Quertus fails at defining roleplaying games again

[False God]

Whatever gives you that idea?

Experience.

[Beoric]

It does not wildly fly outside the norms of RPGs in general, just within D&D. The lack of vancian casting, martials getting "wuxia" powers (or straight-up magical abilities). It's closer in terms of appearance and function to a supers game, with a limited set of often themed powers only available a certain number of times.

It gets different reactions from D&D players because it's not what they're used to or what they "want to see" in a D&D RPG. It doesn't IME, get much of a reaction at all from folks who are experienced with a wider variety of RPGs. With folks who regularly play outside the d20 spectrum, or folks who play more "gamey" RPGs.

If we use Quertus most basic interpretation, that an RPG is a "game" that includes "roleplaying", then the only real question of analysis is "to what degree?". I might be an outlier here, but I don't think D&D ever emphasizes roleplaying. It is a very crunchy, very "gamey" system that is IMO, intended to function from a more top-down level, like the 3rd-person-perspective in a video game, than from a 1st-person perspective. I think 4E radically changes the visuals for a more heroic, even "supers" style of gameplay, but I think all that only serves to emphasize how "gamey" D&D is in general.

I'd probably rate D&D 20% Roleplay, 80% Game. Stories, RP, thematics, flavor are all fluff. Like the flavor-text on an MTG card, almost none of it changes how the game is played. It is entirely up to the DM, the players, to do the heavy lifting for successful roleplay.

I don't think 4E changed any of that. It just made it more obvious.

While I don't entirely agree with this, I think it is fair to point out that 0e was essentially a wargame (Chainmail) with some individual combat and exploration mechanics bolted onto it.

However, I think the roleplaying/game ratio was more like 50/50. Gygax talks a lot about roleplaying in the 1e DMG, and mechanics like alignment seem to have been designed to enforce roleplaying. For example, training costs for level gains are linked to how much you adhered to your alignment and character archetype.

Moreover, you were expected to roleplay whatever you ended up with, so if the abilities you rolled meant you could only be a thief, you played a thief and were expected to adhere to that archetype no matter how much you would rather be playing a fighter. And if a cursed item changed your gender or alignment you were expected to play the new gender/alignment and resist any efforts by your party to change you back.

Now we have dropped those rules but have inspiration. 4e doesn't have inspiration, but like every other edition it supports roleplaying by having characters with alignments and goals. And if you don't think that supports roleplaying, and that 4e is more like a boardgame, try playing "the boot" in character the next time you play Monopoly.

EDIT: Better yet, try it with chess: "The queen's bishop refuses to capture the rook that is threatening our knight, because the knight has not been attending services and refuses to tithe."

[False God]

While I don't entirely agree with this, I think it is fair to point out that 0e was essentially a wargame (Chainmail) with some individual combat and exploration mechanics bolted onto it.

However, I think the roleplaying/game ratio was more like 50/50. Gygax talks a lot about roleplaying in the 1e DMG, and mechanics like alignment seem to have been designed to enforce roleplaying. For example, training costs for level gains are linked to how much you adhered to your alignment and character archetype.

Moreover, you were expected to roleplay whatever you ended up with, so if the abilities you rolled meant you could only be a thief, you played a thief and were expected to adhere to that archetype no matter how much you would rather be playing a fighter. And if a cursed item changed your gender or alignment you were expected to play the new gender/alignment and resist any efforts by your party to change you back.

Now we have dropped those rules but have inspiration. 4e doesn't have inspiration, but like every other edition it supports roleplaying by having characters with alignments and goals. And if you don't think that supports roleplaying, and that 4e is more like a boardgame, try playing "the boot" in character the next time you play Monopoly.

EDIT: Better yet, try it with chess: "The queen's bishop refuses to capture the rook that is threatening our knight, because the knight has not been attending services and refuses to tithe."

IMO, these elements represent a very low bar for roleplaying. It's found in pretty much every other game, "You should roleplay the stats of your character appropriately." and "You should fairly roleplay your alignment."...in addition to a dozen other elements that encourage, promote and enforce good roleplay. Hence why I rated D&D at a 20/80 ratio. There are some elements that enforce roleplay, but they are minimal and can be largely ignored and it does very little to change the play of the game.

ALSO: now I want to try RP-chess.

[gbaji]

D&D isn’t an RPG. It’s… more like a brand, with several related RPGs, at least 2 War games, a cartoon show, and definitely no movies it should acknowledge.

I think the inherent problem here is that you are trying to define whether something is a "roleplaying game" based seemingly entirely on whether the game mechanics sufficiently cover all the things you want to do (or whether "out of the box" stuff is covered/allowed/whatever). It's an odd combination of "focus on mechanical rules" while criticizing "lack of roleplaying". As a couple of posters have already pointed out, you can have games that literally have zero mechanical rules at all but that are absolutely RPGs (toon anyone?).

You're using a label "RPG" that isn't really relevant to the objection you seem to have. Your example of an "out of the box" situation has absolutely nothing to do with roleplaying. Roleplaying is about playing a role. If you think that roleplaying is about describing how your character performs a mechanical action like grabbing a rug, pulling on it to cause orcs to tumble, and then rolling it up and stuffing it under a door to block it, then you don't really understand what roleplaying is.

IMO, roleplaying is all the stuff you do when you are *not* rolling dice. Yes, die rolls can be used to determine outcomes of proposed actions, but the same can be said for when you propose moving your piece on a Monopoly board. That's not roleplaying. Roleplaying is when you create a personality for your character, complete with likes, dislikes, quirks, behaviors, etc, and then you play those things out within an environment created by the GM (or collectively by the players, or whatever). Roleplaying revolves around *what* you decide to do and *why* you decide to do it. It does not have anything at all to do with how those things are resolved after the fact.

It's also why I actually have a difficult time with many CRPGs being labeled that in the first place. Um... If the only "roleplay" in the game is you picking dialogue options from a list, and ordering your characters to perform actions, that's not really roleplaying. That's choosing actions. You're not picking option B because that's what you feel your character would do based on that characters history and personality. You're picking it because you think that'll be the one that the NPC you are interacting with will respond best to and produce an outcome you want. The fact that the writers of the game put in different voices for the characters, signature speech patterns and behavior, does not mean that *you* are actually roleplaying when you play the game. Playing a character is not the same as roleplaying a character IMO.

I'm old enough to have played games from Space Quest, through Day of the Tentacle, and up to Baldurs Gate and Fallout (and more since then). At some point in the progression, they started being labeled CRPGs, but they are all still basically the same. They are puzzle games. There's no real roleplaying in them (again IMO). More complexity in the story/plot, more things to do, and more cut scenes still doesn't make it roleplaying.

And I honestly think you're trying to wedge the same concept back into a TTRPG. That's not what makes a game an RPG. What makes them RPGs is that the players actually decide who their characters are, and play them out that way. They create dialogue and action, based on those decisions. And there are zero game mechanics that define that. There are mechanics to adjudicate those decisions (in some cases), but other than some guidelines for how to roleplay, and some setting suggestions in different games, the RP component in TTRPGs is completely separate from the "G" component. The mechanics and rules make it a game. Period. You may think 4e is a poor game, and that may be a valid critique. But that has no bearing on the RP potential to the game at all.

