The "G" in RPG

[hawkeyefan]

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

Sure, but what comes to my mind when that question is asked, is to imagine an EPG with little to no G.

I think if we remove the game, then what we’re engaging in is collective storytelling. It’s no longer really a game.

By contrast, if we increase the amount of game elements, I don’t think anything as severe happens. We’re still playing a game.

For me, when it comes to the volume of rules, my question is whether the amount of rules is justified. Do the rules make the game more fun? Do they come with too high a cost in like mental bandwidth?

So for instance, I remember a buddy of mine thinking that 3.5 D&D had tons of cool options for the fighter. I thought that most options were repetitive, and not really distinct enough to justify all the extra material that went along with it. Like, couldn’t tripping or disarming or sundering and so on all be one feat? Do we really need so many additional rules for all that stuff?

My buddy’s answer was yes. Mine was no. I think it’s all a matter of preference and expectation.

 

[Maxperson]

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

For me too much game is when I'm being yanked out of RP immersion too often to roll dice, look things up or move pieces on a board for combat. I can't really quantify what "too often" means, but I know it when I feel it!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm going to step into this one on @payn's side of things. 1st vs. 3rd person just determines how you roleplay. In my opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, 3rd person ranks lower on the RP scale than 1st person, but it's still on the scale. 3rd person is so low that I haven't used it in decades. Maybe not since the 1980s.

To me what determines the game portion or things like figuring out what my bonuses are from 2 different spells, whether I have inspiration to use for the roll, having to figure out how many targets are in the area of a spell, and so on. The mechanical aspects of gameplay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've given this some thought. I don't like the formation of the question, for the very same reasons you point out in the OP. Perhaps, rather than separating the RP from the G, a better way to view it is the ratio of 1st person vs. 3rd person.

No matter what rules/mechanics you're using, 3rd person feels very much like the G, while 1st person feels more like the RP.

I think 1st/3rd person is also a little easier to pin down and define. I like a good mix of both, so let's call it 50/50.

Edit: I do think there are some rules systems that more conducive to either 1st or 3rd person, but the play style will overcome any rules set.

If the game elements are properly designed, I don't think the distinction is nearly as strong as this implies; the gameplay should be reflecting things that are perfectly in character.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but what comes to my mind when that question is asked, is to imagine an EPG with little to no G.

I think if we remove the game, then what we’re engaging in is collective storytelling. It’s no longer really a game.

By contrast, if we increase the amount of game elements, I don’t think anything as severe happens. We’re still playing a game.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but that seem tautological.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but that seem tautological.

It probably is a bit. I just think that when we downplay the game elements of an RPG, it becomes less of a game. And that’s not something I would prefer.

It’s interesting to me when people advocate for less game… it’s just so different from what I want.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

The thing is, these are all examples of either strategic vehicle combat, or tactical skirmish combat, which are great and fun things, but are generally just specific minigames inside the RPG loop. It's generally the rest of the game that's a poorly designed gameplay experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It probably is a bit. I just think that when we downplay the game elements of an RPG, it becomes less of a game. And that’s not something I would prefer.

It’s interesting to me when people advocate for less game… it’s just so different from what I want.

I'll make a try (and keep in mind this is from someone who really, really normally wants a lot of game in his RPG).

For some people all they really want is the minimal amount of game structure to resolve conflicts of intention within the story structure. I can kind of get that, as I played for years on various MUSHes, some of which were largely or completely mechanics free; you had defined traits of a character, but how they interacted was entirely up to negotiation.

When that worked it was sometimes really amazing; I'd find I could engage with the character in a way I never do really in normal RPGs (of course part of that was because it was being done entirely through text which made some of the distractions of things that reminded you you weren't really dealing with the situation and characters at hand).

And yet--it could also be very frustrating when people couldn't agree on how things would work out. Even some minimal mechanical resolution would have often helped.

So I can see why some people might want that overall experience with that minimal resolution. It'd not work for me in a normal game experience, because I can't sink into the character the way I did there, but some people can. Since I can't, I'd rather split the difference and play from some Author stance with the game experience overlayed with it and have my peanut butter and my chocolate.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think if we remove the game, then what we’re engaging in is collective storytelling. It’s no longer really a game.

This is probably where a divide occurs between people, because in my opinion there's absolutely no reason why 'collective storytelling' can't be a game. Fiasco is a game and that's completely about 'collective storytelling'. And theatrical improvisation is entirely about games... that's why they are called 'improv games'.

Now do these things like Fiasco or improv reduce / remove a 'randomizer' element (such as dice) like a lot of games have? Sure. Take away the dice and I'm sure it feels less like a game for some people. But a person's feelings on what does or does not make a game has no impact on whether something actually IS a game or not. Most of us probably feel like roleplaying games should have dice and that the adjudication of action comes from the rolling dice, because that is what RPGs have always traditionally had and thus what we are used to. And if we remove the dice, we remove the feeling of familiarity that we expect from an RPG. But just because we feel like it's less of a game, doesn't mean that it actually isn't one. We can collectively create stories with or without any dice rolling or extensive rules for adjudication and have it be just as much of a game as ones we are just used to playing due to experience.

 

[Umbran]

Gamey things I need:

• Dice
• A unified resolution mechanic
• Hit points, XP, other "points"
• Stats
• Levels
• Core rules

Gamey things I wish I could remove forever:

• "Builds"
• Rewards for optimization
• "Decision by committee" on every turn of initiative

Unfortunately, all the things you wish you could remove forever are a direct result of the stuff you want.

If you give people a core ruleset with bits they can manipulate (stats and points) and rewards (XP), they will manipulate those bits (optimizing, building, and "decision by committee" a.k.a. putting many brains on a problem) to get the rewards they want.