วีดีโอ

Hey great seeing you and your quality resources! I like the scenius, even though I try to refrain from using the concept of genius. I would agree with the "4th category of game" and for me there is no doubt in my mind that D&D is in fact a game. I would argue I recognize a game when I see it played. And I do recognize children playing pretend as playing a game, so D&D is absolutely a game in my mind. I do think there is a looot of creativity in DMs even if some use campaign books. I don't worry a bit about it. :) Thank you for your videos, I value them a lot. And even if I think differently from you, I will always listen to your point of view. You earned that! Have a great day

I agree with your exact point.. D&D is specifically an Entertainment. It arose from a War-Gaming culture. D&D deliberately disguised itself as a Game, for many reasons. D&D cannot become a game when the DM is human, but a Computer Game can implement it. Over time Wizards has been moving the perception of D&D towards Game and indeed Absolute Game. 4E was part of this and the System as Platform that we're seeing in D&DOne is the ultimate goal, I believe. A Game can be sold, an Entertainment cannot. Part of the strength of D&D as an Entertainment is in the player's belief (or suspension of disbelief) in the idea of what they are doing as being a Game. Just as Puppetry, Theatre, etc. This is Creativity, but it masquerades as a Game. That makes it more appealing to players, lends it additional dynamics and .. also allows it to be commercialized and proselytized dar better. I veryuch enjoy more the Old School D&D. It is important that the players can maintain the sense that there is rigor at some level and the DM is not arbitrarily just making things up. But.. that can be done many ways. D&D can also become the greatest of Computer Games and the basis for the highest form of Computer Game as Art. For me that is interesting, but it is not what I aim for when playing. We are in interesting times when of the people playing the same adventure at the same table, there may be mixed persp stoves on how objective the game in fact is.

<shrug> I think game is a big tent, but in any case it wouldn't be the first "Imagination Engine" Cetainly Barunsteins fit your description.

A game of tag is not having a "winner" either. There are things out there labeled "rpg", i would agree is (almost) purely an imagination engine. But D&D is not it, as it has clearly defined goals the players can succeed and fail in (survive, gain treasure, defead bad guy). And as imagination engine it is far from the first. even chess can be used as an imagination engine, and free kriegspeil is hardly distingushable from D&D in this particular regard. I think the role of the DM as an orchestrator of fun (as opposed to pure oponent or fully neutral referee) is a more essential aspect to look at to recognize why D&D might be worthy of being labeled a new category of play.

call it a game, call it a blend of several mini games, call it role playing, or not what ever you want to label it as is fine, and that's the beauty of TTRPGs is that it wears many hats and faces. You wear the hat you want. As long as you are having fun, label it whatever you want as long as you are not down-playing, or critiquing anyone else s opinion of what or how they play. The books are labelled as a guidebook, and specifically states within that these are not hard fast set rules. [Yes the modern version of the game is very much a version heavily reliant on following the "rules", otherwise your game may collapse]. Use what you like discard what you don't or use your own guidelines. The environment is structured to a point within the basic aspects of playing, like combat mechanics, but, because it offers infinite options for players and DMs to be creative, it lowers the confines of a rule based and heavily structured game that will end with a winner or loser. The universe is defined only by imagination, of the DM and players, and can be expanded and changed as you play in order not to keep the players within a defined universe. The issue is not what DND is but, based on what era you grew up in, it is based on how we were influenced in order to perceive what DND is. For example i began playing in 1981. No major influences from video gaming culture. This i believe is the determining factor of how a generation perceives DND. If you grew up in an era heavily influenced by video games, then you are more likely to perceive DND as a rule based game with structure that needs to be followed as that is what you learned from video games. I on the other hand perceived DND as strictly an imagination adventure "game" with some guidelines on how to basic play, but given freedom to play how i wanted, not restricted within "rules" that dictate outcomes. Just my 2 bits, everyone's opinions are more than valid. Cheers Cool vid, just subbed. Cheers Keep 'em Rollin'

I think it needs gauged against the players. If you have a player that is a true leader type, you can give them lots of agency. If you have a typical group, it's probably better to give them either A or B or have them tell you what their plans are for the next session at the end of the current session. I also think that throwing a couple of clues about things happening in the world every so often and watching what they pick up on is a good strategy. They have to know what they are doing at the beginning of every session and have some goals.