Oh, and for the record, you can absolutely play Monopoly as a RPG if you really want to. Seriously. Try it out. Make up a personality for the hat, and the dog, and the (apparently animate) car, or whatever, and then play that personality through the game. Are you the greedy developer, trying to crush the opposition? Or the miser who isn't willing to risk money? Or perhaps a philanthropist and you intentionally sell off properties to others for less than you could (you may not win "the game", but it's a valid way to play). Maybe you organize a protest when taxes come up, or wax poetic about the importance of paying your cleaning staff correctly (or whine about "those greedy folks bleeding me dry"). Hah. Endless possibilities!

Bit harder to roleplay most card games. Uno doesn't lend itself to it at all, but The Great Dalmuti absolutely does (and with my family, often does turn into such a thing). Again. Its not the mechanics of the game at all.

[InvisibleBison]

Oh, and for the record, you can absolutely play Monopoly as a RPG if you really want to. Seriously. Try it out. Make up a personality for the hat, and the dog, and the (apparently animate) car, or whatever, and then play that personality through the game. Are you the greedy developer, trying to crush the opposition? Or the miser who isn't willing to risk money? Or perhaps a philanthropist and you intentionally sell off properties to others for less than you could (you may not win "the game", but it's a valid way to play). Maybe you organize a protest when taxes come up, or wax poetic about the importance of paying your cleaning staff correctly (or whine about "those greedy folks bleeding me dry"). Hah. Endless possibilities!

That's not Monopoly being an RPG, though. That's just roleplaying while playing the game. There's no connection between the game mechanics and the roleplaying.

[Tanarii]

That's not Monopoly being an RPG, though. That's just roleplaying while playing the game. There's no connection between the game mechanics and the roleplaying.

Arguably there are if you invented character's personality motivations drive your property purchasing decisions, or house/hotel purchasing decisions.

(I haven't played monopoly in forever, so I can't recall if there's actual game strategy decisions to purchasing property.)

But it's still not an RPG, any more than Gloomhaven is an RPG. Because there's no rule for what to do when you try do do something not covered by specific rules.

In other words, you can connect some roleplaying to some of the rules. But if you can make decisions for your character in the fantasy environment and there is not a rule covering it, including a default / fallback rule of "the GM decides", then it's not an RPG.

This is why CRPGs aren't actually RPGs. IMO Y(Definition)MV etc etc

[Witty Username]

So outside of the box play is nessasary for RPGs? Hm, that is pretty good for a definition for how simple it is.

I can't think of any rpgs that fail that definition, I think some open ended crpgs could be included off of how broad the scope of the rules for some of them are, even if their is nothing "outside the ruleset"

[Tanarii]

So outside of the box play is nessasary for RPGs? Hm, that is pretty good for a definition for how simple it is.

Yeah, on reflection based on this thread between my first and second post, I think that's really a core feature.

It doesn't have to be a GM. There could be a game that had only players, if it enabled the players to make resolution decisions together as a group, for example. It'd probably need a really good core resolution mechanic to back it up though, so that wildly outside the box resolution (e.g. fiat resolution by the group) wasn't constantly required for outcomes and consequences to make sense.

Or possibly not, with a good group of players.

[Kurald Galain]

Clearly, a definition of RPG that includes any boardgame (such as Monopoly) is so broad that it's meaningless. This means that "a game in which you can roleplay" is insufficient to define an RPG, because you can roleplay in every game.

The author of popular gaming blog CRPGaddict came to the same conclusion, i.e. the definition of "CRPG" is substantially narrower than "a game where you play a role", because you play a role in just about every computer game. The definition he came up with for CRPGs largely comes down to stat-based combat and growth of these stats.

Of course, a TRPG is a different beast than a CRPG. To define TRPGs I rather like BRC's windowpane test, or the notion that a game can resolve outside-the-box actions. Notably, this is by definition impossible in computer games, so by necessity they must have a different criterion.

Also notably, this means that if you have a DM or a written (railroady) adventure that does not allow outside-the-box actions, then you're not playing an RPG any more, and this is why many players find such DMs and adventures frustrating to deal with. I think we all have examples of DMs or adventures that disallow roleplaying, irrespective of system used.

[Tanarii]

Also notably, this means that if you have a DM or a written (railroady) adventure that does not allow outside-the-box actions, then you're not playing an RPG any more, and this is why many players find such DMs and adventures frustrating to deal with. I think we all have examples of DMs or adventures that disallow roleplaying, irrespective of system used.

That does not follow. A player can still make decisions for character activities that are outside the specific rules of the game and require GM intervention to resolve, just not outside the adventure tracks the DM wants you to stay on.

The box in this case is the specific rule rules for specific activities decided on by characters. If you cannot do something not covered by the rules, it's inside the box. If there is a general rule of "GM decides what happens", then such activities decided on are outside the box.

[GeoffWatson]

"I don't like a game so I'm going to make a definition explicitly designed to define it as objectively bad."

Dude, stop. Just stop. You've got better things to do.

Yes, this is a pathetic waste of time.

[Jay R]

So if a bunch of role-players play Monopoly, does that make Monopoly a role-playing game?

No, of course not. You're deliberately taking a simple quote out of context to complain that I didn't spell out all the details that would be obvious.

In the same context, John W. Campbell Jr. was also the editor of a fantasy magazine, Unknown (or Unknown Worlds). The stories he bought for that magazine aren't science fiction; he wasn't acting as a science fiction editor then.

As everyone understood my original statement, "role-playing games are the games that role-players play when they are functioning as role-players."

I wrote (and you ignored), "In short, the definition is created over time by people's actions and choices." But as everybody else realized, it's only created by my actions and choices involving role-playing games. It's not affected by my actions when I'm reading, programming, riding my bike, fencing, camping, cooking an omelet, writing a poem, or even playing a non-role-playing game.

It's a simple, clear, meaningful definition that you are trying to misunderstand. I can't prevent that. I have no doubt that if you work at it, you can find a way to misunderstand this version, too.

It will still be true that the definition is created over time by people's actions and choices.

[InvisibleBison]

As everyone understood my original statement, "role-playing games are the games that role-players play when they are functioning as role-players."

I don't see how you could understand what "everyone" understood about your original statement, given that I'm the only one who replied to it. But even if we add this additional clause to your definition, it doesn't solve my objection. If people roleplay while playing Monopoly, does that make Monopoly into a roleplaying game? I would say it doesn't, that whether or not a game is a roleplaying game is dependent on whether the game mechanics expect you to roleplay.

[Cluedrew]

I maintain the "true" definition for any word is what people mean when they say that work. That isn't useful directly, but it does mean that people do have a rough idea of what a role-playing game is even if we cannot say exactly what it is that makes a role-playing game that. Point is, Monopoly is obviously not a role-playing game and D&D 4e obviously is, these aren't even edge cases where there is a question in the matter. All that remains is figuring out why they end up on that side of the line.

I stand by my previous statement, that I think the narration based game-play is one of the main things that make role-playing games what they are. The character focused mode of the game is important, but not as important as the fact that it is the only one mentioned in the name would suggest.

