RPG metric, simplified version

[Quertus]

@Erikun,

You are a comedic genius! So much laughter from your post, if people didn’t already know that I was insane, they’d be concerned that I had gone insane.

You’ve also very well demonstrated that my list was not actionable. And that it should have been. Truth be told, I was more / too focused on getting people to think about their own games, and in making the example sound as general as possible, to think it through, and actually make the list actionable.

Also, the party in question did some silly things (which would be obvious from the obstacles that they faced - often of their own making), and I feared that that specificity would detract and distract from understanding the general concept.

I see now the error of my ways. I should have taken the time, and chosen a better example. Clearly, I must have acknowledged an order to do just that.

[Cluedrew]

Neither of these is the system I use, so feel free to use either variant of the simple metric.

As that would be a straw-man, I don't think I will bother with either. Why aren't you just giving the actual system? If its long write it out, put it in a big spoiler. I probably will not understand it all the first time but we can go back and forth a few times.

For your third point... per the old "what is an RPG" / "what is roleplaying" threads, there is no common usage of the words.

You can't just say "there's no common usage" when there is. Not if you want to be taken seriously, at least.

Yeah, I'm going to second this argument. The fact that we don't have a good definition to reflect the common usage doesn't mean there isn't one.

Humans are association engines, noticing similarities and patterns. So, roughly speaking, a role-playing game is something that seems similar to existing role-playing games. So if there are a bunch of features that commonly show up in role-playing games and you see it in another game, then its probably an RPG. And if you caught my change in language there, that is in fact how we got the tabletop/pen-and-paper vs. computer split, because different people focused on different parts of the D&D like role-playing game. And both populations were large enough to establish both words (or meanings of the word depending on how you want to look at it). And as of yet you have not convinced enough establish a new word, but maybe you will if you keep at it.

Of course, from earlier in this discussion (not this thread, possibly not even in A Model of Immersion but before even that) we talked about a similar thing and you said you were trying to build a more scientific definition that was testable and that is how I have been viewing your new word/definition ever since. Still not sure why you want it to be a homonym of role-playing game and I could open that one back up to, but for now I will not.

[HumanFighter]

Have you actually read the books or played 4E?

Because, yes, you can do that. You can do that in 3rd as well. Or 5th. Or AD&D, or OD&D. In fact, I'd say that's much more OD&D and AD&D (from my limited knowledge of them) than any WotC-era D&D product.

If you don't like 4E, I have a different opinion of it, but you're certainly not wrong to dislike it. But to say it's not an RPG because it does tactical combats better than other editions of D&D seems pretty wrongheaded to me.

Yes I have played 4E and read all the books. I have been both DM and player. I really enjoyed the game, but my opinion still stands. I'm not saying you can't roleplay in 4E. You can roleplay in a game like Monopoly (also a classic boardgame) but the game does not require nor support it. Same goes for 4E. Yes u can roleplay in it, but does the system really support it? No. If anything, it gets in the way of it more often than not.

[InvisibleBison]

Yeah, I'm with Quertus on this one. 4e D&D is not really much of an RPG. It is more of an awkward table skirmish boardgame.
The premise of the game is this: 1. Make characters. 2. Go to dungeon. 3. Have a Look Around. 4. Fight monsters. 5. Collect Loot. 6. Repeat. Yeah, sounds like a boardgame to me.
Also, damn skill challenges

Yes I have played 4E and read all the books. I have been both DM and player. I really enjoyed the game, but my opinion still stands. I'm not saying you can't roleplay in 4E. You can roleplay in a game like Monopoly (also a classic boardgame) but the game does not require nor support it. Same goes for 4E. Yes u can roleplay in it, but does the system really support it? No. If anything, it gets in the way of it more often than not.

And how are other editions of D&D different? Whether something supports roleplay is probably a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't know of anything in other editions that require roleplay (though my knowledge of pre-WOTC D&D is minimal).

[JNAProductions]

And how are other editions of D&D different? Whether something supports roleplay is probably a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't know of anything in other editions that require roleplay (though my knowledge of pre-WOTC D&D is minimal).

Echoing this. 5th has the most support, to my knowledge, for roleplay. It has Inspiration, and… yeah, that’s about it for a roleplay supporting mechanic. It’s just that 3rd and 4th have basically nothing in that vein.

