplaying pretty much falls to "well, ask your DM or whatever, screw you".

Signs you need a new DM. Exhibit A

[Minty]

Witcher 3 was an amazing RPG. Loved roleplaying the great Geralt. Maybe you just haven't played any good ones?

It's not really a matter of what ones I have or haven't played. I don't think true roleplaying is possible in any singleplayer game with today's technology. Basically, whatever you're doing when you play Witcher 3, I don't think is roleplaying. You cannot have a free form conversation with anyone, for a start.

[Jophiel]

It's not really a matter of what ones I have or haven't played. I don't think true roleplaying is possible in any singleplayer game with today's technology. Basically, whatever you're doing when you play Witcher 3, I don't think is roleplaying. You cannot have a free form conversation with anyone, for a start.
Yeah, I call those computer games "RPGs" as a matter of convention but I don't consider them roleplaying games in the classic sense. You're very limited in what you can say or do compared to even the most mechanically inclined tabletop RPG.

[Bohandas]

Roleplaying doesn't require acting, it just requires that you try to make decisions for a character as if you were them.

This.

With the additional note that by today's standards it's super-heavy on roleplaying since the many computer RPGs around now have neither acting nor in-character decisions

[Kyrell1978]

Roleplay, as a verb, means "act out or perform the part of a person or character."


That may be true but it is not the definition of a role playing game. That (according to Wikipedia anyway) is as follows:

A role-playing game (RPG) is a type of game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Using this definition D and D is clearly a role playing game.

[Eric Diaz]

CRPGs cannot be RPGs because all interactions are mechanical IMO.

[Derpaligtr]

Witcher 3 was an amazing RPG. Loved roleplaying the great Geralt. Maybe you just haven't played any good ones?



Signs you need a new DM. Exhibit A

No.

Look at the combat section of the book, all the rules related to combat... Directly to combat.

Look at all the rules on socialization, interaction between the players and NPCs, rules for dealing with issues without combat...

The game is saying "ask your DM, screw you", not the DM.

It's pretty telling just by the sheer volume of rules alone that focus on combat or partially on combat but when it comes to anything else... It's lacking.

Look at the ability score rules. Anything related to combat or exploration (that leads to combat) is detailed but get to the mental scores and it's ask your dm, screw you".

[sophontteks]

No.

Look at the combat section of the book, all the rules related to combat... Directly to combat.

Look at all the rules on socialization, interaction between the players and NPCs, rules for dealing with issues without combat...

The game is saying "ask your DM, screw you", not the DM.

It's pretty telling just by the sheer volume of rules alone that focus on combat or partially on combat but when it comes to anything else... It's lacking.

Look at the ability score rules. Anything related to combat or exploration (that leads to combat) is detailed but get to the mental scores and it's ask your dm, screw you".
So your mad because they wrote guidelines instead of rules? The book has tons of material on stuff other then combat.

[Bohandas]

This.

With the additional note that by today's standards it's super-heavy on roleplaying since the many computer RPGs around now have neither acting nor in-character decisions

Furthermore I would add that acting out scenes would actually make it less of a roleplating game because then you're not doing the character, you're doing yourself doing that character, if that makes any sense. Like, you can't play the a cha 19 bard realistically with dialog but without a script because you're not Mick Jagger and you don't have that charisma.

[Willie the Duck]

That may be true but it is not the definition of a role playing game...

Well, that brings up a point:
D&D was invented, and we started talking about this role-playing game phenomenon. Then someone tried to make a definition for what a roleplaying game is. If someone finds a way to interpret that definition as excluding the game the caused the definition to exist--does that make the game not an RPG or the definition flawed?

[RazorChain]

Most roleplaying games explain what roleplaying is somewhere in the book, roleplaying or acting out your character isn't always regulated by the rules. The rules are about task resolutions and what your character is capable of.


The question is rather if we do want our rolepaying regulated? Do we want it codified in the rules?

[Jophiel]

Well, that brings up a point:
D&D was invented, and we started talking about this role-playing game phenomenon. Then someone tried to make a definition for what a roleplaying game is. If someone finds a way to interpret that definition as excluding the game the caused the definition to exist--does that make the game not an RPG or the definition flawed?
One could argue that D&D now is a very different animal from the game that existed in the 1970s/80s and made people aware of the term "roleplaying". 5e isn't the "the game that caused the definition to exist".

[Kyrell1978]

Well, that brings up a point:
D&D was invented, and we started talking about this role-playing game phenomenon. Then someone tried to make a definition for what a roleplaying game is. If someone finds a way to interpret that definition as excluding the game the caused the definition to exist--does that make the game not an RPG or the definition flawed?

While it's not a perfect definition it is pretty broad. I cannot see a way that anyone could, under that definition, claim that any edition of D&D didn't fit in that category (at least not while being intellectually honest).

[Lord Raziere]

Actually, a joke requires humor.

*puts on pedant clown-nose*

Too bad I don't see any on you! Haha! :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

It is, unless you use a narrow and specific definition of roleplaying to exclude it. Like some kind of TSR-era or Forge-era elitist.


That may be true but it is not the definition of a role playing game. That (according to Wikipedia anyway) is as follows:

A role-playing game (RPG) is a type of game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

That's not what Wikipedia says. There's nothing there about collaboratively creating stories. Rightly so, because that isn't required at all to have roleplaying or roleplaying games.

What Wikipedia actually says in the paragraph of the (general) roleplaying game entry is:
A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game[1][2] and abbreviated to RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making of character development.[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

This higher-level article one includes LARPing and CRPGs. But despite that, it's actually a narrower definition, because is assumes 'narrative'. I'll be honest I have no idea what they mean by "structured decision-making of character development.[3]", that sounds like some hoity toity meaningless bs to me.

(Edit: footnote [3] actually comes with this quote:
As suggested by the name, TRPGs are played face-to-face (around a table, most likely), and involve players 'acting out' a role. This acting is not always literal. Players do not arrive in costume or speak exclusively in-character — something that differentiates TRPGs from live-action role-playing games (LARPs). Instead, players develop characters based on certain rules and are responsible for deciding what those characters do over the course of the game.

Not sure how relates to the "structured decision-making of character development" actually said in the main article to me, and makes it sound even more like meaningless BS. )

The TRPG entry says:
A tabletop role-playing game (or pen-and-paper role-playing game) is a form of role-playing game (RPG) in which the participants describe their characters' actions through speech. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization,[1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a set formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.[2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabletop_role-playing_game

That's much more reasonable and accurate IMO. It focused on decisions being made, and being made within the characterization. That sounds exactly like roleplaying to me, for any given level of characterization that's been decided on.

[Phoenix042]

Yea, I don't like the guy either, and it's because I think he deeply misunderstands the way the typical player plays the game, and what D&D really is.

Also his videos are really big on exposition and very light on actual meaty content. He often spends 10 or 15 minutes on what could have been 30 seconds of actual point.

In this case, he's WAY wrong, to the point where I actually have a hard time believing that ANYONE really thinks this way.

The player's handbook provides you with a set of tools and a model for resolving actions into outcomes that make simple, mathematical sense. It does not tell you the correct way to roleplay, because the designers recognize that everyone plays their roles differently. Instead, it gives you helpful tools (the tables in the backgrounds section, the flavor text surrounding every class, ability, and feat, etc), and it provides you with myriad examples of roles that many people like to play and advice on playing them, then it hands the reigns to individual player groups. The DMG expands on these ideas, and the three core rulebooks collectively create a backdrop against which many people prefer to play than a typical combat-light or non-combat game.

As a result, it may be easy for a particular group to ignore much of what we might consider "actual time spent roleplaying" in favor of raw, dialogue-free combat encounter mania, but that's probably a lot rarer than what my group does, which is use the rules and combat encounters as springboards for our own roleplaying.


Silly question.

[Tanarii]

As a result, it may be easy for a particular group to ignore much of what we might consider "actual time spent roleplaying" in favor of raw, dialogue-free combat encounter mania, but that's probably a lot rarer than what my group does, which is use the rules and combat encounters as springboards for our own roleplaying.I play Gloomhaven occasionally, and I've played various D&D board games (TSR and WoTC) and Descent.

Even the most basic dungeon crawl Orc hunt game of D&D doesn't feel the same. For example, I've run B2 Caves of Chaos a bunch of times, and it never feels like a RPG-based board game.

Personally I feel like the two biggest differences in terms of game player 'feeling' are:
1 - the feeling that you can decide to try to go wherever and attempt anything (regardless of if that's likely or feasible).
2 - interactions, even with likely enemies, are far more likely. At the least, they always feel like a possibility.

Both of those stem directly from there being a DM that can adjudicate any attempted action.

[Willie the Duck]

One could argue that D&D now is a very different animal from the game that existed in the 1970s/80s and made people aware of the term "roleplaying". 5e isn't the "the game that caused the definition to exist".

Maybe not, but while the specifics of the game has changed between the editions, broad-brushed answers to questions like 'what do you do when playing D&D?' or, 'what is D&D for?' have not really changed. You are still playing a 'character' with most of the rules involving physical and social tasks.
If someone can point to something that oD&D had that 5e doesn't that disqualifies 5e* from the definition, I would be willing to be convinced. As it stands now, it seems more to me that one person's rather tortured interpretation of 5e D&D doesn't match up with a excessively constraining definition of RPGs, much more than 5e has somehow been stripped of that hard-to-define quality that made oD&D a rpg.
*or 4e, AD&D 2e, Tunnels and Trolls, Shadowrun, what-have-you.

[Darth Ultron]

I think a big distinction need to be made between needs to be made between a role playing activity and a role playing game. D&D has rules, so it is a game. Strictly speaking it's not a pure role playing activity, as it does have rules. Pure role playing is just free form: you just say whatever you want at random, and so does anyone else.

The fact that D&D has both rules and a DM, both that affect and control the fictional world, are what make D&D a game. In pure free form you can just say ''my character blows up the moon", but you can't do that in a normal game of D&D: a character is bound by the rules, the DMs whims and the fictional reality.




I fall to see the distinction between roll and role playing. Anyway.


Well, you'd see it very clearly in a Roll Playing Game:
Player-"My character, Character Seven, moves thirty feet forward and looks towards map square A7.
DM-Roll a spot check
Player-I rolled a 12
DM-In A7 you see a Goblin Clubber!
Player-I make an attack action one: swing my sword at the goblin. My attack is 22!
DM-You hit the Goblin Clubber!
Player-I do eight damage
DM-The goblin is hurt, but not down. for it's attack, it uses attack action one: swings it's club"

Now this is a valid way to play.

You also get optimized roll playing:

DM-Ahead you see a ghoul.
Player-"I do this action, add this and this and that, and attack the ghoul with a 16 to hit and do exactly 22 hit points of damage to the ghoul.
DM-you do the exact amount of damage to defeat it.

[CircleOfTheRock]

I think we can close this thread, the best answer is here.
Perhaps even the only answer.

[mephnick]

It's an RPG. Yes, it's focused on combat and exploration instead of narrative and relationships, but still an RPG.

[oxybe]

What?

Look... what is D&D's core premise about? I think most people would agree that D&D is a game about heroes, or at the very least adventurers, getting into and out of trouble, usually dressed in some form of fantasy trappings. Sometimes the trouble comes to them, sometimes they go to it, but either way it's about your dudes solving the problem.

Does D&D's rules push you towards that goal? I would say yes. be it by word or sword, your PC's main growth mechanic, XP, is gained by overcoming challenges.

That's largely it.

But i'm not an actor. I don't make funny voices when I GM. to be frank I find that more distracting then anything.

But when last Wendsday, the party I was GMing for was facing a TPK and with a clear exit at his back, one of the two priests, the last man standing, made the decision to spend his turn healing the unconscious rogue because the undead lord needs to be taken down for the good of the land and he didn't feel he could destroy it. Instead of running away and keeping his last heal to himself, he healed the rogue and died trying to save the land. And the rogue, in the end, managed to kill the undead lord (more or less...).

That's roleplaying.

The player played his role..

Yes D&D doesn't have a "roll for feelings check" but that's more of a different kind of minutiae.

D&D has certain themes and tropes it emphasizes and gives you the tools to act on them. What separates D&D from, say, a boardgame is that the GM and players are given the tools to both write the script and go off it. do what the rules don't particularly expect and say "that's ok, we gave you a framework and you can use that to help adjudicate your off-the-wall actions". but the core gameplay still emphasizes those themes and tropes while not being leashed to a dev's ideology on how things should work as you would with a boardgame or videogame.

[Kyrell1978]

That's not what Wikipedia says.

That's news to me because I literally copied and pasted that from wikipedia. It was a definition under the history of roleplaying entry, but thanks for incorrecting me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_role-playing_games :smallbiggrin:

[ZorroGames]

I've been hearing this "D&D isn't a real RPG" nonsense for years.

Never listened to it before, not gonna start now.

Roger Wilco!

[Anonymouswizard]

One could argue that D&D now is a very different animal from the game that existed in the 1970s/80s and made people aware of the term "roleplaying". 5e isn't the "the game that caused the definition to exist".

Yes, and no.

At the very core D&D is still doing what it did back in the 70s and 80s, providing a framework to simulate Fantasy HeroesTM. But that framework has changed from being Stats+to hit table+proficiencies+saves+spells to being stats+proficiencies+abilities+spells, with proficiencies getting larger by absorbing not only the to hit table and saves, but also this newfangled 'Non Weapon Proficiencies' thing from Unearthed Arcana, that 3e confusingly renamed to skills. Oh, and the latest edition increased the number of fluff traits while removing almost all mechanical weight, so I'm not sure if it's really worth counting them.

The structure around that framework has also changed. In 0e it was assumed you were a large group of adventurers going into the dungeons below Castle Greymoor for profit, while these days it's assumed that the PCs are a small band of (super)heroes trying to save the world.

So yeah, D&D is definitely not played the same way, and the exact mechanisms are different, but what the system does is the same. We can argue if D&D is the same game as it was for pretty much ever, but it's a pretty clear descendant game at the very least.

[Jophiel]

Maybe not, but while the specifics of the game has changed between the editions, broad-brushed answers to questions like 'what do you do when playing D&D?' or, 'what is D&D for?' have not really changed.
Yes, and no.

At the very core D&D is still doing what it did back in the 70s and 80s, providing a framework to simulate Fantasy HeroesTM.
I don't want to get too deep into the weeds because (as I previously said) I disagree with the broad point that "D&D isn't an RPG" and don't want to wind up arguing a point I don't agree with. My point was simply that
(a) D&D today is a different product than when it started and isn't immune to drift. Saying it must be an RPG because it was one forty years ago sounds like saying a rebooted Hollywood property must be a drama because it was in the 70s, even if the 2010s version is an action-comedy. It makes more sense to discuss it based on what it is now and how today's product is, indeed, a drama at its core even if it has different elements.
(b) Someone making the argument that D&D isn't a roleplaying game any more isn't going to be swayed by an argument saying that it used to be so it must be.

Pointing at how it was defined in the 70s just isn't a particularly good defense of the modern game.

[Tanarii]

That's news to me because I literally copied and pasted that from wikipedia. It was a definition under the history of roleplaying entry, but thanks for incorrecting me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_role-playing_games:smallbiggrin:
Your link doesn't go anywhere.

[MaxWilson]

Put me down for "5E is a role-playing game because you make lots of decisions in-character; but it's limited in scope, combat-focused with minimal support for any activity that doesn't involve some form of interaction with HP." Outside of latent or openly violent conflicts, it's just ad hoc spell effects (Mending, Major Image) and skill checks in a vacuum--the exceptions being skill checks using Xanathar's tool proficiencies and a handful of not-particularly-well-thought-out DMG rules like the rules for changing hostiles into friendlies with Persuasion checks (which don't work well). Xanathar's improved the situation for tool proficiencies but the rest of the system is still about the same level tool proficiencies were before.

For example, if you wanted a game about court intrigue where you defeat rivals by humiliating them instead of by reducing them to 0 HP, 5E has nothing to say. The DM will have to make up everything about the game structure from scratch, unless he ditches 5E and runs it in a different system instead, e.g. DramaSystem would make this straightforward. (Although DramaSystem would also tend to prolong conflicts with rivals indefinitely instead of driving them toward final resolution.)

5E is a game about roleplaying fantasy SpecOps in violent conflicts.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't want to get too deep into the weeds because (as I previously said) I disagree with the broad point that "D&D isn't an RPG" and don't want to wind up arguing a point I don't agree with. My point was simply that
(a) D&D today is a different product than when it started and isn't immune to drift. Saying it must be an RPG because it was one forty years ago sounds like saying a rebooted Hollywood property must be a drama because it was in the 70s, even if the 2010s version is an action-comedy. It makes more sense to discuss it based on what it is now and how today's product is, indeed, a drama at its core even if it has different elements.
(b) Someone making the argument that D&D isn't a roleplaying game any more isn't going to be swayed by an argument saying that it used to be so it must be.

Pointing at how it was defined in the 70s just isn't a particularly good defense of the modern game.

Honestly, you're missing my point.

D&D is doing the same stuff it did fourty years ago, but the bits around the core have gone through a massive shift. I actually believe that 'D&D' is five games:
-BD&D: I believe this seperated itself enough from OD&D through it's various editions to be considered a different game. Notably more rules-light and archetype-based than the game it was a sister to.
-AD&D: I consider this a three edition game, going 0e->1e->2e. Each edition refined and built upon what came before.
-3e: a complete reworking of the mechanics, leave no element unchanged!
-4e: let's rewrite it again, but make it balanced this time.
-5e: cast ressurect on the sacred cows, defile all the good things to come out of 4e.

Now depending on who you are what editions are different games, but my point was that the core has stayed despite everything else changing. Does this make it a different game? Is English Curry the same thing as Indian Curry? Is American Pizza the same dish as Italian-style Pizza? The answer depends on your exact definitions.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't want to get too deep into the weeds because (as I previously said) I disagree with the broad point that "D&D isn't an RPG" and don't want to wind up arguing a point I don't agree with. My point was simply that
(a) D&D today is a different product than when it started and isn't immune to drift. Saying it must be an RPG because it was one forty years ago sounds like saying a rebooted Hollywood property must be a drama because it was in the 70s, even if the 2010s version is an action-comedy. It makes more sense to discuss it based on what it is now and how today's product is, indeed, a drama at its core even if it has different elements.
(b) Someone making the argument that D&D isn't a roleplaying game any more isn't going to be swayed by an argument saying that it used to be so it must be.

Pointing at how it was defined in the 70s just isn't a particularly good defense of the modern game.

Really, because what has changed? What, specifically, about 5e is functionally different from oD&D, or Tunnels and Trolls, or GURPS, or Hero System, or any other system that falls under the category of what has previously been called a role playing game, that is different?

[ZorroGames]

Really, because what has changed? What, specifically, about 5e is functionally different from oD&D, or Tunnels and Trolls, or GURPS, or Hero System, or any other system that falls under the category of what has previously been called a role playing game, that is different?

Have played when it started the only things different are emphasis of certain aspects over other aspects and what seems like flavor aspects.

3e seemed “a pendulum too far” and 4e seemed an over correction though TBH just reading the PHB turned me off totally.

I suspect murder hoboes are Role playing when you right down to core concepts.