Now Monopoly lacks this narration completely. There is no element of the game that would not work if stripped of its narrative context completely. (As evidence, although not proof, look to the number of Monopoly reskins.) D&D has always shifted towards that mode of operation in combat, and might technically reach it with a battle mat and no one doing anything creative. So let's say 4th went the extra distance in that regard, does that mean that it isn't a role-playing game? I don't think so, because that narration is still there and still covers everything that is a fight scene.

But a different way, what makes a role-playing game is not the inclusion or ability to add character motivations and background lore to your decisions, but the inability to remove it. And I don't really care to precisely define what is in this bubble and how little you can get down to, but that is the idea. Even if the character you play as is just "me, but in a fictional world world, not really thinking of the NPCs as people and just looking for the next victory" (sadly, this is actual genre) you do have to be aware of the world in the lore for the game to function.

Unless you actually played D&D where everyone except the GM would passively listen until the next combat was set up, then maybe you aren't playing a role-playing game.

On CRPG: As someone who enjoys both tabletop/pen-and-paper role-playing games and computer RPGs, yeah they aren't the same genre despite having the same name.

[Quertus]

I think it's a simple binary, can you do something without being giving a button.

Consider, The Windowpane Test.
Narratively, Ms. Scarlet is in the Conservatory with the Lead Pipe. She would like to smash a windowpane. This would change the situation.

The game you are playing has no rule for breaking a window with a lead pipe.

In an RPG, if you say "I break the window" without an explicit ability to let you break the window, the game, whether it's GM'd or GMless, is obligated to assume that you did, in fact, break the window, and proceed forward with that being the situation.

In a Not-RPG, you cannot.


Difficulty of Adjudication can't be relevant, because different RPGs are going to be different at adjudicating different sorts of "Outside the Box" actions. So any given example, say, yanking the rug out from under a bunch of orcs, is going to heavily depend on the system in question. 5e Dnd can probably adjudicate yanking the rug as a simple application of physical strength, but an RPG focused on social intrigue may not even HAVE a physical strength stat.

Does that mean that Dungeon and Dragons IS an RPG while Courts and Countesses (The hypothetical social intrigue focused RPG) is not?

I don't think you can really say "X is MORE of an RPG" or "Y is LESS of an RPG" in any meaningful way.

I’ve never heard of a “windowpane test” before, but it sounds like a great example of what I’m talking about.

The question isn’t “more of an RPG”, it’s “more suited to being played as an RPG”. Whereas my claim was, how suited to being played as an RPG a game was could be measured by how much more onerous it is to adjudicate “breaking the window” than it is to adjudicate a button press; how much the GM is encouraged to “soft ban” roleplaying-centric actions.

Obviously, “it’s impossible” - what you describe as “not an RPG” - lives at one end of the spectrum, where I hope we can all agree it’s not an RPG. But I think you absolutely can talk about how two RPGs compare in this spectrum/metric - in fact, in the spawning thread, people did just that.

Now, where one draws the line for “things on this side are so unsuited to being played as RPGs that I’ll call them ‘not an RPG’” might be somewhat subjective. But it’s still fair for me to say “X system doesn’t meet my threshold for being an RPG”.

You have decided that 4e isn't a role playing game, because of the ways it's different from other versions of D&D, and you're now trying to come up with a definition for all RPGs that will conform to your decision that 4e isn't one. I think you are wrong about that. I think the problem you are having with 4e is only the combat and magic rules, which are significantly different from other editions of D&D. 4e has ability scores and skills just like other wotc editions, and handles non-combat actions in the same manner as the others- with the DM deciding if a skill or ability should apply to an action, setting a difficulty and having someone roll a d20 with a modifier.

Eh, close, but not exactly?

More… I noticed how 4e was different from other RPGs, decided that difference was “4e isn’t an RPG” (rather than the “4e isn’t D&D” that was popular at the time), and am trying to define that difference - ideally, in a way others can actually understand and give meaningful feedback on.

It could turn out that I’m wrong about 4e being different (although modern thought seems to be that, yes, 4e is at least vastly different from other editions of D&D). It could be that I’m wrong about that difference being related to being an RPG. It could even be that 4e actually is an RPG, or that it isn’t actually D&D. Note that some of these are more likely than others.

If OD&D is an RPG, so is 4e.

Nah, OD&D has a different “feel” than 4e, which necessitates a different complexity of existing rules, and a different method of creating new rules to be in line with existing rules. Like, you wouldn’t put the same rule in D&D as you would in a horror game, right?

So this is a comment that says “we need to go back to the drawing board on communicating my idea”, because it’s like saying “carbon isn’t highly radioactive, so uranium isn’t, either” or “water isn’t flammable, so hydrogen gas isn’t, either” - it ignores everything important that makes them different.

Especially because the test kind of falls apart with certain more abstracted systems. I vaguely recall some system, I think designed to do Arthurian Legend type stuff, and in it the stats were based not on your character's capabilities, but on their Motivations, whether you were doing something "For Duty", "For Glory", or "For Love". You can't apply the "Outside the box" test to such a system because the rules don't actually care about what an individual action is.

Interesting. By my definition, if you choose your action as “extinguish the sun… for Love”, and the system says, “ok, roll Love against the standard DC”, my definition would place it squarely in the “war game” box.

"I don't like a game so I'm going to make a definition explicitly designed to define it as objectively bad."

Dude, stop. Just stop. You've got better things to do.

Um…

1) I don’t like 4e? Fair to say.

2) I’m going to make a definition explicitly designed to make it objectively bad? No. Even if I were right, 4e just wouldn’t be an RPG - that says nothing about the quality of what it is. (The “why” was covered above)

3) I have better things to do? Maybe, but I keep being wrong here, which means I get to learn new things. It’s not like I learn as much from the average thread as I do from these, so… doing this is still batting above par (Darn mixed sports metaphors).

[Jay R]

But even if we add this additional clause to your definition, it doesn't solve my objection. If people roleplay while playing Monopoly, does that make Monopoly into a roleplaying game?

No, of course not. That specific session of Monopoly might be considered a "role-playing game" for those players, but they are statistically irrelevant in terms of defining an English phrase. Similarly, I can play poker pretending to be Bret Maverick, or Doc Holliday. That won't change the definition of poker one iota.

[I wonder if Campbell had to deal with this kind of objection with his definition of science fiction?]

Science fiction editors also buy groceries. That does not make groceries science fiction, and nobody would think that his definition means that it did.

Role-players sometimes play football. That does not make football a role-playing game.

The essence of my post is here: "In short, the definition is created over time by people's actions and choices.” It was in my original post, and you ignored it. So I repeated it, and you ignored it again. Any attempt to pretend I said the definition of role-playing game can be completed with a single phrase is ignoring what I actually wrote. The definition is created over time by people's actions and choices.

But you know what? You win. Hooray. You have demonstrated that it can't be perfectly defined by any single simple word definition – even mine

That was, of course, my original point. The definition is created over time by people's actions and choices.

[JNAProductions]

It really does feel like you started with the conclusion of “4E isn’t an RPG” and worked backwards from there, Quertus.
It REALLY does.