If you want a system that REALLY supports roleplay, something like Fate is probably better. And that’s probably not even the best example out there-just what I can think of offhand.

[Telok]

And how are other editions of D&D different? Whether something supports roleplay is probably a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't know of anything in other editions that require roleplay (though my knowledge of pre-WOTC D&D is minimal).

AD&D 1e: hiring henchmen, engaging sages, & negotiating with npc casters for spell swaps were pretty much rp-only. There were rules for availability or the initial contact, but (rules wise) after that was done you didn't get to roll dice to finish the transaction. Oddly you could go full mechanics on hiring assassins & determining if they completed the job.

[Kymme]

AD&D 1e: hiring henchmen, engaging sages, & negotiating with npc casters for spell swaps were pretty much rp-only. There were rules for availability or the initial contact, but (rules wise) after that was done you didn't get to roll dice to finish the transaction. Oddly you could go full mechanics on hiring assassins & determining if they completed the job.

Making the GM and players do all the work for roleplaying is most assuredly not supporting roleplaying. Systems like Masks, which models the emotional state and self-image of characters and gives specific rules for adjudicating interaction, support roleplaying to a much greater extent than even 5e.

[Telok]

Making the GM and players do all the work for roleplaying is most assuredly not supporting roleplaying. Systems like Masks, which models the emotional state and self-image of characters and gives specific rules for adjudicating interaction, support roleplaying to a much greater extent than even 5e.

Well the bit quoted did ask about requiring rp, not giving it mechanical weight. I mean, heck, by the above metric even Call of Cthulhu 1e has more support for rp than any WotC version of D&D simply by having a rule set that can differentiate between a phobia & a panic attack and then tell you which to use in a situation. More rp support than a WotC game is not exactly a high bar to pass. I suspect at least three of the top 10 absolute worst rpgs could pass that bar.

[erikun]

(Ok, I’ll admit, when you’re not using a published module / the CR system / some published expectations for the system, it’s really dang hard to describe this step in a way that isn’t subjective. So, switching to “module speak” for a moment,)

For each decision in the module (that the system says should be appropriate), count how many of those decisions must be taken in rules stance to avoid breaking the module / breaking the module’s expectations / to avoid a TPK.

Alright, that's fair.

I mean, it does bring up even more questions. It does make me wonder why independently published material should be the determining factor in a RPG, or why groups creating their own material should still be bound to it, or how somebody is going to qualify a RPG that doesn't produce campaign modules. I will agree that this does make examples rather difficult without going through an actual published module to make proper comparisons, though.

It also makes me wonder if your definition disqualifies Pathfinder; I haven't had many good experiences with their official module materials.

Clearly, I must have acknowledged an order to do just that.

Always happy to be of service.

[noob]

Ok, so you’re… nope, “I recognize that I am confused”.

My wording:

Roleplaying is making decisions for the character, in character.

This requires looking at things from the character’s PoV, using the fiction, not the rules.

Blah blah how the rules rate one’s performance when roleplaying is the simple metric for a games suitability to be played as an RPG.

Ok, yeah, I’m bad at communication.

So I recently made a big post that, were I to summarize and merge with a response to this comment, might look like this:

Look at how many decisions / decision points you make in a session.

(Optional: remove decisions with no real agency or expectation of actual action)

For each (remaining) decision, use the rules to evaluate the character perspective response.

Count how many times the rules give a “?”-“???” grade to that action / how many times a player choosing that action would be considered “noob” - “disruptive” / how many times the game was not designed to handle that response.

(Ok, I’ll admit, when you’re not using a published module / the CR system / some published expectations for the system, it’s really dang hard to describe this step in a way that isn’t subjective. So, switching to “module speak” for a moment,)

For each decision in the module (that the system says should be appropriate), count how many of those decisions must be taken in rules stance to avoid breaking the module / breaking the module’s expectations / to avoid a TPK.

You’re measuring the number of decision points that the game’s expectations clearly are based around being played in rules mode rather than in roleplaying stance. And that proportion is the game’s suitability to be played as an RPG.

Or, slightly more mathematically complex, you measure the percent efficacy of the RP actions vs the Determinator actions.