[Willie the Duck]

Have played when it started the only things different are emphasis of certain aspects over other aspects and what seems like flavor aspects.

3e seemed “a pendulum too far” and 4e seemed an over correction though TBH just reading the PHB turned me off totally.

I suspect murder hoboes are Role playing when you right down to core concepts.

Possibly. Even 3e and 4e are different on specifics, but you are still effectively doing the same stuff, and the mechanics mostly support the same stuff. I'm including Tunnels and Trolls and Shadowrun and some pretty divergent stuff in this umbrella deliberately because I don't see what difference between any of these widely variant things would be the defining feature that makes something a role playing game.

[Kyrell1978]

Your link doesn't go anywhere.
I fixed it. I accidentally put the smiley face in with the url. Here it is again if you don't want to look through the thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_role-playing_games

[Rp4man]

Im of the opinion that dnd is a mechanical chassis in which we can tell and roleplay stories.

There are many types of role playing games. Why you choose one over another would be the setting in the mechanical chassis.

[ZorroGames]

Well, that brings up a point:
D&D was invented, and we started talking about this role-playing game phenomenon. Then someone tried to make a definition for what a roleplaying game is. If someone finds a way to interpret that definition as excluding the game the caused the definition to exist--does that make the game not an RPG or the definition flawed?

The latter definitely.

[ZorroGames]

I fixed it. I accidentally put the smiley face in with the url. Here it is again if you don't want to look through the thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_role-playing_games

That article is why Wikipedia is shunned by serious researchers. Been one for the Intelligence 🙄 Community. It anachronistically takes role playing game and links it to activities that were never called that prior to the 1970s. There are three kinds of incorrect research: Flawed, shoddy, and wrong. Guess where I place this article.

[sophontteks]

Its not shunned by the research community. Its a great source of quick information, but it should be taken for what it is. Its not q scholarly article. Though, for one doing research, following the footnotes is a great way to find information.

[Louro]

Saying that Baldurs gate is a role playing game is like saying playing FIFA is playing football.

[Knaight]

That article is why Wikipedia is shunned by serious researchers. Been one for the Intelligence 🙄 Community. It anachronistically takes role playing game and links it to activities that were never called that prior to the 1970s. There are three kinds of incorrect research: Flawed, shoddy, and wrong. Guess where I place this article.

The development of terminology that applies to stuff prior to the developed terminology happens all the time. There's nothing anachronistic about doing that.

[CantigThimble]

Saying that Baldurs gate is a role playing game is like saying playing FIFA is playing football.

Is there such a thing as a crpg then, according to your definitions?

[Darth Ultron]

One could argue that D&D now is a very different animal from the game that existed in the 1970s/80s and made people aware of the term "roleplaying". 5e isn't the "the game that caused the definition to exist".

It is true that the D&D game has clanged over the years.



At the very core D&D is still doing what it did back in the 70s and 80s, providing a framework to simulate Fantasy HeroesTM.

D&D is doing the same stuff it did fourty years ago, but the bits around the core have gone through a massive shift. I actually believe that 'D&D' is five games:
-BD&D: I believe this seperated itself enough from OD&D through it's various editions to be considered a different game. Notably more rules-light and archetype-based than the game it was a sister to.
-AD&D: I consider this a three edition game, going 0e->1e->2e. Each edition refined and built upon what came before.
-3e: a complete reworking of the mechanics, leave no element unchanged!
-4e: let's rewrite it again, but make it balanced this time.
-5e: cast ressurect on the sacred cows, defile all the good things to come out of 4e.



The whole reason D&D even ever became popular was it was a mechanical wargame you could build role playing around. If D&D had been a mechanical role playing game from the start, it would never have become the favorite it is today.

Think like if D&D had just as many role playing rules as it does roll playing rules. So not only would you roll a dice to see how far you move your character in a round(like you would in Monopoly), to speak to a character you'd have to make a Voice roll vs their Hearing Defense. To understand something spoken, you'd need to roll an Understanding Check for your character. For your character to take action, you would need to roll an Idea Action Check. If you want your character to have a cleaver idea, they must make a Clever Idea Check.

The above is what a roll rule based, role playing game would be like. And it would not have wide, broad appeal. D&D had the ''fringe brilliance" to just make a game with some vague, light combat(wargame) rules...and nothing else.

0E and 1E had just about no rules at all for role playing. Not even the 'ability check'(roll a d20 under your ability score) existed at this point. A typical module might describe a NPCs personality or a place, but there were no rules to use about it. All you could do is free form role play. Faced with an challenge, players must observe and interact with the game world. Instead of scanning their character sheet for solutions, players rely on their wits and ingenuity. Without checks, the game tests player skill more than character stats.

Ability checks and proficiency(skill) checks don't come around until the mid 80's, and were still only for physical things like jumping and swimming.

“The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they ‘can’ do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens.

“You don’t have a ‘spot’ check to let you notice hidden traps and levers, you don’t have a ‘bluff’ check to let you automatically fool a suspicious city guardsman, and you don’t have a ‘sense motive’ check to tell you when someone’s lying to your character. You have to tell the referee where you’re looking for traps and what buttons you’re pushing. You have to tell the referee whatever tall tale you’re trying to get the city guardsman to believe. You have to decide for yourself if someone’s lying to your character or telling the truth.”


2E kept the ability checks and skills, but really did not add much framework for them. It was still the Gygax Method of "assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or he can make that percentage.” Many dungeon masters, and most players, felt uncomfortable embracing Gary’s improvisation. D&D players frequently try things that test a characters’ ability scores, and DMs and players wanted a fair and easy way to decide the outcome. Their players wanted consistency too. Rules become the laws of physics in the game world. If a rule exists for an action, players understand how it’s resolved and their chance of success. Players enjoy that transparency.

3E marks the highlight of roll playing as everything was put into simple mechanical rules. Want your character to take an action, roll a d20. And this brought the idea of roll playing social actions too. While this did come up in the last half of 2E, 3E really puts it in the forefront.

4e and 5e keep it the same, though 5E does allow for the more 1E ways.

[Louro]

Is there such a thing as a crpg then, according to your definitions?
You can call it whatever you like.
We all know playing a computer isn't even close to be at a table laughing at your friend's fancy occurrences.

[Nifft]

I never asked this before, but can anyone sig this? This is too great to not be saved and shown to to the world. I‘ll volunteer, if i must. Permission hereby granted universally and in perpetuity.


Too bad I don't see any on you! Haha! :smalltongue: "That's not funny!" he laughed, giggling and chortling and wheezing until he coughed up blood.

But seriously, you should point that at someone who was claiming to joke.



D&D is doing the same stuff it did fourty years ago, but the bits around the core have gone through a massive shift. I actually believe that 'D&D' is five games:
-BD&D: I believe this seperated itself enough from OD&D through it's various editions to be considered a different game. Notably more rules-light and archetype-based than the game it was a sister to.
-AD&D: I consider this a three edition game, going 0e->1e->2e. Each edition refined and built upon what came before.
-3e: a complete reworking of the mechanics, leave no element unchanged!
-4e: let's rewrite it again, but make it balanced this time.
-5e: cast ressurect on the sacred cows, defile all the good things to come out of 4e.
Even within ye olde BD&D, there were at least two different games, or game-styles:
- Tournament BD&D
- Home BD&D

There was a massive conflict in expectations between these two "games" -- look at Garry's discussion of his disappointment with tournament players after D&D became somewhat popular, and he was confronted by crowds who seemed to be idolizing him, but who just didn't get anything about his playstyle.

Tournament-style D&D play seems to have eventually plateaued as D&D Minis.


There's also an odd evolution of the DM "gotcha!" game which went something like:
- "Oh, you didn't listen at the door? Well screw you, the bugbear gets a surprise attack."
- "Oh, you listen at the door every time? Well screw you, have a monster which lives in wood and attacks ears."
- "Oh, you created a metal device to prevent ear attacks while permitting you to listen at doors? Well... that's no fun, let's just create a Listen skill and you can listen all the time without risking permanent character death. That's fair to you and the monsters."

There was effectively a narrative arms race, which ended when everyone realized that analyzing the fictional equivalent of legal boilerplate wasn't nearly as fun as pretending to stab dragons.


There are three kinds of incorrect research: Flawed, shoddy, and wrong. Guess where I place this article. Floddong?

[CantigThimble]

You can call it whatever you like.

Literally this entire discussion is about definitions. If you don't think definitions matter then what are you here for.

[ZorroGames]

Literally this entire discussion is about definitions. If you don't think definitions matter then what are you here for.

The popcorn?

[CantigThimble]

The popcorn?

Fair enough. :smalltongue:

[Anonymouswizard]

The whole reason D&D even ever became popular was it was a mechanical wargame you could build role playing around. If D&D had been a mechanical role playing game from the start, it would never have become the favorite it is today.

Think like if D&D had just as many role playing rules as it does roll playing rules. So not only would you roll a dice to see how far you move your character in a round(like you would in Monopoly), to speak to a character you'd have to make a Voice roll vs their Hearing Defense. To understand something spoken, you'd need to roll an Understanding Check for your character. For your character to take action, you would need to roll an Idea Action Check. If you want your character to have a cleaver idea, they must make a Clever Idea Check.

The above is what a roll rule based, role playing game would be like. And it would not have wide, broad appeal. D&D had the ''fringe brilliance" to just make a game with some vague, light combat(wargame) rules...and nothing else.

0E and 1E had just about no rules at all for role playing. Not even the 'ability check'(roll a d20 under your ability score) existed at this point. A typical module might describe a NPCs personality or a place, but there were no rules to use about it. All you could do is free form role play. Faced with an challenge, players must observe and interact with the game world. Instead of scanning their character sheet for solutions, players rely on their wits and ingenuity. Without checks, the game tests player skill more than character stats.

Ability checks and proficiency(skill) checks don't come around until the mid 80's, and were still only for physical things like jumping and swimming.

“The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they ‘can’ do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens.

“You don’t have a ‘spot’ check to let you notice hidden traps and levers, you don’t have a ‘bluff’ check to let you automatically fool a suspicious city guardsman, and you don’t have a ‘sense motive’ check to tell you when someone’s lying to your character. You have to tell the referee where you’re looking for traps and what buttons you’re pushing. You have to tell the referee whatever tall tale you’re trying to get the city guardsman to believe. You have to decide for yourself if someone’s lying to your character or telling the truth.”


2E kept the ability checks and skills, but really did not add much framework for them. It was still the Gygax Method of "assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or he can make that percentage.” Many dungeon masters, and most players, felt uncomfortable embracing Gary’s improvisation. D&D players frequently try things that test a characters’ ability scores, and DMs and players wanted a fair and easy way to decide the outcome. Their players wanted consistency too. Rules become the laws of physics in the game world. If a rule exists for an action, players understand how it’s resolved and their chance of success. Players enjoy that transparency.

3E marks the highlight of roll playing as everything was put into simple mechanical rules. Want your character to take an action, roll a d20. And this brought the idea of roll playing social actions too. While this did come up in the last half of 2E, 3E really puts it in the forefront.

4e and 5e keep it the same, though 5E does allow for the more 1E ways.

What does any of this have to do with what I said? Especially as it seems to forget that you can abstract to different levels. Yes, we could have understanding checks as part of the game, but uncertainty in what somebody said adds a lot less enjoyment than the uncertainty of somebody believing your lies (or the truth, it can sometimes be important).

All I was doing was illustrating where I think the mechanics changed enough to make them different games. Note that I consider something like THAC0 a refinement (because it at least theoretically simplified the old To Hit Tables), something like Non Weapon Proficiencies an addition (because it added mechanics where there were none before), while Skill Points were a change (because they replaced one system with another that worked completely differently). This has odd results, like the fact that ascending AC and BAB are essentially ignored while Skill Points, universal Bonus Spells, and level by level multi-classing get a heavy weighting.

Now I get that maybe you don't like the rules-heavy nature of 3.X. But one of my favourite games right now is just as complicated, with even more skills split into several categories and having every skill check require multiple rolls, and it works about as well as 5e's more 'eh, ask the GM' system. Although another one of my favourites right now manages to be a lot lighter with the same levels of certainty (partially due to using a roll under system, which I dramatically prefer to roll over systems).


Even within ye olde BD&D, there were at least two different games, or game-styles:
- Tournament BD&D
- Home BD&D

There was a massive conflict in expectations between these two "games" -- look at Garry's discussion of his disappointment with tournament players after D&D became somewhat popular, and he was confronted by crowds who seemed to be idolizing him, but who just didn't get anything about his playstyle.

Tournament-style D&D play seems to have eventually plateaued as D&D Minis.


There's also an odd evolution of the DM "gotcha!" game which went something like:
- "Oh, you didn't listen at the door? Well screw you, the bugbear gets a surprise attack."
- "Oh, you listen at the door every time? Well screw you, have a monster which lives in wood and attacks ears."
- "Oh, you created a metal device to prevent ear attacks while permitting you to listen at doors? Well... that's no fun, let's just create a Listen skill and you can listen all the time without risking permanent character death. That's fair to you and the monsters."

There was effectively a narrative arms race, which ended when everyone realized that analyzing the fictional equivalent of legal boilerplate wasn't nearly as fun as pretending to stab dragons.

Sure, but this was more about massive changes in mechanics. I have no clue about Home/Tournament BD&D because I wasn't alive and playing at that point, I first played D&D after 3.5 came out, but I do remember D&D minis and considered it a half decent wargame, although not D&D (also I'm not a big fan of prepainted minis).

Which possibly explains why I never saw the GM 'gotcha' game. When I started playing every game had a skill system, and more freeform skills have only relatively recently come back into popularity.

[Nifft]

Sure, but this was more about massive changes in mechanics. I have no clue about Home/Tournament BD&D because I wasn't alive and playing at that point, I first played D&D after 3.5 came out, but I do remember D&D minis and considered it a half decent wargame, although not D&D (also I'm not a big fan of prepainted minis).

Which possibly explains why I never saw the GM 'gotcha' game. When I started playing every game had a skill system, and more freeform skills have only relatively recently come back into popularity.

A reasonable version of Tournament play can be seen in Tomb of Horrors: the traps are generally about player skill rather than character skill.

You can find residue of the 'gotcha' game in 3.5e modules written by ye olde edition veterans -- for example, when the DM's text says something like, "If the players don't say they look up, then..."

Personally I tend to re-write that sort of thing into an auto-success OR a skill check -- auto-success if the player stumbles onto the correct action, skill check otherwise -- since I enjoy a game more when the PCs are competent at being PCs, and less when the players are forced to become competent at writing procedural boilerplate.

[Jophiel]

Is there such a thing as a crpg then, according to your definitions?
There's a genre of computer/video game called a CRPG and they share similar traits and began with games trying to mechanically replicate a tabletop experience, but none of them are "roleplaying" in the tabletop method.

[Louro]

Literally this entire discussion is about definitions. If you don't think definitions matter then what are you here for.
Because freedom of speech?
I just said that tabletop rpg is not the same as a videogame rpg. We call them both rpgs but they are very differentt things imho (clicking isn't the same as speaking/acting).
Do you agree?

[CantigThimble]

Because freedom of speech?

I wasn't suggesting you weren't allowed to post, I was just wondering what you were hoping to get out of a discussion on definitions if you weren't interested in semantics.


I just said that tabletop rpg is not the same as a videogame rpg. We call them both rpgs but they are very differentt things imho (clicking isn't the same as speaking/acting).
Do you agree?

Certainly TTRPGs and CRPGs are different things, the question is whether the definition of 'RPG' should be broad enough to encompass both or should be limited to TTRPGs or even to a a subset of what are currently called TTRPGs. (as the OP was suggesting)

[MaxWilson]

Certainly TTRPGs and CRPGs are different things, the question is whether the definition of 'RPG' should be broad enough to encompass both or should be limited to TTRPGs or even to a a subset of what are currently called TTRPGs. (as the OP was suggesting)

Clearly there exist computerized RPGs which are legitimate RPGs despite not having a freeform component. Alter Ego, for example, can hardly be considered anything but a roleplaying game as it takes you from childhood to adulthood, exploring your moods and reactions in various life situations along the way. It was originally an 80's-era game but it's ported to the web here: https://www.playalterego.com/

[Louro]

So, you agree with me. They are different things (which implies they should have different names).

Like in "soccer" and "soccer videogame"

[Willie the Duck]

Because freedom of speech?
I just said that tabletop rpg is not the same as a videogame rpg. We call them both rpgs but they are very differentt things imho (clicking isn't the same as speaking/acting).
Do you agree?

Freedom of speech is about the government preventing you from speaking in the public fora, it is literally unrelated to anything happening here.


Clearly there exist computerized RPGs which are legitimate RPGs despite not having a freeform component. Alter Ego, for example, can hardly be considered anything but a roleplaying game as it takes you from childhood to adulthood, exploring your moods and reactions in various life situations along the way. It was originally an 80's-era game but it's ported to the web here: https://www.playalterego.com/

There are plenty of computer games where you take on the role of someone you aren't (and not just as an avatar, as most of us are not mushroom-stomping plumbers, but I'm not counting that). Hardly as role-fulfilling as Alter Ego, but the old Monkey Island games, you are definitely taking on the role of a wannabe good-guy pirate and swashbuckler, and success in the game depends on being genre-aware as to what that type of person would do. I would call them a distinct animal from TTRPGs, but definitely worth adding to the example list.

[CantigThimble]

So, you agree with me. They are different things (which implies they should have different names).

Like in "soccer" and "soccer videogame"

I do, that's why I used the terms TTRPG and CRPG. I'm not sure about your analogy of soccer/soccer videogame though. You're implying that one is nothing but an attempt to copy the other rather than being a distinct entity in its own right, and I'm not sure I can agree with that.

[Darth Ultron]

A reasonable version of Tournament play can be seen in Tomb of Horrors: the traps are generally about player skill rather than character skill.


Tournament play, also called a Pick Up Game or a Casual Game. It is simply put a game with strangers. A DM sits down at a table, some random stranger players sit down at the table, and the DM runs an adventure. It's a game made to be played in a vacuum: the characters just 'pop' in and do the adventure. As the game will only be a couple hours, and you won't see any of the people again, there is no time for anything, except mostly roll playing. Pure endless dice rolling, but maybe some role playing.

The Home game is a campaign: a set of connected adventures with a group of friends that will play together for a long time. It has backstories, character building, a session zero, and so forth.


Character skill vs player skill is the roll play vs role play.

[Nifft]

Tournament play, also called a Pick Up Game or a Casual Game. It is simply put a game with strangers.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Tournament play was a competitive player skill gauntlet, replete with PC death-traps.

The DM was expected to be fair at the table (i.e. not change the module to screw over players), but the challenges were written in advance with screwing over players in mind.

It was a type of player-vs.-DM game.


Pick Up Game and Casual Game are friendly, forgiving, humorous, and non-competitive -- they are in basically the opposite direction from Tournament games.

