mearls: RPGs Defined

Mearls (

mearls) wrote,
@ 2004-01-07 12:57:00

RPGs Defined
For a while now, I've been thinking about a functional definition of RPGs. In essence, what makes an RPG different from a boardgame, or poker, or football? Will Hindmarch and Eric Lang brought the question up during one of my nights of drinking, and I was too befuddled at the time to answer it. After many, intermittent thoughts over the months, I've come to a definition:

A roleplaying game is a game in which:

A. One participant takes the role of a referee or "game master"

and

B. The game has no built-in end state. In other words, the rules don't explain how the game ends.

I think B is the key point, since it folds aspects of competition (or the lack thereof) neatly into a broader, much more easily tested case. It is also, I believe, the critical point that makes an RPG different from everything else.

(Post a new comment)

maliszew
2004-01-07 10:05 am UTC (link)

Would you consider games like My Life with Master or the Charnel Gods setting for Sorcerer to conform to point B? In both, there are endgame conditions that, if met, trigger the conclusion of the campaign. In My Life with Master, there are even specific "rules" for what becomes of the player characters, based on their current stats. In both cases, there's a lot of latitude in terms of how the campaign conclusions occur, but that they occur is part of the appeal of these games, at least for weirdos like me.

What say you?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

mearls
2004-01-07 10:13 am UTC (link)

If there are specific rules that mark the end of the game, they are not RPGs. If the rules mandate that a character leaves play, then the game could continue, but if there are specific conditions that mark the end of the game, they aren't RPGs.

Now, I imagine that some people will argue this point with me. They'll want a definition that includes these games, and Baron Munchausen, and Pantheon. The question I have for them, before they post here, is "Why?" Why is it so important that these games be labeled as RPGs?

(I'm noy saying that I expect James to do this, but it's something I've noticed in discussion of a definition of RPGs. It's the same thing as the RPGs-as-art argument. Why is it so important that RPGs be labelled as art?)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

maliszew
2004-01-07 10:21 am UTC (link)

Why is it so important that these games be labeled as RPGs?

I'd call both games RPGs simply because their creators do and I'm not by nature inclined to disagree with someone else's self-definition, even if it sometimes strains credibility. I think My Life with Master probably isn't a "true" RPG in much the same way that Baron Munchausen isn't. It has strong roleplaying elements, but that alone isn't sufficient to be a RPG, even by my somewhat more expansive definition.

Charnel Gods, on the other hand, I'm not so sure. The game has rules for, literally, the End of the World. It's like playing Stormbringer but with the chance to bring it all crashing down by your own hand rather than wait for Elric to do it. But -- and it's a big one -- the end is not really the End, since it just sets in motion a new cycle of creation, with the players remaking the world in which they'll start the process over again.

That's a lot of rambling. My apologies. I do think, though, B is a sticking point not just for me, but for many people, particularly those who like games whose settings are structured in such a way as to have a termination point, whether it be because of genre-emulating rules or simply a preset timeline (like Pendragon, for example).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

mearls
2004-01-07 10:27 am UTC (link)

Keeping in my that I've never read Charnel Gods, there's a couple points to consider. For example, does Pendragon have clear cut rules for when the game ends? Is there a mechanic that says "When X, Y, or Z happen, the game is over"? That's the key.

For instance, Vampire still meets the definition even though its setting has come to an end. The game rules don't dictate the ending.

They key lies into another important point folded into part B of the definition: the game master, not the game designer, has ultimate control over the flow and direction of play.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

maliszew
2004-01-07 10:36 am UTC (link)

They key lies into another important point folded into part B of the definition: the game master, not the game designer, has ultimate control over the flow and direction of play.

By that definition, Pendragon and even Charnel Gods are still RPGs, since there is (in the first) a setting end state that usually means the end of the game but need not (the death of Arthur) or (in the second) a framework that says the End is coming soon but still allows players and GM to decide just how it unfolds.

I guess that's the question for me: would you consider a game in which there are explicit rules for when a character must leave the game for reasons other than death to be any different than, say, a hit point system? I can think of several quirky self-professed RPGs that have built-in mechanics that specify when a PC's story is at an end that is not wholly within the control of the player. Would that, to you, be any different than D&D where a PC's story can be ended because he's killed in combat?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

mearls
2004-01-07 10:43 am UTC (link)

I think the important thing is to look at the difference between the end of a single player's participation in the game and the end of the game as a whole. This is actually something I thought over quite a bit as I mulled over the definition.