It's playing make believe with rules and math while one of you (the DM) uses his imagination as a playground for the others. To this day that is still the best explanation I have 😅

I think of D&D as a simulation in the mind.

Which is why I don't really get into the pen & paper mechanics. As I said the only to "die" is to piss off the GM.

I really appreciate this conversation, but it's kind of strange to me to refuse the new generation's take on it. There is always risk that intended tone and learned tone don't match and this is what is happening with modern ttrpgs. Videogames have made players really interested in stat blocks and builds and metas. It's fine if it's not for you, it's not really for me either. But d&d is a game now. What was envisioned by the original creators has changed the world, but has also changed itself and i appreciate the osr and cag communities for bringing back the intended tone in full force

It's a tripodology felinid construct of a collection of subjectives and suppositions in forced narrative of non-linear gibberish.

I think your completely off here eapecially as you get into old school gaming. The rules are rules and not a set of suggestions. Anyone who has played a campaign into 200 plus sessions realizes that if you do not have rules that are followed, it falls apart within the first seven sessions. What D&D is is a set of subsystems that allow imagination to grow within a defined universe which cannot be done outside of a structured game type environment.

The conclusion does not follow because that is a useless definition for a game. Games need player agen y, some sort of structure conditions for allowed/disallowed actions, and a defined win and/or fail state. Whether and to what degree it involves skill, strength, or luck is irrelevant (although anything that qualifies as a game is going to enable some level of skill factor). Questing Beast's conclusion similarly follows from a uselessly narrow definition of what constitutes roleplaying. Specifically, TUNIC proceeds from exclusively one variant on a diagetic form of roleplaying comparable to method acting, which is far removed from ttrpgs where the method instead operates at other levels such as authorship, where the roleplay is not submitting to the character but constantly or iteratively creating and recreating them as part of the game process (eg several popular PbtA systems). QB's definition exclusively considers an extremely instantiated, concrete form of roleplay and there are many other more meta and abstract layers at which any individual system or player can focus on or at which the primary game loop can operate in. Ttrpg systems are not games nor roleplay in themselves but engines to facilitate play from which the players can use to instantiate and run _that_ activity (to put it in coding terms, a ttrpg is a class and the game/roleplay an instantiation of that class), which are a combination of both a game and roleplay. Insofar as it lacks a game, it is not a ttrpg but a loose set of constraints on freeform roleplay, and insofar as it lacks any structural open-ended support to facilitate roleplay, it becomes exclusively a mechanical game onto which people are projecting roleplay that is technically irrelevant to the game. It is a sliding spectrum, and some of the defining features are specifically emergent properties from combining the two.

No, FATE is an imagination engine, DnD is a game, a wargame for that matter

For me D&D, even old school versions are too much of a game, but I understand your stance. And well, since I am working on my own system, which I refer to as RPE -- Role-Playing Experience. Since despite having dice, they do not measure capabilities of the characters, so no attack rolls and such things that for me are just the wargaming heritage in D&D that still anchor it in the gaming space.

While I agree on the thing that RPGs are imagination engines (I had that concept few years ago in my mind, but I was never able to name it), I don't agree that RPGs are not about roleplaying. If that's the case, then word roleplaying has to be removed from genre's name. Even a mannerism in speaking, changing you face mimics is roleplaying. You don't have to dress up, walk and literally do stuff to roleplay. You have LARPs for maniacs of those. PS. RPGs are mostly cooperative games, but at the same time they can be competitive - if one or more characters all ok with killing other party members, or simply betraying them. Yet RPGs are not games. They are a weird thing. As a GM you have to make up rules quite often on the spot, to suit current events that are unfolding. This is not how any game works. You have a set of rules that you need to respect. Here everything is left up to the group and mostly GM, who's here to unfold events - that PCs are "fighting with" (so there's yet another competitive element Players vs Obstacles, or Time Limit) - as well as be a referee, which will make imaginative realm more believable. Plus, there may be winners and loosers. A NPC that has to be rescued gets killed. PCs die because of their unwise decisions. One, lack of imaginative skills and lack of luck. Two other factors that make games games. You can't put RPG in an game cathegory, yet at the same time you will have to put it there. In Talisman it's up to you which way you will gop. In Warhammer Fantasy Battle it's up to you which regiment you'll attack. And you always roll the dice. For me RPGs are games, while at the same time they are not games at all. It's the best example of a real and existing paradox, that you can experience on yourself. When you descripe your last session you will say "We went to that castle" instead of "Our characters decided they will inspect that ruined castle". See? Immersion take its toll. xD You will never solve to puzzle of: What RPGs truly are, because they are everything name implies, while at the same time not being it at all.