[Batcathat]

The question isn’t “more of an RPG”, it’s “more suited to being played as an RPG”. Whereas my claim was, how suited to being played as an RPG a game was could be measured by how much more onerous it is to adjudicate “breaking the window” than it is to adjudicate a button press; how much the GM is encouraged to “soft ban” roleplaying-centric actions.

Obviously, “it’s impossible” - what you describe as “not an RPG” - lives at one end of the spectrum, where I hope we can all agree it’s not an RPG. But I think you absolutely can talk about how two RPGs compare in this spectrum/metric - in fact, in the spawning thread, people did just that.

To me, this seems a little like describing a car that can't move above a certain speed not as "a bad car" or "a car I don't like" but as "not a car".

You said it yourself, even you don't think 4e make certain things impossible, merely impractical or discouraged. Which might make it a bad RPG, but shouldn't make it not an RPG.

Now, where one draws the line for “things on this side are so unsuited to being played as RPGs that I’ll call them ‘not an RPG’” might be somewhat subjective. But it’s still fair for me to say “X system doesn’t meet my threshold for being an RPG”.

Fair as in "Quertus has the right to think so"? Obviously. Fair as in "it's reasonable"? Eh, doubtful. I think what me and everyone(?) else is struggling to understand is how to draw the line in such a way that it excludes 4e but includes all other editions of D&D and other games typically considered RPGs (or are there others you wish to exclude as well?).

[Jay R]

I've spent too much time on a side issue. Getting back to the thread:

I think one of the confusions here is that the word “role”, like most English words, has more than one meaning. If you assume one specific meaning, and other people assume a different one, then it will be difficult to communicate.

I went back to the original (published) role-playing game – the 1974 three-pamphlet game Dungeons and Dragons, and searched out every occurrence of the word “role”.

Men & Magic

P. 9: Before the game begins it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take - Law, Netrality (sic), or Chaos.

p. 10: Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary for the referee to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid them in selecting a role. Categories of ability are: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma. Each player notes his appropriate scores, obtains a similar roll of three dice to determine the number of Gold Pieces (Dice score x 10) he starts with, and then opts for a role.

p. 11: Players will, in all probability, seek to hire Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, and/or Clerics in order to strengthen their roles in the campaign.

Monsters & Treasure

p. 29: The Egoism of the sword will cause it to do the following:
1. Lead its user past better weapons,
2. Lead its user into great danger in order to exalt its role in combat,

The Underground & Wilderness Adventures

p. 22: Assassin: The role of this hireling is self-evident.

Sage: … Utmost discretion is required when the referee is acting in this role.

Ship Captain: A self-explanatory role.

Based on all of this, there is no reason to believe that the “role” you are playing is anything beyond the character class. If my character is a Fighting-Man¹ and therefore swings a sword, and your character is a Magic-User¹ and therefore casts a spell, then we are playing different roles, and it is a role-playing game.

¹Yes, those are the names of two of the character classes. It was a different time.

Mind you, it is important to me to develop the personality of my PCs. It matters to me that my Ranger Gustav is uncomfortable around city-folk, hates bullies, and always attacks the largest foe first. I care that my pixie Ultimate Magus Pip likes to do helpful things anonymously. My gnome Grabnol Tildring Grek'khan Dimble Gwystyl Frank changes his name often, and likes to play jokes. He once cast a Permanent Image of a large pile of gems and gold inside a crevasse that was too narrow for anyone to get through. He also once, while on top of a large butte, cast a Magic Mouth to be activated the next somebody else stood there. It would say, "If you stay here and wait for 24 hours, you will learn something very important about who you are."

I like playing a specific personality in my role-playing games. I think it's more fun, and more imaginative, and a better, more enjoyable game overall. But that is my preference, and people don't have to play my way to be roleplaying, just as they don't have to use knight forks to be "really" playing chess, and they don't have to use Agrippa's four guards to be "really" fencing.

If you can play the role of a Fighter, or a Wizard, (or an X, for pretty much any value of X), then you are playing a role, and it's a role-playing game. It's a role-playing game whether or not people play out personalities. It's a role-playing game whether or not people play it my way.

[Tanarii]

Based on all of this, there is no reason to believe that the “role” you are playing is anything beyond the character class. If my character is a Fighting-Man¹ and therefore swings a sword, and your character is a Magic-User¹ and therefore casts a spell, then we are playing different roles, and it is a role-playing game.

Yes, it's a well established fact that Gygax originally meant "member of a class" by"role". But the meaning of roleplaying has evolved since then. Sometimes for the worse (1990s White Wolf and 2000s Forge are prime offenders) and occasionally for the better.

What I find entertaining is how many folks still stick the 1980s TSR definition, which effectively boils down to: Talky-time

But a different way, what makes a role-playing game is not the inclusion or ability to add character motivations and background lore to your decisions, but the inability to remove it. And I don't really care to precisely define what is in this bubble and how little you can get down to, but that is the idea. Even if the character you play as is just "me, but in a fictional world world, not really thinking of the NPCs as people and just looking for the next victory" (sadly, this is actual genre) you do have to be aware of the world in the lore for the game to function.

You have to be aware of the "fantasy environment" is how I like to phrase that. Without it, you can't make decisions for how your character behaves in it.

One reason I don't like battle mats that much. They model the fantasy environment for rules resolution purposes, but they aren't the fantasy environment. There's lots of stuff not on the battlemat that could affect decision making, but they encourage starting to think of the battle mat as the fantasy environment.

Otoh if the GM says "this map is the environment, base your decisions one it" large chunks of narration just disappeared. And it's still an RPG. Up until it becomes a set of rules that you can only make decisions within. At that point, it has crossed the line out of being an RPG.

Please note that I don't disagree entirely, it's just that I think narration can be well below the line folks are comfortable with calling narration and still be an RPG. But I think it would have to finally disappear entirely at the same time as the "No decisions outside the rules" line is crossed. Otoh if you consider "visual narration" to be a valid thing, there would be lots of non-RPGs that still have narration.

[Cluedrew]

2) I'm going to make a definition explicitly designed to make it objectively bad? No. Even if I were right, 4e just wouldn't be an RPG - that says nothing about the quality of what it is. (The "why" was covered above)

You are basically just adding "but there is nothing wrong with that" at the end here. And I've actually gone over why I think it is an insult but I also have a new point to make: You have set it up to be an insult.

You have told the story about how people were complaining about how D&D 4e wasn't D&D, pointing out that it obvious was and going out to find what the problem was and deciding it was that 4e wasn't a role-playing game at all. I have of course paraphrased to make the undertones clear, but I think they are always there and in that context: How could "not an RPG" not be an insult?

Also, as a side note: D&D 4e is a role-playing game. There is no question here.

You have to be aware of the "fantasy environment" is how I like to phrase that. Without it, you can't make decisions for how your character behaves in it. [...] Please note that I don't disagree entirely,[...]

I would possibly avoid "fantasy environment" to avoid confusion with the genre, perhaps "fictional environment"? But yes, I haven't hammered out all the details and I may never do so, I'm just trying to capture some of the big ideas.

[Beoric]

I've spent too much time on a side issue. Getting back to the thread:
Based on all of this, there is no reason to believe that the “role” you are playing is anything beyond the character class. If my character is a Fighting-Man¹ and therefore swings a sword, and your character is a Magic-User¹ and therefore casts a spell, then we are playing different roles, and it is a role-playing game.