[Jophiel]

Certainly TTRPGs and CRPGs are different things, the question is whether the definition of 'RPG' should be broad enough to encompass both or should be limited to TTRPGs or even to a a subset of what are currently called TTRPGs. (as the OP was suggesting)
CRPGs are called that because of their attempt to emulate (mechanically) table top games. I don't have an issue with them being called CRPGs since they need to be called something and I get the history but I do not consider them "roleplaying games" in the classic sense any more than Battlefield is an RPG because I can pretend to be playing a soldier. The lack of GM feedback and necessary limited paths due to the constraints of game design prevent it from being so. Even the most murderhobo "roll playing" game offers many times more freedom than the most expansive CRPGs.

That said, it only comes up in conversations like this one and I don't let the term bother me or anything. If someone wants to consider Witcher 3 or Dragon Age to be "roleplaying" more power to them. I ain't out to stomp on their buzz :smallsmile:

[Louro]

Freedom of speech is about the government preventing you from speaking in the public fora, it is literally unrelated to anything happening here.
As far as I know freedom of speech is an unalienable right.


I do, that's why I used the terms TTRPG and CRPG. I'm not sure about your analogy of soccer/soccer videogame though. You're implying that one is nothing but an attempt to copy the other rather than being a distinct entity in its own right, and I'm not sure I can agree with that.
Both I guess. They are different things (on their own) and also one is a copy (simulation) of the other.

[Darth Ultron]

This is absolutely incorrect.

Tournament play was a competitive player skill gauntlet, replete with PC death-traps.

The DM was expected to be fair at the table (i.e. not change the module to screw over players), but the challenges were written in advance with screwing over players in mind.

It was a type of player-vs.-DM game.


Pick Up Game and Casual Game are friendly, forgiving, humorous, and non-competitive -- they are in basically the opposite direction from Tournament games.

Maybe you went to Tournaments in some sort of limited area?

Not every Tournament game was a Death Trap. True, a lot of before 2E modules were Death Trap type adventures...but that does not mean all of them were fpr all time. And does not mean all Tournament games were.

For example, The Ghost Tower of Inverness, noted for its emphasis on problem solving skills rather than hack and slash combat.

Or Rahasia, that has villains that are well-portrayed and have definite objectives, and had a emphasis on not killing, and the forces the players to think.

D&D is only DM vs player, for bad DMs and players.

[Nifft]

Maybe you went to Tournaments in some sort of limited area?

(...)

D&D is only DM vs player, for bad DMs and players.

I'm talking about the ones Gygax ran.

I guess you're calling Gary a bad DM?


As far as I know freedom of speech is an unalienable right.

I do hope you're just pretending to misunderstand in order to provoke someone, rather than honestly expecting that to be a relevant counter-point.

[Tanarii]

CRPGs are called that because of their attempt to emulate (mechanically) table top games. I don't have an issue with them being called CRPGs since they need to be called something and I get the history but I do not consider them "roleplaying games" in the classic sense any more than Battlefield is an RPG because I can pretend to be playing a soldier.
Some NwN private servers were definitely roleplaying games. You could characterize your character, and they had DMs that could react to what your character was doing and saying and have the world react to it in non-scripted ways. I played on several with results to world events (plot lines, if you prefer) ultimately decided by player decision making based on the personalities of the characters involved.

[ZorroGames]

Its not shunned by the research community. Its a great source of quick information, but it should be taken for what it is. Its not q scholarly article. Though, for one doing research, following the footnotes is a great way to find information.

Yes on the footnotes at times but Wikipedia also has more rabbit holes than a warren.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm talking about the ones Gygax ran.

I guess you're calling Gary a bad DM?

Ok, so you are just talking about the tournament games that Gygax personally ran?

Well, I'm talking about ALL D&D tournament games.

[Louro]

I do hope you're just pretending to misunderstand in order to provoke someone, rather than honestly expecting that to be a relevant counter-point.
It was a correction. FoS is not about the government preventing you from speaking. It is actually about the government making sure you can speak your mind in any public place as long as what you say is true.

"Freedom of speech is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. Given this, everything else should follow"
- Winston Smith.

[Jophiel]

Some NwN private servers were definitely roleplaying games. You could characterize your character, and they had DMs that could react to what your character was doing and saying and have the world react to it in non-scripted ways. I played on several with results to world events (plot lines, if you prefer) ultimately decided by player decision making based on the personalities of the characters involved.
I would definitely consider that closer, sure. I'm sure there's mechanical constraints to the engine but my primary reasoning that that CRPGs don't include that layer of GM interaction that makes "anything" possible. So if you have that then you're hitting most of the marks. But even then I'm only counting the GM-involved moments and wouldn't count the times you're going through chat menus with an AI-controlled NPC bartender.

[ZorroGames]

I'm talking about the ones Gygax ran.

I guess you're calling Gary a bad DM.

To quote a contemporary who was involved in the game development: “Fun for Gary was often not ‘fun’ for the players.” Does that define a Bad DM? Guess it depends on your viewpoint. Never played in his games myself firsthand so I hesitate to say he was bad, just out of sync with many of today’s players based on first hand reports. Legally hearsay though I tend to trust the sum of the stories that he was an acquired taste to his steady players.

[Nifft]

Ok, so you are just talking about the tournament games that Gygax personally ran?

Well, I'm talking about ALL D&D tournament games.

Then you've been talking about something other than the topic about which I've been posting, and that's fine -- just don't use my terminology or quote my posts, and talk about your own topic as much as you'd like. Then you won't appear to be confused about the topic that I've been discussing, which is obviously not the thing that you're interested in discussing.

I'm talking about Tournament-style games, explicitly including the Tournament games that Gygax ran as central set members.


Anyway, dragging this back on topic -- Tournament-style play in D&D had been a thing for a long time, and it's mostly faded out of fashion, but it's what you find when you look for the roots of some oddball sacred cows.

Interestingly it's an area where the border between character and player can blur due to mechanical or environmental factors -- resulting in a feeling of immersion as the player solves the puzzle by envisioning the environment, yet almost entirely opposed to in-character "method acting" immersion since the player is being challenged by the puzzles, in total isolation from any character-based motivation or other aspects of characterization.

Because it's a form of immersion almost entirely orthogonal to what we usually mean by the term, I'm uncertain if Tournament-style should be considered an excellent tool for fostering role-playing, or a terribly pernicious element that merits extermination.

[CantigThimble]

Both I guess. They are different things (on their own) and also one is a copy (simulation) of the other.

I'd think of it something like war and wargaming. Obviously wargaming isn't war and is inspired by it, but no one's going to claim that Warhammer is nothing more than a copy of real war. Wargming has had it's own distinct development, tropes and culture that have nothing to do with the real thing and would never (or could never) be ported back. I think the relationship between CRPGs and TTRPGs is something like that. At first CRPGs may have been nothing but attempts to replicate the TTRPG experience but over time they developed into a completely different genre and there are a lot of parts of CRPGs that have nothing to do with TTRPGs.


It was a correction. FoS is not about the government preventing you from speaking. It is actually about the government making sure you can speak your mind in any public place as long as what you say is true.

"Freedom of speech is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. Given this, everything else should follow"
- Winston Smith.

I mean, sure, but this is a private space with it's own rules. If someone started ranting about, i dunno, the economics of North Korea or something or started violated forum rules then their posts would be removed and their account might be banned. This isn't a public space, it's a space for the civil discussion of D&D 5e (as determined by the moderators) and they can censor whatever they think is outside of that.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm talking about Tournament-style games, explicitly including the Tournament games that Gygax ran as central set members.

Looks like you are the one back peddling. You say ''Tournament-style games", but then add the odd qualifier that you only talking about the game run by one person. It really seems odd to narrow it down to one so specific thing.

You could just admit it was your fault that you think ''tournament style games" equal only ''Gygax run games". It is a common enough mistake. I'd guess you do the ''novel style book " equal only ''things Steven King has written'' or things like that all the time.



Because it's a form of immersion almost entirely orthogonal to what we usually mean by the term, I'm uncertain if Tournament-style should be considered an excellent tool for fostering role-playing, or a terribly pernicious element that merits extermination.

Again, a Tournament-style is really made for more of a stand alone adventure, often with strangers. You sit down and play the whole adventure in a couple hours.

While they were published and sold, they were always recommended to not be part of a Home Campaign, and to be used as just ''one night, one shot adventures".

[Knaight]

So, you agree with me. They are different things (which implies they should have different names).

Like in "soccer" and "soccer videogame"
The idea that different things imply that there should be different names when there's already a contextual difference is dubious at best. For instance, look at any Wikipedia disambiguation page, all examples of the same term being used for at least two different things, usually many more.


It was a correction. FoS is not about the government preventing you from speaking. It is actually about the government making sure you can speak your mind in any public place as long as what you say is true.

A) This isn't a public space.
B) The requirement of truth is definitely not there.

[Louro]

I'd think of it something like war and wargaming. Obviously wargaming isn't war and is inspired by it, but no one's going to claim that Warhammer is nothing more than a copy of real war. Wargming has had it's own distinct development, tropes and culture that have nothing to do with the real thing and would never (or could never) be ported back. I think the relationship between CRPGs and TTRPGs is something like that. At first CRPGs may have been nothing but attempts to replicate the TTRPG experience but over time they developed into a completely different genre and there are a lot of parts of CRPGs that have nothing to do with TTRPGs.

Yeah, sort of.
First videogames were really inspired by the adventure feeling like the gorgeous Might & Magic II: Isles of Terra, Eye of the Beholder, Nightwinter Nights, Icewind Dale...
They tried to give you real decisions that would alter plot lines.
Nowadays you just get straight line stories filled with lots of sparkles and lights and flashy-flashy stuff.
Just compare the outrageous Dungeons & Dragons Online with Neverwinter online.



I mean, sure, but this is a private space with it's own rules. If someone started ranting about, i dunno, the economics of North Korea or something or started violated forum rules then their posts would be removed and their account might be banned. This isn't a public space, it's a space for the civil discussion of D&D 5e (as determined by the moderators) and they can censor whatever they think is outside of that.
That's a hot topic. Private spaces can't bypass law. In short: everyone should be allowed to express their opinions as long as they fit into what that private-public space is intended for. Like... behave properly and don't be a child.

[CantigThimble]

Yeah, sort of.
First videogames were really inspired by the adventure feeling like the gorgeous Might & Magic II: Isles of Terra, Eye of the Beholder, Nightwinter Nights, Icewind Dale...
They tried to give you real decisions that would alter plot lines.
Nowadays you just get straight line stories filled with lots of sparkles and lights and flashy-flashy stuff.
Just compare the outrageous Dungeons & Dragons Online with Neverwinter online.

Well, when discussing definitions I try to ignore quality and just focus on the presence or abscence of the bare-minimum traits necessary to meet the definition. A low quality, beaten up old chair is still technically a chair, even if it couldn't hold my weight. Which brings us to the kinds of definitions other people have been discussing like "representing a fictional character in a fictional world", which may be too broad. But then, how can it be made more specific and accurate? Should certain kinds of fictional characters (i.e. player customizable) or certain kinds of interactions with the world (i.e. not just predefined options, must impact the story to some degree etc.) be part of the definition?


That's a hot topic. Private spaces can't bypass law. In short: everyone should be allowed to express their opinions as long as they fit into what that private-public space is intended for. Like... behave properly and don't be a child.

I'm just going to say, that yes, it is a hot topic and we should probably leave this discussion here.

[Louro]

"representing a fictional character in a fictional world"
Mmmm...
Yes, true... nah, actually wrong.
Roleplaying is about a story, a tale. It's like writing a theater play on the fly. The thing is about some epic stuff, and you get to play/writte the main characters.

Nobody really cares about the mad dwarven smithy. Don't get me wrong, he is funny, like a comic relief almost. But we want to see the heroes, not how the dwarven wife yells at our favourite blacksmith.

[MaxWilson]

I would definitely consider that closer, sure. I'm sure there's mechanical constraints to the engine but my primary reasoning that that CRPGs don't include that layer of GM interaction that makes "anything" possible. So if you have that then you're hitting most of the marks. But even then I'm only counting the GM-involved moments and wouldn't count the times you're going through chat menus with an AI-controlled NPC bartender.

In a TTRPG under a bad DM, you're also lacking the "anything is possible" option. And many systems, including 5E, have little or no support for certain classes of "anything" happening, which means unless you have an excellent DM willing to put in a ton of extra work, any and all attempts to abandon a heroic career and invest lots of time in trying to buy carpets low and sell them high is doomed to failure.

CRPG or TTRPG, ultimately you're always constrained by what the game creator intended to support. The main difference is that CRPGs have more up-front cost but scale better, so maximal player freedom is only available in TTRPGs. But not all DMs take meaningful advantage of that possibility.

Note further that TTRPG freedom tends to be constrained by what is feasible without tool support, which is why TTRPG scenarios tend not to allow for much or any vertical movement, which in turn has downstream impact on players who want to play e.g. 5E monks. Monks are TREMENDOUSLY fun in urban scenarios where Spiderman would be at home, but DMs tend not to prepare such scenarios because they're a pain to run on a grid or put in a booklet. CRPGs (and computer-aided TTRPGs) don't have that limitation.

[Darth Ultron]

The Video in the OP makes a poor allegory. The idea is a guy that has never played basketball simply reads a basketball rule book. Then this guy shows up to play in a game and finds the other players not on the court, but just talking over in the seats. The other players talking and role playing their basketball player characters with each other. They are not on the court and simply have a basketball sitting by a tree.

The idea is the group of people are not playing basketball unless they are on the court and bouncing a basketball. The same idea is you are not playing D&D unless you are rolling dice.

I find this example flawed as RPGs are a unique type of game not like sports games. A far better example is: Poker.

Poker is a simple game, by the rule book. The how to play (basic)poker rule book is only three pages long, maybe five if it has pictures. So you can read the rules, and play poker no problem.

Except poker is not just about the Rules As Written. There is a huge social (''role playing")aspect to the game that has no rules. There are no rules for noticing tells, bluffing, distraction or storytelling. And yet, you will likely find all of them in a typical poker game. Tells, for example, are things a person does that let you know what they are thinking or even specifically what they have in their hand. Often, they are subconscious and beyond the players control. And poker has no rules for them, you can't role a Sense Motive check to see a persons tell. And yet they are a huge part of the game, that is not in the rules. You simply have to use your real life out of game skills to ''read each players face...knowing what the cards are...by the way they hold their eyes."

Role playing in D&D IS exactly like that. It's not in the published rules, you don't ''roll to have a clever idea", but role playing IS there.

[Jophiel]

In a TTRPG under a bad DM, you're also lacking the "anything is possible" option. And many systems, including 5E, have little or no support for certain classes of "anything" happening, which means unless you have an excellent DM willing to put in a ton of extra work, any and all attempts to abandon a heroic career and invest lots of time in trying to buy carpets low and sell them high is doomed to failure.
Nah. It doesn't even have to stretch the idea of "anything". You're in a temple and find a storeroom. In a TT game you could decide to use barrels to barricade the door, or hide within, or set on fire and roll down the hall, or stack them to climb and reach the ceiling, or break apart into clubs, or have the 20 STR guy throw them as improvised weapons, or wear them as improvised armor, etc. These aren't options that require an excellent DM. You would need an exceedingly bad DM to find one who didn't at least entertain those options.

In a CRPG, the barrels are 99% immovable decoration and, if you're playing Skyrim you'll find a single carrot. That's the difference.

[Knaight]

Nah. It doesn't even have to stretch the idea of "anything". You're in a temple and find a storeroom. In a TT game you could decide to use barrels to barricade the door, or hide within, or set on fire and roll down the hall, or stack them to climb and reach the ceiling, or break apart into clubs, or have the 20 STR guy throw them as improvised weapons, or wear them as improvised armor, etc. These aren't options that require an excellent DM. You would need an exceedingly bad DM to find one who didn't at least entertain those options.

In a CRPG, the barrels are 99% immovable decoration and, if you're playing Skyrim you'll find a single carrot. That's the difference.

This is without getting into something like dialogue. CRPGs use dialogue trees and other marginally more sophisticated techniques by necessity, routinely have NPCs with shared stock lines, and otherwise spend a lot of time implementing a pale imitation of what even the least competent GM can do in terms of variety. It also doesn't take too much skill as a GM to beat the writing as well, mostly because those aforementioned stock lines and the like really drag it down.

[MaxWilson]

Nah. It doesn't even have to stretch the idea of "anything". You're in a temple and find a storeroom. In a TT game you could decide to use barrels to barricade the door, or hide within, or set on fire and roll down the hall, or stack them to climb and reach the ceiling, or break apart into clubs, or have the 20 STR guy throw them as improvised weapons, or wear them as improvised armor, etc. These aren't options that require an excellent DM. You would need an exceedingly bad DM to find one who didn't at least entertain those options.

I agree that those DMs are exceedingly bad, but that doesn't make them rare. There are plenty of bad DMs who AFAICT would not let you avoid a fight by barricading the door or hiding inside the barrels, because that makes the game too easy and messes with their anticipated plotline. It's the same kind of DM who will punish you for scouting ahead in wildshaped sparrow form by making NPCs spot the sparrow and shoot it down so that the druid has to fight the bad guys all alone, even though those bad guys surely don't shoot down every sparrow in the sky.

If your DM lets you hide inside a barrel but you gain no benefit, it's a pointless option. It's like a computerized adventure game that allows you to type "I hide inside the barrel" but nothing actually changes, and you still have a random encounter with an orc patrol ten minutes later and are forced to fight it.

You are always constrained by what the game creator allows. The only difference is that the maximal degree of freedom is greater in a TTRPG, but only good DMs take advantage of that difference.

[Jophiel]

I agree that those DMs are exceedingly bad, but that doesn't make them rare. There are plenty of bad DMs who AFAICT would not let you avoid a fight by barricading the door or hiding inside the barrels, because that makes the game too easy and messes with their anticipated plotline.
[...]
You are always constrained by what the game creator allows. The only difference is that the maximal degree of freedom is greater in a TTRPG, but only good DMs take advantage of that difference.
Not really my experience but anyway, that's a basic example of why I don't consider CRPGs to be true RPGs in the classic sense, If you do because you play with terrible DMs who won't let you do more than a computer game does and don't see a wide gulf in the amount of freedom and agency TT offers over the simulation of CRPG, then that's cool as well. Doesn't really convince me but you don't need to do so.

"Yeah, but what if your DM doesn't let you?" isn't a fault of the game or even an attribute of the game. It's just a bad DM. On the other hand, a CRPG not letting you interact with a barrel aside from checking it for carrots is an intrinsic attribute of that game. That makes a huge difference in my opinion. You can always find a better DM but you can't make Witcher 3 let you flip a bed over to use as cover.

[MaxWilson]

Not really my experience but anyway, that's a basic example of why I don't consider CRPGs to be true RPGs in the classic sense, If you do because you play with terrible DMs who won't let you do more than a computer game does and don't see a wide gulf in the amount of freedom and agency TT offers over the simulation of CRPG, then that's cool as well. Doesn't really convince me but you don't need to do so.

"Yeah, but what if your DM doesn't let you?" isn't a fault of the game or even an attribute of the game. It's just a bad DM. On the other hand, a CRPG not letting you interact with a barrel aside from checking it for carrots is an intrinsic attribute of that game. That makes a huge difference in my opinion. You can always find a better DM but you can't make Witcher 3 let you flip a bed over to use as cover.