If the rules remove a single player from the game but allow it to continue, then it could be an RPG. Again, the key point is this: do the mechanics have a built in, explicitly defined, end game state? Not just for one player, but for everyone. For example, the D&D rules do not have a single explanation of how the game ends. Even if all the characters die, the DM can use one of many ploys to keep the game rolling. A god can step in and resurrect everyone. I assume that in Pendragon the GM can play with the Arthurian mythos and allow the PCs to re-write things from the ground up.

Baseball has clear rules for how the game ends, as does poker and Settlers of Catan. D&D, Vampire. GURPS, all these games don't. I can't think of a single other game that meets that criteria. The interesting bit is that many computer RPGs (Grand Theft Auto III, for one) also meet this definition.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	maliszew 2004-01-07 10:46 am UTC (link)
	Understood. I think, then, that the only game I've mentioned that wouldn't qualify as a RPG under your definition is My Life with Master, since when a single PC achieves a certain game mechanical state, it ends the game for all the PCs. Offhand, it's the only game that does that that I can think of, but there may be others. Very interesting discussion. Thanks. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	mearls 2004-01-07 10:52 am UTC (link)
	Thanks for poking at the definition. It always helps to have comments on the ideas I come up with. That's why I post 'em. This also made me think about GTA III, and it reminds me that I need to post an article about why it's the best RPG (paper or computer) to come out in the past 7 or 8 years. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	maliszew 2004-01-07 10:54 am UTC (link)
	This also made me think about GTA III, and it reminds me that I need to post an article about why it's the best RPG (paper or computer) to come out in the past 7 or 8 years. That's a post I'd love to read. (Reply to this) (Parent)

serpentstar
2005-10-10 10:10 am UTC (link)

I think MLWM, Munchausen, and Pantheon are still RPGs, despite the defined, achievable end-state. I think that competition scenarios are still RPGs, despite them almost inevitably having achievable end-states (and scoring systems that could be used to define "winners").

If I design a game system based on the SRD, but adapted to fit a specific campaign, in which there can be a defined end-state based on what the players achieve (perhaps they play co-operating Dark Lords of Evil, but with a set-up so that there's only a set number of Gizmos of Ultimate Power which is less than the number of players; they can all work together until such time as they get their hands on the GUPs, but as soon as they do, all the characters with GUPs merge into one Sauron-like Uberdark Overlord of Mega-Evil, that is undefeatable and can control the minds of every other living creature), my adding those rules to what might otherwise be not significantly mechanically or generically different to an ordinary high fantasy D&D game (if one in which all the PCs are evil alignment) does not prevent said game from being an RPG.

Omega LRP was a very successful and indeed infamous LRP run for around four years as an ongoing, player-led campaign:

http://www.omegalrp.co.uk/

Around two-and-a-half years ago, some of the PCs managed to bring about the apocalyptic event they'd been trying for for some time. It was one of around half-a-dozen different possible ends to the campaign -- and the game -- that the creators had built into the rules mechanics. That game used unique rules, but they weren't anything that would be incomprehensible or unfamiliar to the average LRPer, or even the average RPGer.