I see your LLBs and raise you a 1e DMG. Page 23:

Thus, alignment describes the world view of creatures and helps to define what their actions, reactions, and purposes will be. It likewise causes a player character to choose an ethos which is appropriate to his or her profession, and alignment also aids players in the definition and role approach of their respective game personae.

Page 83:

When a character is struck by insanity due to mental attack, curse, or whatever, you may assign the type of madness according to the seriousness of the affliction or determine the affliction randomly using the table below. Each type of insanity listed thereon is described in game terms. As DM you will have to assume the role of the insane character whenever the madness strikes, for most players will not be willing to go so far.

Page 92:

Another nadir of Dungeon Mastering is the “killer-dungeon” concept. These campaigns are a travesty of the role-playing adventure game, for there is no development and identification with carefully nurtured player personae.

Page 229 (Glossary):

Persona — The role or identity of the character the player is portraying.

(Empbasis added)

At the very least, in 1974 you weren't just playing a class, but playing a class and alignment. But by 1979, if not before, Gygax's intention was that you play a more complex persona.

[Thrudd]

More… I noticed how 4e was different from other RPGs, decided that difference was “4e isn’t an RPG” (rather than the “4e isn’t D&D” that was popular at the time), and am trying to define that difference - ideally, in a way others can actually understand and give meaningful feedback on.

Nah, OD&D has a different “feel” than 4e, which necessitates a different complexity of existing rules, and a different method of creating new rules to be in line with existing rules. Like, you wouldn’t put the same rule in D&D as you would in a horror game, right?

So this is a comment that says “we need to go back to the drawing board on communicating my idea”, because it’s like saying “carbon isn’t highly radioactive, so uranium isn’t, either” or “water isn’t flammable, so hydrogen gas isn’t, either” - it ignores everything important that makes them different.

What do you think is happening in this game, when the players are not involved in combat? Talking to the DM, asking about the environment, talking to NPCs and each other, finding out where the adventure is, exploring things and making skill rolls...how is this not role playing? When an encounter happens, the miniatures are placed, initiative is rolled, and you start taking turns just like in the other editions and games. When it's over, they go back to narrative mode. That's been a part of role playing games since they were invented. Sometimes combat takes a long time, and it's longer under some rulesets; by accounts 4e generally is the longest combats of the D&D editions. That might be a problem or a feature depending on who you're asking. Is that what you don't like about it? Too many complex mechanical interactions possible in combat scenarios? Of course, even though the combat might get complex, the players are still roleplaying their characters - or they should be.

I really think you're ignoring the great number of things which make the games more similar than not. The specifics of the combat powers are the largest difference. If you're saying that you'd find it difficult to use 4e's system to make rulings on ad-hoc improvised actions, you seem to be ignoring that the basic foundation of that system is the same as 3e and 5e. It isn't any harder to pick a skill and a difficulty number than it is in any other edition. It isn't any more complex. There are differences that would be easy to overcome once someone is familiar enough with the system- same as learning any other system. You might be getting lost in the weeds on some specific mechanic in 4e, and ignoring the big picture structure that pretty much all RPGs have in common (and little else).

I don't know why you think 4e is so different from all other RPGs, that has never been clear. If it is this hard to explain, I find it hard to believe there is much of an argument. The definitions of RPGs others have given so far have all been reasonable, and none of them would exclude 4e, or any other tabletop game I can think of that calls itself an RPG. Are there any other games which are branded as RPGs that you also believe aren't really? Or some examples of other non-RPG table top games that you believe belong in a category with 4e?

Are you trying to say something like: there is a limit on how many discrete mechanical powers should exist in the game, too many discrete mechanical powers means players will think they have to always use those powers and forget that they can also improvise. If they are focusing too much on their mechanical powers, they forget that they're supposed to be immersed in the game world and making decisions based on the fiction instead of on the optimal manipulation of mechanical interactions. This results in battles taking players out of the fiction and turning it into a board game- but only during combat. Note- this also happens to some people playing other editions of D&D.

I think that is possible-a psychological effect the designers might not have accounted for in their design, possibly leading to the overall rejection of the edition by some people. But a flaw in the design doesn't change what the game is designed for. It clearly isn't impossible to play 4e as a role playing game, since many people have done so and continue to do so, despite the combat length. It also is clearly intended to be a role playing game, by its designers and authors, and includes many similar rules as previous editions to this end. If it is intended to be, and at least some of those playing it experience it to be such, then how could it be said not to be a role playing game?

I think deciding that the "difference" you noticed in 4e meant "not an RPG" was premature. Identify what it is, precisely, that is different about it from all other RPGs you are familiar with- presumably these are the elements you dislike. Does that element somehow negate all the other elements about the game which are similar, even identical, to other RPGs? Why is this "not an RPG", rather than "an RPG design I don't like"? That's what I said when I first read the 4e PHB- "I don't think I would like running this." But I've seen people play it, and it looked and sounded pretty much like the D&D and other role playing I've done.

I think familiarity makes it possible to improvise quickly with this system, the same as it does with any system, so says its proponents. The ability to do that (improvise) is the only distinct complaint I've identified, based on the "pull the rug" example and your talk of "methods of creating new rules to be in line with existing rules".

I think this thread should be renamed: "Quertus is trying to define exactly why he dislikes 4e D&D"

[Quertus]

I maintain the "true" definition for any word is what people mean when they say that work. That isn't useful directly, but it does mean that people do have a rough idea of what a role-playing game is even if we cannot say exactly what it is that makes a role-playing game that. Point is, Monopoly is obviously not a role-playing game and D&D 4e obviously is, these aren't even edge cases where there is a question in the matter. All that remains is figuring out why they end up on that side of the line.

On CRPG: As someone who enjoys both tabletop/pen-and-paper role-playing games and computer RPGs, yeah they aren't the same genre despite having the same name.

Um… my experiences with 4e actually say “it’s obviously not an RPG”, and people just kept trying to play it like one because that’s what they expected it to be. Reminder: what is “obvious” is not always right.

Glad to hear you’re in a similar boat with me on CRPGs - great fun, not what I’d call roleplaying in the context of RPGs.

I thought you had said something about a really simple definition of RPGs, and that’s what I’d wanted to comment on - did I grab the wrong post?

So outside of the box play is nessasary for RPGs? Hm, that is pretty good for a definition for how simple it is.

I can't think of any rpgs that fail that definition, I think some open ended crpgs could be included off of how broad the scope of the rules for some of them are, even if their is nothing "outside the ruleset"

Thanks. In retrospect, I think it’s less a necessary and sufficient “definition” than a necessary “trait”.

IMO, these elements represent a very low bar for roleplaying. It's found in pretty much every other game, "You should roleplay the stats of your character appropriately." and "You should fairly roleplay your alignment."...in addition to a dozen other elements that encourage, promote and enforce good roleplay. Hence why I rated D&D at a 20/80 ratio. There are some elements that enforce roleplay, but they are minimal and can be largely ignored and it does very little to change the play of the game.

My RPG comes with car batteries to attach to your players’ genitalia, and remotes to allow the other players to trigger them. Only my RPG supports “Teamwork”; every other RPG gets a 0 rating.