The problem with defining RPGs this way is that now you've defined a bunch of TTRPGs run by bad DMs to also not be true RPGs in the classic sense. They are bad games which don't take advantage of a TTRPG's real strengths, but it seems a bit reductionist to say that bad XYZ games are not XYZ games at all.

That goes for bad CRPGs as well which don't let you do anything except check for carrots. That's just a bad CRPG, not a proof of the nonexistence of good CRPGs. Alter Ego is a pretty good CRPG in my opinion.

[Terrainosaur]

That youtube channel mentioned by OP is a blowhard.

[Jophiel]

The problem with defining RPGs this way is that now you've defined a bunch of TTRPGs run by bad DMs to also not be true RPGs in the classic sense.
No, you have. I'm not buying into the supposed swarms of DMs who won't let anyone roll a barrel down the hall. I also noted that not being allowed to roll a barrel isn't a property of the TTRPG, it's an issue with the DM. The game itself is fine. Not being allowed to roll a barrel in Skyrim is 100% a property of the game. Honestly, there's such a huge gulf here that it boggles me that you're even trying to argue this point.

I've played Alter Ego. It's a fun game but it's essentially a Choose Your Own Adventure book. When a co-ed asks for help painting her dorm room you get one of two or three options; it's every bit as limiting as a modern CRPG if not significantly more so.

[Zombimode]

No, at least not any singleplayer ones. And multiplayer ones only qualify because roleplaying can be done between humans entirely through chat rather than the mechanics of the game.

Baldur's gate is an adventure game with D&D combat mechanics and scripted stories (and so are a lot of people's tabletop games, for that matter).

Baldurs Gate is an RPG.

D&D (or GURPS, or Fate, etc.) is also an RPG.


Confusingly, Baldurs Gate is also not an RPG, and D&D is also not an RPG.


This confusion arises because there are two identical Terms that are used to describe different things. Baldurs Gate is an RPG in the Video game genre sense of the word, while it is not an RPG in the meat space game genre sense.

[MoiMagnus]

Baldurs Gate is an RPG.

D&D (or GURPS, or Fate, etc.) is also an RPG.


Confusingly, Baldurs Gate is also not an RPG, and D&D is also not an RPG.


This confusion arises because there are two identical Terms that are used to describe different things. Baldurs Gate is an RPG in the Video game genre sense of the word, while it is not an RPG in the meat space game genre sense.

Though they have enough similarity to be both included into a broad sens of RPG.

Another example is "books in which you are the hero" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Fantasy). I consider them as one-player RPG, and as a bridge between video-game RPG and paper&dice RPG.

[MaxWilson]

Another example is "books in which you are the hero" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Fantasy). I consider them as one-player RPG, and as a bridge between video-game RPG and paper&dice RPG.

Note that one-person D&D is also a thing. See for example https://empaitirkosu.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/blow-by-blow-session-intro/.

Rules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rkmo0t9k4Q (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/91x6g9/playing_dd_solo_is_pretty_silly/).

[KorvinStarmast]

-I dislike class-based systems -I dislike level-based systems Original Traveller was a nice change of pace when it came out.
On the other hand the video has a point, that if you're not using the rules then you're not playing the game. Actually, that is one of the most wrong things the video has in it. My source is Robert Kuntz, recent book on Arneson, and how Arneson worked to break "the game is defined by its rules" paradigm in his early role playing games. RK's prose is rather turgid. Hoping to see his follow up volume soon.
Of course, it is a roleplaying game, it's just not an ass about it. Yep.

CRPGs cannot be RPGs because all interactions are mechanical IMO. Yep.

It is, unless you use a narrow and specific definition of roleplaying to exclude it. Like some kind of TSR-era or Forge-era elitist. The latter did as much harm as good, in their attempts to build a theoretical basis for the genre. (when picking the fly crap out of the pepper, it is sometimes easy to forget that you are still getting fly crap on your fingers ... :smallbiggrin: )

If someone can point to something that oD&D had that 5e doesn't that disqualifies 5e* from the definition, I would be willing to be convinced. But that won't forthcoming, and I agree with an assessment from above: person in the video is all hat and no cattle.

For a very rules light, very free form RPG, try Roll For Shoes.

[Kyrell1978]

Note that one-person D&D is also a thing. See for example https://empaitirkosu.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/blow-by-blow-session-intro/.

Rules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rkmo0t9k4Q (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/91x6g9/playing_dd_solo_is_pretty_silly/).

I didn't know anyone else did this. I lived way outside of town growing up and had nothing to do so I used to run myself through dungeons with one or two characters back in the second ed. days. :tongue:

[MaxWilson]

I didn't know anyone else did this. I lived way outside of town growing up and had nothing to do so I used to run myself through dungeons with one or two characters back in the second ed. days. :tongue:

I haven't ever tried it this formally--though I do sometimes write vignettes--but it sounds fun.

Running a game for players scratches a different, more paternal itch, but I like the thought of getting some "me" time. It's on my list of things to try.

[Kyrell1978]

I haven't ever tried it this formally--though I do sometimes write vignettes--but it sounds fun.

Running a game for players scratches a different, more paternal itch, but I like the thought of getting some "me" time. It's on my list of things to try.

It's not too bad if you're honest with yourself. It's a temptation for sure to cheat for "your guy," but it's more fun (and rewarding) if you don't.

[BaconAwesome]

I didn't know anyone else did this. I lived way outside of town growing up and had nothing to do so I used to run myself through dungeons with one or two characters back in the second ed. days. :tongue:

Man, I totally did that. Every so often I broke down and found a way for my psionicist to psychic blast a dinosaur and gain ten levels.

[Mordaedil]

That's a hot topic. Private spaces can't bypass law. In short: everyone should be allowed to express their opinions as long as they fit into what that private-public space is intended for. Like... behave properly and don't be a child.
Uh, you are actually in the wrong here. Freedom of speech isn't an unequivable right to express your opinion as you want. You can be banned for practically no reason and it'd be in the administrators right to do so. There is a reason why there is no real consequence for Facebook, Twitter and Google for banning [popular figure] from their platforms, because lo and behold, it is their property and they don't have any obligation to grant [pronoun] a platform.

Also I am not referencing [recent event] here, this is a thing that has been true since the conception of the Internet. Freedom of Speech is a right you may have, but it doesn't actually apply to anything non-government controlled on the Internet.

[Drascin]

Roleplay, as a verb, means "act out or perform the part of a person or character."

If you don't necessarily act in character, or if you don't have to by mechanics, then no roleplaying is occurring.

It's a pretty firm line there. I argue that, if this is a roleplaying game, then roleplaying would be necessary. Otherwise, yes. It would be a board game or, at best, a roleplaying game in the same vein as, say, World of Warcraft; you still take on a ROLE within your party/raid, but you aren't acting in character.

That's not a bad thing, mind. It's simply a change in how one approaches the game system. Again, you can still roleplay and not be in a roleplaying game.

The thing, it's never "necessary" to act in character in the sense of "the system absolutely forces you to do so". No, not even then. You can always play for "whatever gives the best results now" with no regards to coherence - you can just play the Zero Immersion Blank Slate Whatever Works Right Now Protagonist even in goddamn Chuubo's Wish Granting Engine, and that game is about as heavy-handed as you can get with putting character in the forefront as you can get.

D&D just makes it a little easier simply because it has always been a hybrid game - it's an RPG/tactical wargame hybrid in the same way, say, Medieval Total War is a hybrid of Big Strategy and Real Time Strategy. And much like in Medieval Total War, you CAN, conceivably, force it so you only really play one of the sides of the hybrid (the equivalent to hitting Autoresolve for every battle, or never playing a campaign and just doing the setpiece battles), but it requires you to ignore the intended mode of play and half the content in the game to shoehorn it that way.

EDIT: Actually, let me amend that slightly. While D&D has always tended hybrid, what it's hybridized with changes between editions. Some early editions would probably be sooner compared to heist games than tactical wargames, actually!

[Anonymouswizard]

Actually, that is one of the most wrong things the video has in it. My source is Robert Kuntz, recent book on Arneson, and how Arneson worked to break "the game is defined by its rules" paradigm in his early role playing games. RK's prose is rather turgid. Hoping to see his follow up volume soon.

Okay, is a weird bit of language going on. You've got The Game, that activity we are doing, and The Game, the set of rules we are using. You can have the former without the latter, and in fact it's very good, but if you're not using the latter you're not playing the latter. The first is 'we're roleplaying', the second is 'we're playing D&D'.

What I should have explicitly added is that you don't have to be constantly using the latter. Maybe in professional basketball you're only playing while the ball's being dribbled and shot, but when playing with my friends part of playing basketball is those periods where we're taking to each other and asking about each others lives, possibly while somebody is chasing after the ball, possibly as a teen minute break.

You're playing The Game if, when you need to resolve uncertainty you busy out the rules. If you resolve uncertainty via what sounds reasonable when the game has rules for that (because games cant have rules for everything) you're playing free form (even if just for a bit). Free form is grand, I've done it both with and without dice and it's oodles of fun, but it isn't 'playing D&D'.

[Arkhios]

I'm pretty sure this thread has been beaten to death already with the simple answer: D&D is a Roleplaying Game.

Do you make a character that has a role in the game? Yes.

Do you play with said character according to its role in the game? Yes.

Are you playing a game? Yes.

There you have it. Anyone arguing that the above does not qualify to define a Roleplaying Game should check their facts about what the definition of a Roleplaying Game means (as has been said a hundred times before).

[MaxWilson]

Uh, you are actually in the wrong here. Freedom of speech isn't an unequivable right to express your opinion as you want. You can be banned for practically no reason and it'd be in the administrators right to do so.

You're confusing Louro's argument here. Louro said freedom of speech is an unalienable right, which means Louro is claiming a moral right, not just a constitutional right. This is tantamount to a claim that anyone who tries to prevent other people from talking in a public space is wrong, and that no one could reasonably blame Louro for fighting for the right to speak in public.

Remember that the Bill of Rights grew out of a tradition of "natural rights" dating back to the Magna Carta. It's not just a legal statement, it's a moral statement.

Louro isn't wrong here.

[Mordaedil]

Cool, but it is demonstrably wrong.

[MaxWilson]

EDIT: Actually, let me amend that slightly. While D&D has always tended hybrid, what it's hybridized with changes between editions. Some early editions would probably be sooner compared to heist games than tactical wargames, actually!

Fantastic insight, thanks for sharing!

[MaxWilson]

Cool, but it is demonstrably wrong.

Nope, which is why [large media company] gets bad press and pushback for censoring [recent censorship scandal]. There are consequences to infringing unalienable rights. Sometimes you lose customers, sometimes you lose the Thirteen Colonies.

Trying to silence others from speaking their minds in public spaces is wrong.

You're welcome to think otherwise but I strongly disagree with your opinion. *Edit*: assuming that is that you're still contradicting "free speech is an unalienable right", but I just realized that you didn't actually say what you meant by "it is demonstrably wrong."

If instead you're just saying that citing "free speech" as a reason for wandering off topic is wrong, I'd agree with you there. "Take it to a different thread" isn't an attempt to silence others, it's just a concession to the technological limitations of forum threading.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm pretty sure this thread has been beaten to death already with the simple answer: D&D is a Roleplaying Game.

Do you make a character that has a role in the game? Yes.

Do you play with said character according to its role in the game? Yes.

Are you playing a game? Yes.

There you have it. Anyone arguing that the above does not qualify to define a Roleplaying Game should check their facts about what the definition of a Roleplaying Game means (as has been said a hundred times before).

The actual idea discussed in the (terrible terrible, he should have scripted it) video was more along the lines of 'if the game rules don't come up when you're roleplaying, is it an RPG'.

Which means we have to discuss what roleplaying is, ideally without just rephrasing the term. How about 'making decisions for a character as if they were them'? And considering that 90% of adventurers have the personality traits 'paranoid git' and 'loves teen foot poles' most dungeon crawling does fit into this definition.

There are two more easy definitions we can pick out. 'Playing to your role in the story', which D&D has nearly nothing to encourage, and 'playing to your mechanical role in the game' (rollplaying), which D&D 100% fits.

So we have three categories of roleplaying, roughly 'world', 'narrative', and 'rules'. Note different games full into these to different amounts, GURPS is heavily world, D&D is in both the world and rules camp, while Unknown Armies is in mainly the world camp with a bit of both rules and narrative. Most games have done of all three, although a rare few miss out on mechanics for world or narrative roleplaying.

[NotPrior]

I am... genuinely confused as to why this is a question. Most of the rules are about combat because that's what you need rules for. There's a framework for RP rules- cha checks for various purposes, backgrounds etc, but what more do you need?

Why would you need rules to play a role? What kind of rules would those be? Does my character need to acquire relationship points with an NPC before I can decide my character likes them? How many points is the love rank? What roll do I need on an enmity table before the party is allowed to dislike the genocidal lich? What's the "killed my parents" modifier for that table?

Does there need to be a framework to decide how good my character's idea is? Why do there need to be rules to dictate the decisions a person makes inside their head at all? This sounds like if you can't roll for every part of roleplay then you don't have an RPG.

[Mordaedil]

Nope, which is why [large media company] gets bad pr
ess and pushback for censoring [recent censorship scandal]. There are consequences to infringing unalienable rights. Sometimes you lose customers, sometimes you lose the Thirteen Colonies.

Trying to silence others from speaking their minds in public spaces is wrong.

You're welcome to think otherwise but I strongly disagree with your opinion.

Let me illustrate my point then. You argue this is a public space, but is that really true or is it a private space open to the public with no oversight from the government? That is a fairly simple thing to prove here. No government has any power of these forums, for they are owned by the Giant, who is renting the server space from a company that rents that out. They are renting that space out to the Giant to do with as he pleases and he choses to host these forums for discussions around his webcomic and other related thema, none of which violate the laws of the country these servers are hosted in. This server company is beholden to government regulations and if they were offering the service possibly to the principa Freedom of Speech.

The Giant is a private citizen however and is not beholden to this. We're technically having this discussion on the lawn of his property in a different state. If he wants us removed from said property and to remove traces of graffiti we've left behind, that is within his right.

That said, another forum attender telling another that he cannot post here, is not really relevant to Freedom of Speech in any form.

Essentially, it is my opinion that invoking the freedom of speech in this manner is merely an admission that ones own opinion holds no weight besides the fact that it isn't strictly illegal to express it. That is merely poor conduct and possibly quite telling about the personality of the poster invoking it. And there are no protections actually in place for protecting his words here besides what the administrators and the Giant himself will allow.

Every typed word on these forums essentially belong to the Giant in some manner of form.

[Drascin]

Nope, which is why [large media company] gets bad press and pushback for censoring [recent censorship scandal]. There are consequences to infringing unalienable rights. Sometimes you lose customers, sometimes you lose the Thirteen Colonies.

Trying to silence others from speaking their minds in public spaces is wrong.

You're welcome to think otherwise but I strongly disagree with your opinion. *Edit*: assuming that is that you're still contradicting "free speech is an unalienable right", but I just realized that you didn't actually say what you meant by "it is demonstrably wrong."

If instead you're just saying that citing "free speech" as a reason for wandering off topic is wrong, I'd agree with you there. "Take it to a different thread" isn't an attempt to silence others, it's just a concession to the technological limitations of forum threading.

Okay, this is veering offtopic, but I see this kind of thing a lot, so please excuse me for using it as a jumping point: seriously, guys, this is not how Free Speech works. Free Speech means "the government can't arrest or harm you for saying things". It does NOT mean "every space is obligated to let you rant inflammatory nonsense and nobody can tell you to shut up and go away". Much less when the space isn't even vaguely public, like this one.


I am... genuinely confused as to why this is a question. Most of the rules are about combat because that's what you need rules for.

A lot of RPGs have rules about how your role affects the game. I mentioned Chuubo's Wish Granting Engine before. That game is super crunchy, and very hard to wrap my hard around, but almost none of the crunch is about combat. It doesn't even have specific combat rules, combat with bronze giant wolves made from pure nightmarestuff is resolved with the same kind of skill checks you'd use to put on a highschool concert. And this being Chuubo, you are reasonably likely to do both of those things inside of a three or four session timeframe, give or take :smalltongue:. Rather, for example, your character sheet involves things like your intended character arc, and the tension between the events of the game and the character's progression and so on creates Issues, which if you manage to resolve you get mechanical bennies. You literally get XP for getting an appropriate reaction from other players when roleplaying a conversation (so, for example, if you're playing the reckless barbarian daredevil, having the Team Dad PC go "Darren NO!" and tackle you right before you try to jump the dragon, that's XP for you). It's a lot more... high-level, I guess? Not in the sense of being better, but in the sense of looking at a character from a slightly more distant perspective, a touch more meta.

D&D takes a different tack with it, and it works for me too! But it's NOT the only way to do things, and saying "combat is what you need rules for" is actually way less applicable than you probably think - I've played multiple games where combat was literally abstracted to a single roll in order to get back to the stuff the game is actually about!

[Willie the Duck]

Uh, you are actually in the wrong here. Freedom of speech ...

Look, I was the first fool to try to address Louro's framing any of this as a Freedom of speech issue and I was a bad idea and my best decision was to let him have the last word and drop it. This serves no purpose except to create additional animosities on a thread where apparently 'is the first and most popular RPG of all time technically an RPG?' can be a contentious issue. By continuing this debate, we are being off-topic, which is something the mods can and should be able to steer us away from.


"Take it to a different thread" isn't an attempt to silence others, it's just a concession to the technological limitations of forum threading.

Also probably has a 'your freedoms end where they infract on others' freedoms' component.


I am... genuinely confused as to why this is a question. Most of the rules are about combat because that's what you need rules for. There's a framework for RP rules- cha checks for various purposes, backgrounds etc, but what more do you need?

Why would you need rules to play a role? What kind of rules would those be? Does my character need to acquire relationship points with an NPC before I can decide my character likes them? How many points is the love rank? What roll do I need on an enmity table before the party is allowed to dislike the genocidal lich? What's the "killed my parents" modifier for that table?

Does there need to be a framework to decide how good my character's idea is? Why do there need to be rules to dictate the decisions a person makes inside their head at all? This sounds like if you can't roll for every part of roleplay then you don't have an RPG.

I think this entire swath of the argument can be reduced to-does the game need to enforce (make difficult/ require ignoring rules/etc.) the roleplay component for it to be a roleplay game, or is merely declaring that roleplay is part of the expected play of the game sufficient? And if the answer is yes it does need an enforcement, who says and what is their argument? That's about it. The video OP linked to simply doesn't sufficiently make the case (to my mind), and I haven't really seen much coherent support in that vein. So we're kind of at a 'yes it does' 'no it doesn't' point.

[MaxWilson]

Why would you need rules to play a role? What kind of rules would those be?

They could be rules for managing dramatic interactions, as opposed to just outcomes. E.g. asking players to state a dramatic motivation before opening a scene (or crashing a scene) and awarding a drama token to whichever party failed to attain their dramatic goal (i.e. internal, emotional, vs. external, procedural) during the interaction, and then letting them spend drama tokens to crash scenes and force emotional concessions from other PCs and NPCs and/or block force attempts. (Drama tokens are a mechanism to ensure dramatic variety, with emotional wins and losses tending to even out over the course of an adventure.)