Your group will answer that...quickly. If all are trusted and your social contract allows more freedom for things like co-creation then you shouldn't have an issue at all. Trust is obviously a big key here. Co-creation gives a boost to the GM to be more a part of the story than the normal role of tour guide steering everyone on a finite track of possibilities. Have had amazing sessions where we set a premise with established guidelines, jump into the sandbox and start building. Too little "agency" is like a video game with no jump. It's frustrating when jumping is exactly how your character would solve that problem.

As an artist I love incorprating my art into the game. I've never really questined why I love the hobby I just do it.

Interesting perspectives, but I struggle to see the practical use/meat and potatoes of any conclusion of this topic.

Its a war game

D&D is gamified storytelling

I strongly disagree. Even according to the definition of game that you show. D&D is definitely a form of play. And it is played according to rules. That's because the rules do not start at "when you have to roll a die". The rules already start the moment you sit at the table. The GM is a referee of sorts, and he rules if a die needs to be rolled or not. Just because it's not written specifically in the book, doesn't mean it's not a rule. There are also winners and losers. While it's often said "you don't win D&D", yes you do. There's no person in the world who honestly looks at a TPK and not recognize "the party lost". If the party defeats the BBEG, they won. There is always some sort of objective even if it's less defined than most games. Again just because it's not set in stone (or in this case written in a book), doesn't mean it's not there at the table.

I would argue that is a hybrid, the combat aspect of D&D is the game part, there is a clear winner and looser using luck, but players need to know that the enemy is he in game monster NOT the DM. Outside of combat then yeah it becomes open and therefore an engine. thats mostly for 5e

just to comment on the "lazy way". I work 50+ hours a week, if I use published material I'm not being lazy, I simply do not have the time to build a world up from ground zero.

GM:ing and Played for 35+ years. This was a refreshing and very informative look at RPG's. Subscribed.

Excellent

Depends. If there is a specific ending and path of progression a DM has in mind, then too much agency can often ruin that as players are very unpredictable. If a campaign is set up to be a story generation machine, if the DM has prepared well in setting up alternative scenarios based on broad-ranging responses to decision markers within the story, and as long as the DM lets the PCs actually suffer the consequences of their decisions, then no. Unbridled agency is key to the adventure. I prefer the latter scenario. Let the PCs play as they will, prepare as best you can, improv where necessary, and let the collaboration take everyone for a ride. Gives the best stories to tell around the campfire.

I probably have trauma or at least emotional baggage when it comes to subjects like this. I hated my Philosophy BS capstone paper because I decided to write on whether rpgs were art or not instead of following my instinct and dissecting the alignment system. But, when I was writing it I don't believe the Forge had imploded yet, people still talked about GNS theory, and these conversations didn't make the corner of my eye twitch yet. These days, we're really at a point where you want to call a structured form of play with rules, rulings, a judge of some kind... NOT a game? While watching the video I alternated between thinking you were defining the terms to narrowly with thinking they were too broad. And, like I said, I've got baggage. I think I disagree with you, but I can't distinguish my own emotional response from real semantic issues. In any case, the conversation is important. Because, we're at 6+ editions of these rules now, and almost every one represents a very different game. OD&D and AD&D represent similar gameplay loops, but starting in 2e we started to see very different loops. Exploration took a back seat to roleplay and combat's focus became much more important. A lot of ink has been spilled to sell accessories like battle mats and toy soldiers. I think people find it easy to forget that BX era D&D is a completely different game from 4e or 5e. They may all be fruit, but comparing editions separated by forty years is comparing apples to oranges. To be clear, that's not what I'm saying you were doing with this video. What I'm saying is when saying, "D&D is an Imagination Engine (not a game)" it's important to specify the edition or editions you are referring to since they can vary wildly in content, focus, and intent.