I guess that where I think

mearls's definition falls down is in distinguishing between campaigns and games. Plenty of campaigns have fairly well-defined end points -- even an ordinary D&D campaign in which the PCs are all low on hp and get caught in a fireball *is over* barring GM flange, because there are no surivors left to use raise dead. What is it that stops such a campaign being excluded from the definition of RPGs? Does it only become a non-RPG if the GM comes up with a specific rule and adds it in mechanically (Rule 47: If all the PCs die at the same time & no-one is available to res them, I will burn all my campaign notes and start afresh, because in this *particular* D&D game the PCs are regarded as the only Observers capable of fulfilling the cosmic anthropic principle, and if ever they all die, the universe dies with them)? Or does the game-ending rule have to be in the original, published mechanics, rather than a campaign-specific add-on?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	serpentstar 2005-10-10 10:12 am UTC (link)
	Incidentally, I think there's some importance to the fact that most RPGs are designed to be open-ended, but I don't think that necessarily disallows "closed" RPGs from being RPGs. RPGs have the potential to be open-ended and infinite; that doesn't mean they all have to be. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	What about tournaments? danielcross 2004-01-08 05:35 am UTC (link)
	What about tournament games (as in RPGA) in which there are pregen characters and the players are expected to leave after the adventure is over? If the game does not continue beyond a single adventure (in which I am assuming some resolution), is that not an RPG? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	imnoclue 2008-03-11 06:05 am UTC (link)
	I'm interested in how this squares with a game like Polaris in which there is no single GM and which continues until the PCs lose all hope and perish or become demons. I think Polaris is an RPG, but there's definitely no illusion that its going to end well. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-13 10:10 am UTC (link)
	Or Universalis where the is no GM at all. -Jay (Reply to this) (Parent)

	eddyfate 2004-01-07 10:59 am UTC (link)
	I've actually done some thinking about this as well. I reference a book called "Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals" in a post on my own LJ and their definition of game and how RPGs fall into that definition. (Reply to this)

	elissa_carey 2004-01-07 11:05 am UTC (link)
	I'm curious; did you read the first (Fall Edition) of Daedalus? Eddy Webb has an article in there which talks about this very subject. Interesting food for thought. (Article here.) (Reply to this)

	Roles in the definition of roleplaying? (Anonymous) 2004-01-07 11:33 am UTC (link)
	I'm not sure sure either criteria (a gamemaster or lack of an end-state) are necessary for an RPG. It seems to me the defining trait of an RPG is a game wherein the players assume the roles of fictional characters, with rules defining what their characters are capable of doing. Everything else is potentially up for grabs . Steve (talonmail@aol.com) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Roles in the definition of roleplaying? princeofcairo 2004-01-07 02:38 pm UTC (link)
	I think I'd stop a bit before defining Clue as an RPG, though. I don't have a handy definition like Mike, but that's why I put things like My Life With Master and Baron Munchausen and Pantheon into the "Sui Generis RPG" category; they look a lot like RPGs, but something makes them -- their own thing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Roles in the definition of role playing? danielcross 2004-01-08 05:40 am UTC (link)
	But without the random elements and somebody to referee, how do we distinguish gamers from amateur thespians? What makes it a game? I guess it depends on how one defines the word "game" itself. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Roles in the definition of role playing? imnoclue 2008-03-23 06:47 pm UTC (link)
	You can play games without a referee. Pick up basketball is a game. There's often no one referee. There are rules though and the group self regulates. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Roles in the definition of role playing? danielcross 2008-03-24 12:49 pm UTC (link)
	I agree, but RPGs was the first game I can think of where there was no "winner" or "loser" involved. The genre redefined what games could be. So I wonder if an RPG without a storyteller (even if a computer) can be considered as such. It's sorta semantic. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	brahman_atman 2004-01-07 03:22 pm UTC (link)
	Will there be a panel discussion of this topic at the next MearlsCon? (Reply to this)

adamdray
2004-01-07 08:27 pm UTC (link)

But your definition requires absolutely no role-playing. Here's a game that fits your definition:

RULES
1. Appoint one of the players as the referee.
2. The other players take turns rolling a 6-sided die.
3. Whoever rolls the highest gets 1 experience point.
4. The referee chooses the winner in case of a tie.

It's not a very fun game, and no one would call it a role-playing game, but it fits your definition.

(Reply to this)

(R)(P)(G) - R
(Anonymous)
2004-01-12 07:38 am UTC (link)

On the matter of an RPG seemingly without any actual role-playing: The cynical answer is that, from a design perspective, the role-playing is not actually essential to the game experience, at least not in practice and at least not any more. This is a much more multi-faceted argument than I can afford in this little space and time, but here's the gist I'm thinking of:

Computer RPGs (Baldur's Gate, Knights of the Old Republic) do not contain any genuine role-playing elements; they simulate role-playing with dialogue trees and adventure game elements. So, either it's incorrect to give them the RPG label (which is possible) or it's incorrect to assume that an RPG must demand a role-playing element (which is also possible). Were we to base our decision off of popular sentiment and success, it's worth noting that computer-based RPGs are much more popular and successful (I presume) than table-top RPGs. I don't personally think that dollars should be the voting medium on this topic, but I do think it's a viable argument for the actual play versus the theoretical design.