Curiously, the X I’ve seen didn’t exactly correspond to your predictions on a game’s suitability to X. Rather the opposite, in fact.

I think the inherent problem here is that you are trying to define whether something is a "roleplaying game" based seemingly entirely on whether the game mechanics sufficiently cover all the things you want to do (or whether "out of the box" stuff is covered/allowed/whatever). It's an odd combination of "focus on mechanical rules" while criticizing "lack of roleplaying". As a couple of posters have already pointed out, you can have games that literally have zero mechanical rules at all but that are absolutely RPGs (toon anyone?).

You're using a label "RPG" that isn't really relevant to the objection you seem to have. Your example of an "out of the box" situation has absolutely nothing to do with roleplaying. Roleplaying is about playing a role. If you think that roleplaying is about describing how your character performs a mechanical action like grabbing a rug, pulling on it to cause orcs to tumble, and then rolling it up and stuffing it under a door to block it, then you don't really understand what roleplaying is.




It's also why I actually have a difficult time with many CRPGs being labeled that in the first place. Um... If the only "roleplay" in the game is you picking dialogue options from a list, and ordering your characters to perform actions, that's not really roleplaying. That's choosing actions. You're not picking option B because that's what you feel your character would do based on that characters history and personality. You're picking it because you think that'll be the one that the NPC you are interacting with will respond best to and produce an outcome you want.

So, if I’ve read this right, you understand my idea, you just missed that that’s actually what my idea is? Huh. Let’s see if I can nudge you in the right direction.

So, imagine that gbaji‘s player had wanted gbaji to post that post. Only, when they went to declare that action, their GM informed them that they had updated reality to a “choose your own adventure” book (or CRPG) format, and their only options for gbaji were “spend time meditating” and “burn down the library”. Obviously impossible for gbaji‘s players to roleplay gbaji in that environment, right?

Now, suppose instead that this “choose your own adventure” book is written in human flesh (or the equivalent for whatever species you want to picture gbaji‘s player being), and they can choose to write said post as their action if gbaji‘s player is willing to be skinned / flensed sufficiently to cover the new pages. It is onerous and costly, and they are encouraged to just press an existing button rather than have gbaji do what gbaji would actually do in this situation were reality to better support roleplaying.

That’s what I’m talking about here: how much does the system discourage you from taking roleplaying actions vs soft-banning them and forcing you to just press existing buttons?

Obviously things that hard-ban roleplaying choices aren’t RPGs. The question is, can we agree that there’s some level of additional impediment sufficient to soft-ban roleplaying choices, and disqualify a game from being an RPG?

[noob]

The following are some thoughts that came to my mind and re basically just me collexting my thoughts. I'm not claiming it's the truth and certainly not the complete truth, but maybe it helps anyway.

I've played 4e long ago, shortly after it came out, and I liked it a lot better than 3.5 Mostly because I like to play martials, and this version gave me actual abilities to work with. I was playing a warlord and loved the class for the options it gave my to play tactically both on my own and in a team. Whatever you think about being "samey," this is the often-cited big positive of 4e. Every class had the same amount of special abilities to use.

However, those abilities are all combat abilities. And that might be the problem. If you have buttons to push, I think the first thing most players, especially inexperienced ones do is to look at those buttons and decide which one to use. Many players will not go far enough to even consider whether they even should push one of the buttons or if going for a different option would be better. Thinking outside the box needs to be learned.
That was somewhat easier in 3e, because martials didn't have any buttons; they necessarily had to think outside the box or proclaim "I attack" every turn. Casters had tons of non-damage spells that encouraged them to use these creatively.

4e certainly allows you to do things that aren't part of the rules. That is a basic tennet of RPGs and 4e is no different in that regard. But I think 4e is much worse at teaching both GMs and players to actually consider and use these options.

4e does provides rituals to everybody for out of combat utility actions that are not skills or lifting things.
So 4e does provides non combat buttons.

[Quertus]

It really does feel like you started with the conclusion of “4E isn’t an RPG” and worked backwards from there, Quertus.
It REALLY does.

That seems as fair to say as “4e doesn’t feel like an RPG”. Difference is, I’m trying to explain my feelings on the Playground couch.

And it’s half fair to say that I started with the conclusion, in that that’s what I posted first, and that that’s what I could first articulate. That doesn’t invalidate the reasons for the feeling, and attacking their origin rather than their merit… eh, as uncool as that might be in some circumstances, I am one to explicitly state my biases, to help others argue in a way that might help me see past my blind spots. So here it’s a <shrug>, I guess.

You are basically just adding "but there is nothing wrong with that" at the end here. And I've actually gone over why I think it is an insult but I also have a new point to make: You have set it up to be an insult.

You have told the story about how people were complaining about how D&D 4e wasn't D&D, pointing out that it obvious was and going out to find what the problem was and deciding it was that 4e wasn't a role-playing game at all. I have of course paraphrased to make the undertones clear, but I think they are always there and in that context: How could "not an RPG" not be an insult?

Also, as a side note: D&D 4e is a role-playing game. There is no question here.

“Not an RPG” is not an insult to my car. It’s an insult to me for someone to market my car as an RPG. That’s my take. Of course, I’m senile, and maybe you convinced the me of yesterday that your take was better, because I feel like I not only haven’t claimed that 4e isn’t an RPG in this thread, but that I’ve avoided doing so.

Also, saying “2+2=5, there’s no question here” begs a proof, given that the whole point is that that is in question. As my senile mind recalls, you can’t prove that 4e is an RPG, because there’s not a single agreed-upon definition. However, I can prove that 4e isn’t an RPG for my definition of requirements for that phrase - at least in theory. In practice, I’ve struggled, which means I need more practice.

Now, ultimately, I might be convinced that I’m wrong about 4e not meeting certain requirements. And/or I might ultimately be convinced that those requirements aren’t related to roleplaying. But I’ve kinda got to express them successfully, and get feedback relevant to evaluating 4e, in order to make that determination, no?

To me, this seems a little like describing a car that can't move above a certain speed not as "a bad car" or "a car I don't like" but as "not a car".

You said it yourself, even you don't think 4e make certain things impossible, merely impractical or discouraged. Which might make it a bad RPG, but shouldn't make it not an RPG.



Fair as in "Quertus has the right to think so"? Obviously. Fair as in "it's reasonable"? Eh, doubtful. I think what me and everyone(?) else is struggling to understand is how to draw the line in such a way that it excludes 4e but includes all other editions of D&D and other games typically considered RPGs (or are there others you wish to exclude as well?).

Is a soap box with wheels “a car”? Depends on the definition of “car” you are using. If your potential employer asks, “do you have a reliable car?”, I don’t think you should count your soap box.

My goal is to someday successfully explain what I meant long ago when I first said “4e isn’t an RPG”. Now, once I do so, it may be the end of an era, and I might have to give up my running gag of saying that the soapbox racer isn’t a car, once people understand what I mean by those words.

About drawing that line… can you see that how you would make a ruling / invent a new rule for a horror RPG would be in some ways different from how you would do so for D&D? Focus on that difference. Now ask yourself, what does a rule that feels like it was published in a 4e book look like? How easy is it to write such a rule for “pulling the rug out from under some orcs and jamming it under the door” compared to how easy is it to adjudicate the “burning hands” button press?