So, if, for 10 actions, 7 are valid to roleplay, that’s a 70% rating. Or, more math, if those 7 actions are, on average, only 80% effective, that’s a 56% rating.

Neither of these is the system I use, so feel free to use either variant of the simple metric.

That addresses your first point.

Your second point… you’re right, what I’ve communicated is a complete logic leap. But try it out with a few sessions from a few systems, and see what results you get.

For your third point… per the old “what is an RPG” / “what is roleplaying” threads, there is no common usage of the words. This metric is therefore predicated upon my definitions, which I’ll argue are superior to the Wikipedia (ie, some other random guy) definition of the term.

Your “bonus” point is quite interesting.

Did you read my post explaining that there was a fiction that matched the rules of dnd 4E perfectly and in which characters taking in account the rules for taking decisions would be in character?

There is fiction that matches the rules of dnd 4e: OOTS style dnd 4e stories where the rules of physics of the world are the rules of the game and where people knows most rules of the game.
Dnd 4e permits to roleplay in one of those fictions with basically 0 mismatch.
So dnd 4e is a roleplaying game according to the definition Quertus gave with even 0 mismatch between rule and fiction as long as you are playing in an OOTS 4e style setting.

There is no rule in real life that says that people in a fiction can not know the rules of the world they are in and take decisions in function of those(and no rules saying the rules of a fictional world must look like the rules of real life even sightly) hence why we are in this forum centred on a webcomic where it is exactly what the characters do.
With the fiction I described a dnd 4e character would have a score of 100% with the scoring system you gave.

IME, choose your own adventure books have the same problem as CRPGs, but less so: they cannot accept anything but pre-set scripts. If “it’s what my character would do” falls outside what’s coded, you have to break character and make a different choice. So arguably *every* decision has the potential to be impossible to make in character, giving them a 0% rating.

That system makes your score depend essentially only on the characters you pick thus making it extremely subjective.

In real life there is tons of decisions that have a 0% rating due to being impossible to do actions yet there is people who take those decisions every day.
Does it means real life is mismatched with the fiction of the characters in it?
Does it means that the very rule of real life might not allow someone very dumb to play their own role according to your rating definition?
Does it means nothing that favours decisions that makes sense is a role playing game with your definition if you are role playing someone insane?
Something being impossible should not penalise a rpg score by having a 0 rating: people try often impossible things and fails in any system even if it is real life itself.

Else I can prove that 99% of the rpgs have a score of approximatively 0 with your scoring system.
Here is general incompetentius: he learned uselessness extra hard and always have 1000000000000000 different decisions that does not makes sense and would not help for the situation.
Congrats now the score of the rpg is approximatively 0 unless it is "railroad 3000: no matter what you do you progress in the situation"

I have the feeling the issue you have is that you picked a fiction and characters that does not makes sense for dnd 4e but that you are willing to pick fictions and characters that makes sense for other games then say dnd 4e does not makes sense when put together with the characters and fictions you picked.

It is basically as if you decided "hey I am going to be a wizard in traveller and attempt to cast spells and try to tame dragons and mix ingredients in the hope to make magical potions" while traveller is about space adventures: of course you would feel disappointed when the wizard succeeds at none of that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Making the GM and players do all the work for roleplaying is most assuredly not supporting roleplaying. Systems like Masks, which models the emotional state and self-image of characters and gives specific rules for adjudicating interaction, support roleplaying to a much greater extent than even 5e.

This is far more a matter of personal preference, than of objective scale.

Personally, I don't want often-vague mechanics loaded with GM fiat telling me how to roleplay my character.

[Kymme]

This is far more a matter of personal preference, than of objective scale.

Personally, I don't want often-vague mechanics loaded with GM fiat telling me how to roleplay my character.

Yeah, I don't like the diplomacy system in D&D either. I very much prefer actual guidance and communication tools to keep people at the table on the same page. The games that actually do that are imo the best 'roleplaying' games.

[Willie the Duck]

Ok, yeah, I’m bad at communication.

I just want to state that I appreciate this statement.

And how are other editions of D&D different? Whether something supports roleplay is probably a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't know of anything in other editions that require roleplay (though my knowledge of pre-WOTC D&D is minimal).

