The "G" in RPG

[pawsplay]

I think role-playing game, as a term of art, has a specific meaning. It means one or more players take on a role, and they can attempt to do anything that is an intelligible choice in the game. Donkey Kong, for instance, is not an RPG, because even though you play Mario, you can't decide to do anything with a barrel other than jump over it or break it. The Baron Munchausen Role-Playing Game actually isn't a role-playing game, because all you can do is tell stories, interrupt, and challenge people to duels. A computer role-playing game is such by analogy (you play a character, and can make choices) but is a different kind of game, because you can't do just anything. You can't jump over three foot tall fences with no game content behind them.

 

[Nakana]

Separation of player vs character?

With 3rd person: "My character does x." You're removed from the character itself and focusing on the game aspect.
With 1st person: "I do x". You're taking on a persona and focusing on the role-play aspect.

 

[payn]

Separation of player vs character?

With 3rd person: "My character does x." You're removed from the character itself and focusing on the game aspect.
With 1st person: "I do x". You're taking on a persona and focusing on the role-play aspect.

I see what you are saying now, but still disagree with it. I think that is a separate discussion on role play itself.

 

[GrimCo]

Base line of just enough G in RPG was 5ed when it came out.

Too much G was 3.x/PF1 at the end of it's lifecycle. When game has so many options for creating player characters and lots of those are bad/trap options, but you need good system mastery to recognize them as such, that's too much for me.

Also, complex combat mechanics that resamble more miniature wargame than rpg is too much.

On the other hand, games like Cairn are too light on game part.

 

[payn]

Base line of just enough G in RPG was 5ed when it came out.

Too much G was 3.x/PF1 at the end of it's lifecycle. When game has so many options for creating player characters and lots of those are bad/trap options, but you need good system mastery to recognize them as such, that's too much for me.

Also, complex combat mechanics that resamble more miniature wargame than rpg is too much.

On the other hand, games like Cairn are too light on game part.

I can see that, but its the opposite for me. 5E game part isn't interesting enough.

 

[Pedantic]

The question isn't removing the G, its how much G is too much G.

Fundamentally, I just don't think RPGs are anywhere near this point. I'd really like to be able to file off the RP and still see value in the resulting G, instead of justifying a poor game because the role-playing demands it.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Was just watching a video about the old 1e Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival Guides, and I remember passing on buying those books in the day because I thought it was too much rule detail that I didn't need.

 

[Nakana]

I see what you are saying now, but still disagree with it. I think that is a separate discussion on role play itself.

Initially, I considered rules-heavy vs. rules-lite as the basis for comparing the g to the rp. Then I considered narrative vs. simulationist. One might argue that a narrative-centric game might focus more on the rp than the g, but.... imagine playing a game like FATE (which is a rules-lite narrative-centric game as I understand it) strictly in the 3rd person. It would still feel way too "gamey" for me (albeit a very mechanistically simple game) with not enough "role-playing".

All of this, is what brought me to the conclusion of 1st vs 3rd person. I say all this, not to dissuade you, but better explain the thought process behind my position.

Perhaps, an interesting metric for RPGs in regards to this question would be "immersion factor"? Conceding that all of this is subjective anyway.

 

[payn]

Initially, I considered rules-heavy vs. rules-lite as the basis for comparing the g to the rp. Then I considered narrative vs. simulationist. One might argue that a narrative-centric game might focus more on the rp than the g, but.... imagine playing a game like FATE (which is a rules-lite narrative-centric game as I understand it) strictly in the 3rd person. It would still feel way too "gamey" for me (albeit a very mechanistically simple game) with not enough "role-playing".

See I dont see 1st anymore RP than 3rd. "Conan attacks the goblin" and "I attack the goblin" are essentially resolved the same way with game mechanics in most games. Now, if you want to say a game that has a simple resolution mechanic that is used frequently could be less gamey than a complex resolution mechanic that has several ways of resolution I could be persuaded of that.

All of this, is what brought me to the conclusion of 1st vs 3rd person. I say all this, not to dissuade you, but better explain the thought process behind my position.

Perhaps, an interesting metric for RPGs in regards to this question would be "immersion factor"? Conceding that all of this is subjective anyway.

Yeap, which is why I think this topic is more of RP itself. I think 1st person is certainly an element of RP, but its not strictly all RP is.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

I'd really like to be able to file off the RP and still see value in the resulting G, instead of justifying a poor game because the role-playing demands it.

There are certainly examples of that out there.

Savage Worlds is descended from Great Rail Wars, which was a pretty excellent minis game - and SW's combat system remains so today with no RP required. FASA's Star Trek had a starship combat system that was strong enough that it got expanded and spun off into a boxed wargame - the awkwardly named Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator - that still has fans today. Personally I thought Star Frontiers Knight Hawks starship combat system also made a pretty good stand alone game, especially after Dragon expanded it some - admittedly, I'd rather play it using the movement rules from Ground Zero Games' Full Thrust Fleet Books because they do intertial physics much better, but that's a trivial hack. And Knight Hawks' Second Sathar War campaign game is a enjoyable strategic wargame unto itself. The Fantasy Trip plays fine as a personal combat game with no RP at all, hence Melee and Wizard coming out separately. Similar for SPI's Dragonquest RPG, which spun its combat system off as the Arena of Blood gladiator game.

Not every RPG has subsystems that lend themselves to pure G functions without the RP, but it isn't hard to find ones that do.