This kind of thing is native to DramaSystem but I've used it in 5E with some success. The most interesting thing is that it helped reduce intraparty conflict: two arguing players with different ideas about how to proceed are at a impasse, so the DM says, "you argue about it for a while and eventually one if you wins, and it's [rolls dice] Sir Kay", and then Sir Lancelot gets a drama token for making an emotional concession to Sir Kay... and the players are okay with that because it's fair and implies that Sir Lancelot will wind up on top eventually, either through voluntary concessions or eventually through spending accumulated drama tokens.

It also gives a nice mechanical framework off of which to hang Intimidation/Persuasion attempts: successful Persuading might get you emotional sympathy without needing to spend drama tokens on a force attempt, but not always procedural victory. When the King says, "I see now why you love your brother, and I wish I didn't have to exile him for his crimes, for your sake," that's an emotional concession by the King and a dramatic victory, but it's not a mind control I Win button. You'd probably be able to talk the King around to practical concessions like letting you go with him, though, or specifying conditions under which your brother could return: your Persuasion skill would still have lots of payoff opportunities. Likewise Intimidation could force emotional concessions in the form of fear/unease/discomfort even if the DM doesn't want to let it make anyone run out of the dungeon screaming.

So yeah, you can have rules for role-playing, and it tends to encourage a little less combat and a little more dialogue and emotional roleplay. I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle to use them on a regular basis, but it's interesting to try once in a while and it will probably enrich your game.

[CantigThimble]

I think this entire swath of the argument can be reduced to-does the game need to enforce (make difficult/ require ignoring rules/etc.) the roleplay component for it to be a roleplay game, or is merely declaring that roleplay is part of the expected play of the game sufficient? And if the answer is yes it does need an enforcement, who says and what is their argument? That's about it. The video OP linked to simply doesn't sufficiently make the case (to my mind), and I haven't really seen much coherent support in that vein. So we're kind of at a 'yes it does' 'no it doesn't' point.

I agree with this, and I would add that I think the reason they didn't include rules for it is pretty clear. There are a lot of different ways to engage in roleplaying, some of them involve overt acting, others involve more description, others involve mostly decision making based on character motivation without any flowery words. (And I'm sure there are more besides) Including rules requiring roleplay would necessarily have to specify a single or a few kinds of roleplaying, which would, because they are rules, exclude all the forms not specified. So it makes perfect sense to NOT include rules but do include a great deal of support for roleplaying and encouragement to roleplay. (like backgrounds) Games that include rules for roleplaying necessarily have a limiting vision of what roleplaying should consist of. While that is often a good thing (restrictions breed creativity) it does limit what kind of roleplay can be done. Given that most kinds of roleplaying came from D&D games one way or another it makes sense to include as much of their potential audience as possible with the assumption they they'll roleplay how they like.

[Louro]

Louro said freedom of speech is an unalienable right, which means Louro is claiming a moral right, not just a constitutional right.
This, exactly this. We're not even from the same country. I'm not speaking on "legal terms". I'm just saying that Freedom of Speech is something worth champion for.

And this is a public space. I mean, it feels kind of public, right? We all come here for free because we share a hobby, to discuss publicly about it.
We were talking about enslavery on the good-evil axis, bacause it's a thing on some role playing scenarios. I wouln't agree on banning that topic.


Free Speech means "the government can't arrest or harm you for saying things". It does NOT mean "every space is obligated to let you rant inflammatory nonsense and nobody can tell you to shut up and go away". Much less when the space isn't even vaguely public, like this one.
Double logic falacy.
First " " is a consequence of FoS, not it's actual meaning.
In second " " you add "inflammatory rant" from nowhere.

---

The Social Rules I use:

- opposed check (like deceive VS insight)
- when the argument is solid and/or well backed-up no roll is needed.
- on specific situations I make a CHA check to set that NPC likeness towards the party (with the appropiate mods)

[Willie the Duck]

... So it makes perfect sense to NOT include rules but do include a great deal of support for roleplaying and encouragement to roleplay. (like backgrounds) ...

I don't think we even need to go that far. Include all the roleplay rules you* like in RPG #34785. People have made passionate arguments on both sides of the 'should the game include rules on this' and I often agree with both sides. Lots of options make perfect sense as options (or even as hard-to-be-optional systems within a given game amongst many). The only thing we really need to address is whether these things need to be present for it to be an Role Playing Game. And frankly my position at this point is strongly with 'the burden of proof falls to those suggesting they are required' and 'the case has not been made.'
*not you personally, a hypothetical you.

[ciarannihill]

And this is a public space. I mean, it feels kind of public, right? We all come here for free because we share a hobby, to discuss publicly about


So disregarding the rest of this freedom of speech argument (because it's a philosophical issue and frankly there's a massive intersection of "what rights trump other rights" and "what constitutes speech" that is an area of weeds I have no intention of getting into), I do feel the need to point out that it doesn't matter how public a space this board feels like, it is definitively not. It has an owner, and that owner has laid down rules with regards to discussion allowed on it, among which is what discussion is to be handled in what boards. Demonstrably not public.

As for DnD being a roleplaying game: Every argument against that idea falls apart under scrutiny I find, meanwhile there are numerous convincing arguments that it is an RPG, so I'm inclined to feel okay with the literal prototypical RPG being called an RPG.

[NotPrior]

Things about Chuubo which I will not quote in full.

The reason I say you need combat rules is because it's big and messy and has the most ways to fail. It's also the situation where a person has least control and everything becomes most of a mess.

Anyway, Chuubo. So it's a very strange system which gives you points for RPing in various ways. I'm really not sure how to put this politely but everything about that just seems wrong (edit: in sense like if someone gave you a purple lemon, not necessarily bad, but that's just not how things are). If you're getting points for playing a character in a certain way or for trying to get particular responses then you're either going after those points (and therefore not making the decisions the character would), or you're only getting those points incidentally while making the decisions the character would (and therefore the points aren't necessary because you're doing it anyway).

If you mechanically dictate what decisions a person or character makes then I'd argue you are moving further from actually freely playing a role and closer to Skyrim or Witcher style choosing from one of the pregenerated dialogue options. The less roleplaying is dependent on personal decision and the less freedom a player has to make whatever decisions make sense for the character then the further from actual roleplay you get.

Or at least that's how I feel. I could be wrong.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think we even need to go that far. Include all the roleplay rules you* like in RPG #34785. People have made passionate arguments on both sides of the 'should the game include rules on this' and I often agree with both sides. Lots of options make perfect sense as options (or even as hard-to-be-optional systems within a given game amongst many). The only thing we really need to address is whether these things need to be present for it to be an Role Playing Game. And frankly my position at this point is strongly with 'the burden of proof falls to those suggesting they are required' and 'the case has not been made.'
*not you personally, a hypothetical you.

I'm pretty sure that horse is dead though. Aside from the guy in the video (who is clearly wrong), I don't see anyone on this thread saying they are required. We've moved on to talking about other things.

[Pelle]

so the DM says, "you argue about it for a while and eventually one if you wins, and it's [rolls dice] Sir Kay",

That sounds like less roleplaying to me, if the DM/rules regulate which decisions you can make.

[MaxWilson]

The reason I say you need combat rules is because it's big and messy and has the most ways to fail. It's also the situation where a person has least control and everything becomes most of a mess.

I'd argue that it's other way around actually: 5E combat has rules, therefore it attracts DM and player effort and attention, therefore it is big (and messy).

If you switch to resolving all 5E combats with a simple die roll (e.g. [number of PCs] d [PC level] vs. 1d[total monster CR]) you will see combat shrink in importance. (And you'll probably abandon 5E for another system too because 5E doesn't have much to offer besides combat, but theoretically you could keep playing 5E and focus on Alter Self spy shenanigans or something.)

[Louro]

I do feel the need to point out that it doesn't matter how public a space this board feels like, it is definitively not. It has an owner, and that owner has laid down rules with regards to discussion allowed on it, among which is what discussion is to be handled in what boards. Demonstrably not public.
Legally speaking.
It's like a bar. Private property but also a public place because everyone is allowed.


As for DnD being a roleplaying game: ... so I'm inclined to feel okay with the literal prototypical RPG being called an RPG.
Yeah, makes sense.
The amount of RP involved at each table will probably vary from murderhobo fanatics to evil masterminds plotting kingdoms fall.

[Tanarii]

The crazy thing is D&D 5e has tons of roleplaying rules.

To name the most prominent ones:
Druid armor restrictions
Paladin Tenets
Inspiration
Alignment
Personality Traits (Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw)
Necromancy & creating undead

There are also other aspects with direct roleplaying implications:
Cleric Domains & worshipping Dieties (by default)
Warlocks Patrons and Pact Magic

Some people like to just try and brush off roleplaying rules as "just fluff", but that's an artificial fluff/crunch division. It's exactly the reason we end up with roleplaying elitists in the first place, going on about collaborative storytelling and how roleplaying doesn't need rules or the best roleplaying sessions didn't even require rolling the dice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's like a bar. Private property but also a public place because everyone is allowed.


Continuing to discuss this is perilously close to a breach of forum rules. It's likely to get the thread locked if you keep pushing. It's also way off-topic.

[MaxWilson]

That sounds like less roleplaying to me, if the DM/rules regulate which decisions you can make.

Nope, the DM does not. Players could have opted to keep arguing with each other while everyone else went out for pizza or something, but they were fine with an arbitrary resolution, and verbally assented even before a die was rolled. (Actually I think I had one of the players roll the die, not that that matters.)

But it does tend to encourage things like "talk to the giant" instead of "roll initiative", although "get frustrated by the giant's riddle game and just kill him" was apparently on the table because that's the option Sir Lancelot's player took even though she was winning the riddle game. [The giant made his death saves and later became an ally but that's not important.] "More roleplaying" doesn't mean "only roleplaying."

[MaxWilson]

It's like a bar. Private property but also a public place because everyone is allowed.

Except the Sorcerer King's sock puppets. :-) It looks like those threads may (finally!) be gone.

[BaconAwesome]

I think 5e is a good blend of roleplaying game and tabletop strategy game, with the PH, backgrounds, trait system and inspiration points all encouraging roleplay.

Too many more roleplaying rules and you would get munchkins gaming that system too. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html)

[Pelle]

Nope, the DM does not. Players could have opted to keep arguing with each other while everyone else went out for pizza or something, but they were fine with an arbitrary resolution, and verbally assented even before a die was rolled. (Actually I think I had one of the players roll the die, not that that matters.)

But it does tend to encourage things like "talk to the giant" instead of "roll initiative", although "get frustrated by the giant's riddle game and just kill him" was apparently on the table because that's the option Sir Lancelot's player took even though she was winning the riddle game. [The giant made his death saves and later became an ally but that's not important.] "More roleplaying" doesn't mean "only roleplaying."

If the die roll decided, that means the players roleplayed less, i.e. made fewer decisions for their characters. Having a resolution is fine, but following the results of the die isn't really making decisions.

If the roleplaying rules of your game says that your druid must decide to not wear metal armor, the game makes decisions for you, i.e. less roleplaying. Those rules might be good for insentivizing a specific tone of the game or for encouraging talking more in character, though. So overall, in practice you might end up making more decisions for your character, even though the rules limit what kind of decisions you can make?

[ciarannihill]

It's like a bar. Private property but also a public place because everyone is allowed.

Not that I appreciate you altering my quote to include the phrase "legally speaking", but remember that bars can and will throw out patrons when they harass, annoy or otherwise ruin the good time the other patrons are having. It is largely available to the public, but it is still private and they will flex that if/when that need arises. You can't expect to go into a bar and drunkenly yell to every table a host of racial slurs and expect them to allow it because you were let into the bar at all. NOTE: I am not saying this is what is happening in this thread at all. This is an intensely hyperbolic example to illustrate the point, which I am going to leave it at because it is still profoundly off-topic.


That sounds like less roleplaying to me, if the DM/rules regulate which decisions you can make.

The DM determines the world's reaction to your actions and it's "base" state. The DM is arguably doing the largest roleplay task of all in the game, remember that the DM is also playing and also roleplaying NPCs, monsters, etc.

[Kyrell1978]

I think that where the video fails to make its point is illustrated by my experiences with d and d. I've been playing this game for about 30 years and never once have I sat at a table where no one was playing based on character personality. There have certainly been higher and lower levels of this "role-play," I've seen it done well and poorly, a lot and a little. I've seen mostly combat sessions (which have also included role-play as in would my lawful good paladin attack the guy running away). But never, in 3 decades have I seen even one session where there was not some sort of blend of roll-playing and role-playing.

[Pelle]

The DM determines the world's reaction to your actions and it's "base" state. The DM is arguably doing the largest roleplay task of all in the game, remember that the DM is also playing and also roleplaying NPCs, monsters, etc.

So it's a still a roleplaying game if the DM makes all the decisions for the PCs, then? Because the players are free to describe the actions the DM decided they would make?

[ciarannihill]

So it's a still a roleplaying game if the DM makes all the decisions for the PCs, then? Because the players are free to describe the actions the DM decided they would make?

...No, because that's directly contrary to how the game is played. You're describing a different game masquerading as DnD, not DnD.

[Drascin]

The reason I say you need combat rules is because it's big and messy and has the most ways to fail. It's also the situation where a person has least control and everything becomes most of a mess.

Anyway, Chuubo. So it's a very strange system which gives you points for RPing in various ways. I'm really not sure how to put this politely but everything about that just seems wrong. If you're getting points for playing a character in a certain way or for trying to get particular responses then you're either going after those points (and therefore not making the decisions the character would), or you're only getting those points incidentally while making the decisions the character would (and therefore the points aren't necessary because you're doing it anyway).

If you mechanically dictate what decisions a person or character makes then I'd argue you are moving further from actually freely playing a role and closer to Skyrim or Witcher style choosing from one of the pregenerated dialogue options. The less roleplaying is dependent on personal decision and the less freedom a player has to make whatever decisions make sense for the character then the further from actual roleplay you get.

Or at least that's how I feel. I could be wrong.

I'm also not sure how to put this politely, cause... yeah, you kind of are. Wrong, I mean. You should try a bunch of different RPGs, see how different games do things. Thinking about things a single way generally leads to One True Way-ism, and from there to waving one's cane at all the people doing it WRONG it's just a jump and a skip.

Basically, different games want to encourage different kinds of stories. Therefore, different games use different mechanics to try to guide people to that kind of story. You think D&D has no things interfering, but actually D&D brings a whole lot of assumptions and milieu that absolutely shape how people play it, and which are part of its identity. An issue we had is that since a lot of systems grew from that same idea you are espousing without analyzing the D&D assumptions baked in there, that led to the fact that in a lot of tables, you ended up with people playing GURPS the exact same way they played D&D the exact same way they played Shadowrun, just with different equipment lists.

So, yeah. I'm not a designer, I just read a lot of people who are, so that's my suggestion, try other stuff!

(As a note... "trying to get specific responses" is actually way more important than you seem to give it credit for. Here's a dirty little secret of roleplaying tables: generally speaking, a character is only as good as the reactions it gets from your fellow players. It's true! It doesn't matter how deep in thought you are about the detailed backstory of your character - if nobody else at the table actually realizes what is going on, that is wasted effort! D&D is an exhibition sport. That's a small part of what those Chuubo rules are trying to get people to do - get out of their own behind and DO their things visibly so that the character actually imprints on the rest of the table. As well as making "what would my character do" and "what is the mechanically correct option here" less dissonant, because I'm sure you've had many instances where things have been like "okay, [character] would absolutely just keep hitting this jerk who insulted his mother, enraged, but if I do that the other dude is going to smack the wizard into next tuesday".)

[Pelle]

...No, because that's directly contrary to how the game is played. You're describing a different game masquerading as DnD, not DnD.

Yes, I was commenting on an example by Max, where the player was told his character would have to decide to follow another characters' wish. Yes, the character is making the decision to agree, but when the player is told he has to make this decision, is he really making a decision at all? That was what I was describing as less roleplaying to me.

[Nifft]

Continuing to discuss this is perilously close to a breach of forum rules. It's likely to get the thread locked if you keep pushing. It's also way off-topic. It'd be better if he could learn this just by reading the forum's rules, without the need for a moderator action to demonstrate why he's wrong about "free speech" in a private space. But yeah, you're right about the topic derail.


Except the Sorcerer King's sock puppets. :-) It looks like those threads may (finally!) be gone. Where are we supposed to get our daily dose of scantily-clad brooding beefcake? Won't somebody think of the children?


If the die roll decided, that means the players roleplayed less, i.e. made fewer decisions for their characters. Having a resolution is fine, but following the results of the die isn't really making decisions. Hmm, not sure I agree with that. I think the dice are about evaluating risk, and I think excellent roleplaying & characterization decisions can be made about seeking or avoiding various risks.




Not that I appreciate you altering my quote to include the phrase "legally speaking" I'm not qualified to tell you if this is relevant, but there is a section in the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=63&a=1) about altering quotes:


Trolling
Any post or comment that, in the judgment of the Moderators, was made solely or primarily to incite angry responses and/or flames or attempts to disrupt a thread so that it becomes a flame war will be edited to remove the offending content and the poster issued an Infraction. If a thread is judged to have been started for this reason, it will be locked, and the poster issued an Infraction.

In particular, editing a quote of another user's post to insult the poster or to make the other user's words appear misleading, inflammatory, or insulting is considered trolling, and any such modified quotes will be removed and an Infraction issued.




The DM determines the world's reaction to your actions and it's "base" state. The DM is arguably doing the largest roleplay task of all in the game, remember that the DM is also playing and also roleplaying NPCs, monsters, etc. Agree with this because this flatters me personally as the usual DM... er, wait.

Agree with this because some of the best DM advice I've seen has been for the DM to prep NPC motivations rather than prepping plot or set-piece / cut-scene type of stuff. NPC motivations are what you'd need if you were role-playing the NPCs -- and it's exactly what I have found most useful when I'm reacting to the players derailing plots and generally behaving in unexpected ways, which seems to be their core competency.

Prepping for improv RP has served me better than almost any other DM hack. I'd say that's evidence in support.

[BaconAwesome]

There are definitely situations where a DM tells a player how to roleplay - if a player gets charmed or vampired or even just fails an insight roll against persuasion, the DM may either tell him "here are your motivations, play like that" or just take over if the player can't do it.

[sithlordnergal]

Ahh yes, Dawnforged...I have yet to see a video from them that I agree with. It feels like he only looks at abilities and doesn't actually use them. Case in point:

If you went by their standards the Air Elemental is one of the best offensive Elemental forms a Moon Druid has because it can fly and has the Whirlwind ability. Nevermind that it has the lowest hp, that whirlwind is a recharge ability and has a dc 13 strength save.

Meanwhile the Fire Elemental is, and I quote, "probably one of the weakest elementals here". Is he joking? Has he never actually used the Fire Elemental? Yes, it can suck against things that are immune or resistant to fire damage, but other then that it is amazing.

But back to the topic at hand. D&D is a Roleplaying game at its heart, but that doesn't mean you have to role play. You can just as easily grab a character sheet and slap numbers on it...but even then you're going to have to roleplay a little. Even if all that roleplaying amounts to is giving the character a name and stating what you attempt to do

[KorvinStarmast]

Free form is grand, I've done it both with and without dice and it's oodles of fun, but it isn't 'playing D&D'. yes you are, and particularly in this edition. I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this.