There are bits and bobs throughout, with each one being relatively arguable on whether it actually supports roleplaying (whether each being good rules being a completely separate issue). The TSR era reaction tables are actually a pretty solid 'slightly influenced by PC action random roll-based method of determining encountered entities' reaction' mechanic. Various classes have restrictions (either with mechanical heft or just guidance on for example with whom a ranger would adventure). Rules for getting keeps and followers at name level nudge/incentivize playstyle in what a character is expected to be interested in doing at a certain level (and slightly implies that you wouldn't want to start doing so before then).

All of this is around the margins, and it would be very easy to see something like B/X as a pure 'dungeon, then wilderness exploration, combat, and treasure hunting' board game+ for 90-95% of the system just as easily as one could do with 4e.

Echoing this. 5th has the most support, to my knowledge, for roleplay. It has Inspiration, and… yeah, that’s about it for a roleplay supporting mechanic. It’s just that 3rd and 4th have basically nothing in that vein.

If you want a system that REALLY supports roleplay, something like Fate is probably better. And that’s probably not even the best example out there-just what I can think of offhand.

Hillfolk/Dramasystem might rival it. Invisible Suns kinda sorta -- it is a pretty gamey 'the rules help you open doors and leap chasms and defeat foes' system for most of the 'doing' of the game. However, then the characters you make for it have all sorts of backgrounds and allies and relationships and interrelationships with other party member (optional) and even rules for your starting house and such. And then the XP system is set up so that you set goals for the character (usually RP based) and gain differing XP for succeeding and for failing to meet the goals.

[Cluedrew]

Yeah, I don't like the diplomacy system in D&D either. [...] The games that actually do that are imo the best 'roleplaying' games.

Agreed, or at least the ones I prefer. I can't actually argue they are strictly better because there is a trade-off in flexibility. But I still wouldn't call it support.

Pretty much because I use the word support to compare with free-form role-playing*. So given a system's rules and advice, how does running a given activity, campaign or character compare in amount of work to free-form role-playing. If it is easier than the system supports it, roughly equal and the system allows it (which is not actually the opposite of forbid here) and if it is harder than the system hinders it. Now I would say that it is a ranking (supporting something is better than allowing it which is better than hindering it) but unless you are going element by element there are trade-offs, putting in rules for one thing can get in the way of something else.

This is especially true in terms of personality and decision making mechanics (role-playing mechanics if you will) where there are a lot of conflicting options and concerns. So you can either pick something in support (say Blades in the Dark's Vice system) or just leave it open ended and allow anything.

Finally, yes D&D diplomacy rules are so bad that people hold them up as an example when they say good social mechanics cannot exist.

* Hey Quertus, is free-form a role-playing game in your view? (Also, I forgot to say this last time, although I agree with your reason why choose your own adventures aren't role playing games, I would like to point out the thing about pre-set scripts is not part of your definition.)

[Quertus]

* Hey Quertus, is free-form a role-playing game in your view?

Um, I don't know, what does my sniff test / either simple metric say? (I'm told "freeform" has a definition somewhere, that I am unfamiliar with…)

(Also, I forgot to say this last time, although I agree with your reason why choose your own adventures aren't role playing games, I would like to point out the thing about pre-set scripts is not part of your definition.)

I mean, it *is* part of my definition, once you grok it.

In character, you decide to "shoot the hostage" or "steal the cow". How does the system handle that? "If you give up your gun to the farmer, turn to page 17. If you keep your gun trained on the farmer, turn to page 52. If you attempt to shoot the farmer, turn to page 9."

The system doesn't handle your in character action at all, and completely demands that you drop out of role-playing mode to play the game. That's exactly what the metric is measuring (albeit, it's usually more subtle than that (EDIT: like "ban" vs "soft ban" levels of skill difference required to notice)). That is to say, this is the über obvious version of exactly what my metric is measuring. If your heuristic to emulate my metric doesn't catch the hard stop of "play the game as a game or don't play" of a choose your own adventure book, you should definitely refactor your heuristic.

[Quertus]

I mean, it does bring up even more questions. It does make me wonder why independently published material should be the determining factor in a RPG,

Eh, how can I put this? Oh, I know: it's like when I pick on Halls of the High King, by Ed Greenwood. It's Ed's module, with Ed's NPCs, on Ed's world. It's not a misinterpretation, it's genuinely authoritative (heh).