How much is a GM who cares about consistent rule quality incentivized to soft- or hard-ban roleplaying actions, and require button presses instead?

What do you think is happening in this game, when the players are not involved in combat? Talking to the DM, asking about the environment, talking to NPCs and each other, finding out where the adventure is, exploring things and making skill rolls...how is this not role playing? When an encounter happens, the miniatures are placed, initiative is rolled, and you start taking turns just like in the other editions and games. When it's over, they go back to narrative mode. That's been a part of role playing games since they were invented. Sometimes combat takes a long time, and it's longer under some rulesets; by accounts 4e generally is the longest combats of the D&D editions. That might be a problem or a feature depending on who you're asking. Is that what you don't like about it? Too many complex mechanical interactions possible in combat scenarios? Of course, even though the combat might get complex, the players are still roleplaying their characters - or they should be.

That’s… an interesting… um…how to put this?

Ok, so, I like to evaluate and state my biases. And you may have just pointed out a hidden bias. Kudos!

Yes, 4e is, IME, a lot more (by volume (of time)) about Combat than other editions. And that changes the lenses by which it is evaluated.

That said, I’m all about roleplaying in combat. “Roleplaying doesn’t end just because the dice come out”. And notice that my “how hard is it to roleplay” example explicitly occurs in the middle of combat: pulling the rug out from under some orcs, and using it to block the door to delay reinforcements.

That’s what the character would actually do in this situation; how much metagaming pressure is there to not do this, and instead press a button on the character’s sheet?

I really think you're ignoring the great number of things which make the games more similar than not. The specifics of the combat powers are the largest difference. If you're saying that you'd find it difficult to use 4e's system to make rulings on ad-hoc improvised actions, you seem to be ignoring that the basic foundation of that system is the same as 3e and 5e. It isn't any harder to pick a skill and a difficulty number than it is in any other edition. It isn't any more complex. There are differences that would be easy to overcome once someone is familiar enough with the system- same as learning any other system. You might be getting lost in the weeds on some specific mechanic in 4e, and ignoring the big picture structure that pretty much all RPGs have in common (and little else).

Not just to make a random, arbitrary ruling - yes, that’s equally easy in any edition. But to make a good ruling, one which fits the theme and feel and such of the system, which doesn’t break anything? Show me someone who thinks that’s equally easy in each edition of D&D, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t get the differences between those editions.

I don't know why you think 4e is so different from all other RPGs, that has never been clear. If it is this hard to explain, I find it hard to believe there is much of an argument.

Thank you for the compliment, but you give me too much credit. My skills are not at that point yet, to never struggle to articulate novel and contentious concepts.

The definitions of RPGs others have given so far have all been reasonable, and none of them would exclude 4e, or any other tabletop game I can think of that calls itself an RPG. Are there any other games which are branded as RPGs that you also believe aren't really? Or some examples of other non-RPG table top games that you believe belong in a category with 4e?

“Choose your own adventure” books. CRPGS.

Thanks to these threads, I can add “Monopoly” and “Chess”. And my car, I guess.

Really, I don’t care overly much about labeling things - it is left as an exercise to the reader to evaluate to what extent varies systems are suited to being played as RPGs.

This just started because I was tired of hearing arguments about “4e isn’t D&D”, and set to evaluate that claim. That’s the only reason I cared about labeling things in the first place: because people were bad at labeling things, and bad at arguing about labeling things. And now I’m stuck in my own personal quagmire, struggling to learn enough to express the reasoning behind my label of “4e is D&D, but it isn’t a RPG “.

Are you trying to say something like: there is a limit on how many discrete mechanical powers should exist in the game, too many discrete mechanical powers means players will think they have to always use those powers and forget that they can also improvise. If they are focusing too much on their mechanical powers, they forget that they're supposed to be immersed in the game world and making decisions based on the fiction instead of on the optimal manipulation of mechanical interactions. This results in battles taking players out of the fiction and turning it into a board game- but only during combat. Note- this also happens to some people playing other editions of D&D.

Not at all! I’m a fan of “more rules, for consistency” - see “5e lava”.

What I’m saying is, the mechanics and feel and balance and so on of the system should be such that adjudication of the non-rule space should not be so comparatively arduous as to soft-ban the non-rule space.

I think that is possible-a psychological effect the designers might not have accounted for in their design, possibly leading to the overall rejection of the edition by some people. But a flaw in the design doesn't change what the game is designed for. It clearly isn't impossible to play 4e as a role playing game, since many people have done so and continue to do so, despite the combat length. It also is clearly intended to be a role playing game, by its designers and authors, and includes many similar rules as previous editions to this end. If it is intended to be, and at least some of those playing it experience it to be such, then how could it be said not to be a role playing game?

There is a threshold of suitability below which I do not qualify a thing as X. If you hand me a non-moving brick and call it a “car”, even if it was intended to be a car, I’m still gonna say that it’s too unsuited to the role to qualify for my standards of being a car.

I think deciding that the "difference" you noticed in 4e meant "not an RPG" was premature.

Perhaps. But it’s closer than “not D&D”. So I seem to be in first place in this race.

Identify what it is, precisely, that is different about it from all other RPGs you are familiar with- presumably these are the elements you dislike. Does that element somehow negate all the other elements about the game which are similar, even identical, to other RPGs? Why is this "not an RPG", rather than "an RPG design I don't like"? That's what I said when I first read the 4e PHB- "I don't think I would like running this." But I've seen people play it, and it looked and sounded pretty much like the D&D and other role playing I've done.

Do you regularly have people pulling rugs out from under orcs to jam in the door to delay reinforcements? Do you play with people who never open the book, never look at their character sheets, and just roleplay their character, even in combat? Can you take conceptualize that sharp a divide between “playing the character” and “playing the game”?

I think familiarity makes it possible to improvise quickly with this system, the same as it does with any system, so says its proponents. The ability to do that (improvise) is the only distinct complaint I've identified, based on the "pull the rug" example and your talk of "methods of creating new rules to be in line with existing rules".

No, there was some debate about that in the spawning thread, and if that doesn’t resurface, I’ll regret creating this thread for the loss.

I think one can evaluate how much effort a skilled user requires, and I think that that amount of effort can vary between systems.

Although, as a programmer, I may be biased.

I think this thread should be renamed: "Quertus is trying to define exactly why he dislikes 4e D&D"

Naw, that would probably be much easier: everything feels boring and samey. “Cool” and “fun” took a hit in the name of “balance” in the transition from 2e to 3e; 4e was just outright murder. That’s why I hate 4e.

For a trivial example most people can agree on these days, look at the ability schedules of Crusader and War Blade, and compare them with samey AEDs of 4e.

[Batcathat]

Is a soap box with wheels “a car”? Depends on the definition of “car” you are using. If your potential employer asks, “do you have a reliable car?”, I don’t think you should count your soap box.

Yes, not all things are cars and not all things are RPGs. But it's rather easy to explain why the soap box with wheels isn't a car (it has no engine, for one thing) but it seems quite impossible to explain why 4e isn't an RPG (without also ruling out many other games, at least).