Puh if I look in the DnD rules i think it is a game for sure. I have players optimizing there charakters and I design scenarions in which different social interactions lead to decisions which will influence the battle which comes inevitable at the end of the sessions or in the next session. Most dice rolls on my table are open and the party can definetly a) die or b) get an outcome which is not desired. If you compare it to fantasy boardgames like Gloomhaven, Sword and Sorcery or Oathsworn yes there is more storytelling and imagination in DnD but if I would look for an imagination engine I would rather look in other games like AGON, Brindlewood Bay or even something like Dialect. I am a bit tired of people looking at RPGs and pretend that DnD a) is everything or be even can be every thing. If you look in the system and procedures of AGON you get a glimpse of what an imagination engine can be and DnD is definetl way more on the Boardgame side of things.

Just a few comments here: D&D is a game. It is also an "imagination engine", but it is not the first imagination encine by far. What D&D is depends a lot on your table and how you play. There are a myriad of ways to play and no one "right" way to play. (There are probably wrong ways to play, but I won't get into that.) Buying modules and taking them to the end was an AD&D thing. Remember there were tournament games too where players competed against both the hurdles and obstacles that the GM threw at them, and the other players. The majority of the creative aspects fall on the GM, especially if they make their own world or game environment. The GM creates the game world/environment, the plot, the NPCs, the rewards even in many cases the backgrounds of the PCs. The players only decide how their characters look, act, dress, what occupation the follow, how they are equipped, their personalities and maybe their background. It is hard to say if O-D&D was more open or closed. It was closer to wargaming and in that respect in many cases it was more closed. AD&D players rolles for everything, O-D&D players rolled a lot too.

I always wanted to play DND but everytime I start working on a dungeon or a character I start a novel.

I disagree. D&D is an iterated game exchange.

Words matter. "Play", codified by rules, equals a game. That is why the more granular the system is, the closer to the definition of "RPG" it is. On one of the spectrum, you have "playing pretend", and at the other end is "RPG". Just a matter of how constrained and consistant you want the experience to be.

D&D was never about acting or play acting a character. It is about a fictional avatar being played by dice rolls. The decisions made by that character are decided by the dice rolls. Not your interpretation of what you think the character would do. It is a narrative driven story based game in which the dice and player interactions determine the outcome of events. Not some imaginative fanciful thoughts of interpretation. The dice are the generator of the decisions and outcomes. May have to edit this some but it's YT and you only get so much out in a post.

Excellent video. I love card games, board games, war games, roleplay, cosplay, storytelling, and pretty much any activity with friends that distracts me from the daily grind. I was introduced to D&D (blue book) in 1981 and have enjoyed all varieties of TTRPGs since then. I agree that some accessories imply a certain type of play, like a grid map, tokens, miniatures, rulers, funny voices, music, etc. Choices and options are easy to overlook in roleplay and players new to the hobby may not know what their characters can do even with a list of stats and skills. Turns and rounds are ubiquitous with most non-roleplay games to the point that play mode shifts unknowingly. Theatre of the mind is a contentious topic and, for me, immerses me better in the fantasy world and story. I’ve veered away from using battle maps in TTRPGs instead bringing out props as reference and reminders of what is currently happening. Artwork, jewelry, wanted posters, photos (especially of important NPCs), local signage, statuettes, figurines, representatives models (not necessarily wargame miniatures), map handouts, and coins can add flavor to the scene and maintain player attention. I’ve done this with Call of Cthulhu more easily and it made a tremendous difference with interaction among characters. When the players are focused on the story instead of looking at their characters sheets and battle maps then the session has a very different vibe. Just my two copper pieces worth.

From someone who played OD&D back in the day, it took a lot of writing things down to get a picture of what was going on. Death was far more a game reality than it is today, taking away from the challenge of playing. When the modules began to arrive, it was almost a godsend. We had maps, descriptions of rooms, written lore and monster information right there. As the 80's came along and Gary lost control of the company, people forgot a core part of ruleset was to make the game yours and change any rules you want to make your game fun. Then the game became less fun, as indicated by the sales records of TSR. I can see your point, but it will always be recognized as a game. Even though in watching some streams, it appears to be more like a sims game, with characters getting jobs and buying houses with actual combat happening every 8 to 10 episodes. Then only if there is no way a character can die. The RP aspect has gone way too far imo.

CR is better seen as a combat rating. It is also a good way to look at how rare something is. Most things in the world are under cr 5. Most CR 30 creatures are one of a kind creature with names.