[Tanarii]

yes you are, and particularly in this edition. I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this.
A session without dice in 5e just means a session in which you didn't do anything that had a chance of failure or success. Everything was either automatically successful or automatically a failure.

That doesn't mean you aren't making decisions tho.

Personally I'd find it unsatisfying, because it means I either wasn't taking any risks, or wasn't doing anything remotely safe. Or both extremes. But each unto their own, and it's certainly within 5e to have it happen.

Now free form as ignoring what the rules say for non-dice-involving class features, adventuring rules, and spells rules? That wouldn't be 5e.

[BurgerBeast]

I am a bit bewildered by some of the ways in which people are making the definition of role-playing games overly exclusive.

If you’re playing a game in which you assume a role and make relevant decisions, you’re playing a role-playing game.

Super Mario Brothers is a role-playing game. It’s confined and limited, but it meets the criteria.

You might say it would be ridiculous to classify Super Mario Brothers as an RPG. Sure. But that’s not because it’s not an RPG. That’s because when we classify games, we look for the most relevant characteristics of that game, and Super Mario brothers is more about “action” than it is about assuming the role of Mario.

I understand that one might say “but that’s not the sense of the definition that we’re talking about.” But my point remains.

Once you start excluding games as not “true” RPGs for reasons other than the two (three?) important ones (is it a game? Are you assuming a role? Do you make decisions that affect outcomes?), then it appears to me that you’re committing the no true Scotsman fallacy.

If we are going to start cutting out certain games because they do not provide the sufficient degree of character depth, or sufficient freedom of choice, then we’re going to run into disagreements over where lines are drawn. But table top games as D&D are also limited.

It’s just less apparent. As the player you can suggest any action to the DM, but the directions that your choices may lead are limited by the DM and his considerations. So there is nothing particularly pure or limitless about them. The limitations are just more effectively hidden. There is definitely more freedom. By unlimited freedom is an illusion.

So the idea that a game of D&D (or of any other RPG) is limitless has to be thrown out. (Remember the ruleset is the system, so saying D&D is limitless is true in the same way that a PS4 is limitless. We can imagine any game being invented. But the actual game being played is limited. It has to be.) And if we can’t use lack of limitation as a criterion to clearly distinguish “true” RPGs from non-RPGs... well, then the whole enterprise becomes a matter of deciding where on the spectrum (of limitless-ness) to draw your line.

I don’t care where you draw it. Just realize that the line is not doing what you think it’s doing.

As an example of where this falls apart: consider a game like Exodus Ultima on the NES. Then consider something like Call of Duty on the PS4. There is more roleplaying going on in Call if Duty than there is in Ultima.

Technically, Call of Duty 4 is more of a roleplaying game than Ultima, so to speak. But we’re right to classify Ultima as an RPG and Call of Duty as a war game or a real-time action game or a first person shooter or whatever (sorry, I’m not much of a gamer). That’s because Ultima is more about role playing than it is about the other genres. And Call of Duty is less about roleplaying than it is about the other genres. Its like trying to classify Lethal Weapon as an action movie or a comedy. It’s both, but the video store employee has got to put it in one time the other section.

Through the process of writing this and thinking about what a “game” is, I came to a realization that I’m not quite sure what a game is.

I’m thinking that Snakes and Ladders, in particular, is not a game. There is actually no possible way for a player to make a choice in Snakes and Ladders. The whole enterprise is akin to watching a pre-written movie that you’ve never seen before.

Every player just follows instructions for the entire duration of the “game.”

[MaxWilson]

Yes, I was commenting on an example by Max, where the player was told his character would have to decide to follow another characters' wish. Yes, the character is making the decision to agree, but when the player is told he has to make this decision, is he really making a decision at all? That was what I was describing as less roleplaying to me.

That isn't what happened.

[Nifft]

Through the process of writing this and thinking about what a “game” is, I came to a realization that I’m not quite sure what a game is.

Games are an extended subset of sandwiches.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Games are an extended subset of sandwiches.

Both have the potential to make people happy (or sad). So that follows! :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

Games are an extended subset of sandwiches.

Game is the animals you kill during hunting.

[MaxWilson]

Through the process of writing this and thinking about what a “game” is, I came to a realization that I’m not quite sure what a game is.

I’m thinking that Snakes and Ladders, in particular, is not a game. There is actually no possible way for a player to make a choice in Snakes and Ladders. The whole enterprise is akin to watching a pre-written movie that you’ve never seen before.

Every player just follows instructions for the entire duration of the “game.”

There's a reason Snakes and Ladders is targeted at small children at a low level of cognitive development. If it's a game, it's in the same sense as Ring Around the Rosie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o%27_Roses). It's a fun activity which challenges children who are just learning motor skills and what rules are, and is organized around a fictional conceit. If you tell a small child that it's a "fun game", he won't tell you that it's not a game. [shrug] And I won't either.

But it's not a very interesting game for an adult.

[Nifft]

There's a reason Snakes and Ladders is targeted at small children at a low level of cognitive development. If it's a game, it's in the same sense as Ring Around the Rosie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o%27_Roses). It's a fun activity which challenges children and is organized around a fictional conceit. If you tell a small child that it's a "fun game", he won't tell you that it's not a game. [shrug] And I won't either.

But it's not a very interesting game for an adult.

Oddly enough, games with similarly low player agency can be "interesting" for adults: specifically games like slot machines or roulette, which don't reward any skill and offer decisions only in the absence of information.

"Interesting" is in scare-quotes because a better word might be addictive.



Snakes & Ladders offers a risk of loss, so it's a (rather mild) thrill simulator.

Ring Around the Rosie offers allusions to death paired with falling down, so it's also another (rather mild) thrill simulator.

The thrill of risk may be the addictive part of gambling -- which some adults also seem to "enjoy" -- so perhaps that's the key game element: the thrill of risk.

In an RPG, it's the risk of death / loss / failure. In Snakes & Ladders, it's the risk of rolling poorly. In slot machines or roulette, it's the risk of losing your money. I'd argue that RPGs are better games than gambling, but unfortunately they're not as high on the social signal totem pole.

[ciarannihill]

Yes, I was commenting on an example by Max, where the player was told his character would have to decide to follow another characters' wish. Yes, the character is making the decision to agree, but when the player is told he has to make this decision, is he really making a decision at all? That was what I was describing as less roleplaying to me.

Now I tend to slightly disagree with many of MaxWilson's posts, but you are making a dramatic oversimplification of his post and removing the most important aspect of it: That his players asked and consented to his adjudication of the scenario. He didn't forcefully wrest agency from his players at all, he took on the agency they granted him to expedite the scene that was dragging for everyone involved and bearing witness. He performed a time-skip, essentially, which is a very common DM tool.

I've said many times the following "Unless any of you have something specific you'd like to do before X, we'll jump straight to that point". Sometimes my players will stop me because they have things they want to do, other times they'll decide to "kill time at the tavern" until that point in time. This doesn't restrict their ability to role play, this makes them not have to waste time living out the mundane moments of the adventure without wanting or needing to.

[NotPrior]

(As a note... "trying to get specific responses" is actually way more important than you seem to give it credit for. Here's a dirty little secret of roleplaying tables: generally speaking, a character is only as good as the reactions it gets from your fellow players. It's true! It doesn't matter how deep in thought you are about the detailed backstory of your character - if nobody else at the table actually realizes what is going on, that is wasted effort!

But unless I'm DMing I don't care about how other people perceive what my character does (with the exception of annoying people out of character, that's a whole different issue regarding interpersonal relationships and making the game actually work). If I'm roleplaying then I'm doing things the way a character would do because that's how they would do them and that's what I want to do.

Triggering a reaction is secondary to that- my character wears yellow because his favourite colour is yellow. I don't need a reaction, and the effort is only as wasted as the entire enterprise of playing an RPG is (which is completely). Playing a character makes me happy because if it didn't I wouldn't be doing it. Hopefully other people also enjoy it because a big pile of secondary enjoyment comes from spending time with my friends and I want to keep doing that, but that's seperate.

[QUOTE=Drascin;23329288]As well as making "what would my character do" and "what is the mechanically correct option here" less dissonant, because I'm sure you've had many instances where things have been like "okay, [character] would absolutely just keep hitting this jerk who insulted his mother, enraged, but if I do that the other dude is going to smack the wizard into next tuesday".)

But it makes it more dissonant. If I'm pursuing the rewards with my roleplaying then they're directing me into choices that aren't necessarily what the character would do in that particular situation in order to obtain those rewards. That's dissonance. The only way you can avoid it is if they're guaranteed as long as I do what the character does, but then they're pointless because I'll automatically get them anyway not matter what I do.

The only situation I can see this being any use is to persuade people to make suboptimal decisions because "that's what the character would do", but that doesn't solve anything either. People who were previously powergamers will make characters with personality traits which they can easily fill (he's almost always extremely pragmatic etc), and characters who make decisions which lead to penalties which would previously discourage them will get those same penalties except they also get a reward for screwing themselves (which I approve of but is why we have inspiration) and likely others (which I definitely don't like the idea of) over.

I think I fundamentally don't like the idea that any out of universe effect should have any influence on what goes in inside a character's head. When a player has complete control over their character's thoughts (barring mind control etc) and attempted actions, and no influences other than in-universe events, that is when you have roleplaying. Everything else just takes away from that.

[Kyrell1978]

Ahh yes, Dawnforged...I have yet to see a video from them that I agree with.

I think that's a little harsh. I really enjoyed a lot of his "being a better player" and "being a better dm" series. Even though he didn't really teach me anything new, it was nice to see and (I thought) could be of great use to someone just beginning the game.

[MaxWilson]

Oddly enough, games with similarly low player agency can be "interesting" for adults: specifically games like slot machines or roulette, which don't reward any skill and offer decisions only in the absence of information.

"Interesting" is in scare-quotes because a better word might be addictive.

Snakes & Ladders offers a risk of loss, so it's a (rather mild) thrill simulator.

Ring Around the Rosie offers allusions to death paired with falling down, so it's also another (rather mild) thrill simulator.

The thrill of risk may be the addictive part of gambling -- which some adults also seem to "enjoy" -- so perhaps that's the key game element: the thrill of risk.

In an RPG, it's the risk of death / loss / failure. In Snakes & Ladders, it's the risk of rolling poorly. In slot machines or roulette, it's the risk of losing your money. I'd argue that RPGs are better games than gambling, but unfortunately they're not as high on the social signal totem pole.

Interesting insights, thanks for sharing.

I think for some players, D&D is about the decisions, and so things like crits and Great Weapon Fighting (reroll low damage dice) and Savage Attacker are utterly uninteresting. For the type of person who likes slot machines--and clearly such people do exist--I imagine that Great Weapon Fighting, Savage Attacker, and crit fishing might carry a similar thrill despite being poor-quality options from an expected-value standpoint.

Different strokes for different folks...

[Jophiel]

Once you start excluding games as not “true” RPGs for reasons other than the two (three?) important ones (is it a game? Are you assuming a role? Do you make decisions that affect outcomes?), then it appears to me that you’re committing the no true Scotsman fallacy.

If we are going to start cutting out certain games because they do not provide the sufficient degree of character depth, or sufficient freedom of choice, then we’re going to run into disagreements over where lines are drawn.
Conversely, once Super Mario, Civilization, Call of Duty, Monopoly, Candy Land and Chess are all roleplaying games, the term ceases to have any useful meaning. "I'm looking for a new RPG, any suggestions?" can be legitimately answered with "Have you tried Tic-Tac-Toe? Last game I really got into imaging myself as a commander, placing my armies to block the enemy advance and it was awesome". Putting limits on the term is what makes it useful, even if those limits can be hazy.

[sophontteks]

Conversely, once Super Mario, Civilization, Call of Duty, Monopoly, Candy Land and Chess are all roleplaying games, the term ceases to have any useful meaning. "I'm looking for a new RPG, any suggestions?" can be legitimately answered with "Have you tried Tic-Tac-Toe? Last game I really got into imaging myself as a commander, placing my armies to block the enemy advance and it was awesome". Putting limits on the term is what makes it useful, even if those limits can be hazy.
Yeah, but we just don't have this problem. Everyone seems to have a pretty good handle on what an RPG is and what to expect from one. No one is calling any of these games an RPG and at the same time, no one is really arguing that the things we do call RPGs actually aren't.

Well, except a certain youtuber that thinks he's being smart.

So maybe one day we will not understand what an RPG is, but today is not that day. Its a pretty well-defined genre in the industry. So, we are fabricating contraversy where there is none. Its not making things clearer at all. Its actually doing the opposite.

[Jophiel]

Yeah, but we just don't have this problem. Everyone seems to have a pretty good handle on what an RPG is and what to expect from one. No one is calling any of these games an RPG and at the same time, no one is really arguing that the things we do call RPGs actually aren't.
No, we don't. But we don't precisely because we're willing to draw (perhaps seemingly arbitrary) lines around what an RPG is/isn't and it's more defined than the generic hand-wavey "any game where you play a role". At the same time, it makes "D&D must be an RPG because you play a role in it" into a rather unsatisfying answer.

[Nifft]

So maybe one day we will not understand what an RPG is, but today is not that day. Its a pretty well-defined genre in the industry. So, we are fabricating contraversy where there is none. Its not making things clearer at all. Its actually doing the opposite.


No, we don't. But we don't precisely because we're willing to draw (perhaps seemingly arbitrary) lines around what an RPG is/isn't and it's more defined than the generic hand-wavey "any game where you play a role".

Like many real-world categories, it's probably better to view RPGs as a set with graded membership instead of some kind of bright-line binary division.

Some games are good examples of RPGs, others are peripheral set members (poor examples), and yet other games are not in the set at all.

[ciarannihill]

No, we don't. But we don't precisely because we're willing to draw (perhaps seemingly arbitrary) lines around what an RPG is/isn't and it's more defined than the generic hand-wavey "any game where you play a role". At the same time, it makes "D&D must be an RPG because you play a role in it" into a rather unsatisfying answer.

A basic, basic definition of RPG would be this:
RPGs tend to be games where you play a role that incorporates mechanically relevant numeric representations of aspects of the character you're playing that can be influenced and changed over time through play as a core mechanic of the experience. These numeric representations can be for character attributes/stats, personality traits, etc. Which is why any game with a progression or leveling system, even if we wouldn't classify them as an RPG is said to have incorporated "RPG Elements".

It's not definitive, but I think it examines one of the core component we ascribe to RPGs -- numerically determined attributes and the progression of those attributes.

This is an artifact of how poorly we define game genres as a whole, though -- we tend to define them exclusively by surface level mechanics as opposed to how they go about engaging us, as we do with most other fiction. I don't see this changing any time soon, though. This is why nearly every game these days is described with 2-4 genres when we talk about them to other people.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, but we just don't have this problem. Everyone seems to have a pretty good handle on what an RPG is and what to expect from one. No one is calling any of these games an RPG and at the same time, no one is really arguing that the things we do call RPGs actually aren't.

Well, except a certain youtuber that thinks he's being smart.

So maybe one day we will not understand what an RPG is, but today is not that day. Its a pretty well-defined genre in the industry. So, we are fabricating contraversy where there is none. Its not making things clearer at all. Its actually doing the opposite.

The more we try to tightly define things that are inherently loose categories, the more time we spend arguing about definitions rather than about the underlying things themselves. Discussions devolve into semantics pretty darn fast, and those arguments are pretty useless.

This is also true for rules--a more comprehensively-defined ruleset can provoke more disagreement because there's more moving parts, compared to a broader but more robust system. The tighter the rules, the more fragile (often, but not always).


No, we don't. But we don't precisely because we're willing to draw (perhaps seemingly arbitrary) lines around what an RPG is/isn't and it's more defined than the generic hand-wavey "any game where you play a role". At the same time, it makes "D&D must be an RPG because you play a role in it" into a rather unsatisfying answer.

I'd say it's because we don't try to draw hard, binary distinctions. That is, we let RPG be a fuzzy category, a (limited) spectrum. Things can be more RPG-like or less RPG-like. I think we can all agree that Candy Land is very low on the "RP" spectrum, while D&D is higher.

My personal working criteria for Role Playing (Game) are:

* There must be identifiable characters with pre-established (prior to the present moment) traits and characteristics.
* Players must each control a non-overlapping group of these characters (in general, although if Bob's player is absent someone else can play Bob, but each character only has one controller in the main).
* The players make decisions for the characters that are influenced by the character's traits/characteristics
* The course of play is for the purpose of having fun (to separate this from, say, therapeutic role-play).

[Jophiel]

A basic, basic definition of RPG would be this:
RPGs tend to be games where you play a role that incorporates mechanically relevant numeric representations of aspects of the character you're playing that can be influenced and changed over time through play.
I suppose I would come up with a handful of what I consider RPG traits (numeric aspects, player agency & freedom, some opposing force vs the player just saying "this happens" and it does uncontested, etc) and figure them more or less as a spectrum. The more you have from the list, more classic RPG-y the game is but not having all of them certainly doesn't disqualify a game.


This is an artifact of how poorly we define game genres as a whole, though -- we tend to define them exclusively by surface level mechanics as opposed to how they go about engaging us, as we do with most other fiction.
That's true

I'd say it's because we don't try to draw hard, binary distinctions. That is, we let RPG be a fuzzy category, a (limited) spectrum.
Sure. I didn't say "draw lines" to mean it's a binary choice. That's why I previously used the word "hazy" and then used "seemingly arbitrary" -- the lines can move or have grey areas. However we do create some sort of boundaries, even if they are foggy, to give the term meaning. Anyway, we seem to feel much the same about it.

[BurgerBeast]

Conversely, once Super Mario, Civilization, Call of Duty, Monopoly, Candy Land and Chess are all roleplaying games, the term ceases to have any useful meaning. "I'm looking for a new RPG, any suggestions?" can be legitimately answered with "Have you tried Tic-Tac-Toe? Last game I really got into imaging myself as a commander, placing my armies to block the enemy advance and it was awesome". Putting limits on the term is what makes it useful, even if those limits can be hazy.

I absolutely agree. But it’s worth considering this in contrast against what I said... because it lets us delineate what’s actually going on.

When someone is “looking for an RPG” we understand that what is integral to the RPG is the part that interests him. He’s probably not looking for a first person shooter with RPG elements.

One difference that may shed some light on the difference between D&D combat and other war game combat is the one-to-one correspondence. In a typical D&D combat, one player role-plays one character.

In a war game, such as the D&D miniatures, the player controls multiple pieces, but the idea is not to enter their minds... because often the strategically best maneuver is decidedly contrary to the pieces self-interest (if it had any). (This is why I reject the notion that chess fits the definition of an RPG. You’d see a lot less sacrifices.)

The war games are also not necessarily role-playing a commander either... at least not if you can directly control the pieces. If you simply issue orders and then those pieces “act” on their own (either by codified rules or the judgment of a GM), then that’s more akin to role-playing a commander.

* so a video game such as Football Manager is more akin to role-playing a football manager than is playing a season of FIFA, where you intermittently directly control the players in the game. More recently, these games have introduced “be a player”/“career” modes, where you do adopt the role of a single player throughout his career.