So, I'm trying to say… I guess… that it's only fair to measure the game being played "as designed". With modules published by the authors of the system. Or with the CR system. Or some other baseline that came from the authoritative source.

If such is available.

If not… then… you can only do the best you can do, you know? But it's trying to give the game a fair shake at being measured for what it's supposed to be.

Does that make any sense?

EDIT: also, I was *wording* it as "module speak", not mandating that you *must* use published modules.

[erikun]

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you for replying.

I think I'm going to step out of the thread at this point, though. My main purpose was to get a better idea of how you were framing your metric, to better understand it. A lot of discussion can end up in the details without trying to look the whole thing over comprehensively. It was also to see if perhaps I could learn anything from it, or getting a better understanding of things from the discussion.

I'm not sure that I did - I pretty much disagree with nearly all points you've made - but it has raised one or two questions. Not necessarily relevant questions to the discussion, but it's appreciated to get them. I do give thanks for engaging me to this point, but by now I think that I would likely just end up repeating the points I've already made so I think I'll just drop out around now.

If something else interesting pops up in the discussion, though, I might pop back in.

[Witty Username]

I think this is as good a time as any to mention that I don't know anything about 4e (er, that is to say I played it once but I didn't really understand it).
I am here because of the RPG definition, not the 4e falling this way or that.

[False God]

I think this is as good a time as any to mention that I don't know anything about 4e (er, that is to say I played it once but I didn't really understand it).
I am here because of the RPG definition, not the 4e falling this way or that.

Then this would be an excellent opportunity to read up on it!

Considering this "RPG definition" relies heavily on ya know, 4E.

[Witty Username]

Then this would be an excellent opportunity to read up on it!

Considering this "RPG definition" relies heavily on ya know, 4E.

Not really, this RPG definition is supposed to define what is an isn't. Whether or not 4e is am RPG doesn't change whether this definition is practical, functional or descriptive.

The fact it as far as I can tell could disqualify all of D&D seems like a pertinent issue.

I mostly have concerns on the clause that seems to imply that the rules must be understood in-charater, since that gets awkward at the character creation step. And rules must conform to all the game relevant fiction has some issues.

[GeoffWatson]

Quertus's definition (RPG Players much always think in terms of fiction and never think in terms of rules) would mean that all of D&D, and the vast majority of what most people call RPGs are not RPGs.
There are a few freeform RPGs where the GM keeps the rules secret (or just makes them up as he goes along), which Quertus might like.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Quertus's definition (RPG Players much always think in terms of fiction and never think in terms of rules) would mean that all of D&D, and the vast majority of what most people call RPGs are not RPGs.
There are a few freeform RPGs where the GM keeps the rules secret (or just makes them up as he goes along), which Quertus might like.

Any game runs into this issue. When do sessions end or begin? That's not a fiction concern at all, yet it matters a lot and is a decision players have to make.

Players can't think entirely in the fiction. They're not there. And even freeform has rules, even just meta ones like "don't be a jerk to others." And those rules constrain actions.

By this definition, RPG doesn't exist. Which makes it a rather unuseful definition.

[Vahnavoi]

My contention is, the suitability of a system to be played as an RPG is measurable by how often is asks you to replace roleplaying decisions with non-roleplaying decisions.

To my mind, “please roleplay… but not when using words with an ‘e’ or ‘t’” is more grievous than “please roleplay… but not when using words that end in ‘z’ or ‘que’”.

So saying “please roleplay… but here’s a lot of rules that invalidate your ability to roleplay” is an issue. How much of an issue depends on how many decisions that invalidates.

And? I've repeatedly pointed out you can do the test, it's your benchmark that's off. Look at what other posters are telling you. Plenty of them are wondering "so if 4th edition D&D fails the test, by what standard does any edition of D&D pass?" That's a pretty good sign that either you're trying to fine-tune your benchmark due to motivated reasoning, or that your benchmark is set so high it doesn't describe how games are really played. Again: you could skip setting a benchmark and the related semantic argument entirely by just saying it's a measure for how good or bad a roleplaying game is.