Strictly speaking, even D&D doesn't require role-playing any more than Monopoly does. It encourages role-playing to a larger extent, but a generous definition of role-playing would include any "in-character" dialogue spoken by make-believe real estate investors around a Monopoly board. If the encouragement or facilitation of role-playing is to be a requirement, then we have to determine what criterion is going to separate out similar board games, such as any which cast the players as pirates and, so, inspire pirate-like dialogue (see Mutiny!). This is also certainly possible, but the goal of any definition must be simplicity and precision, right?

Mearls, I think you're on the right track, though I'm basing this off the fact that I disagree with you. I wish the practical definition of RPGs were more like the theoretical or artsy definition I support, but I'm a snob in that regard. Since I disagree, however, I have to say that I don't think this definition is yet complete. The open end-state is a brilliant insight and a smart inclusion (in that it requests a look at the definition of "adventures" as an RPG game construct/medium within, but not integral to, the game itself). Something in Part A seems too restricting, however. Are LARPs with more (or fewer!) than a single referee not RPGs?

Last minute thought: Definition B begs attention to the ways in which an RPG *does* end, despite the potential endless-state of the rules. Those actual (rather than possible) endings can be compared to electronic gaming titles which could, presumably, go on forever were it not for development time and storage space. I'm wandering off the field here, I know, but just in case there's some critical artifact out here to be collected.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure I'm down to debating your language and not your concepts.

word,
Will

(Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2004-01-12 08:33 pm UTC (link)
	What I want to know, though, in game terms, is how much chance this discussion has of increasing the fun factor of any game that we produce? :) "One-L" Wil (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Fun)+3
(Anonymous)
2004-01-13 02:14 pm UTC (link)

Hi Wil,

That's a fine rhetorical point. I think this discussion is fun, so that's my primary interest. As for the funneling of fun into our future productions, I think this sort of theoretical discussion keeps the designers motivated and energized, much as discussing film or football keeps those professionals energized. Beyond that, a clearer sense of purpose, a new look at what may or may not be in the arteries of the hobby, a refreshed snapshot of RPGs through the lens of developers and players is always a good thing. Pondering a definition like this may make the process of design smoother, may cut down on obstacles between the transmission and the reception of the creative idea. That is, it may open the conduit between the designer and the player so that fun flows more easily.

Even better, it may supply me an excuse to write the sort of metaphor-heavy, snobbish and preposterous prose that I seldom get to write in the customer service emails I spend all day processing. :-)

word,
Will

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-01-13 06:15 pm UTC (link)

It will certainly make Mearls' job easier, since he's taking 2 out of the 3 letters out of RPG.

Now he just has to make a game. :)

In response to one of his responses earlier, though, I would like to know WHY he needs to ignore the roleplaying aspect of roleplaying games in order to feel comfortable defining them as such. That certainly bears explaining, and is at the core of his definition.

1L

(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2004-01-15 05:21 am UTC (link)

Mearls, can you look at continuing this discussion and putting it somewhere other than your blog archives? I think, as Will notes, your 'no defined end-state' insight is great and it's something i haven't really heard before, at least not with that precision. I don't want it to be quickly lost into the net ether. Can you throw your definition somewhere more, er, public, sorta? Up to you where.

You might have already done this, of course, and I might not have noticed, of course of course.

~`morgue

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	mearls 2004-01-15 09:57 am UTC (link)
	I was actually planning on doing another LJ entry about it soon, though I have a fair amount of work to get done ASAP. Do you have any suggestions for good venues? (Reply to this) (Parent)

zgaidin
2004-01-15 01:32 pm UTC (link)

I just had a couple of non-linear points to make.