I mean, you could take a game like the D&D miniatures game (which is not a role-playing game), and assign a player to each piece, and then ask those players to make decisions as if they were the creature the piece represents, and suddenly it’s a role-played combat. Even without any other rule changes.

[ciarannihill]

I suppose I would come up with a handful of what I consider RPG traits (numeric aspects, player agency & freedom, some opposing force vs the player just saying "this happens" and it does uncontested, etc) and figure them more or less as a spectrum. The more you have from the list, more classic RPG-y the game is but not having all of them certainly doesn't disqualify a game.

I used "tend to be" to try to allow that caveat, but you could also describe them as having any of a number of commonly associated traits, but not necessarily including all of them. For example: Numeric statistics representing aspects of one's character(s)
Player choice and agency as a core mechanic
The ability to improve one's character(s) over time
Etc

And you can even expand the list to include things like Inventory and Items, etc.

I mean here's a perfect example of our screwy genre definitions from the realm of video games -- Is Dark Souls a JRPG? Like it's clearly an RPG by most reasonable definitions, and it was developed in Japan, but it doesn't "feel" like a JRPG like, say, Persona 5 does. Likewise in reverse is Undertale, surface level we might call it a JRPG (sprite art, turn-based combat, tile-set environments, etc), except that it wasn't made in Japan.
It begs the question, is JRPG a genre unto itself or just RPGs from Japan?

I'm not looking for an answer to this question, because it's super noodle-y. It's just a prime example of how game genres are defined in a silly way, but we're kind of stuck with them for the time being...

[Pelle]

That isn't what happened.

I don't fully understand it then. But it sounded like the DM decided (randomly) that the characters agreed on something, which gave limits for what the players could decide. Which was ok for them anyways, great. You don't need rules for that though, they could have just decided the same result. Could the players have said no to the suggested resolution?


Now I tend to slightly disagree with many of MaxWilson's posts, but you are making a dramatic oversimplification of his post and removing the most important aspect of it: That his players asked and consented to his adjudication of the scenario. He didn't forcefully wrest agency from his players at all, he took on the agency they granted him to expedite the scene that was dragging for everyone involved and bearing witness. He performed a time-skip, essentially, which is a very common DM tool.

I've said many times the following "Unless any of you have something specific you'd like to do before X, we'll jump straight to that point". Sometimes my players will stop me because they have things they want to do, other times they'll decide to "kill time at the tavern" until that point in time. This doesn't restrict their ability to role play, this makes them not have to waste time living out the mundane moments of the adventure without wanting or needing to.

I was just concered about a small part of it. The agency and time skip and so on is ok. I just don't see why you need to how have rules for that. Everyone can just make the same decisions without being force to it by the rules.

And having those rules is fine for me, I like the roleplaying rules in dnd that incentivize certain decisions etc. I just think they actually limit the decisions you are allowed to make. Though that doesn't matter to me, because it means I am more likely to get to see how my friend will portray how his paladin takes his oath in-game. I guess you could also argue how having strict time skip rules can lead to more decisions total, but nothing stops you from doing the skips without rules.

[Willie the Duck]

No, we don't. But we don't precisely because we're willing to draw (perhaps seemingly arbitrary) lines around what an RPG is/isn't and it's more defined than the generic hand-wavey "any game where you play a role". At the same time, it makes "D&D must be an RPG because you play a role in it" into a rather unsatisfying answer.


Sure. I didn't say "draw lines" to mean it's a binary choice. That's why I previously used the word "hazy" and then used "seemingly arbitrary" -- the lines can move or have grey areas. However we do create some sort of boundaries, even if they are foggy, to give the term meaning. Anyway, we seem to feel much the same about it.

Both of these point towards RPGs being something or a social consensus distinction (i.e. the boundaries are hazy and somewhat arbitrary). I think that maybe that is fine, provided we view RPGs as something of a style of thing, rather than a type of thing. We rarely have a problem with the definitions of 'Jazz' of 'Punk Rock' being pretty hazy and arbitrary (and run into the same problem where trying to draw a definitive line around either leaving out things that clearly belong and including things that probably shouldn't be). RPGs (both TT and C-types) are games, with general tendencies but unclear boundaries. Whether that is a satisfying answer is in the eye of the beholder.
*yes, yes. Get in the beholder jokes. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

I don't fully understand it then. But it sounded like the DM decided (randomly) that the characters agreed on something, which gave limits for what the players could decide. Which was ok for them anyways, great. You don't need rules for that though, they could have just decided the same result. Could the players have said no to the suggested resolution?

Yes, they could.

If you were a player at my table you'd already know that you can pretty much respond to a situation any way you want and the DM will do his best to fairly adjudicate the results. If you want to decline the king's request to save a princess and instead murder the king and assume his identity with Alter Self, well, the DM may blink and have to think for a bit and maybe roll some dice, but then he'll tell you what happens next, and maybe you'll wind up ruling a kingdom for a while. There are no railroad tracks.

Even at a metagame level (rules decisions and stuff) I often leave it up to table consensus how things out to work ("How do you guys want Animate Dead to work in this campaign? Can you re-raise killed skeletons?") and I reserve DM-fiat rule decisions for things that I feel strongly enough about to leave the game over, e.g. I will not run a game using PHB cyclic initiative so if you want that kind of a game you need a different DM, no negotiation.

So, the players were well aware that they can flip the script, and they took advantage of that fact at least twice that I can think of during that session.

And if the DM says, "Okay, then I guess you guys go to sleep. During the middle of the night--" and you say, "Hey, wait a second, I wanted to explore those ruins first," the DM will say, "Okay, then I guess you don't go to bed. Who's going with you?"

I think I got verbal assent from both players before closing the scene with them arguing over which road to take, but I know that they were both 100% okay with how things turned out.

What I was trying to point out is that whereas in a normal game, with two players differing about which route to take, there would have been only these three options:

(1) Let the players argue until everyone is bored and tired.
(2) Suggest that the players split the party and everyone just go where they want to go.
(3) End the scene as unproductive and adjudicate some kind of resolution, e.g. "Let's just move on. Roll a die, guys, and use that to choose who wins," potentially leaving one player unsatisfied.

What drama tokens did was focus players' awareness on the emotional stakes involved and the fact that whichever player didn't get their way would be taking an actual, dramatic loss to the other player (not really a procedural loss IMO because it didn't seem like they were attached to routes per se so much as not wanting someone else to do their choosing for them), and give them some form of guarantee that the end result would be "fair". I mean, it's possible they might have been happy with option #3 and the DM just stepping in, but it was my perception that they were more content than I expected with option #4, which was:

(4) #3 but the guy offering an emotional concession to the other player gets a drama token in exchange for conceding.

I found it interesting that it seemed to defuse the emotional conflict at the metagame level. Maybe I'm reading too much into that one incident but intraparty emotional conflict resolution is definitely an aspect that I plan to pay close attention to next time I run a game with drama tokens.

[Knaight]

A basic, basic definition of RPG would be this:
RPGs tend to be games where you play a role that incorporates mechanically relevant numeric representations of aspects of the character you're playing that can be influenced and changed over time through play as a core mechanic of the experience. These numeric representations can be for character attributes/stats, personality traits, etc. Which is why any game with a progression or leveling system, even if we wouldn't classify them as an RPG is said to have incorporated "RPG Elements".

It's not definitive, but I think it examines one of the core component we ascribe to RPGs -- numerically determined attributes and the progression of those attributes.

This definition excludes Microscope, Fiasco, and a number of other games - starting with anything that uses qualitative representations instead of numerical ones, which is rare but not hugely so. It's a terrible definition.

[MaxWilson]

This definition excludes Microscope, Fiasco, and a number of other games - starting with anything that uses qualitative representations instead of numerical ones, which is rare but not hugely so. It's a terrible definition.

Also DramaSystem, which focuses largely on relationships between characters and unfulfilled emotional needs.

[Nifft]

Also DramaSystem, which focuses largely on relationships between characters and unfulfilled emotional needs.

Baldur's Gate 2 is a game about the player's unfulfilled need for an elf girlfriend.

[R.Shackleford]

Combat game that encourages you to roleplay if you want, but barely gives you bare bone explanation on how or why you would want to roleplay.

I mean, in the PHB, Social Interactions are on page 185 and resting is on page 186... Chapter 9 is all about combat and it goes from page 189 to 198. So that says a lot. Even if all of chapter 8 was purely roleplaying (resting is more about getting combat options back so... No... But let's pretend), you're looking at 181 - 186... 9 pages to 14 pages.

bane Voice: D&D was born from combat, molded by it, it didn't see roleplaying until it was matured.

But in all seriousness, if it was a videogame, D&D would be a hack n slash. Yeah, some story elements are there and you can talk to the shop keeps and all that, but it primarily gives you options to fight in some way or another. Even sneaking is not stressed nearly enough, try playing with Metal Gear Solid type rules and D&D breaks down really fast.

This isn't a bad thing, Shadow Over Mystara and Tower of Doom were amazing arcade games... I would suggest anyone go grab them on steam https://store.steampowered.com/app/229480/Dungeons__Dragons_Chronicles_of_Mystara/ for a fun time!

[ciarannihill]

This definition excludes Microscope, Fiasco, and a number of other games - starting with anything that uses qualitative representations instead of numerical ones, which is rare but not hugely so. It's a terrible definition.

In the bit you quoted I mention twice that this is a description of a commonly used identifier of RPGs, used as a very basic way of defining a tendency of RPGs. I never claim it as definitive or all inclusive, but I could easily argue that there are far, far more RPGs that would fall within that definition than outside of it. Shallow would be a fairer description of the definition than "terrible", but all genres are defined in a shallow manner, they're far too fuzzy to describe in a deep manner without a billion exceptions because unless you define a genre by a single game you will always have exceptions to your definition. Also even though Fiasco doesn't give the character "stats" the way DnD does I'd argue that die results for success and failure fall within the parameters of the definition, they're a numeric representation of an aspect of the role you're playing, even if it's determined by another player.

Tangent: If you can replace a qualitative representation with a "rating" number then mechanically it's the same thing, if "excels at climbing" can be replaced with "5 in climbing" then they are mechanically identical, just presented differently and many of the games (not all or most, even if I couldn't think of counter-examples I have not played all games so I wouldn't make such a broad statement) that use descriptive representations could substitute them for numeric ones without altering the mechanics of play.

[Willie the Duck]

This definition excludes Microscope, Fiasco, and a number of other games - starting with anything that uses qualitative representations instead of numerical ones, which is rare but not hugely so. It's a terrible definition.

If that's the only issue with the definition, how about replacing "mechanically relevant numeric representations" with "mechanically relevant concrete representations" or the like? Numeric seems to have been a slip into D&D-like thinking (although armor class, one of the defining mechanics of D&D, started out as more of a categorical trait than a numeric one), rather than an intended constraint.


Tangent: If you can replace a qualitative representation with a "rating" number then mechanically it's the same thing, if "excels at climbing" can be replaced with "5 in climbing" then they are mechanically identical, just presented differently and many of the games (not all or most, even if I couldn't think of counter-examples I have not played all games so I wouldn't make such a broad statement) that use descriptive representations could substitute them for numeric ones without altering the mechanics of play.

Agreed, but then the term numeric doesn't need to be in the definition, right?

[Knaight]

Tangent: If you can replace a qualitative representation with a "rating" number then mechanically it's the same thing, if "excels at climbing" can be replaced with "5 in climbing" then they are mechanically identical, just presented differently and many of the games (not all or most, even if I couldn't think of counter-examples I have not played all games so I wouldn't make such a broad statement) that use descriptive representations could substitute them for numeric ones without altering the mechanics of play.

I'm well aware of this. On the other hand, take something like Fate - while the trait ladder can be rendered numerically the Aspects can't be. They're a qualitative mechanic that can be interacted with in various ways, and all the numbers come from the interactions, not the aspect.

Now consider that Fate is basically at the shallowest end of the narrative system pool.

[KorvinStarmast]

bane Voice: D&D was born from combat, molded by it, it didn't see roleplaying until it was matured. That is an untrue statement. The role playing was there from the beginning. Oddly enough, we had active enough imaginations that we didn't need a lot of rules to tell us how to do it. We just did it. Why you need rules to tell you how to role play is a curious thing, but I guess that's what the Forgeites tried to convince people of: they had to sell games, I guess. "Ohm, yeah, you have a mechanical thing to make it a game." no, you don't. You have to have an imagination. And before there was the internet, there were books. A large portion of the early adapters to D&D and Traveler and Runequest were people who read a lot, and in particular adventure books, pulps, Sci Fi, Speculative Fiction, mythology, legends, comic books, etc. Likewise, people who had been to and liked adventure movies (see Thief of Baghdad, Jason and the Argonauts, Ten Commandmeents a la Cecile B Demille, etc)

Once again, having played this RPG near the beginning of its time, some of the game was dungeon crawl -- hell yes it was -- and a lot of it wasn't. Charisma wasn't a casting stat. (Thta's one of the things WoTC Got wrong IMO, but that's water under the bridge at this point) It had a lot to do if the people you hired, or talked into helping you, (1) stuck around, (2) stuck you in the back at a critical moment, or (3) did something in between. ("We ain't going in there unless we get a pay raise!")

Monsters were EVERYTHING you encountered: a dragon, a troll, a wizard, three Myrmadons, a couple of sharpers, five ghasts, or a caravan of pilgrims. All NPCs were "monsters" in that respect. We parleyed with a hell of a lot of monsters; sometimes it turned into a battle, some times it did not.

As Mike Mornard once concisely observed: you get better at role playing if you do it. Negotiating, out witting NPC's, etcetera. Same with tactical thinking. The dice rolling is just a way to decide something a random way to avoid arguments.

[ciarannihill]

If that's the only issue with the definition, how about replacing "mechanically relevant numeric representations" with "mechanically relevant concrete representations" or the like? Numeric seems to have been a slip into D&D-like thinking (although armor class, one of the defining mechanics of D&D, started out as more of a categorical trait than a numeric one), rather than an intended constraint.



Agreed, but then the term numeric doesn't need to be in the definition, right?

Totally fair points.

Like I said, though, I don't feel that my description was truly definitive, it was a way to articulate what one might reflexively think of when one says "RPG". RPGs that boast unique systems are going to always be on the edge of a description no matter how precise you're able to get it, so I'd rather allow for flexibility in the description that try to have it accurately represent every possible entry in detail, because I don't think it's possible.
This is why in my next post where I attempted to offer a way to revise it slightly I offered the thought of defining by having a list of common mechanical aspects of what we think of as RPGs and define the genre as a game that includes some, but not necessarily all or many, of those aspects. As with before I think you'd run into the problem of "exceptions to the rules", but I don't think that's something you can escape...


NOTE: It's been a long day, not sure if the above post is very coherent, frankly. Apologies if not.

[R.Shackleford]

That is an untrue statement. The role playing was there from the beginning. Oddly enough, we had active enough imaginations that we didn't need a lot of rules to tell us how to do it. We just did it. Why you need rules to tell you how to role play is a curious thing, but I guess that's what the Forgeites tried to convince people of: they had to sell games, I guess. "Ohm, yeah, you have a mechanical thing to make it a game." no, you don't. You have to have an imagination. And before there was the internet, there were books. A large portion of the early adapters to D&D and Traveler and Runequest were people who read a lot, and in particular adventure books, pulps, Sci Fi, Speculative Fiction, mythology, legends, comic books, etc. Likewise, people who had been to and liked adventure movies (see Thief of Baghdad, Jason and the Argonauts, Ten Commandmeents a la Cecile B Demille, etc)

Once again, having played this RPG near the beginning of its time, some of the game was dungeon crawl -- hell yes it was -- and a lot of it wasn't. Charisma wasn't a casting stat. (Thta's one of the things WoTC Got wrong IMO, but that's water under the bridge at this point) It had a lot to do if the people you hired, or talked into helping you, (1) stuck around, (2) stuck you in the back at a critical moment, or (3) did something in between. ("We ain't going in there unless we get a pay raise!")

Monsters were EVERYTHING you encountered: a dragon, a troll, a wizard, three Myrmadons, a couple of sharpers, five ghasts, or a caravan of pilgrims. All NPCs were "monsters" in that respect. We parleyed with a hell of a lot of monsters; sometimes it turned into a battle, some times it did not.

As Mike Mornard once concisely observed: you get better at role playing if you do it. Negotiating, out witting NPC's, etcetera. Same with tactical thinking. The dice rolling is just a way to decide something a random way to avoid arguments.

The game that D&D came from was a mass combat game and you didn't control specific characters, but a platoon of soldiers in a huge battle.

Been a long time, but I'm sure you can eventually find it via google.

The roleplaying came after the combat.

[Tanarii]

RPGs are like Porn. We may not be able to define them, but we know one when we see it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The game that D&D came from was a mass combat game and you didn't control specific characters, but a platoon of soldiers in a huge battle.

Been a long time, but I'm sure you can eventually find it via google.

The roleplaying came after the combat.

But since there's been a D&D as a separate thing (as opposed to Chainmail), there's been roleplaying. And the reason that D&D split off was exactly the inclusion of roleplaying. Not in the acting sense, but in the "making decisions based on an individual character's personality" sense.

So roleplaying has been a part of D&D since T = 0, as its inclusion predates and caused (in no small part) the separation between D&D and Chainmail.

And note--I know people who roleplay their Warhammer games. There's a story, people make "non-optimal" decisions based on personality traits (the Orks charge into overwhelming numbers despite that being stupid because that's what Orks DO). So even mass combat games can have roleplaying elements. Where's the line? There isn't one.

[Willie the Duck]

The game that D&D came from was a mass combat game and you didn't control specific characters, but a platoon of soldiers in a huge battle.

Been a long time, but I'm sure you can eventually find it via google.

The roleplaying came after the combat.

You mean Chainmail? Yes, I'm pretty sure we all are well aware of the existence of Chainmail. If you'd like a refresher on the early formation of the game, I would suggest Jon Peterson's blog (http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/), or book Playing at the World (https://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047)

Regardless, it is unclear how it supports your resistance to KS's point. If D&D was all about combat, it would have stayed as Chainmail. You are correct that D&D used a combat engine from the beginning. It also started out amongst people you could consider wargamers... but: they were also players of Diplomacy (decidedly more game than RPG, but hardly combat-centric), and of Braunsteins, and [the West Coast Fantasy APAs (https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/203189/dd-issues-konkins-zines). D&D was a wargame-roleplay fusion right from the jump.

[Tanarii]

As Mike Mornard once concisely observed: you get better at role playing if you do it. Negotiating, out witting NPC's, etcetera. Same with tactical thinking. The dice rolling is just a way to decide something a random way to avoid arguments.
Much as I like readin Mike's recollections of gygaxian campaigning, hes unfortunaltely one of those roleplaying elitists who thinks that roleplaying is enhanced by a lack of dice.

[Darth Ultron]

Does there need to be a framework to decide how good my character's idea is? Why do there need to be rules to dictate the decisions a person makes inside their head at all? This sounds like if you can't roll for every part of roleplay then you don't have an RPG.

Some people would love a roll playing game like this. Like you would need to make a 'talk check' to speak to someone and 'hit' their 'hearing class'. So if they have a HC of 12, and you roll 8..your character can't talk to that npc at all.