About drawing that line… can you see that how you would make a ruling / invent a new rule for a horror RPG would be in some ways different from how you would do so for D&D? Focus on that difference. Now ask yourself, what does a rule that feels like it was published in a 4e book look like? How easy is it to write such a rule for “pulling the rug out from under some orcs and jamming it under the door” compared to how easy is it to adjudicate the “burning hands” button press?

This seems like the "this car is too slow to be called a car" argument all over again. You have a decent (if subjective) case for why 4e is a bad RPG, but (as far as I've seen) none what so ever for why it's not an RPG.

[Tanarii]

I don't know why you think 4e is so different from all other RPGs,

Speaking for myself, D&D 4e was the only RPG that I know of which falls into the otherwise flawed crunch/fluff model of RPG analysis. Because it explicitly calls out that is how it works. That makes it pretty unique.

(Technically 13th Age also does now, but it's the same developer redoing 4e even better, just under a different company.)

[Cluedrew]

Um... my experiences with 4e actually say "it's obviously not an RPG", and people just kept trying to play it like one because that's what they expected it to be. Reminder: what is "obvious" is not always right.

I have trudged through multiple threats on this subject. I think I can safely say I'm past the point where I just missed something obvious.

I say that 4e is obviously a role-playing game because that is how language works. It is consensus based and except for 2-3 voices out of dozens to hundreds everyone agrees that 4e is a role-playing game. That is how the word is used and any attempt to the describe that usage (a definition) has to capture that to be accurate. You don't get to change that just because it doesn't capture what you like about role-playing games. And if you don't like it nothing changes.

But I thought of that before, so let's pretend we are talking about a related genre of game called QRPGs and let me go over what I have learned about QRPGs in all of these threads:

• Theoretically it may differ from role-playing games in more ways, but when I asked the only known place where it differed was 4e. There are no other examples of it excluding a role-playing game and no known examples of it including a non-role-playing game.
• It is based on a value of "amount of player choice" that a system needs to have a certain amount of to continue. (And presumably some other factors that are not contentious, the Stickman Game is probably not a QRPG either.)
• No one except Quertus knows how to derive said value. We can guess at some high level distinctions but I couldn't rank any systems on it. I couldn't even put 4e below other D&D editions with confidence if that wasn't stated as being the outcome.
• No one except Quertus knows what the cut-off is. ... If further details of this have been discussed I have forgotten them.

That's it. OK, there are probably some bits and pieces I would remember is some related point came up that I missed in this pass. Still it is not a lot, and I have been at this for a while.

I thought you had said something about a really simple definition of RPGs, and that's what I'd wanted to comment on - did I grab the wrong post?

There was something about that in my second post. But I feel the need to point out, we don't have to get to the details to start disagreeing with your definition of role-playing game.

[Beoric]

About drawing that line… can you see that how you would make a ruling / invent a new rule for a horror RPG would be in some ways different from how you would do so for D&D? Focus on that difference. Now ask yourself, what does a rule that feels like it was published in a 4e book look like? How easy is it to write such a rule for “pulling the rug out from under some orcs and jamming it under the door” compared to how easy is it to adjudicate the “burning hands” button press?

...


Not just to make a random, arbitrary ruling - yes, that’s equally easy in any edition. But to make a good ruling, one which fits the theme and feel and such of the system, which doesn’t break anything? Show me someone who thinks that’s equally easy in each edition of D&D, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t get the differences between those editions.

...

What I’m saying is, the mechanics and feel and balance and so on of the system should be such that adjudication of the non-rule space should not be so comparatively arduous as to soft-ban the non-rule space.

Here is the guidance for adjudicating non-standard actions in the 1e DMG:

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning a reasonable probability to an event and then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player or the non player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.

And here is the guidance for adjudicating non-standard actions in the 4e DMG:

Cast the Action as a Check: If a character tries an action that might fail, use a check to resolve it. To do that, you need to know what kind of check it is and what the DC is.

Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC, or
it might just be a Strength or Dexterity check against any defense. For an attack, use the appropriate defense of the target. Use an opposed check for anything that involves a contest between two creatures.

Other Checks: If the action is related to a skill (Acrobatics and Athletics cover a lot of the stunts characters
try in combat), use that check. If it is not an obvious skill or attack roll, use an ability check. Consult the Difficulty Class and Damage by Level table below, and set the DC according to whether you think the task should be easy, hard, or somewhere in between. A quick rule of thumb is to start with a DC of 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), or 20 (hard) and add one-half the character’s level.

Setting Improvised Damage: Sometimes you need to set damage for something not covered in the rules—a character stumbles into the campfire or falls into a vat of acid, for example. Choose a column on the Difficulty Class and Damage table based on the severity of the effect. Use a normal damage expression for something that might make an attack round after round, or something that’s relatively minor. These numbers are comparable to a monster’s at-will attack. Use a limited damage expression, comparable to a monster’s special powers, for one-time damaging effects or massive damage.

The 4e rules may be wordier, but essentially amount to the same thing, except (a) that more guidance is given so the DM isn't pulling numbers out of the air; (b) the guidance is consistent with the other operation of the game; (c) the DM needs much less system mastery to assign appropriate chances to any given task; (d) express rules are given for improvising damage.

To use your own words, 4e is better at avoinding making "a random, arbitrary ruling." It is better at making "a good ruling, one which fits the theme and feel and such of the system, which doesn’t break anything?"

I get that 4e doesn't feel like an RPG to you. I'm just saying the data does not fit your hypothesis.

Do you regularly have people pulling rugs out from under orcs to jam in the door to delay reinforcements? Do you play with people who never open the book, never look at their character sheets, and just roleplay their character, even in combat? Can you take conceptualize that sharp a divide between “playing the character” and “playing the game”?

Yes.

Naw, that would probably be much easier: everything feels boring and samey. “Cool” and “fun” took a hit in the name of “balance” in the transition from 2e to 3e; 4e was just outright murder. That’s why I hate 4e.

And that is fair, despite being essentially subjective; you are allowed to be a 2e grognard. I know 1e guys who would say the exact same thing about 2e, and I have run across B/X people who would say the same thing about 1e. Hell, I know 1e guys who would say the same thing about Unearthed Arcana era 1e.

FTR, 3e one of two editions I never played (the other being 0e). I read 3e a lot to do Eberron conversions, and I can say from reading it most of the mechanics seem pretty dull and "samey", whereas I don't have the same experience with 4e. I expect that is because I know one system well and have never played the other. It takes experience to recognize variations in mechanics and how they affect gameplay.

I have played 2e, and I have played a couple of decades of 1e, and more than a decade of 4e, so I can comment on all of those. And I can fairly say that 4e mechanics are more varied for pretty much every class except possibly the wizard (I would argue that one as well, but it is a harder argument). Objectively, fighters, rangers and thieves simply have more things they can do in combat on a regular basis, before you start adding improvised actions.. Out of combat they can do exactly the same number of things; that is, whether they can think of to try. Moreover, objectively, a 4e fighter that specializes in using a shield (for example) is going to do very different things from a fighter who specializes in fighting with one hand free. Your assertion that is feels "boring and samey" is in your head, and in module writing, and in playstyle, and in gaming culture; it has nothing to do with mechanics.