Form and Function

[snakefing]

Like I said, you can make a game out of roleplaying. Hell, you can make a game out of nearly any play activity (I wonder if I can hit that target a kitten...) but that doesn't mean you should emphasize the game aspect of the activity. Saying that it is more important to kill the orcs than it is to tell a story would be a major detriment to the wonderful activity of roleplaying. If you're looking for a game, there are more suitable activities.

Your point that you can make a game out of anything is true. And the reason that I asked about scoreless golf is that I would consider that a game, provided that you take it seriously enough, but I wasn't sure what you would think. Some of this is just semantics, and there is a huge gray area in the intersection between games, pastimes, hobbies, and amusements.

That said, any attempt to claim what should or should not be present in a "standard" RPG is bound to bring down a Flame Strike. I've known people who got pissy if you dared to talk out of character; personally I find that extremely tedious and distracting, largely because I'm not that good at it. Am I doing it right? Am I doing it wrong? The answer is only determined by the play style of the group I'm with.

[Soup Nazi]

As creative people interested in writing campaign settings, it is only natural that the flavor of the fluffy content is the most important aspect of what we write. Writing your setting without a particular set of rules in mind however, often results in things that cannot be supported by the rule system you intended to use; things that very well could end being a cantankerous annoyance when it comes time to integrate them into the actual in-game experience.

D&D in particular is not a very flexible rules system (IMO). So when you start messing with the mechanics, it frequently causes ripple effects with unforseen complications. In any future material I write, I fully intend to work within the rules system (whatever it may be), as much as possible. I can't casually rewrite the rules everytime I make a new setting; its just not worth the effort.

-Peace-

[SA]

That's why I gave up on D&D a year after I started RPing.  My imagination couldn't stand the restriction.

[Thanuir]

I'd argue that the "gameness" of roleplaying is a function of the people playing it and the game they use.

Some RPGs, like, say,  Burning Empires,  Agon and  Rune, are explicitly competitive (like board games). Others, the quintessential examples being (most) Nordic LARP and other freeforming, can't really be called "games" under any sane definition.

[Kindling]

Good response to my somewhat over-zealous endorsement of GURPS :P

Just wanted to add that, although I adore GURPS, when world-building, I tend more towards perverting the d20 system to suit my needs. I find it quite an entertaining challenge...

[Raelifin]

I'd argue that the "gameness" of roleplaying is a function of the people playing it and the game they use.

Some RPGs, like, say,  Burning Empires,  Agon and  Rune, are explicitly competitive (like board games). Others, the quintessential examples being (most) Nordic LARP and other freeforming, can't really be called "games" under any sane definition.

That's a good point. Perhaps I was too rash in declaring roleplaying to be solely in the domain of acting rather than of gaming. It has been my experience that Players vs. DM attitudes cause poor sessions and cheapen the experience overall, but I guess I can see it if a system is built around the game conflict rather than the story.

[snakefing]

That's a good point. Perhaps I was too rash in declaring roleplaying to be solely in the domain of acting rather than of gaming. It has been my experience that Players vs. DM attitudes cause poor sessions and cheapen the experience overall, but I guess I can see it if a system is built around the game conflict rather than the story.

This business of player vs. DM always confuses me. I think it may be a semantics issue again. As far as I'm concerned, an RPG can have major game aspects to it without devolving to player vs. DM. Usually it's players vs. orcs, to take an example from above. The decision to battle the orcs can be made for any of a number of reasons, ranging from, "It just sounds fun," to, "Now would be a good time for my character to go down to a flaming, glorious death," or just, "It seems like what my character would do."

But once the battle mat is out, the game-like elements tend to intensify. The players (acting in their roles) take on the goals of the characters, and try their best (within the confines of their roles) to achieve that goal. They do this by marshaling their resources, choosing tactics, managing the battle field, and many other extremely game-like actions. And none of it is player vs. DM, at least in the harmful competitive sense.

It doesn't have to be this way. One could just decide how it would be best for the battle to go, and play it out the same way you play out any other scene. Even with the battle mat, you can use if primarily as a visualization aid and avoid some of the game-like elements.

Of course, player vs. DM really can be bad. Most game systems give the DM virtually unlimited power to alter the game reality on the fly, which makes this generally a lose-lose competition. But some game systems do give players the ability to overrule the DM, or even to take control of the narrative process for a time. This could lead to some interesting dynamics and friendly competition that would not necessarily ruin the game.

[Thanuir]

Raelifin,
it is very possible to make a system that creates story through the conflicts.


On the footprint of system; it always is. System does matter. Many RPGs have radically different structure than D&D has; for example, in Wushu, there is the principle of narrative truth: all players can describe/narrate stuff, and all of that is real in the game fiction/setting/diegesis (there is also veto, which everyone can do, but it is rarely used in actual play).

It is (borderline) RPG. Playing it will be totally different from playing D&D.

[Raelifin]

Raelifin,
it is very possible to make a system that creates story through the conflicts.

You misunderstand me. What I meant by conflicts is the competitive nature likely to arise with a game. If orcs control the bridge and the dragon is behind you, killing the orcs is the easiest way to "win" (keep your character alive) and thus the DM, who says that "there are five barrels of gunpowder on the wooden bridge" is now your enemy because he can be seen as trying to make you lose. That's the conflict of Player vs. DM and I am guilty of having experienced it first hand on the DM end. I was saying that while most RPG systems (d20 for example) put emphasis on storytelling, whether through combat or peace, there might be some game systems where the Player vs. DM, "game", nature might be explored more freely and make a good game.

[Thanuir]

[blockquote=Raelifin]I was saying that while most RPG systems (d20 for example) put emphasis on storytelling, whether through combat or peace, there might be some game systems where the Player vs. DM, "game", nature might be explored more freely and make a good game.[/blockquote]What do you mean by "storytelling" in this context?

(I'm not trying to be difficult or start a semantic argument; I just honestly don't know.)