When I took aikido, there were certain throws that were made more or less difficult based on relative body size. The “spherical cows” nature of the base abstraction, the difficulties working with standard human failings and imperfect actors did not make aikido not a martial art.

So, you agree with me that trying to remove "subjective failings" and "human imperfections" is pointless for a functional definition?

(For those who can't follow: widespread "Aikido isn't a real martial art" claims are analogous to Quertus' "4th edition D&D isn't a roleplaying game" claim.)

However, “fail-do” (the lesson as understood by the worst student, as they might pass it along if transported to another world without martial arts) is another matter. Regardless of how perfectly their students implemented the lesson of “fail-do”, it simply wouldn’t be functional.

The worst actual student for every real art is one incapable and unwilling of performing that art at all. Similarly the worst possible player for every real game is one incapable and unwilling of playing that game.

Which is why we don't care about these people when defining them. Don't equivocate meanings of "functional".

[Cluedrew]

Um, I don't know, what does my sniff test / either simple metric say? (I'm told "freeform" has a definition somewhere, that I am unfamiliar with...)

When I use your sniff test I get completely different results than you. From the choose-your-own-adventure topic it seems I still don't know how to apply it.

Which again gets down to my main issues, which I will further condense into two main points: 1) Is this a definition others can use. 2) Is this a definition others want to use.

We have been talking mostly about the first issue. The measure and threshold, trying to create an objective way to determine whether a given game is a role-playing game or not. I think you know what I am talking about. The second has mostly just been me, talking about language and possible insults and so on. But I realized that even if you did manage because I don't see the value in the definition. You can work on these two issues in either order, but I think you are going to have to do both.

[Vahnavoi]

As a comment on that tangent, choose-your-adventure books frequently are simple roleplaying games, which is why tabletop roleplaying games (D&D, Rolemaster, Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game, Lamentations of the Flame Princess etc.) have used them in tutorials for how to play more complex games. They demonstrate all basic building blocks of roleplaying games and how to string them together in a playable form. Complaining about how they can only handle pre-set decisions with pre-set outcomes is focusing on the wrong thing; a player is still making decisions when they play. This, and related asinine arguments around game completeness, would logically entail that a game ceases to be roleplaying game if a game master has prepared well enough in advance. That's nonsense. It's time you people just accepted that a complete game with limited number of choices can still be a roleplaying game. Thinking of what would be the minimum number of decisions to qualify would be more fruitful than most of this conversation so far.

Related, the idea that choose-your-adventure books have LESS problems than computer games when it comes to prescripted decision points, is completely counterfactual. Choose-your-adventure books are a technological PRECURSOR to text-based adventure games on a computer. It's technologically trivial to create computerized text-based adventure and roleplaying games that rival or exceed them. They've been reduced to a niche game genre (despite easy-to-use editors for creating such games being available for free, and having been available for well over two decades) because logic and physics-engine based games have more potential for emergent gameplay, and because power of modern computers allows for better visual presentation than just text. So it's time you stop lying to yourself of what has been and can be done on computer too.

[Telok]

As a comment on that tangent, choose-your-adventure books frequently are simple roleplaying games, which is why tabletop roleplaying games (D&D, Rolemaster, Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game, Lamentations of the Flame Princess etc.) have used them in tutorials for how to play more complex games.

As a kid I came to despise those books. People kept getting them for me, they were all written in terribly simplistic language, and I could never get even half way through them. Apparently they required decisions that I was incapable of making when trying to make choices as though I were the character. Never finished any of them.

I've also never seen that used as a rpg tutorial for anything. Intro adventures and tutorial adventures that I've seen have always been 1-on-1 or small group focused, never the choose-your-own format. I did end up with an early AD&D one player module at one point (lost in a move, I recall a lion shaped castle & a 1st level wizard as the only available character, but it was a node map with simple 1-mindless-monster encounters & traps or ability checks instead of the "choose a path" sort of thing. Died a lot too when trying it as I recall, but thats 4 hp and ac 10 for you.

[Vahnavoi]

Lamentations of the Flame Princess tutorial booklet, from 2010 Grindhouse boxed set, would be a good relatively recent example of how to use choose-your-adventure format to explain basics of a roleplaying game - complete with notes of where the full game would have more choices. The format is the same as it was in MERP / Rolemaster in the 80s and, I think, Mentzer's version of Basic D&D.