1) One could argue that by your definition, poker is a form of role-playing if instead of looking at one-hand as the whole game, you instead view one hand as a round (such as a combat round in D&D). A round begins when the player to the left of the dealer (or however your group decides) places his first bet. Play continues round the table. A combat round begins when the first players initiative comes up. A hand ends when all the players who haven't folded turn their cards up and the winner is resolved. A round ends when initiative reaches 0 and everyone has gone. The referee is, in effect, the dealer. He handles all the issues of chance and dictates (though not consciously) the flow of the game. He deals the cards, the only real mechanic the game has. One could probably better argue that a hand of poker is more like a RPG combat scene, but that would require more knowledge of poker than I possess. Regardless, if you look at a hand as an integral part of the game, and the game itself as a series of hands with the dealer(s) as referee, then poker starts to fit your definition. There is no rule that dictates when you're buddies and you have to put up the beer, stow the pretzels and cards, and go home for the night. I'm not trying to be ornery, btw, but poking holes will help you shore up a definition that I like, at least as a first stab.

2) In response to the person who points out that some level of role-playing is necessary, understand that this is very problematic, because you must then define the rather elusive concept of role-playing. The loosest possible definition of role-playing would be that the players take on fictional roles & by some mechanism convey the actions of said role instead of their own. That leaves room for interpretation. Is it role-playing if a group of GURPS players take on the role of a band of monks brawling for justice in an unfair world while restricted by their order's vow of silence? They don't speak in character, and could potentially use the very indepth mechanics of GURPS to simulate every action. They would still have to declare their character's actions, but the same can be said of the old HeroQuest boardgame. I'd say the above game is a role-playing game, but others would certainly argue. More importantly, the above definition of role-play includes elements that most RPers wouldn't agree are actually RP. Someone mentioned Monopoly. I don't buy or sell real estate IRL, but that doesn't bar me from playing Monopoly. If I'm playing the game, I'm conveying the fictional actions of a fictional character by buying fictional real estate with fictional money. Restricting the above definition, however, begs the question of how to do it. If we say the players must speak as their characters, we not only marginalize a good many gamers, who just explain their characters actions from a third-person perspective, but we eliminate the monk example above. If we say there must be character sheets of some form to represent the fictional roles, then we eliminate improv theatre, which while not a role-playing game, is certainly role-playing. So on and so on. I think Mearls is on the right track, attempting find a definition in concrete terms without referring to subjective terms that are hard to define.

Z

(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2004-01-15 02:20 pm UTC (link)

You simply cannot define roleplaying games and ignore the roleplaying aspect.

If you can't define roleplaying, then that's a failing of your analysis, and you are better off trying to convince people to rename the category. Work fits this definition of roleplaying, with your boss as the referee. Maybe that's Mearls' problem...he's too busy conflating work and roleplaying. :)

By this definition any sport can be classified as a roleplaying game by simply not fixing a time limit on the activity. We'll just play until we're tired, keep score, and continue tomorrow playing until we're tired. Eventually we'll quit, but we don't really need to say when. That's more of a roleplaying game by your definition than a D&D campaign in which I tell the players that we will end the campaign once they reach 20th level. I have now taken D&D (or substitute any game you like) out of the realm of roleplaying, by Mearls' definition.

So instead of attempting verbal gymnastics to avoid the inevitable (as all deconstructionist arguments must at some point), why not shift focus and simply say that since roleplaying cannot be defined, and is a purely subjective thing, that the category makes no sense and should be renamed.

Then you can start coming up with new names for it, I'll suggest Player-Propelled Bullshit Sessions...yeah, we play PPBSs.

1L

(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2005-10-08 01:21 am UTC (link)

I definitely think that My Life with Master is a roleplaying game and a very good one at that.

Now I think that that game illustrates why your definition is flawed. It doesn't have competition built in and I think that the game doesn't support or encourage competition. On the other hand we may have some very competive groups or games that don't have an ending condition.

Your definition is a nice ludological definition, sharp and clear cut. However, I think that it completely leaves out what is happening in the minds of the players themselves and I find that that is the most important thing about RPGs. The game of chess can be played by a computer according to the rules of the game, but a roleplaying game cannot. If we define roleplaying games the way you define them, a computer can indeed play.