DnD isn't a game. DnD is make-believe with dice & some setting-related rules.

Dungeons & Dragons is just set of guidelines for playing make-believe. There is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." (KJV)

.. Its wargame with a loose plot attached.

I disagree with premise of D&D being an imagination engine, and not a game. GURPS, Savage Worlds, BRP are more like engines. D&D is very much a system of rules that pertain and make it appropriate to play the various campaign settings like Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc. The campaign settings are built to be ran with that set of rules. D&D isn't really the best if you're going about making your own campaign setting, as you could do with different forms of magic, or different ability stacks, etc. Sure, you CAN try to do custom campaigns settings with D&D, there simply are superior systems out there for doing so. If you're setting includes a certain style of creatures and magic, then sure, you can think of D&D as an engine. It's just not a very flexible one.

I love the idea of an imagination engine, though “engine” seems to be a bit mechanical and more akin to that closed system of thought. It seems yourself and Ben are more into the non-role-play aspect. I did not agree with Ben in the TUNIC video. But he has already explained his idea of playing a character in the past as a person, looking down at his character in a third person sort of way. I have always personally played first person which sets my mindset into that “playing a role” aspect. l myself am trying to codify it all to understand why I do not like playing with more mechanical players and prefer playing with more, what I would call, freeform imaginative players that are playing in the mind and headspace of their character rather than watching their character be affected by the game. I hope that makes sense. Great video, very thought provoking.

We, in my circle, bid farewell to "game" also. Found it to have baggage with it that doesn't fit in our style of "roleplay." -It can taunt the player to "win" over just "do what your character would do." -Mechanics can start to take front seat over Roleplay. Game almost implies WIN in a way. Sometimes to win is to die. Sometimes to succeed is to fail. ...? ...perfect sense...clearly...?...for us atleast.

This is the best promotion of osr I've heard. Most osr promotion I've heard is just hating on other games

Games (or whatever, people have been arguing about what is and isn't a game for thousands of years) have always had an eye towards simulation. Simulating a battle. Simulating a journey through the underworld. These are some of the oldest gaming concepts in existence, and lo and behold we are now players of D&D. Gygax is an engineer of the system, Arneson is the player that saw into the system's greater potential. What is a game? Beats me, they seem to be a synthesis that's greater than the sum of the parts and the configurations of parts create infinite, emergent forms. Maybe it's all just art, science and play.

Clearly a railroad is DM heavy style because they need to think up a plot before. But uping the player agency will lead to a DM having to completly improvise maybe leading to DM burnout or very boring solutions of a paniced DM or the DM asking for time to think. But maybe there are DMs who feel their world so well they are never stumped. Or players who don't need a DM because they are so liberated they will play pertend making everything up as they go.

One can definetly have too little. Railroading can be a bummer, because one wishes more agency. But players who are new or like railroads may be very intimidated to direct the way. Fear of freedom is a very human thing.

hmm I watched Ben's video on this and had no choice but to comment that he's wrong. sigh It seems a lot of people are playing fun semantic games here ( pun intended...). Whether you classify it as a choice matrix, or an engine, it all comes down to a mental act of otherness: roleplaying. Nevertheless, I think it's good we're having such discussions, as opposed to being upset about some company that thinks it owns the game... lol

I agree with a lot of what you and Questing Beast / Ben are saying... One thing, I played wargames (miniatures and board) before D&D came out (including Chainmail). We homebrewed rules whenever we disagreed with the RAW. For us, the rules were not sacred / unchanging (unlike say, chess or checkers although you could play / develop variants of them). The only important thing was that everyone playing the game together agreed with the changes and the rules had to be set beforehand. Well, two things actually :) We also tended to "personify" our generals / commanders. This goes way back in wargaming (at least as early as Grant's wargame rules in the 1960s iirc). In our miniatures games we had "general orders" written before the start of the game. To change those broad orders you had to send a courier / messenger from your general to the unit whose orders you wanted to change. A simplified version of that was a command and control radius around a commander. Fun stuff. You would look over the battlefield, what you could see of the enemy and write your broad instructions (.e. right wing advance to the farm, left wing stand on defense, etc.) and then scramble to adapt to changing circumstances. TTRPGs just reduced the number of figures you could directly control (yes, we always played with miniatures) and/ or give verbal orders to.

Correction…Dave Arneson was the ref, not Gary.