The "G" in RPG

How much game is too much game in an RPG?

I think that answer is going to differ depending on the person. Personally, I have a pretty liberal definition of what role playing is. I do think many video and board games absolutely apply. In fact you have to get down to the Tetris level of game design for me to stop thinking of the RP aspect. Even something like Diplomacy, one of the finest board games every invented, has RP elements as you take the role of the head of a nation state. The scope of the "game" portion isnt really a factor I worry about. In fact, its the RP portion that I think is more important to an RPG than the G. You can have almost no game mechanics, or extensive simulation attempts, and it doesnt effect my perception of an RPG. I didnt mean to pull a bait and switch on y'all, but everytime I read about this topic, its exactly where I go. Looking forward to hearing y'all's perspective.

-Cheers

So, pretty much anything can be role-playing, and you're not interested in the thread title or first question posed? I wish I could help, but I'll need a TL;DR or other clarifying element.

GMMichael said:

So, pretty much anything can be role-playing, and you're not interested in the thread title or first question posed? I wish I could help, but I'll need a TL;DR or other clarifying element.

Click to expand...

...or you could see the topic being the bold question which is the TL;DR and the following paragraph my answer to it. Whats yours?

I see the game part as all the rules that go into making the game run. Each person playing might have a mind idea of "I'll hit him with my sword", but the game rules tell him that he needs to roll a d20 and add his bonuses to see if he gets past the bad guy defense. I would say that it is like 90% of the discussion threads here.

I think the G in RPG is pretty important. While I very much enjoy the fiction of play, and occasionally talking in funny voices, those elements are no more important than the mechanical gameplay elements. Note that this doesn't mean I need complex or deep systems. Sometimes those are fun to have, but other times I want a super streamlined mechanism to resolve stuff. But in the end, the rules and (most importantly for me) random results are very important and provide much of the fun of play. Everybody on the edge of their seat hoping Bob rolls that saving throw, otherwise it is TPK town, is a huge draw.

When I was a young teen, I got very into roleplaying. Just free-form RP. This was mostly done in Yahoo! Messenger Chatrooms, and then eventually moving onto web forums. Around the same time my older brother began dating a girl who was also very into role playing. The three of us used to sit around and literally just talk. Describe what our characters were doing, talk to one another in character.

It was fun. Essentially just collaborative story writing. The problem this, and the forums, and the chat rooms ran into though, was always conflict resolution. Typically you're not content to come up with a character who lives a normal routine life with no challenges to overcome. One of the RP forums I was on really bugged me because player vs player fighting was a huge piece of the theme. When two people are just able to say "Well, you did that, but it doesn't matter because I'm able to do this." it ends up being this endless thread of one-upping. It got very tiring to me.

Playing the story telling game with my brother also had these issues. We were a bit better about it, because we enjoyed trying to come up with a compelling story.. So we were happy to narrate our characters taking a beating or falling short, because we knew that the comeback would be better for it. With that said we ended up stealing dice from the Risk set and coming up with our own rules for dice contests.

I certainly think there needs to be some sort of 'game' element. Some sort of situation where control is removed from the player. The ability to try is always there, but never the guarantee of success.

It's funny that myself, my brother, and his girlfriend (Who he would go on to marry, and later un-marry) would transition to D&D, specifically 3.5e. We LOVED the crunch. We absolutely geeked out over the mile long list of skills. Over all the feats. Sub classes, prestige classes.. We got very invested in the game portion of our role playing game.

15ish years later however, and I'm running a 5e game and I'm very nostalgic over that game.. But I'm not quick to return to it. I am actually actually looking to strip that crunch away from my game. I'm trying to convince my players to look for answers that may not be on their character sheets. When I'm calling for a skill roll I find that I'm usually giving my players options. "Go ahead and roll athletics, or acrobatics, whichever you're better at". Sure, I know that they are different skills, and have different use cases. Jumping a gap would probably be athletics right? Either way, I don't think it matters too much. Your character is physically well suited to this task. Maybe that's because you're playing a dexterous and nimble character who will leap the gap with perfect form and grace. Or maybe it's because you're strong as an ox, and never missed leg day, so your character can thrust themselves over the gap like they're heaving a sack of grain into a wagon.

I feel like I'm typing a lot without actually saying anything, so I'll finish with my answer.

payn said:

How much game is too much game in an RPG?

Click to expand...

I think there is too much game when you ask the player what they want to do, and instead of saying "I want to do X" and then you come up with how to resolve the task, they instead pause, and look down at the sheet and say "Well.. I don't know. I don't think I have anything that helps me here."

So I guess "Too much game" is going to depend on the group and the players. I'd assume that for even the most crunchiest and math intensive games out there, there are groups where it'd be perfect, and they wouldn't be bogged down by it, even while others might be.

aco175 said:

I see the game part as all the rules that go into making the game run. Each person playing might have a mind idea of "I'll hit him with my sword", but the game rules tell him that he needs to roll a d20 and add his bonuses to see if he gets past the bad guy defense. I would say that it is like 90% of the discussion threads here.

Click to expand...

RP is such a nebulous term and I think most folks would fail at putting the boundaries on it that they have an easier time of doing with game elements. I do think you need some base rules to have a game, and there is no limit that stops one from being an RPG. I, personally, have my limits of too much mechanical crunch that I feel gets in the way of RP, but id never declare it isnt an RPG just becasue of my preference.

payn said:

...or you could see the topic being the bold question which is the TL;DR and the following paragraph my answer to it. Whats yours?

Click to expand...

Ah. Too much game is when I need to use the table of contents, or index, of a rulebook during play. Having one or two bookmarked pages for making rules references is about right for me.

payn said:

...or you could see the topic being the bold question which is the TL;DR and the following paragraph my answer to it. Whats yours?

Click to expand...

It's funny how often people "unsee" bold text...

I used to like a lot of game. I played a lot of Rolemaster, 3.5, GURPS. I have come to like the amount of game in 5E, though. But there's got to be game. Roleplaying is cool, and can really enhance the game, but I really want dice, tactics, and character advancement.