Or if you want your character to come up with a clever idea, you need to make a idea skill check. And even when you make the check, you will never role play it out. You will just get a mechanical advantage and say ''my character has a clever idea and not know what the idea even was.


The crazy thing is D&D 5e has tons of roleplaying rules.


But you're just counting any rule that is 'non-combat' as Role Playing.


A basic, basic definition of RPG would be this:


Even more basic: it's a game where you will play out a role. You will make/have a character that is not you in the ''game world" and control that characters actions.

In just about every other type of game, you only play the game ''as yourself".


I suppose I would come up with a handful of what I consider RPG traits

Another thing RPGs have is a game world: an ''alternate reality'' where the game takes place. Again, most other games don't have this. When you play basketball you don't say your ''playing the game in a fictional place".



bane Voice: D&D was born from combat, molded by it, it didn't see roleplaying until it was matured.



Not true. People have been role playing in D&D from day one. The big change was before 2000 everyone just did pure role play actions. After 2000, players demanded everything be roll play actions.

Before 2000 a player would role play a character walking around town, talking and interacting with NPCS and trying to learn local rumors.

After 2000 a player would just drop a die on the table and be like "22" and the DM would just tell the player all the local rumors the character heard.

[Kadesh]

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting

According to Google, the most easily accessed and recognised source of General Information in the entire world.

DND is quite literally a Role Playing Game, be ause it takes place in a fictional setting, and you are assuming the role of a character you are playing.

Ta-dah.

[Pelle]

(3) End the scene as unproductive and adjudicate some kind of resolution, e.g. "Let's just move on. Roll a die, guys, and use that to choose who wins," potentially leaving one player unsatisfied.

What drama tokens did was focus players' awareness on the emotional stakes involved and the fact that whichever player didn't get their way would be taking an actual, dramatic loss to the other player (not really a procedural loss IMO because it didn't seem like they were attached to routes per se so much as not wanting someone else to do their choosing for them), and give them some form of guarantee that the end result would be "fair". I mean, it's possible they might have been happy with option #3 and the DM just stepping in, but it was my perception that they were more content than I expected with option #4, which was:

(4) #3 but the guy offering an emotional concession to the other player gets a drama token in exchange for conceding.


I'm content with just using 3, and 4 sounds like a nice way to get player acceptance and smooth it out at the table. It still is limiting the decisions they can make in the moment, but I'm not saying it's a bad thing for the game.

[Nifft]

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting


According to Google, the most easily accessed and recognised source of General Information in the entire world.

DND is quite literally a Role Playing Game, be ause it takes place in a fictional setting, and you are assuming the role of a character you are playing.

Ta-dah.

Nice, that even works for cRPGs.

[mephnick]

Not only is it a role-playing game, based on the holy 3 questions of game design it is a well designed roleplaying game. People just use it for the wrong thing.

What is your game about?

PHB cover:
Explore ancient ruins and deadly dungeons. Battle monsters while searching for legendary treasures. Gain experience and power as you trek across uncharted lands with your companions.

*Note, there is nothing in here about navigating courtly intrigue or running a crafting business.

How is your game about those things?

Lots of rules for fighting monsters. Rules for adventuring sites (dungeons) and treasure. Resting rules for adventuring day. Travel rules for uncharted lands. Classes all good at killing monsters.

How does your game reward the players for the things your game is about?

Experience for killing monsters. Treasure for killing monsters and surviving adventure sites.


You'd be surprised how many gaming systems fail these simple questions.

[Tanarii]

But you're just counting any rule that is 'non-combat' as Role Playing.No, I'm not.

I'm counting rules that directly tell you how your character makes decisions (aka roleplaying). Although not always why.

Edit: In some cases, they're things that are somewhat open to reasonable interpretation (Tenets), where you pick from among several options and are broadly worded (Alignment), or even can pick exact wording yourself if you so choose (Personality). In other cases, they are quite specific and exact (Druid armor restriction, Necromancy creating undead frequently only done by Evil casters)

[chainer1216]

This is the dumbest question ive ever seen and that you ask it speaks volumes on your character.

I thank whatever gods or beings that will hear me every day i dont game with elitists like you.

[Kane0]

On an unrelated note, what do people think of Cody and Guy on their respective youtube channels?

[Mordaedil]

D&D has always been fairly light on rules outside of resolving conflict, but I think that's kind of to its service, as it also means it lacks constraints. Generally the rules are only consulted whenever an outcome is not guaranteed and this has always been true since AD&D and still is very much true for 5e. Though I think certain guidelines would help it a lot more, the rules as dice goes are consulted mostly in D&D when you need to see if the players succeed at a task.

You can certainly go entire sessions without rolling dice, but that means there was no need to see if the outcome would fall one way or the other, the players made sensible arguments that wasn't in doubt to whom it was presented to, or they were doing things that just had no need to see which side of the fence it fell upon.

The rules of D&D do not consult roleplaying as much as conflict resolution because it trusts the former to be resolved by the players while the latter is what it wants to help give an answer for.

And the more satisfying that answer is, the more rewarding it feels to play it out.

[Tanarii]

D&D has always been fairly light on rules outside of resolving conflict, but I think that's kind of to its service, as it also means it lacks constraints. Generally the rules are only consulted whenever an outcome is not guaranteed and this has always been true since AD&D and still is very much true for 5e. Though I think certain guidelines would help it a lot more, the rules as dice goes are consulted mostly in D&D when you need to see if the players succeed at a task.AD&D was in no way rules-light. And it had tables for many things outside of determining resolution of actions/tasks taken by the individual PC. The DMG was loaded with them, and so were many of the expansion books. AD&D was all about randomly determining the state of the world. So the DM could be a neutral and fair arbiter/referee.

Maybe you're thinking of various versions of classic D&D?

[Willie the Duck]

AD&D was in no way rules-light. And it had tables for many things outside of determining resolution of actions/tasks taken by the individual PC. The DMG was loaded with them, and so were many of the expansion books. AD&D was all about randomly determining the state of the world. So the DM could be a neutral and fair arbiter/referee.

Maybe you're thinking of various versions of classic D&D?

Basic/Classic D&D also had lots of action/task resolution. Heck, oD&D had rules for whether oars might get sheared off when two boats ram each other (perhaps an example of EGG thinking some things would come up more often than ended up happening).

What early D&D did not have was a skill system or any kind of universal non-combat resolution mechanics (I believe B/X with the roll vs. attribute rules was some of the earliest outside-of-Dragon examples of that). Likewise, the reaction tables and morale rules were the dominant forms of social interaction rules. I think you are right that the lack of a skills section is often seen as a lack of non-combat resolution mechanics, and the material in each games' DMGs is often glossed over. What that really means is merely that it is expected that the PCs in the game are massive polyglots and people are generally omni-competent (at the tasks of adventuring). One of the biggest disservices I feel the nonweapon proficiency rules added to the game was implying that there were adventurers who didn't know how to swim or ride a horse, etc.


Mordaedil is correct, however, in one design conceit of TSR-era D&D-- the rules are only consulted when an outcome is not guaranteed (additional caveats: the DM would be hard pressed to neutrally and fairly arbitrate an outcome, and dice are used if and only iff the outcome is variable between situations).

[mephnick]

One of the biggest disservices I feel the nonweapon proficiency rules added to the game was implying that there were adventurers who didn't know how to swim or ride a horse, etc. .

This is why I don't understand DMs that don't use ability checks as written and only allow people proficient in skills to attempt things. Like...yeah, I do know things about magic dude, I'm an adventurer because I'm playing D&D and adventurers know things about magic. Let me roll Arcana, you knob.

[Tanarii]

Fair enough on the general point that B/X and BECMI was with the idea of randomly generating the world / events.


(I believe B/X with the roll vs. attribute rules was some of the earliest outside-of-Dragon examples of that).I have to admit to playing BECMI more than B/X. IIRC BECMI didn't have any "roll vs attribute" rules initially. They were later introduced by the Gazateers (and reprinted in the Rules Cyclopedia) as a Skills system. Regardless, that must have been around conceptually for a long time at that point. AD&D had NWP by the release of the Wilderness/Dungeoneer Survival Guides.


I think you are right that the lack of a skills section is often seen as a lack of non-combat resolution mechanics, and the material in each games' DMGs is often glossed over.Well technically as I say, AD&D and BECMI both had skills, but as kind of bolt-ons.

But my main point was AD&D in particular had a plethora of random determination via table. It was kind of it's thing. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is why I don't understand DMs that don't use ability checks as written and only allow people proficient in skills to attempt things. Like...yeah, I do know things about magic dude, I'm an adventurer because I'm playing D&D and adventurers know things about magic. Let me roll Arcana, you knob.

I agree. 5e is better about presuming competence. You're not playing (by default) some newb at level 20. You've been around, seen things. Even a new adventurer, simply by virtue of having survived, would know something. Or could figure it out from context, even if not as successfully/quickly as a trained person.

And the skills represent applied uses. Not theoretical, PhD level arcane theory, but adventuring-related, practical skills. Like "will that glyph blow up if I step on it." Or "is that ritual with swirling skulls and ominous latin-esque chanting bad?" Or "is that likely to be a warning spell or a kill-me-now spell?"

Same for medicine. It's not micro-biology, it's basic triage + first aid. Etc.

[Willie the Duck]

This is why I don't understand DMs that don't use ability checks as written and only allow people proficient in skills to attempt things.

Because they've been trained by every release since the mid-80s that PCs are customizable with skill packages that give them back what we assumed up until that time that they each all had). Yes, the theoretical DM in your example is ignoring the advice of the 5e PHB and DMG, but they are following a trend line that has been in existence longer than many of them have been alive.


Well technically as I say, AD&D and BECMI both had skills, but as kind of bolt-ons.

Well, yes, but you also pointed out that there are huge swaths of non-combat rules in those books. Travel distance based on terrain type. Weather tables. Random town generation. Encounter determination. A great deal of digital ink has gone into how the GP=XP paradigm incentivized certain character decisions, but the entire hexcrawl wilderness (and the reason many people missed that entire adventuring type) is that it is slyly (/poorly communicated, depending on perspective) hidden in each editions random wilderness generator page. There are rules, major, character career influencing rules, where player and DM obedience to the rules have major influence over gameplay -- that aside from informing potential encounters in no way can be considered resolution of combat rules-- all over these books.


But my main point was AD&D in particular had a plethora of random determination via table. It was kind of it's thing. :smallamused:

Exactly!

[mephnick]

Yes, the theoretical DM in your example is ignoring the advice of the 5e PHB and DMG, but they are following a trend line that has been in existence longer than many of them have been alive.


It was really just 3.5 that had trained only skills wasn't it? I guess when the thief was first introduced it kind of took their niche and said no one else could do it...

[Willie the Duck]

It was really just 3.5 that had trained only skills wasn't it? I guess when the thief was first introduced it kind of took their niche and said no one else could do it...

1e, 2e, and BECMI had mixed results on how well they explained whether skills replaced, or were in addition to, any omni-competence one had before said skill system was introduced (or in 2e's case, what exists if the optional skill systems are not used). Weapon proficiencies are perhaps the purest example: as before they were introduced, one was proficient in all weapons, but afterwards you could choose which weapons to be proficient in (and could get specialization or mastery, as a compensatory perk).

Thief abilities in the beginning were definitely a great example: people had assumed that anyone could sneak and climb (and I guess some people had suggested trying to pick locks with a dagger, and the like), but the rules were left up to the DM. Once thieves came along... did everyone else lose those abilities? Never was communicated in the oD&D era. Wasn't well communicated at all in any of the TSR-era.

[Harleytrypp]

Ok, I watched the video, and I agree with many of you that his basketball analogy sucked. The two questions I got out of it, in a nut shell, were 1) Can you play D&D without role playing? and 2) If you never roll the dice are you playing D&D?

Regarding #1) In my opinion, the fact that you are controlling a character in a setting, whether you are "I roll persuasion." or you are "Well, my lord, I feel it would be in your best interests to...." you are role playing. My opinion is not up for debate, I feel D&D is a roleplaying game. Period.

Regarding #2) I feel the answer is a bit more amorphous. If for example, a group gets together and creates character concepts, plays a story in a D&D setting with conflict and resolution and never use D&D mechanics to resolve those conflicts... No, they are not playing D&D. If, on the other hand, a group gets together and create D&D characters, start a campaign, play several sessions using the combat rules, and the social interaction rules, the travel rules and the exploration rules, then one session they are relaxing in town, and they shop, groom, and have idle conversation for the whole session. They never attempt anything that has a chance of failure, they don't haggle for a better price at the shop, and only go to locations in town they are already familiar with. They never roll a single die.... YES, they are STILL playing D&D.

Your mileage may vary. :D

[Darth Ultron]

I have to admit to playing BECMI more than B/X. IIRC BECMI didn't have any "roll vs attribute" rules initially. They were later introduced by the Gazateers (and reprinted in the Rules Cyclopedia) as a Skills system. Regardless, that must have been around conceptually for a long time at that point. AD&D had NWP by the release of the Wilderness/Dungeoneer Survival Guides.


The first ever ability check rules were published in no less then Dragon #1.


To determine an action’s success, perform these actions:

1. Roll d100, add the ability score, and then use this result to determine which die to roll in step 2. On a result of 1-20 roll a d4; on 21-40 roll d6; on 41-60 roll d8; 61-80: d10; 81-100: d12. To cope with results higher than 100, create a house rule for this house rule.

2.Roll the die determined in step 1 and multiply the number by the attribute. This result becomes the chance of success.

3.Roll a d100. If the result is less than or equal to the probability from step 2, you succeed!

The method requires three rolls, multiplication of double-digit numbers, and a table. But if that seems too simple, the article offers optional rules accounting for character level and class....



AD&D:Oriental Adventures had the first non weapon proficiencies, buy was quickly followed by the Survivor guides.

D&D:Had them from the 1980 printing on.

Though it was not until 3E that ability checks got to be right in the front of the book in big bold letters.



This is why I don't understand DMs that don't use ability checks as written and only allow people proficient in skills to attempt things. Like...yeah, I do know things about magic dude, I'm an adventurer because I'm playing D&D and adventurers know things about magic. Let me roll Arcana, you knob.

As a DM I don't like the other side of this were the player insists their character is a super expert at everything. The ''auto win" button is just boring.


Ok, I watched the video, and I agree with many of you that his basketball analogy sucked. The two questions I got out of it, in a nut shell, were 1) Can you play D&D without role playing? and 2) If you never roll the dice are you playing D&D?

Note, you can very much roll play D&D just like a classic board game. "My character moves forward one square and uses the attack option".


You could note, even the D&D rules say ''you don't need to roll the dice for everything".

[Louro]

It's D&D a roleplaying game?
Mmmm... Let me recall...

I started playing AD&D, my first character was a paladin. Very straightforward guy, and very serious about it. He even managed to keep the party on the good path. Most of the time. Some of them at least. This guy was flash, flash in full plate armor, treasure rolls blessed him with speed boots and rapid scimitar.
My 2nd character was a Dwarven Fighter wielding an axe-hammer he crafted himself. He barely talked. His way of communicating with people were either quiet grunts or insane shouting. He was forcing his way onto the surface way of life, pretty tough task.
3rd one was a trully devoted cleric. Although he was weak, his spirit was strong. He started low, licking many many asses, playing it cool, being helpfull to everyone. And his time came...


The storm finally arrived, as the cleric predicted.
-Heissen: I told you.
-Kara'am: Well, let's go, the united-tribes army is almost here.
-Ergom: Be polite and... etiquette and that.
-Melderini: Remember, the tribes offer to stop the raids if King Teuric leaves the deep forest untouched and withdraws his army.
-Ergom: Should be easy, this beneficts both of them, Teuric can't hold his army this far anymore.
-Kara'am: Eeeeasy gooold! 200gp for just a bit of talking.
-Ergom: Does anyone how to adress a King?
-Heissen: I know, and it's Prince Yaric the one who is here. I could do the talking.
-Everyone: Yeah, let Heissen do it.

You approach the castle, a standard one, with moat and raised gate. Guards on the wall.
-Heissen: In the name of Batarl Khan we bring a message for the Goldenbaum.
-Guard: What is it?
-Heissen: A message from the Khan itself to be personally delivered to the Goldenbaum commander of this castle.
-Karam: Offering? What? We aint giving nothing to this people
-Heissen: I can deliver the message from here.
-Prince: So... what does that savage think he has that might interest me?
-Heissen: "Enlightment" my lord
-Prince: What?
-Heissen: *casts call lighting upon the prince*
-Everyone: WHAAAAAT!!!
-Heissen: *casts cantrip to enhance voice* IT IS THE WAR!

-Khan: How did the negotiations go?
-Heissen: Bad. Prince Yaric insulted your masculinity and "our" god punished him.
-Khan: Really?
-Scout: I saw it sir, the bigger lighting I saw in my life, in the top of his head.
-Khan: HaHa! Good! They want war... SO BE IT!

-Party: Hey Heissen, what god do you follow?
-Heissen: Tempus, our Lord of Blades, the Foehamm
-Party: Why you didnt tell us!!!!
-Heissen: You never asked.

Also played a 3.5 monk, who was frustated because he felt really useless for the most part. That was easy to roleplay.
A paranoid cleric who was always preparing for the unexpected.
A wookie in Star Wars... dificult to roleplay when you don't pick any extra language.

DO NOT EVER FORGET RULE ZERO
Rules are just guidelines. Use whatever fits best at your table, from computer hack'nslash style to planning and plotting through NPCs interactions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rules are just guidelines. Use whatever fits best at your table, from computer hack'nslash style to planning and plotting through NPCs interactions.

This is something often forgotten about TTRPGs. The rules do not define the game. The rules serve the game, but the rules are not the game.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1030256624210915328



Your DM runs the D&D game you're playing.

The rules don't run the game. My rulings don't run the game. Your DM does.

And that game is a co-op game, all about creating a mutually fun experience for the people at the table.

Work to bring smiles to one another's faces. #DnD

[Tanarii]

This is something often forgotten about TTRPGs. The rules do not define the game. The rules serve the game, but the rules are not the game.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1030256624210915328
That's all very hippy and everything, but the reality is the rules do define the game experience.

You can choose not to use some and get a different game experience from that which the rules were designed to give players. The rules can be more loosely defined to give a broader variety of game experiences. But the rules still define the game.

[Louro]

But the rules still define the game.
The people, the people at the table are the ones defining the game, not the rules.

[mephnick]

The people, the people at the table are the ones defining the game, not the rules.

If you ignore the rules, you should play a different game that better fits your needs. The mechanics of a system are paramount to the types of stories the game is meant to create. D&D, like all well designed games, is a specific system aimed at a specific goal. Using a system that does not agree with your goals and then celebrating that you ignored the system is just dumb.

If you want dungeon crawling monster kill****ing, you play D&D because D&D's core mechanics and reward structures are all about kill****ing monsters. If you want space exploration, you don't play Pathfinder in space, you play Stars Without Number, or Traveler. If you want high stakes investigation, you don't use D&D and ignore 90% of the rulebook, you use Dogs in the Vineyard and embrace mechanics designed around tense social encounters that actually help you accompish your goals. System mechanics are everything.