[Willie the Duck]

and, I think, Mentzer's version of Basic D&D.

Yes, that was the version with it. Moldvay-Cook instead had a sample adventure.

[Quertus]

Not really, this RPG definition is supposed to define what is an isn't. Whether or not 4e is am RPG doesn't change whether this definition is practical, functional or descriptive.

The fact it as far as I can tell could disqualify all of D&D seems like a pertinent issue.

I mostly have concerns on the clause that seems to imply that the rules must be understood in-charater, since that gets awkward at the character creation step. And rules must conform to all the game relevant fiction has some issues.

Agreed that 4e’s status does not change the functional or descriptive value of the metric or associated definitions. I’m very glad that you understand that simple truth.

My poor example of 40 badly worded decision points failed at its intended task, which included explaining this bit: it’s the choices you make during the game, during expected play in the system, that are being measured. Nothing else.

The character creation minigames occurs outside of standard play. As would an after-session write-up.

It’s also only measuring making the choices, not actually mechanically implementing the results of that choice. That is, it’s fine if you’re rolling dice and counting squares after you declare, “I drop a grenade in the middle of the mess hall”. It’s fine to play the game for the resolution of the action, not for the decision of what action to take.

It’s not “the rules must be understood in character”; that’s backwards, like database “buttons have shirts and shirts have owners”.

Instead, think of it as, the choices you make in character, in ignorance of the rules, should make sense.

Like, irl, you expect gravity to work, right? If you walked outside, raised up your arms, and started floating off the ground, you’d be shocked, right? That doesn’t match the fiction that lives in your head about how gravity works.

Well, if I tried to code “Reality 2.0”, and gravity just stopped working for things with their “arms” up (explaining why trees need roots), you’d think that a really bad implementation of reality.

But, because we’re clueless bumbling humans (so-called), and because we need metrics to measure things, we’re hitting it backwards to get a metric. Yes, someone who knows the rules of Reality 2.0 will do all kinds of things involving raising their arms to remove gravity. But looking at someone who thinks in terms of irl? They’ll “fail” when changing clothes, or at other oddball times, and be horrifically suboptimal compared to a Determinator at, say, the long jump, or 3d navigation of obstacles.

Measuring the in-character actions, and how the rules grade them compared to a Determinator just playing the rules, is what I’m then flipping to measure how good the rules are for facilitating roleplaying in that system.

Measuring at the decision points in the expected gameplay.

Also, I’m not requiring a score of 100%. You seem to assume that any error will result in “failure to be an RPG”. The metric is simply the degree of suitability to be played as an RPG.

If, hard stop, every moment you don’t spend as a turtle, immune to surprise, is a guaranteed TPK? That doesn’t match the fiction that lives in our head for how Robin Hood or Thor or their realities work. If in character you would congratulate the bride, but the system doesn’t allow that action, only offering, “If you throw a mud pie, turn to page 112; if you travel back in time, turn to page 1”, it’s not suited to being played as an RPG.

Quertus's definition (RPG Players much always think in terms of fiction and never think in terms of rules) would mean that all of D&D, and the vast majority of what most people call RPGs are not RPGs.
There are a few freeform RPGs where the GM keeps the rules secret (or just makes them up as he goes along), which Quertus might like.

See above. I’m not requiring a score 100% (spherical sacred cows on a frictionless outer plane, and all that), merely that choices made during core gameplay loops be possible through in-character perspective, and those actions produce reasonable results close to those that the system expects.

Again: you could skip setting a benchmark and the related semantic argument entirely by just saying it's a measure for how good or bad a roleplaying game is.



So, you agree with me that trying to remove "subjective failings" and "human imperfections" is pointless for a functional definition?

(For those who can't follow: widespread "Aikido isn't a real martial art" claims are analogous to Quertus' "4th edition D&D isn't a roleplaying game" claim.)

Agree (as NichG has been pushing) that I should focus just on the metric.

You’ve got the “aikido” part completely backwards, however.

Aikido “is a real martial art” because it works when you remove human error. “4e isn’t an RPG” because it increasingly fails as you remove human error. … is closer.

When I use your sniff test I get completely different results than you. From the choose-your-own-adventure topic it seems I still don't know how to apply it.

Which again gets down to my main issues, which I will further condense into two main points: 1) Is this a definition others can use. 2) Is this a definition others want to use.

We have been talking mostly about the first issue. The measure and threshold, trying to create an objective way to determine whether a given game is a role-playing game or not. I think you know what I am talking about. The second has mostly just been me, talking about language and possible insults and so on. But I realized that even if you did manage because I don't see the value in the definition. You can work on these two issues in either order, but I think you are going to have to do both.

Boy oh boy, how to explain?

I think I’ll spoil this for length, but, if anyone actually understands the psychology of the insult, I’d appreciate their input.

Spoiler: Quertus rambles about insults

Show

Back in college, my Art Appreciation professor said we were “normal”. Facing the front, I couldn’t tell you if I was alone in emoting outage at that statement, but the professor shortly said that we *should* feel insulted by his comment.

But why? I mean, I know it’s false - I’m a genius, and a klutz, and have terrible reading comprehension, and… well, I’m dreadfully far from average, in a great many ways. But why should I care more about that false statement than, say, someone claiming that my hair is pink?

As as much as I love ❤️ human psychology, I don’t study it in the classic sense, I just make observations and hypothesis about myself and the alien beings that surround me, and test my hypothesis out in RPGs.

But my theory is, the reason one falsehood is insulting and the other isn’t is because I have invested a portion of my self image in one of those, but not the other. This would track with the way that some people seem to feel insulted when they believe it possible that the logical conclusion of applying my model might be that they weren’t roleplaying, rather than simply evaluating the truth and value of the model and the conclusion.

I like to be wrong, because being wrong presents an opportunity to learn and grow. It’s a standard human failing to be invested in a wrong idea, to be invested in being wrong. It’s like the advice to authors, that people don’t like to think - they like to believe that they are thinking. Most people would rather persist in being wrong than grow, than challenge their beliefs.

It’s this falling that made the scientific community chide Mendel for his work on genetics, or ____ for wanting safety equipment added to nuclear reactors (is that safety device in the smokestack still named ____’s folly?).

So, as the gravest insult I can level, I honestly believed it was possible that, between my poor communication skills, and everyone’s all too human biases and investment in their beliefs, that it was possible my idea would get no traction, get rejected out of hand, by people who should otherwise know better, rather than for some actual fault of the definitions or metric. Heck, in this thread, we’ve even seen backsliding on things like the concept of definitions, or subjectivity. It’s clear that, if people are actually posting in good faith, rather than playing devil’s advocate, or simply providing me the opportunity to practice my expression, that their minds are playing tricks on them, to protect them from seeing an uncomfortable truth. Which itself would be a form of evidence for the accuracy of the model, when normally sane posters (a category from which I am, happily, exempt) start making such errors.

I believe that everyone who has posted in this thread is more than capable of understanding the simple idea that I’m trying (and failing) to convey in this thread. I believe that more than half of the posters are capable of pointing out errors in the concept, if there are any. And, indeed, in this thread for the simple model, people have, in fact, pointed out numerous errors (some of which I haven’t even replied about yet). Thus far, these errors are… hmmm… indicative of *incompleteness* of the model or its explanation, rather than an *error* of the model, if that distinction makes any sense. Senility willing, I’ll update the model accordingly at some point (even if the updates are only limiting the scope of the model).

So, is this a definition that others can use? Yes, if they can abandon their preconceptions. Is this a definition that people will want to use? I believe so, even if it may take generations for people to recognize that fact.

[Vahnavoi]

You’ve got the “aikido” part completely backwards, however.

Aikido “is a real martial art” because it works when you remove human error. “4e isn’t an RPG” because it increasingly fails as you remove human error. … is closer.

It's you who got the point I was making backwards. You trying to use Aikido as an example is particularly lucky for me, because it makes explaining where you went wrong very easy: your argument for 4th edition D&D not being a roleplaying game is analogous to many widespread arguments for why Aikido isn't a martial art.

As for the point you're trying to make of Aikido, it's outright counterfactual. No-one's ever done Aikido free of human error - no-one's ever done any art free of human error, so you can't use that as an argument for why something works. The corollary you're trying to make for 4th edition is a complete non-sequitur and I cannot make any sense of it.