Is D&D a roleplaying game?

[ZorroGames]

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

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

[Darth Ultron]

I'm talking about the ones Gygax ran.

I guess you're calling Gary a bad DM?

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

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

[Louro]

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

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

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

[Jophiel]

Some NwN private servers were definitely roleplaying games. You could characterize your character, and they had DMs that could react to what your character was doing and saying and have the world react to it in non-scripted ways. I played on several with results to world events (plot lines, if you prefer) ultimately decided by player decision making based on the personalities of the characters involved.

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

[ZorroGames]

I'm talking about the ones Gygax ran.

I guess you're calling Gary a bad DM.

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

[Nifft]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[CantigThimble]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Ultron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

Like in "soccer" and "soccer videogame"

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

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

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

[Louro]

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

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

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

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

[CantigThimble]

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

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

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

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

[Louro]

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

[Darth Ultron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jophiel]

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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

[Jophiel]

I agree that those DMs are exceedingly bad, but that doesn't make them rare. There are plenty of bad DMs who AFAICT would not let you avoid a fight by barricading the door or hiding inside the barrels, because that makes the game too easy and messes with their anticipated plotline.
[...]
You are always constrained by what the game creator allows. The only difference is that the maximal degree of freedom is greater in a TTRPG, but only good DMs take advantage of that difference.

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

[Terrainosaur]

That youtube channel mentioned by OP is a blowhard.

[Jophiel]

The problem with defining RPGs this way is that now you've defined a bunch of TTRPGs run by bad DMs to also not be true RPGs in the classic sense.

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

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

[Zombimode]

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

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

Baldurs Gate is an RPG.

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


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


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

[MoiMagnus]

Baldurs Gate is an RPG.

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


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


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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

Note that one-person D&D is also a thing. See for example https://empaitirkosu.wordpress.com/2...session-intro/.

Rules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rkmo0t9k4Q (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com..._pretty_silly/).

[KorvinStarmast]

-I dislike class-based systems -I dislike level-based systems

Original Traveller was a nice change of pace when it came out.

On the other hand the video has a point, that if you're not using the rules then you're not playing the game.

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

Of course, it is a roleplaying game, it's just not an ass about it.

Yep.

CRPGs cannot be RPGs because all interactions are mechanical IMO.

Yep.

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

The latter did as much harm as good, in their attempts to build a theoretical basis for the genre. (when picking the fly crap out of the pepper, it is sometimes easy to forget that you are still getting fly crap on your fingers ... )

If someone can point to something that oD&D had that 5e doesn't that disqualifies 5e* from the definition, I would be willing to be convinced.

But that won't forthcoming, and I agree with an assessment from above: person in the video is all hat and no cattle.

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

[Kyrell1978]

Note that one-person D&D is also a thing. See for example https://empaitirkosu.wordpress.com/2...session-intro/.

Rules: http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rkmo0t9k4Q (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/com..._pretty_silly/).

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

[Kyrell1978]

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

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

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

[BaconAwesome]

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

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

[Mordaedil]

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

Uh, you are actually in the wrong here. Freedom of speech isn't an unequivable right to express your opinion as you want. You can be banned for practically no reason and it'd be in the administrators right to do so. There is a reason why there is no real consequence for Facebook, Twitter and Google for banning [popular figure] from their platforms, because lo and behold, it is their property and they don't have any obligation to grant [pronoun] a platform.

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