Games like My Life with Master are a little different than the games that you are used to. They are not generic, indeed they are specific. They support a spesific kind of roleplaying experience as opposed to trying to satisfy all kinds of needs. You can compare MLwM to any stand-alone scenario that you could run in a convention for example. MLwM is a game that can be used to roleplay several games or sessions with a specific recognizable theme. You could play the exact same "scenario" with D&D 3.5ed, but I bet that it would not be as satisfactory. Still, you say that MLwM is not a roleplaying game and D&D is.

Now, consider this from the perspective of two outsiders, who don't know anything about roleplaying games. They both play only a single session at a convention. The other one plays D&D and the other plays MLwM. The first session lasts for 2 hours and then ends. The second lasts 6 hours and then the end condition is met and the players tell their characters epilogues. If I understand you correctly, then by your definition, the first one has played a roleplaying game and the second hasn't.

I dont' see the difference. I don't think that playing a game that has been designed to produce a certain type of roleplaying experience makes the game you are playing something other than a roleplaying game. I think that the act of roleplaying defines a roleplaying game. That's the same as saying that a roleplaying game is a game or a set of rules and other material that is designed to facilitate roleplaying.

I really think that you should check out the Meilahti Model if you want to see a really well tought-out descriptive model of roleplaying.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	mearls 2005-10-10 04:04 am UTC (link)
	I will definitely read up on the Meilhati Model and think more about the subject of a definition. Thanks for the post - it's food for thought. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Earth is under attack (Anonymous) 2007-04-19 11:26 am UTC (link)
	http://emeets.info/profile.php?id=1430 Look at Memo "About me" 8) (Reply to this)

	Usama Bin Laden new video (Anonymous) 2007-05-13 05:58 am UTC (link)
	http://xfind.info/news/list.php?id=112078&t=html "The United States Government is offering a reward of up to $5 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden."" Today somebody get rich! :) (Reply to this)

Cheap drugs at Best online pharmacy me
(Anonymous)
2007-05-14 05:39 pm UTC (link)

Dear Customers!

START SAVING YOUR TIME AND MONEY!

Order your medication in 3 easy steps:

1. Search our alphabetical index of medications to view great prices and detailed drug information.

2. To place an order, find your medication and click "Buy now"

3. Click on "Checkout" to complete your order!

ADVANTAGES OF SHOPPING WITH US:

1. Convenience - open round the clock, unlike your regular drug store to meet all your medicinal needs;

2. Security - any personal information and purchases you make remains private;

3. Quality - we sell only genuine drugs;

4. Easy Usage - easy ordering process, with clear and easy to understand instructions;

5. Guaranteed Lowest Prices on the Internet - no comments, check prices now!

Our online pharmacy is the perfect resource for people to get their drugs without any hassles or awkwardness. We work hard to make sure you save money every time you shop with us. At our online store, you pay less and get more.

To make sure we keep offering you great values, we regularly check prices on our top-selling items at chain drugstores. In addition, we scour the Internet to find bargains offered by other companies - and usually match or beat their promotional offers.

Shop now! [url=http://pharma37.com]pharma37.com[/url]

(Reply to this)

	Uma Turman was killed! (Anonymous) 2007-05-23 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	Today in Los-Angeles. Horrible.. http://wetz.info/channel/?chanID=71004 (Reply to this)

	For my old friend (Anonymous) 2008-01-31 01:11 pm UTC (link)
	Hello, my Dear......Tell me , what my photo doing there?....?? http://videofilex.tripod.com (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-11 06:28 am UTC (link)
	"The game has no built-in end state." So D&D4 isn't going to have the possibility of everyon in the party reaching 0 (or -10 or whatever) hitpoints without being able to revive each other? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-13 11:18 am UTC (link)
	You realize that the origonal post was written 4 years ago, right? (Reply to this) (Parent)

brand_of_amber
2008-03-11 03:57 pm UTC (link)

I think the best answer I've seen to this question recently was by Neel Krishnawami who said something like "A roleplaying game is a game where the fiction is part of the rules."

Because in Monopoly you might make up a personality for your hat, but it won't get you a bonus to your dice rolls. OTOH, in D&D, if you say there is a table in the room, or that your guy hates orcs, that may damn well change the whole game.

(Reply to this)

	mr_orgue 2008-05-12 08:59 pm UTC (link)
	I'm interested to know if the 4E Epic Destinies mean you have to finesse this definition at all. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs