Check out The Ghosts of Zoazanna Mountain: bit.ly/Zoazanna My RPGs (PDF): bit.ly/QuestingBeastPDFs Newsletter: bit.ly/TheGlatisant Patreon: bit.ly/QBPatreon
Player agency is exactly what this video is about, the freedom of players to make important changes to the flow of the game.Emergent fiction is what results from those choices. Same idea, different language.
My problem stems from the fact my players don't have much agency. They're much newer (not like completely new, but 5e jump ons) and when I present them with a sandbox or exploration crawl and try to help them get it, they just loaf waiting for me to slap them with specific plot hooks or quests to go to the dungeon or cave on B5.
@@spiralvex2686holy crap, yes. I hardly even run anymore because I keep trying to give my players meaningful choices and they keep waiting for me to tell them what they're supposed to do next. (While they pass time "roleplaying," I should point out.)
@@lawrl777 Sometimes it's just down to the group or GM. I really struggle with some of my players, and they've got so much to work with. Some are great and pour their heart and soul into their performances and their characters, and I do the same into my world and NPCs. They all enjoy it nonetheless or they wouldn't still be doing it two years down the line, but some are just stronger players than others and the type of game or a change of GM isn't going to fix that. Some people just prefer to watch others and don't have the creativity or bravery to keep up.
When I first played D&D as a teenager, this draw for me was the sense of immersion. This is still what I look for in a game decades later. The roleplaying aspect is not always active to the same extent, this is a social activity with different people who each have their own idea, but it is always there in the back of my mind. This is what I am reaching for when I play. You may have your own idea about what makes a good game, but if you want *me* to have a good game then you will want to enable that style of play as much as possible.
I recall a poll you did a while ago, Ben, about what makes a DnD game, and the top result that people voted for was "Shenanigans". To be honest, that's probably what I would describe as being a huge part of the core TTRPG experience: Having fun by doing crazy and stupid things that are probably outside of the box. I like your TUNIC principle in the sense that it probably does help with getting to those shenanigan-filled inflection points sooner, and heck, that makes me re-think how I'm going to start my next session that I will GM! The only thing I would add (purely in an informative manner) is that it's important to modulate the TUNIC properly. I will outright say that the social aspects of TTRPGs are my favorite parts of such games (I am a huge sucker for campfire scenes, in particular), and during those times, it can be important to slow things down and let players express their personalities in some low stakes situations. By all means have impact (the "I" in TUNIC), but just lower the stakes and soften that impact appropriately.
I think it is important to note that there are a lot of TTRPGs (especially indie TTRPGs) that genuinely don't work without "roleplay for roleplay's sake" - or at least "roleplay as a part of telling a non-emergent story." GMless titles (Wanderhome, Dream Askew / Dream Apart) Story games (The Quiet Year, Dialect), and certain kinds of solo RPGs (Wretched & Alone, Thousand Year Old Vampire) spring to mind. And while I agree that roleplay isn't unique to TTRPGs, and isn't necessary for A LOT of them, especially in OSR and Trad games, I personally dislike "roleplay isn't important" as a lens to view the entire scene through. Still a great video! Gave me a lot to think about, and I love the idea of TUNIC. edit: fixed the title of Dream Askew / Dream Apart
Dream Askew / DREAM APART I’m sorry to correct you, but everyone always talks about Dream Askew, while Dream Apart is absolutely stunning and a very wisely designed game. Also, The Quiet Year practically has zero "roleplaying" since you play as a community. And there’s the eternal definitional issue: are we talking about play-acting or playing a role? Because if it’s the latter, how does an OSR/Trad game look where… you don’t play a role?? :D
While that is true that is not the subject. Just because edge cases that were designed to go against the trend exist doesn't invalidate the concept of TUNIC. I know it's extreme but I could self publish a game that doesn't have player characters in it and CALL it an RPG. I have not single handled invalidated every PC of GMing advice for all other RPGs.
@@danmorgan3685 I don’t disagree with the idea of TUNIC at all - apologies, I probably should have that in my original comment. What I’m pushing back against is “roleplay isn’t important” as a one-size fits all lens through which to view the scene through. I still think it’s a valuable perspective for OSR and Trad games, but I believe it’s important to specify what kinds of games we are thinking about when we do the kind of work this video is doing. This is a particular point of frustration for me - as a GM who has to contend with player’s preconceived notions of “what an RPG is” when introducing them to other styles of play. Story games, solo games and GMless tiles are not an edge case - they are at least as popular as the OSR. edit: grammar
@@rafaelcupiael Thank you for the correction, you’ve got me there! Going back through my copy of TQY I see that you are totally right! I would offer up Downfall as a similar game that is closer to what I was taking about it my comment!
I think I should have defined my terms a little bit better. What I mean by "roleplaying" is "acting as your PC would act". Let me know your thoughts! I might make a video later responding to your ideas.
An insightful video, I think what people wanna know is how far you get into character while playing/running a game. As a purveyor of such much wisdom and critique, do you prefer groups with more or less distinction between players and their characters?
I think a lot of your examples don't fit this definition. In Warhammer, I never consider how each space marine would act. I don't even really put myself in the mindset of a fictional general. I just place and direct each unit in a way that I, myself, think is tactically optimal.
This may not be surprising to hear, but I often return to Matt Colville's Roleplaying video. It's been a very useful tool to understand the spectrum of that particular element of play. "Acting as your PC would act" is how I approach things, but it does intersect with "what outcome do I want as a player?" an important element as well.
As a 53 year old 40+ year D&D player I've always liked your content, but, I'm guessing here I'm misunderstanding something. What you describe as choice making is exactly roleplaying. Thus, roleplaying IS what RPG's are about. Making a choice is an act of character agency. That's the heart of taking on a role and interacting with an environment.
I think the difference lies within the reasoning behind your choices. Do you make them because your character would, or because it's what makes the most strategic sense. So "choice making" is kinda an umbrella term.
@@melinnamba Fair enough. I just thought it was understood that players select their choice based on their character's intention. At least in my game, that's understood...
@@steved1135 I thought the same, but I have met people who basically treat ttrpgs as board game version of video games, where your PC is essentially just a game piece. They are the ones getting annoyed at "talky talky" and min-max to the extreme. I think that's a valid playstyle, but at my table it's also understood that roleplaying means acting out your character and not the decision of whether you're a tank, healer or DPS.
@@melinnamba Yeah. That minmax style was highly disregarded back in my beginning days ( mid 80's...). Sad to see it is still active. That being said, I'd argue that if it flourishes that's really a fault of the DM. I know I'd blame myself in such a situation, and deal with it...
@steved1135 honestly, you can treat a lot of ttrpg system like board games and if that's what someone enjoys, let them have their fun. Their table, their playstyle. 🤷 I just find it sad, that the community as a whole seems to be more aware of that end of the spectrum of playstyles and almost oblivious to the other end, which is basically improve theatre at your kitchen table. It leads to this idea that roleplay doesn't matter. And robs the hobby of potential.
Well articulated video, and I agree that impactful choice and agency is a core feature of the game genre and hobby, absolutely. But I disagree that it's not roleplay. Or that role-playing games are not about role-playing. It's actually the only point. What that looks like depends on the fiction. Swinging an axe is roleplay in medieval fantasy setting with a Dwarf. Just like swinging a lightsaber is role-play for a Jedi in a Star Wars fiction. Adventure is what role-play looks like in a D&D fiction but it's not part of the fiction of Delta Green or Call of Cthulhu. The core gameplay loop of a TTRPG and any RPG for that matter is: > build a character within a fiction > play as your character engaging in activities of the fiction > gain rewards (or consequences) from your unique actions and decisions > use rewards to build your character > loop continues... The systems in a TTRPG support the fiction. What remains constant is the creation and roleplay of a character unique to that fiction and how your agency affects the world and changes the character you've made- for better or worse. IMO Tabletop Role-Playing Game is THE definition of the genre. And to agree with you, the agency is a core definer of role-play but it fails to describe fiction which role-play does. I would say the game culture has an issue with defining roleplay as "Acting" or "improv" when simply describing your actions is also roleplay. To end - you can sell an incredible fiction with just ok rules system, but it's much harder to sell an incredible rules system with an ok fiction.
I think that's kind of the issue he's addressing. With such a broad definition of roleplaying, almost every game is roleplaying, because there are relatively few games where you don't control at least one character. Why is Doom a first person shooter instead of a roleplaying game? In Fifa, you are roleplaying a team of football players, yet it's a sports game. And if the application is this broad, the label becomes pointless, so why use it as a core identifier only for this specific type of game? If everything is a roleplaying game, nothing is.
@@sitnamkrad I think that's right. I think Ben has nailed what makes TTRPGs different from other games where you play a role of some kind. But I also think we need to be wary of losing the trees for the forest - getting so focused on the unique aspect that we downplay the other aspects of RPGs that it shares with some other types of play. Every GM is going to be different on where they place the emphasis - and it's definitely better if we all bear in mind that giving players meaningful choices is critical for enjoying almost any ttrpg. But we wouldn't want to go too far and assume that various styles of game - such as heavy improv or story-driven, or investigative games don't matter because they don't put meaningful choices above other aspects of play that players of those types of games really enjoy too.
@@sitnamkrad I agree that defining roleplaying is key otherwise everything is roleplay- but I still hold to the idea that it's the best term for this hobby and the genre. You're touching on the difference between a game's genre versus its subgenres or systems. Any game that has action has... action. But that's not necessarily what defines it as a genre. What I'm saying is Roleplaying as a genre encapsulates everything about it to the greatest depth- which is character creation and evolution, and having agency to make choices that change outcomes within a world you want to immerse yourself in. Your example of FIFA is great. You make a good point that technically you're roleplaying as a soccer player but it's not an RPG of soccer because there's no characterization and choice. In fact, recent FIFA games are doing "careers" where you make a player and join a team and only play as one character. That's actually damn close to an RPG. But regular FIFA is obviously not an RPG as a genre. Neither is Doom. The point of Doom is not to be Doomguy. Its to kill demons. The point of FIFA is not to be Messi. Its to play soccer on a screen. I would argue the point of table rpgs is to literally be your own version of Obi-Wan and Legolas and Fox Mulder. I get it. It's sort of just semantics. I think he does a fantastic job describing what makes the RPG genre so special.
I cannot express just how much this channel has helped change and inform the way I think about RPGs. I've been locked up with how to progress writing my custom campaign for the group I play with. When you were explaining TUNIC I just had that *click* where everything just slid into place. From introducing me to Shadowdark to this? A proven masterclass channel which will be seeing me return for every new video! I cannot wait for the next one.
In my 25 years of TTRPG experience I've come to realize there is a spectrum of player types and preferences - it goes from Gamer on one end (the type who likes the system mechanics, or solving puzzles, outsmarting challenges, min/maxing or competing with others - including the DM), all the way to Roleplayer (who like to imagine they're playing in a movie/novel and find the system mechanics only get in the way). Most players fall somewhere in between these two points. I suspect Ben is a Gamer type - someone who is analytical, logical, a planner, someone who takes enjoyment from mentally overcoming challenges. I suspect he's not the type to get very immersed into a world setting or fantasize about his character. No judgement - just an observation.
As a GM, I only want roleplayers and get a little frustrated with rules-lawyers and gamers. For me, the rules are there to support the simulation and if they aren't doing their job I'll change them. I don't mind min/maxing - who wouldn't want to roleplay Batman or Gawain? But once you've got a character then you need to let that character 's personality flow through you and inform your actions.
@davidmorgan6896 I agree. I put alot of effort into creating an immersive experience but gamers never appreciate it. Roleplayers love that stuff, like NPC pictures, world lore, ambient music, etc. Roleplayers enjoy learning about the game through playing it, while Gamers want to read all the rules ahead of time and are always quick to correct others when they're doing something wrong.
Just like you said, the best games I have run and played in featured player agency and choices that affected the game going forward. A friend ran a 5e game where we explored a swamp to find an evil hag. In the village my rogue picked the pocket of a passed out boatman and found a wooden eye (Which the DM rolled randomly in the moment from the trinket table). He instantly decided that the passed out guy was an agent of the witch and that the eye was like a compass that would point to where she was so her agents could meet up with her. None of this was planned at all. It was just an emergent moment that arose when I decided to do something for fun because I had a high Sleight of Hand score. That one choice and the immediate follow up became one of the core features of that adventure and we used the eye to find the hag even when she was invisible and flying through the air. The GM explained it all afterwards and it was a great feeling!
For me it boils down to a simple framework: the GM and players are collectively writing an emergent narrative through play; which is the GM presenting conflicts and challenges within a setting, and the players make meaningful choices via characters interacting with said conflicts and challenges in the setting.
To use your terms, the openness of the games is what makes it a role-playing game. Openness requires agency. Agency requires an agent. The only way to play is to become an agent. Becoming an agent requires playing that role. The game cannot work without it, where closed games do not require this for the game to work. Role-playing games are aptly named.
So you would say that it requires both openness and an agent that you act through, whether or not you are "acting as that character would"? I can see that. What if you had a tabletop RPG where you controlled multiple characters at once, as in a DCC funnel? Or one in which you controlled an organization?
@@QuestingBeastAgreed I very rarely play a single character at a time, but I am seeking to make meaningful choices for those characters. Therefore agency once again becomes the definitive factor.
I would agree with this as well. What defines a roleplaying game to me is having an “agent” (be that a single character, multiple characters, an organization, etc) and making choices for those characters in a system that can react to any choice you make. Playing an agent that has a different mindset than you isn’t required.
I believe you are correct here in identifying that's roleplaying is not the essential feature of RPGs that most people would like to think it is. Instead its something else, something we might not have a proper term for and we are just shoving another term in its place as a stop gap measure. The problem we have here is not just a semantic one, its definitional, because we haven't dug down to bottom properly yet as both gamers and designers to see what this thing is we are really thinking about when it comes to RPGs. We're looking at this from either too low or too high a resolution. And that suggests to me that there is an overall structure we aren't quiet seeing here. And I'm not sure what we should indeed call it. Though I do admit Adventure game might be close to it, but even that is missing some other elements as well as things like strategy, tactics, networking, problem solving, etc. are involved here. So I am at a loss. Otherwise you acronym of tunic is definitely a thing that is going to stick in my mind, as I realise that might be something I neglect to do in my own tabletop games. Relying to much on narrative and reaction rather than meaningful choices.
I've found as a GM if I'm playing with some new people or just a group with people who haven't played together before, I offer up a number of different kinds of scenario situations to see who responds to what. My group right now has a couple players who more enjoy the combat and action and a couple others who enjoy deep roleplaying. Knowing what players like what, I can offer scenes and encounters that feed into what they like while not excluding the tastes of the others. This way everybody has a good time and enjoys and helps drive the stories we tell together
I can't speak for anyone else , but the kind of rpg session you describe is the kind of session that I and my friends enjoy and strive for every time we sit down at the gaming table.
I've been playing "role playing" games on and off for most of my life. I've never been able to quantify exactly why I love these games, but this is as close an explanation as I've every heard. Thanks, as ever, for the clarity, knowledge and passion you share in your videos.
Escapism by proxy of Roleplay. At my table I try and reduce as many moving parts as possible to inhibit the maximum amount of immersion. I confront my players senses with incense, lighting and music to create a headspace that allows for this. This method has drastically changed the way I view RPGs and there is no turning back for me.
Im a video game dev, and one of the dreams of game dev is to mimic a fraction of the liberty of TTRPGs give you in terms of crafting your own experience just like in real life. Like going to a party and see all the options from 1. Talking so X, 2. Go and find your friends, etc... So in my opinion TTRPGs should do what only TTRPGs do and focus on it. Not trying to videogamemify it.
Being together and having good time with friends. No matter the game, that's what I'm looking for and what pushes me to sit down at the table week after week.
Great video Ben! ❤️ love seeing this type of content from you and ill surely keep the Tunic principle in mind from now on. I don't like players or DMs who make roleplaying the main focus of the game either, since i dont consider it that much fun or intriguing. However, i believe Roleplaying as in "making the choices from your characters perspective" and giving them some degree of characterization is a very good way to keep the experience fresh and memorable beyond what cool equipment or skills you might have. So yes, it's not essential but still somewhat important imo
I think there's a logical gap in your reasoning. While it's true that openness is a common feature of RPGs, it doesn't necessarily follow that sessions should always focus on choices. I could reverse your logic and argue that since I've participated in many sessions with minimal choices, where players were still highly engaged and satisfied, choices aren't strictly necessary. At least, not choices that drive the story. There might be choices about how characters react or act, but I think you're referring to a different kind of choice. So, I agree with the idea of open-ended games. In my opinion, the second most important feature of RPGs is that players primarily "play" a single character. The third key feature would be the existence of a GM, though GM-less RPGs do exist, perhaps leaning more towards collaborative storytelling. Thanks for your video.
I would probably put collaborative storytelling as a core part of any rpg. When players are able to inject ideas into the world and the scene their investment skyrockets in my experience.
Dont you play a wizard AND their apprentice in Ars Magica? D&Ders have their gaunlet where they play 3-5 1st levelcharacters and see if any get to the end of a dungeon. Blades in the Dark sees you flit between a character and a gang in the same scene... So no, singularity of charater is not fundamental. Collaborative is not a core element, the best GM in my group takes zero player input into his world (we can change the world but he never asks '...and what dose that look like?'). The third point you point out is wrong yourself in the same sentance, which is quite a feat.
For me choosing how I react to a scene is not enough. I have the worse time playing the more railroady and scripted the game feels. And I love horror RPGs that are usually more constricted within it's mystery. But I think there need to be at least some illusion of choice, and agency like for example order of getting clues in some places or different ways to get them from someone. The worst time I have when I am playing DMs vison of a story with almost no choices and some cutscenes that you can't react to. I feel like I am just some actor in a movie being told what to do to "experience" the story. Roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying does not work for me I need to feel like my choices matter and they have cosequences.
As a DM, I see my campaigns as a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' book where I set up 2-3 clear options, but there's always a secret path players can create on their own. That said, I feel RPGs have taken a hit in the last decade with an influx of theater kids prioritizing quirky characters and dramatic backstories over the collaborative, group-oriented spirit of the game. It's not about one person's story; it's about building something together.
I totally agree. From very early on - decades ago - I settled into this style of running the game where even i don't know what's going to happen. I make sure the players understand that there is no "plot" as such, everything that happens is semi random unless dictated by player actions. In practice, I do this by having at least three alternatives for any major non-player decision and I roll randomly. The key benefits of this is that the players know i am not railroady and it keeps the game more fun for me. It started as the OSR "reaction roll" and "morale check" concepts and I just kept adding to them.
Gotta say, I've been adventure gaming for 40 years and your stuff is the consistently best for refining and learning how to what we do. It's so useful to have things scaffolded and discussed like this. As for this video's question: for me the campaign is the thing. The lasting changes I can make and the things that I can nurture and destroy. I never get into one shots because I am really animated by what I'll use the magic wand I found *for*, not just winning a series of dry challenges (though that is still a bit fun too :). The reason I can never get into wargames is because most of my experience with them is like an arid chess game: equal forces in a meeting engagement. I'd rather misdirect, organise logistics, protect my recruits, spy, assassinate, kidnap and frame people, rather than roll about 60 dice over the course of 5 hours with a 60% success rate because everything is balanced for my level. I'd rather beat something very hard with a nasty plan, or shoot my enemies in the back when they can't defend themselves - not because I'm a murder hobo, but because once violence is the way you solve your problems you owe it to the villagers you're defending to kill all the werewolves before they get another person. The sun is setting...
Whenever I try and describe ttrpgs to people I say it’s a choose your own adventure book with infinite possibilities. I’ve never heard ‘adventure game’ used before but I like it a lot more.
@@mobo7420 I would never touched RPGs if "improvisational theatre" was referenced. I can't stand silly voices and manneirisms at the table. It's a game, after all.
@@TMThesaurus Agreed, adventure game is a good fit for a certain type of RPG, like OSR D&D, but calling all RPGs adventure games is silly. Overall defining roleplaying games is extremely difficult as it covers such a wide spectrum of play styles, rules and preferences. I've always thought about it as a umbrella term for tabletop games which clearly are not board games nor pure improv and have a large degree of player agency.
I humbly think that the core value ttrpgs have is the infinite number of ways that emotions are shared. People can experience what they like in the way that they like, sharing it with others. This can create bonds that go beyond the time spent playing.
What a succinct explanation! I love the infinite possibilities discussion, as that is exactly why I love TTRPGs so much. Breaking free from the rigidity of most video games to something we at the table have a direct impact on is why my table plays the game. Couldn't agree more with the TUNIC explanation! Finding that launch point is incredibly important to set your players off running... sometimes literally!
I'm in it for emotional immersion. Into the world, my backstory, relationships both NPCs and PCs, and let everyone grow, change and develop themselves and their relationship. A good story and cool experiences tends to follow. When I am that invested, almost every choice becomes meaningful, because the relationships are all important to me, and every choice could either worsen or improve those relationship. The more real in-context tears around the table, the better
I like that idea. Having an impact is rewarding. I don't think it's the only way to play of course, maybe it's a better way though, and it's important to keep track of time for this very reason. That way you know when other things are happening that the players will find out about so the world feels like it's more real.
Risk was a board game where roleplay emerged in the form of trash talk and player pacts and ultimately grew into a Random Event Table that introduced “Imperators” that were commanders that gave an offense bonus to troops in the territory they occupied. We also made Holy Relics that would provide a defensive bonus. Other random events were wild things like Godzilla, who would spontaneously depopulate Japan.
I didn't knew about TUNIC, but it's a great tool to do what I enjoy at my table so thanks. I did something that is TUNIC-y in this regard: most skill a PC can use (spell, combat skill...) is on a kinda random cooldown (from a revamp usage dice from the Black Hack). This way, using a skill with big impact (teleportation, invincibility for a short duration, charm) is only usable once in a while and neither the player nor me know exactly when it will become available again. This make the choice of using it matter (since you don't have it for a time) and the surprise of the skill being available again make it a last resort/poker trick in some case. It also adds flavor to the world and characters: ok you are a dragonborn, you can breath fire most of the time... but you're a humanoïd like everyone, sometime your throat is soar, sometime you are out of breath, so sometime, you can't use your fire breath each turn.
*RPGS are about storybuilding* Thought-provoking premise for sure! Thanks! What stood out to me was the 'closed game-open game' classification. That makes perfect sense, but would arguably put the (OSR) Solo RPGs in the 'closed game' side as there is little to no "everything goes" experience - no GM to guide rules nor easing of the rules cuz that would be 'cheating'. I've often thought about what definition would make most sense in the (analogue) board game/RPG hobby of ours: eurogame vs Ameritrash is outdated, strategic vs story, mechanical vs thematic....none of these hold up, especially in a day and age where more hybrid games are being produced: board games with RPG elements, Solo RPGs that are all about solo journaling, RPGs that feel super crunchy and board games that are so light, the stories and role-play flow freely. I think, in the end, that RPGs may not be about role-play - you're right - despite its most striking feature (WHEN present) but more about *storybuilding* . All games have a certain amount of emergent story that naturally occurs with players, some way of 'connecting the dots' of what's happening in the game, but RPGs truly are built around and singularly focus on the (communal) building of a story. This is why they are so easygoing with rules - they are subservient to building a good story! This is distinctfully different from 'closed games' where the goal is not 'the journey' but 'the win'. This is why those games are 'closed': the focus in on the end and the rules structure is there to make sure everyone plays on a level playing field. This is also why Solo RPGs have limited themselves to 3 types: Random Table Generation (RTG) and Choose-Your-Own-Adventures (CYOA), both of which are 'closed' and Solo Journaling ones that are 'open'. _Note that I am an RPG designer and currently working hard on designing a soloable RPG that is somewhere in the middle._ In the end though, for every attempt to come up with a definition, there are thousands of voices arguing about the 'fine print' of such a definition (which is good for this comment section, so, well done! 😄) but if one was to make a distinction, I think your 'Closed game' vs. 'Open game' provides enough clout to be used. It stresses where the focus lies: the rules structure with an aim to win or the storybuilding experience or journey itself.
Thanks for this video! 😁 I'm one of those who would agree on your point! The ability of making decisions and seeing how they integrate into a story feels like one of the most important elements of a TTRPG to me. If I'm playing a game and I feel like not much, if anything, from whatever I could decide matters, because everything is just going into the same direction anyways I mostly simply feel bored. I can still have fun (especially if the aspect of the "lack of freedom" is overt or if I realize that it's just what it is), because I can still do other stuff, like roplaying with my friends, trying to find little cool moments here and there, maybe by using a certain skill or whatever. But... I'll for sure feel quite disconected from the game, from the story, from the world, from what's actually happening. I feel like that can be overlooked, becasue "yeah, I still had fun", but talking about the gaming experience we all expect or would like from the game feels waaay too important to me.
Great video. I've been playing and collecting these games since that little white box, and here's my perspective having watched the hobby evolve over the years. Let me first start off by saying, how ever one wants to enjoy a "TTRPG" is entirely up to that person and that person's group. It's their game, their choice - not ours. Nowhere in any of the more traditional/older games of this type is there a rule or suggestion that you must talk in a funny voice, wear a costume, put on makeup, or act like you're in a less-than-B-rated-low-budget movie (not to say that it didn't happen 😬). The taking on of an in-game role (i.e. role-playing) was a far less fanciful affair than that. The key concept is this (with respect to "old school" play): You are not the character, you are the PLAYER. The character is a pawn in the game that you manipulate and use to interact with an open-ended, imagined environment. It is up to the player to decide what actions his or her character takes, and it's the job of the referee to dictate how the environment responds to those actions. The GAME is a test of your skill as a player, not your acting ability. Read the examples of play in those games. The players in those examples don't normally say things like "Pour me your most expensive Darovian brandy, good barkeep!", to which the GM responds "Why certainly, fair lady. I shall attend to it in good haste!". Instead, its a game of "Is It Bigger Than A Breadbox?" between the players and the referee, through the lens of the character. For example: "Julea asks the bartender for something expensive. What does he have?" "There's a good variety. The high-end offerings cost 8 sp each." "Sold. Julea buys a nice local brandy." All that to say that I feel Ben is correct. The "LARPing at the table" is a modern convention that was never the original intention of these games. Sure, even I'll use the funny voices from time to time (a cringe-worthy affair, to be sure!), but usually only for effect/humor. It's only natural that we want to do this when playing "make believe", after all. It is, however, NOT a necessary element. But again, it's your game, so play it how you want to. You do you, as they say. It is a game after all, and games are meant to be enjoyed! The RPG Police and Grognard Gestapo won't be kicking your door down, I promise! [/ramble]
I only play Dnd, but it is interesting when we come up with an idea our DM wasn't anticipating. There were only two of us playing at the beginning of a session, and we decided to feed the intended BBEG of the dungeon, a Drake. After a nat 20 animal handling check, we managed to befriend it, and now we have a pet. Another of the groups I was in managed to defeat all three versions of the final boss in our campaign by being friendly and boosting his ego. Our DM had to have us come up with epilogues for all our characters on the fly since we had paid for our session and still had an hour to kill.
All games consist of a few major elements. First is players, second is a playing field. Types or genres of games are determined by three main factors: A desirable goal, freedoms/abilities, and overcomable barriers. The key feature of TTRPGs is that the goals are set by the players, not the rules. In American football, the goal is to get the most points by getting the ball to the opposing end of the field. That goal is set by the rules. Basketball likewise has a set goal that everyone knows and works towards. Football has some flexibility, because you can get points by touchdown, field goal, or even by tackling the opposing team in their end of the field. But all of these are set by the rules and are standardized. In a TTRPG, the goals are set by the players. The DM might have an overall goal he wants the players to work towards, but he has to get buy-in. Different players may have (usually do have) different goals. Another defining characteristic is the barriers are semi-determined by one of the players (DM) instead of by the rules. Though there are also the hard barriers set by the rules (like fireball isn't likely to work against heat-proof monsters). The emphasis isn't the tactical freedom (which can be very limited by things like terrain and character level), but by the goals and barriers that are player-determined.
I would say is that TUNIC applies to most games and is not unique to tabletop adventure games. Every choice in something like Street Fighter for instance has a material impact on the unknown outcome of the match, meaning each button press can be impactful. The difference with tabletop adventure games is that there are an infinite number of options which can be selected when the next impactful choice arrives as opposed to a limited, pre-designated number of choices as there are in video and boardgames. Roleplaying is, in my opinion, the most interesting aid to help players make a choice between those infinite options. Players could choose the smartest, most tactically viable, or most personally satisfying option, but that doesn't line up with why I like these games. The play session is the story of the characters the players created - for that story to be interesting and entertaining, the choices made should align with a character's wants, ideals, flaws, and personality, not those of the player. So I agree with you that TUNIC is the most important element of these games, but with the caveat that those materially impactful choices are made from an infinite number of options and selected based on aspects of the characters the players created and not their own dispositions. And I guess thats my long-winded definition of roleplaying and why it IS integral to these games. (Edit: I listened to that part again at the 4-minute mark and I agree with you: the game won't break if players don't use roleplaying as a tool to make decisions, so technically, it's not essential. But to me, that sounds like a player that is begrudgingly at the table or ambivalent to what makes this type of game special. All just my opinion of course!)
The number one draw for me in role-playing games was "acting [playing a character] within a ruleset that is outside or different from the one of [my] daily life."
The rules are more like and added tool-set that help me know what is possible beyond mundane reality, but in ways that add challenge and fun. Consequences are still part of the fun; cause and effect, and some understandable limitations within the logic of the gameworld, lead to a sense of having accomplished something while using imagination
I agree that choices and the open ended nature of the game are the most important aspect and what sets it apart. I think most fans of osr would agree on that. I think the idea of roleplaying being the most important aspect of the game comes from the fact that many people playing TTRPGs are playing things like dnd 5e, where "choice" is certainly an aspect to be considered, and many times a problem because of the amount of spells and skills available to players, but many are expecting a story to be made by the dm. The encounters must be balanced, the villains must be interesting, there must be character arcs, and more importantly you must consider the characters background etc. The whole "dont prep a plot" is fantastic advice that I think almost everyone on the community here knows, but I am not sure most players are having campaigns formatted as that. So the concept of roleplaying your character becomes more important. If you don't do that, the story built around it won't make sense as important segments of the game have been tailored specifically for the character you should be roleplaying But that's just a theory.
"Impactful" is not enough. Drawing your shotgun and charging vs falling back and pulling out the sniper rifle is a very impactful choice that does not make an FPS into an RPG. The difference, IMO, is that in other games, from chess and cards to Doom and Starcraft, the choices are free and impactful, but they are supposed to be tactically optimized. In TTRPGs, I think, in addition to "impactful," the choices need to at least allow, and possibly encourage, a certain level of arbitrary lack of optimization. Not stupid or intentionally bad. "The two corridors are identical, but one smells bad and the other is cold." Which is the optimal tactical choice? So, I think your acronym should be TUNIXC, where X stands for arbitrary/uncertain/unoptimized. Then, the optimizing wargamer can try to make the tactical choice based on the available information, while the roleplayer can decide based on his character history and quirks.
I think you've misunderstood the argument: Ben doesn't seem to be saying that impactful choices define RPGs and set them apart from other games, he seems to be saying that "openness" is characteristic of RPGs and helps to define them, and (as a result?) providing and making impactful choices is where much of the fun comes from. TUNIC is not supposed to define RPGs but help you design better RPGs and have more fun playing them.
No, I totally agree. This is an excellent encapsulation of my entire RPG experience and what makes a good, exciting game for players and the GM alike. I tended to borrow the term "interesting choices" but "impactful" is a good term too, as is the observation about shortening that time until the next choice.
I love this concept and even without being conscious of it, I've been doing something similar. Increasing player choice opportunities and having interesting consequences is paramount.
I would say the same thing a completely different way - I want the party to genuinely fight for their survival at every turn. Some would call this balance, but it just ensures that every little decision is an impactful one.
I think there are 2 core elements to TTRPG: 1 - scope of player control is singular beings in an imagined space. 2 - open choices where *human mind* is deciding (interpreting) the outcome while playing. Many games are very open while being clearly not RPGs, like truth or dare, drawing games or original kriegspeil. Minecraft is also extremely open, but are missing the human element.
Big agree that open decision-making and problem-solving are the essence of TTRPGs. This makes me think about TTRPG's without a GM, where players come up with the situations and details on their own, leveraging help from Yes/No, Abstract, and Dedicated oracle tables. "Tactical Infinity" feels kinda cheap if you yourself made up the situation you're engaging. You can always just move the goal posts around, so to speak. If you made the problems and obstacles, and you think of a solution that doesn't quite work, you can just change the problems and obstacles to make it work.
We are in agreement. In general, the thing that makes RPGs different from other games (and which gives layers the unique experience that only RPGs provide) is the openness of the game. The more closed the game (which is a function of the GM's way of running the game), the more "railroady" it becomes (and the less fun).
My favourite style of RPG is ironsworn/starforged where you are GMless and the game has 0 prep the tunic per hour is doubled maybe even trippled as all players get to generate the locations obstacles npcs and plot as a GM and a Player. Mixed success resolution means all decisions have a likelihood of failing or passing at a cost to make all risky action tense . Acting in character isn’t the main reason I’m enjoying it
I think you're right about the importance of openness. As other commenters have noted, agency is a related (yet distinct) concept. And they both support a core RPG concept which, in my view, is best understood in contrast to other, more traditional games. Chess, Monopoly, et al have well-defined objects and ends. How often have gamers read sentences such as 'The object of the game is...', 'The game ends when...'?Although there will be goals and objectives that emerge within campaigns and/or sessions, RPGs themselves are not so limited in scope.
What I love the most about TTRPGs is that they are open games, as you described. Tactical infinity. Imagination is the limit. The most outlandish of actions were as accessible in the 70s as they are now. You don't need computers to set a breaching charge on a pillar to collapse a building on a giant to defeat it. I agree with T.U.N.I.C. Meaningful choices are what keep the players engaged. One such choice can get them going for a while, and they should definitely start with one. Again, the fact that you don't need computers is a tremendous boon. You don't have to say no to a specific outcome because of an animation constraint.
As noted, "Role Playing" was a term chosen to differentiate the game from war games, board games, sporting games, etc. Players played a "role" in the scenarios being played out - but how they play the role is up to themselves: Acting out someone deeply invested in the situation as if they lived there; or a game player moving pawns around with no investment just intellectual curiosity concerning outcomes. Some people enjoy deeply involving "stories" they take seriously - others play as an excuse to drink and eat and gossip with friends, having fun and larking around with no seriousness. "Oh shhht! Lolland was dissolved by the acid. Guys, find a Wish to get him back!" versus "Oops, another PC dead. Where's my backups? Okay, here's Dullard Lunkhead. Let's see how long he lasts."
This is the difference between a gamer whose character is a toy to be replaced and a roleplayer who actually experience the world through his character. Sure both are wonderful ways to play, but in different groups with different GMs.
I've heard an idea before, probably even on this channel, that what we fundamentally consider to be the "D&D experience" is typically a bunch of modular subgames plugged together; we use subsets of closed rules to logicize and resolve the openness of narrative, which by its nature introduces conflict. There are rule subsets for things like combat, travel, survival and social interactions to varying degrees across games. Your observation that roleplaying games introduce rulesets or procedures in order to better fit the theme is the means by which these games establish narrative genre. To this end, I think roleplaying games will endeavor to enforce this genre through these modules, which, if switched out or omitted, will change the tone of the game, potentially increasing or decreasing player agency in favor of procedure. Roleplaying games are about agency, but the narrative is going to shape the scope and impact of decisions and can be more or less resilient to drastic player actions based on how rule subsets are prioritized and interact. Cool video, thanks Ben.
@@QuestingBeast I particularly enjoyed that video as it did a lot to bring that vague concept of several different games in one to the forefront of how I understand 'open' games like D&D and others like it. Very good video.
@@scottlurker991 You know it is possible to have fun wrong right? Or have you never pulled the legs off a spider? But I'm mostly just yanking your chain....mostly. I play HeroQuest or 'Hewow Qwest' with my 6 year old. He's scared to open the dungeon door because hes scared of what could be behind it - hes 6. When he opens the door he becomes Ragnar the Barbarian brave as anything. He always forgets to search for traps or look for loot. You can see the different ways he plays the game from my friends and I. As we grow up we often decide that games like HeroQuest are tactical games to be won, so we focus on that more and search for treats and traps in every room. But there is no reason you can't play it as an RPG. Which is the right way to play? None can say. I've spent the summer watching '4D roleplay' - these guys are SERIOUS RPGers. They strip down a system to get at the ROLE PLAYING part of the game. They sensor their language to only express how their character would see the scene and never ask the GM questions (because the GM isn't really there). They make some interesting points and I've learned a lot from them. BUT they are obnoxious to talk to because they think they are the only REAL ROLE players... Everyone else is playing tactical Hero Quest just with more rules. This kind of discussion is valuable, but has the danger of making RPGestapo out of us "This style of roleplaying is correct, all others are herecy!", as is evident in the comments. I would say it's possible to play chess as a RPG if you go into a soliloquy of how your queen is defeating a Bishop with courtly etiquet. The other player might be just playing tactically that dosn't change the game you are playing.
Great video. I was thinking about this very thing just the other day. for me it boils down to just two things: - Good turn structure, not too free-form. Each player should get their turn to make a decision and each decision should have some impact. This works across scales - combat, dungeoneering, travel and downtime. - Objective reality, limited GM fiat. The GM shouldn't be making too much stuff directly on the fly. They should arbitrate the relationships between the setting, the system and the player choices. Rolls should be made in the open and/or player-facing, and the outcomes should be predictable.
I'm inclined to agree, Ben! I think that any game where the game engine (a DM or GM usually) can prompt the players with "[here is the situation], what do you do?" and not be limited to X, Y, A, B, L, or R (or whatever) options is an rpg. Some give hard rules for specific actions (PbtA) without explicitly saying "no, you can't do that other thing". This can confuse some players, who see character sheet entries (literally "moves" or "playbook" in PbtA), but the freedom to cut down a tree and break into the front door instead of asking around for a character who can pick locks is still there. Amateur acting is not required.
I don't think the examples you gave of "roleplaying" in other games are accurate. A player of a first-person shooter does not control their character in the same way that a person would logically act in that situation. They run in and shoot with no regard for their characters life, which is not roleplaying. They aren't making decisions based on what would be the most realistic for their character, they are acting in their own best interest as a player of the game. Most traditional games work this way, you have a goal that is deemed "optimal", either gaining points or beating an opponent, and you do everything you can within the rules and boundaries to achieve that goal. There is no secondary consideration of an imaginary persons opinion on those actions. In roleplaying games that's different, the concerns of your character are more important than your concerns as a player. In good roleplaying games, the "gaming" aspect is designed such that the players are encouraged to make decisions that accurately simulate the actions a character would make in the world being presented. Just as the gaming systems are meant to aid the GM in simulating a believable world, the same systems should encourage the players to simulate believable characters, and hopefully the systems are also fun as a "game" so that they enjoy playing that role! Roleplaying involves making decisions based not on what you think is best, or what would be optimal for you as a player, but what an imagined "other" (your character) would choose to do based on what THEY find beneficial. This is what happens often with characters who have oaths, such as paladins. The players at the table know that taking some course of action would give them rewards, more power or gold, but one of the characters would never take that course of action. A paladin would never steal a sword, even if the player would have an easier time during combat using that sword. Good roleplayers choose not to pursue the most optimal "game-state" and rather opt for the choice which may punish them as a player but aligns with the desires and beliefs of the character they are role-playing as. This doesn't happen in chess or non-rpg video games. It does happen in some video games though, where a player may need to forsake some "game" advantage in order to properly simulate the actions of their imagined character. They may have to give up a powerful weapon because taking it would require their character to sacrifice innocent people. They as a player want that weapon, but their character cares about the consequences, so they leave the weapon behind. These video games are called RPG's too for this reason. It's more than a game, you're playing a role, acting as your character. I think this is primarily why the term stuck. It's a descriptor for a type of game in which players at the table primarily explore what their character wants in an imagined world. They shouldn't just be doing what they feel like doing, they should be playing a role accurately. This is the fundamental principle of roleplaying games, and I don't think you're playing an RPG if you're not focused on accurately simulating what your character would do, just as I don't think a GM is running an RPG if they aren't accurately simulating the world as it would be. So I think roleplaying is the primary important factor of an RPG, and I think your thesis in this video isn't accurate. I hope my rather long comment illustrates why I think that way and provides some meaningful insight into the topic. Thanks for reading.
There's a lot of material out there detailing different "types of players", and the style you describe is certainly captured there. And I've met a few. FWIW (read: nothing) I've always found immersive "in the character's head" roleplaying experience to be the cardinal requirement of the best game sessions I've ever had. That said, the thought of sitting around just collaboratively story telling would meet that and would fail terribly at being anything I consider to be a role playing game. So I definitely think there are multiple elements. And what you describe is mandatory as well. But, imo, real roleplaying is at the top of the list of must be part of the experience. I'm actually in a side game that is like what you say here. And it is a good group of guys and we do a lot of over the table BS talk. So I have fun. But I really have been bummed by how little I enjoy the game.
Nice one, Mate! I'd never seen your channel before and from the title I thought it was referencing Tunic the video game 😆 But I stuck with it and appreciate your good food for thought abt TTRPGs.
For me, the core feature of a Role Playing Game is Role Playing. And by Role Playing I mean Character Acting. Role = Character, Playing = Acting. Story is an important aspect of this, but mostly I am interested in the Immersion of exploring and interacting with the world and other Characters (PCs and NPCs) through the eyes of my Character, or better said, *_as my Character._*
yes, but what if your DM wrote a story and runs it like a director of a movie? You have no real choice. If you go in wrong direction he immidiately puts you back on main track and some interactions feel like cutscenes that you have no say in (for example something pushes you into well but you can't try to fight or jump over it because his story depends on you falling in) I think it breaks immersion when you cut down on player agency and makes you feel like this is DMs story not yours to make. So for me the agency is core and roleplay is second because roleplaying when you know it doesnt matter is no fun for me and I think this video is also about it.
3:36 There are some ttrpgs though that do rely on roleplaying such that removing it breaks them down at the core. Ones that don’t have a hard divide between exploration/social encounters and combat encounters, and combat often isn’t strictly defined by actions, movement, hp/damage, and resources such as spell slots. Like with Masks, you play out scenes and are just as likely to receive emotional conditions as you are physical wounds in a fight, which are resolved with roleplay options such as fleeing or comforting them in following scenes. Your position in a grid doesn’t matter so it’s far removed from a war game. Your PCs’ relationships with each other is a huge factor in the mechanics as well, unlike the relationships between named Warhammer characters during a game. I guess you could argue these should be called “collaborative storytelling” games or something, but I also personally don’t consider a FPS to be an rpg since you generally don’t get choices to affect the outcome. Are you “rolewatching” the protagonist of a movie, that always has the same story?
The more i think about it ...the more i realise it might be true ...most memorable and enjoyable stories of all players i know (me too)included an interesting choice
I agree with you about what makes these types of game systems (RPG, Adventure, whatever you want to call them) unique. Whether you play as an audience to the characters in the story or are fully immersed while dressed up and voice acting makes little difference to the fact that the system offers players a breadth of agency to negotiate challenges presented by the Game Master. Also, I might try using the term "Adventure Game" in place of "Role-Playing Game" when attracting new players going forward. I find a lot of folks instantly become sheepish with "Role-Play," and I have to explain to them that they don't have to voice act, dress up, or do any of that to have fun. Anyway, good video!
As far as I’m concerned, a role-playing game is an RPG if it fulfills the following requirements: 1. The player interacts with the game through the mechanical medium of a character and its kit. 2. The primary focus of the game is in the exercising of the player characters kit. And that’s it. If it does not have a role-playing aspect to it, then it is not an RPG. The term RPG has evolved outside of its correct context alongside the games that carried that designation. Now it carries a connotation that doesn’t align correctly.
Thanks - Nice video. Have you read "The 4th Category" by Rob Kuntz, where he describes the open system that Dave Arneson showed Rob and Gary Gygax when they playtested Blackmoor for the first time. It was a gobsmack to Rob and Gary who realized that they'd never considered this 4th category of games, that it was innovative and multiplied the referee's creativity in collaboration with the players. That book also discusses the evolution of the closed system, which encouraged canned settings and adventure booklets. The closed system is intended to feed the brand and increase sales - something that the open system (OD&D) wasn't about. My friends at Chaosium pioneered the closed system with settings, adventures, and very high production values all in one compelling rules and setting, RuneQuest & Glorantha. This level of competition frightened Gary and TSR, which caused significant changes to their business model and turned the D&D system into a closed and highly branded product.
My regular groups has people who had cut their teeth on Vampire: The Masquerade. For them the roleplay is most important. I was quite indecisive during combats and my situation was worse because there was no player communication. Combat was carried by characters who acted on their own volition and each player would make turns that necessitated a change of my plan for action during the round which brought me additional head-aches. I adapted with the years and learnt to ultilize my character's ability to shout stuff to others during my turn. I still maintain tough that there is nothing wrong with players discussing tactics out of character. After all players want what their characters want - to win. I am not sure if I am right tough. What is your take on this. Very interesting video and I agree. I have played with people who just are not adept at roleplaying characters but have a knack for tacitcs, problemsolving or mechanical aptitdue for the rules. THey never were some sorts of elephants in the room.
I've played plenty of Vampire: The Masquerade (and other TTRPGS), I don't think there's anything wrong with some out of character discussion to work out what you're all intending to do in a given combat round, especially if your characters are within ear shot/eye contact of each other. Sometimes it's just a lot easier/faster to say "I'll do this if you wanna do that" or whatever, and just keep things moving. If your GM and fellow players insist that everything needs to be done in character, and your characters are standing next to each other, then I don't see anything wrong with saying something like "my character looks at your character and asks them 'what should we do?'". or something like that. If your characters are separated from each other, it makes more sense that out of character planning is restricted or not allowed, because the characters couldn't co-ordinate their actions within the reality of the game world. Every group is different, and some groups prefer as little out of character conversation as possible, but I think most groups are open to at least some amount of out of character planning because it is just quicker/easier than doing absolutely everything in character.
IMO, one of the things that helps separate TTRPGs from many - but not all - other types of games is that "the Fiction" matters in how the participants engage with the rules and in how those rules are adjudicated. Even for a player wielding their PC as a pawn, the Fiction matters.
The problem with the poll is that you asked a game design question, with right and wrong answer, not an opinion. Polls are only good to ask people's opinions.
I'm working on a definition for RPG just as of now, I'll post it here: “A Role-Playing Game is a game in which all the participants (one or several) interact with and share control over a collectively imagined context, where that interaction and control aren't entirely bounded by the rules.”
Two factors of what make roleplaying games unique: choice and consequence. As already stated, RPGs present a near infinite array of choices which grant players the impact of characters created, the importance in a story's progress, and commits them towards immersion. Consequence allow those choices to matter to the players and the story. Neither of these features can be utilized in a console game, which present save points and railroaded programmed paths, resulting in, at best, a limited experience. While roleplay as an act isn't necessary, it is something that can also be chosen to increase a group's fun, depending on the group and, according to a system, can be more easily facilitated in a seamless manner, such as the Jane Austen RPG, as opposed to just spackling it as a veneer for any game that doesn't encourage it, such as a kid barking while moving one's doggy piece on a Monopoly board.
When I first discovered RPGs, the amazing part was having a character in an actual world. I wasn't just playing inside a set of rules that simulated something. It was in a *world*. I could do anything a person with my PC's characteristics could do in that world. It was the opposite of the old game Myst, which was a beautiful painting stretched in front of a bunch of annoyingly arbitrary puzzles. I think "a world" is the same as what you called "infinite". The rules don't limit the actions you can declare. None of this requires a PC who has their own separate personality. The world is the key. The rules cover a tiny but useful subset of the infinite number of things that can be done in a world.
To me, roleplaying it isn't just playing a character, but that your character has its own unique skills, relationships and personality and that isn't just flavour, it is part of the gameplay. I think being open is one elements of roleplaying games, but it isn't the only thing that set them apart. Roleplaying is, to me, a core feature, that the more a game focuses on the more it is a roleplaying game. Another feature that I think is a core element of those games is interactive storytelling, the GM tells you where you are and how everything that isn't the playable characters behave and you control what your character is doing, what choices they are making and how they are interacting with the world.
I 100% agree. Not open-endedness and players making choices -- that is the core principle of RPG gameplay. Next it should be captivating and immersive as well.
I liked this. I generally struggle with the term role play. It’s so loaded and seems to mean different things to different people. People often take it to mean “put on voices” etc which I find cringe. Exploration, player choices in a potentially infinite world, some combat, puzzles etc are the most fun and interesting elements for me in these games and “Adventure game” seems pretty apt for this while avoiding the baggage so I think I’ll probably start using this term. TUNIC is useful too. Thanks!
As a GM I like your definition T.U.N.I.C., I have binders of planned adventures, paths I thought would happen that never did because of TUNICand allowing thebplayersbto respond and interact to the environment we all create. It is why I choose to GM one system, as i become intimately familiar with the mechanics i am less constrained by detailed planning and can be more responsive (vs. Reactive because I was not prepared). SN: as a GM preparation for adventure build, used or unused is part of "my play" and fulfillment which kind of sets the Game Masters of RPG apart from a so called player. IMHO
I could not disagree more. The difference between an immersive RPG session and a non-immersive roleplaying session is night and day. When everyone at the table is immersed in the world and plays their character to fit the scene the experience is amplified a hundredfold and sticks with you for the rest of your life. It is an experience on par with the best of real world experiences - yes, including THAT. Roleplay is not just essential, it is the quintessential element of RPGs - otherwise you're playing a boardgame with a slap of cringe on top of it. The only reason I have a massive collection of RPG products is because of the power of an immersive game session. TUNIC is ALSO essential - put the two together and you'll never be the same.
What it seems you are broaching is the idea of "what is the essence of an RPG"? ie. The philosophy of Aristotle. In my opinion, you are getting really close, but as you said, Kriegspiels have this openess but I would not consider them RPGs. Instead I would posit that it is Agency that is the essence of an RPG. This is covered in Alexander Macris' book/TH-cam channel Arbiter of Worlds.
For me the point of an ttrpg is for the players (the GM is a player) to experience their story in a verisimilitudinous setting. The rules are there to facilitate the forward momentum of the narrative by providing a way to adjudicate conflict and action. For me, if the players want to role play that's fine, if they want a layer of abstraction between themselves and their character that's fine. I agree with you that part of what makes the hobby so special is the fact that consequential choices are made by the players.
Check out The Ghosts of Zoazanna Mountain: bit.ly/Zoazanna
My RPGs (PDF): bit.ly/QuestingBeastPDFs
Newsletter: bit.ly/TheGlatisant
Patreon: bit.ly/QBPatreon
Player agency and emergent fiction. That's my foundation.
Some frustrated writers type DMs setup adventures that you have no agency. They just tell a story for the players to 'experience'.
Player agency is exactly what this video is about, the freedom of players to make important changes to the flow of the game.Emergent fiction is what results from those choices. Same idea, different language.
My problem stems from the fact my players don't have much agency. They're much newer (not like completely new, but 5e jump ons) and when I present them with a sandbox or exploration crawl and try to help them get it, they just loaf waiting for me to slap them with specific plot hooks or quests to go to the dungeon or cave on B5.
@@spiralvex2686
"Do you just wanna stand around at the inn waiting to die, or do you want to do something?"
is an impactful choice.
@@spiralvex2686holy crap, yes. I hardly even run anymore because I keep trying to give my players meaningful choices and they keep waiting for me to tell them what they're supposed to do next. (While they pass time "roleplaying," I should point out.)
99.9% of the players I've had never engaged in a NANOSECOND of role-playing.
And I HATE it.
You hate roleplaying or the fact they didn't roleplay?
then play games that reward roleplay (like Fate) or force it (like Vampire)
@@lawrl777 Sometimes it's just down to the group or GM. I really struggle with some of my players, and they've got so much to work with. Some are great and pour their heart and soul into their performances and their characters, and I do the same into my world and NPCs. They all enjoy it nonetheless or they wouldn't still be doing it two years down the line, but some are just stronger players than others and the type of game or a change of GM isn't going to fix that. Some people just prefer to watch others and don't have the creativity or bravery to keep up.
When I first played D&D as a teenager, this draw for me was the sense of immersion. This is still what I look for in a game decades later. The roleplaying aspect is not always active to the same extent, this is a social activity with different people who each have their own idea, but it is always there in the back of my mind. This is what I am reaching for when I play. You may have your own idea about what makes a good game, but if you want *me* to have a good game then you will want to enable that style of play as much as possible.
I recall a poll you did a while ago, Ben, about what makes a DnD game, and the top result that people voted for was "Shenanigans". To be honest, that's probably what I would describe as being a huge part of the core TTRPG experience: Having fun by doing crazy and stupid things that are probably outside of the box.
I like your TUNIC principle in the sense that it probably does help with getting to those shenanigan-filled inflection points sooner, and heck, that makes me re-think how I'm going to start my next session that I will GM! The only thing I would add (purely in an informative manner) is that it's important to modulate the TUNIC properly. I will outright say that the social aspects of TTRPGs are my favorite parts of such games (I am a huge sucker for campfire scenes, in particular), and during those times, it can be important to slow things down and let players express their personalities in some low stakes situations. By all means have impact (the "I" in TUNIC), but just lower the stakes and soften that impact appropriately.
For those who just wanted to know what TUNIC stands for: Time Until Next Impactful Choice. Seen at 6:45. 8-)
I think it is important to note that there are a lot of TTRPGs (especially indie TTRPGs) that genuinely don't work without "roleplay for roleplay's sake" - or at least "roleplay as a part of telling a non-emergent story." GMless titles (Wanderhome, Dream Askew / Dream Apart) Story games (The Quiet Year, Dialect), and certain kinds of solo RPGs (Wretched & Alone, Thousand Year Old Vampire) spring to mind.
And while I agree that roleplay isn't unique to TTRPGs, and isn't necessary for A LOT of them, especially in OSR and Trad games, I personally dislike "roleplay isn't important" as a lens to view the entire scene through.
Still a great video! Gave me a lot to think about, and I love the idea of TUNIC.
edit: fixed the title of Dream Askew / Dream Apart
Dream Askew / DREAM APART
I’m sorry to correct you, but everyone always talks about Dream Askew, while Dream Apart is absolutely stunning and a very wisely designed game.
Also, The Quiet Year practically has zero "roleplaying" since you play as a community.
And there’s the eternal definitional issue: are we talking about play-acting or playing a role? Because if it’s the latter, how does an OSR/Trad game look where… you don’t play a role?? :D
While that is true that is not the subject. Just because edge cases that were designed to go against the trend exist doesn't invalidate the concept of TUNIC. I know it's extreme but I could self publish a game that doesn't have player characters in it and CALL it an RPG. I have not single handled invalidated every PC of GMing advice for all other RPGs.
@@danmorgan3685 I don’t disagree with the idea of TUNIC at all - apologies, I probably should have that in my original comment. What I’m pushing back against is “roleplay isn’t important” as a one-size fits all lens through which to view the scene through. I still think it’s a valuable perspective for OSR and Trad games, but I believe it’s important to specify what kinds of games we are thinking about when we do the kind of work this video is doing.
This is a particular point of frustration for me - as a GM who has to contend with player’s preconceived notions of “what an RPG is” when introducing them to other styles of play.
Story games, solo games and GMless tiles are not an edge case - they are at least as popular as the OSR.
edit: grammar
@@rafaelcupiael Thank you for the correction, you’ve got me there! Going back through my copy of TQY I see that you are totally right! I would offer up Downfall as a similar game that is closer to what I was taking about it my comment!
@@rafaelcupiael Why does roleplaying as a community not count as roleplaying?
I think I should have defined my terms a little bit better. What I mean by "roleplaying" is "acting as your PC would act". Let me know your thoughts! I might make a video later responding to your ideas.
Ha thats funny because I define roleplaying as making choices in a fictional context
An insightful video, I think what people wanna know is how far you get into character while playing/running a game. As a purveyor of such much wisdom and critique, do you prefer groups with more or less distinction between players and their characters?
While playing an RPG video game, you are not roleplaying. You are moving your thumbs.
I think a lot of your examples don't fit this definition. In Warhammer, I never consider how each space marine would act. I don't even really put myself in the mindset of a fictional general. I just place and direct each unit in a way that I, myself, think is tactically optimal.
This may not be surprising to hear, but I often return to Matt Colville's Roleplaying video. It's been a very useful tool to understand the spectrum of that particular element of play. "Acting as your PC would act" is how I approach things, but it does intersect with "what outcome do I want as a player?" an important element as well.
As a 53 year old 40+ year D&D player I've always liked your content, but, I'm guessing here I'm misunderstanding something. What you describe as choice making is exactly roleplaying. Thus, roleplaying IS what RPG's are about. Making a choice is an act of character agency. That's the heart of taking on a role and interacting with an environment.
I think the difference lies within the reasoning behind your choices. Do you make them because your character would, or because it's what makes the most strategic sense. So "choice making" is kinda an umbrella term.
@@melinnamba Fair enough. I just thought it was understood that players select their choice based on their character's intention. At least in my game, that's understood...
@@steved1135 I thought the same, but I have met people who basically treat ttrpgs as board game version of video games, where your PC is essentially just a game piece. They are the ones getting annoyed at "talky talky" and min-max to the extreme. I think that's a valid playstyle, but at my table it's also understood that roleplaying means acting out your character and not the decision of whether you're a tank, healer or DPS.
@@melinnamba Yeah. That minmax style was highly disregarded back in my beginning days ( mid 80's...). Sad to see it is still active. That being said, I'd argue that if it flourishes that's really a fault of the DM. I know I'd blame myself in such a situation, and deal with it...
@steved1135 honestly, you can treat a lot of ttrpg system like board games and if that's what someone enjoys, let them have their fun. Their table, their playstyle. 🤷 I just find it sad, that the community as a whole seems to be more aware of that end of the spectrum of playstyles and almost oblivious to the other end, which is basically improve theatre at your kitchen table. It leads to this idea that roleplay doesn't matter. And robs the hobby of potential.
Well articulated video, and I agree that impactful choice and agency is a core feature of the game genre and hobby, absolutely. But I disagree that it's not roleplay. Or that role-playing games are not about role-playing. It's actually the only point. What that looks like depends on the fiction. Swinging an axe is roleplay in medieval fantasy setting with a Dwarf. Just like swinging a lightsaber is role-play for a Jedi in a Star Wars fiction. Adventure is what role-play looks like in a D&D fiction but it's not part of the fiction of Delta Green or Call of Cthulhu.
The core gameplay loop of a TTRPG and any RPG for that matter is:
> build a character within a fiction
> play as your character engaging in activities of the fiction
> gain rewards (or consequences) from your unique actions and decisions
> use rewards to build your character
> loop continues...
The systems in a TTRPG support the fiction. What remains constant is the creation and roleplay of a character unique to that fiction and how your agency affects the world and changes the character you've made- for better or worse. IMO Tabletop Role-Playing Game is THE definition of the genre. And to agree with you, the agency is a core definer of role-play but it fails to describe fiction which role-play does. I would say the game culture has an issue with defining roleplay as "Acting" or "improv" when simply describing your actions is also roleplay.
To end - you can sell an incredible fiction with just ok rules system, but it's much harder to sell an incredible rules system with an ok fiction.
word
I think that's kind of the issue he's addressing. With such a broad definition of roleplaying, almost every game is roleplaying, because there are relatively few games where you don't control at least one character. Why is Doom a first person shooter instead of a roleplaying game? In Fifa, you are roleplaying a team of football players, yet it's a sports game. And if the application is this broad, the label becomes pointless, so why use it as a core identifier only for this specific type of game? If everything is a roleplaying game, nothing is.
@@sitnamkrad I think that's right. I think Ben has nailed what makes TTRPGs different from other games where you play a role of some kind. But I also think we need to be wary of losing the trees for the forest - getting so focused on the unique aspect that we downplay the other aspects of RPGs that it shares with some other types of play. Every GM is going to be different on where they place the emphasis - and it's definitely better if we all bear in mind that giving players meaningful choices is critical for enjoying almost any ttrpg.
But we wouldn't want to go too far and assume that various styles of game - such as heavy improv or story-driven, or investigative games don't matter because they don't put meaningful choices above other aspects of play that players of those types of games really enjoy too.
@@sitnamkrad I agree that defining roleplaying is key otherwise everything is roleplay- but I still hold to the idea that it's the best term for this hobby and the genre.
You're touching on the difference between a game's genre versus its subgenres or systems. Any game that has action has... action. But that's not necessarily what defines it as a genre. What I'm saying is Roleplaying as a genre encapsulates everything about it to the greatest depth- which is character creation and evolution, and having agency to make choices that change outcomes within a world you want to immerse yourself in. Your example of FIFA is great. You make a good point that technically you're roleplaying as a soccer player but it's not an RPG of soccer because there's no characterization and choice. In fact, recent FIFA games are doing "careers" where you make a player and join a team and only play as one character. That's actually damn close to an RPG. But regular FIFA is obviously not an RPG as a genre. Neither is Doom. The point of Doom is not to be Doomguy. Its to kill demons. The point of FIFA is not to be Messi. Its to play soccer on a screen. I would argue the point of table rpgs is to literally be your own version of Obi-Wan and Legolas and Fox Mulder.
I get it. It's sort of just semantics. I think he does a fantastic job describing what makes the RPG genre so special.
@@thecaveofthedead well said
I cannot express just how much this channel has helped change and inform the way I think about RPGs. I've been locked up with how to progress writing my custom campaign for the group I play with. When you were explaining TUNIC I just had that *click* where everything just slid into place. From introducing me to Shadowdark to this? A proven masterclass channel which will be seeing me return for every new video! I cannot wait for the next one.
In my 25 years of TTRPG experience I've come to realize there is a spectrum of player types and preferences - it goes from Gamer on one end (the type who likes the system mechanics, or solving puzzles, outsmarting challenges, min/maxing or competing with others - including the DM), all the way to Roleplayer (who like to imagine they're playing in a movie/novel and find the system mechanics only get in the way). Most players fall somewhere in between these two points. I suspect Ben is a Gamer type - someone who is analytical, logical, a planner, someone who takes enjoyment from mentally overcoming challenges. I suspect he's not the type to get very immersed into a world setting or fantasize about his character. No judgement - just an observation.
Robin Laws has a useful player typology which has something like six different kinds of playing (sorry, don't have the book handy right now)
I would suggest ANGRYDMs player types. Based on the aesthetics of play, I think it is the best “player typology” you’ll find.
As a GM, I only want roleplayers and get a little frustrated with rules-lawyers and gamers. For me, the rules are there to support the simulation and if they aren't doing their job I'll change them. I don't mind min/maxing - who wouldn't want to roleplay Batman or Gawain? But once you've got a character then you need to let that character 's personality flow through you and inform your actions.
@davidmorgan6896 I agree. I put alot of effort into creating an immersive experience but gamers never appreciate it. Roleplayers love that stuff, like NPC pictures, world lore, ambient music, etc. Roleplayers enjoy learning about the game through playing it, while Gamers want to read all the rules ahead of time and are always quick to correct others when they're doing something wrong.
@@Madkingstoe that "something wrong" includes sub-optimal tactical decisions; even the offending player is completely within character.
Just like you said, the best games I have run and played in featured player agency and choices that affected the game going forward. A friend ran a 5e game where we explored a swamp to find an evil hag. In the village my rogue picked the pocket of a passed out boatman and found a wooden eye (Which the DM rolled randomly in the moment from the trinket table). He instantly decided that the passed out guy was an agent of the witch and that the eye was like a compass that would point to where she was so her agents could meet up with her.
None of this was planned at all. It was just an emergent moment that arose when I decided to do something for fun because I had a high Sleight of Hand score. That one choice and the immediate follow up became one of the core features of that adventure and we used the eye to find the hag even when she was invisible and flying through the air. The GM explained it all afterwards and it was a great feeling!
For me it boils down to a simple framework: the GM and players are collectively writing an emergent narrative through play; which is the GM presenting conflicts and challenges within a setting, and the players make meaningful choices via characters interacting with said conflicts and challenges in the setting.
To use your terms, the openness of the games is what makes it a role-playing game. Openness requires agency. Agency requires an agent. The only way to play is to become an agent. Becoming an agent requires playing that role. The game cannot work without it, where closed games do not require this for the game to work. Role-playing games are aptly named.
So you would say that it requires both openness and an agent that you act through, whether or not you are "acting as that character would"? I can see that. What if you had a tabletop RPG where you controlled multiple characters at once, as in a DCC funnel? Or one in which you controlled an organization?
Agency requires an agent, but the agent can just be the person playing the game. Closed games also require an agent to play them.
@@QuestingBeastAgreed I very rarely play a single character at a time, but I am seeking to make meaningful choices for those characters. Therefore agency once again becomes the definitive factor.
I would agree with this as well. What defines a roleplaying game to me is having an “agent” (be that a single character, multiple characters, an organization, etc) and making choices for those characters in a system that can react to any choice you make. Playing an agent that has a different mindset than you isn’t required.
@@declan7521 Agency requires that meaningful choices can be made. You are the one making those choices regardless of who they are for.
I believe you are correct here in identifying that's roleplaying is not the essential feature of RPGs that most people would like to think it is. Instead its something else, something we might not have a proper term for and we are just shoving another term in its place as a stop gap measure. The problem we have here is not just a semantic one, its definitional, because we haven't dug down to bottom properly yet as both gamers and designers to see what this thing is we are really thinking about when it comes to RPGs. We're looking at this from either too low or too high a resolution. And that suggests to me that there is an overall structure we aren't quiet seeing here. And I'm not sure what we should indeed call it.
Though I do admit Adventure game might be close to it, but even that is missing some other elements as well as things like strategy, tactics, networking, problem solving, etc. are involved here. So I am at a loss.
Otherwise you acronym of tunic is definitely a thing that is going to stick in my mind, as I realise that might be something I neglect to do in my own tabletop games. Relying to much on narrative and reaction rather than meaningful choices.
I've found as a GM if I'm playing with some new people or just a group with people who haven't played together before, I offer up a number of different kinds of scenario situations to see who responds to what. My group right now has a couple players who more enjoy the combat and action and a couple others who enjoy deep roleplaying. Knowing what players like what, I can offer scenes and encounters that feed into what they like while not excluding the tastes of the others. This way everybody has a good time and enjoys and helps drive the stories we tell together
I can't speak for anyone else , but the kind of rpg session you describe is the kind of session that I and my friends enjoy and strive for every time we sit down at the gaming table.
I've been playing "role playing" games on and off for most of my life. I've never been able to quantify exactly why I love these games, but this is as close an explanation as I've every heard. Thanks, as ever, for the clarity, knowledge and passion you share in your videos.
Escapism by proxy of Roleplay. At my table I try and reduce as many moving parts as possible to inhibit the maximum amount of immersion. I confront my players senses with incense, lighting and music to create a headspace that allows for this. This method has drastically changed the way I view RPGs and there is no turning back for me.
Ambiance can make or break an in-person session.
(Looking at you motorcycle dude down the street, stop revving and *GO* somewhere.)
Im a video game dev, and one of the dreams of game dev is to mimic a fraction of the liberty of TTRPGs give you in terms of crafting your own experience just like in real life. Like going to a party and see all the options from 1. Talking so X, 2. Go and find your friends, etc... So in my opinion TTRPGs should do what only TTRPGs do and focus on it. Not trying to videogamemify it.
Being together and having good time with friends. No matter the game, that's what I'm looking for and what pushes me to sit down at the table week after week.
Great video Ben! ❤️ love seeing this type of content from you and ill surely keep the Tunic principle in mind from now on. I don't like players or DMs who make roleplaying the main focus of the game either, since i dont consider it that much fun or intriguing. However, i believe Roleplaying as in "making the choices from your characters perspective" and giving them some degree of characterization is a very good way to keep the experience fresh and memorable beyond what cool equipment or skills you might have. So yes, it's not essential but still somewhat important imo
I think there's a logical gap in your reasoning. While it's true that openness is a common feature of RPGs, it doesn't necessarily follow that sessions should always focus on choices. I could reverse your logic and argue that since I've participated in many sessions with minimal choices, where players were still highly engaged and satisfied, choices aren't strictly necessary.
At least, not choices that drive the story. There might be choices about how characters react or act, but I think you're referring to a different kind of choice.
So, I agree with the idea of open-ended games. In my opinion, the second most important feature of RPGs is that players primarily "play" a single character. The third key feature would be the existence of a GM, though GM-less RPGs do exist, perhaps leaning more towards collaborative storytelling. Thanks for your video.
I would probably put collaborative storytelling as a core part of any rpg. When players are able to inject ideas into the world and the scene their investment skyrockets in my experience.
Dont you play a wizard AND their apprentice in Ars Magica? D&Ders have their gaunlet where they play 3-5 1st levelcharacters and see if any get to the end of a dungeon. Blades in the Dark sees you flit between a character and a gang in the same scene... So no, singularity of charater is not fundamental. Collaborative is not a core element, the best GM in my group takes zero player input into his world (we can change the world but he never asks '...and what dose that look like?'). The third point you point out is wrong yourself in the same sentance, which is quite a feat.
For me choosing how I react to a scene is not enough. I have the worse time playing the more railroady and scripted the game feels. And I love horror RPGs that are usually more constricted within it's mystery. But I think there need to be at least some illusion of choice, and agency like for example order of getting clues in some places or different ways to get them from someone. The worst time I have when I am playing DMs vison of a story with almost no choices and some cutscenes that you can't react to. I feel like I am just some actor in a movie being told what to do to "experience" the story. Roleplaying for the sake of roleplaying does not work for me I need to feel like my choices matter and they have cosequences.
Great Video, thank you very much. I love how you don’t just share opinions but also great examples and some history.
I’m usually in the camp of “roleplay seems like the most fun part,” but your point hits home. Without the meaningful choices, none of it matters.
As a DM, I see my campaigns as a 'Choose Your Own Adventure' book where I set up 2-3 clear options, but there's always a secret path players can create on their own.
That said, I feel RPGs have taken a hit in the last decade with an influx of theater kids prioritizing quirky characters and dramatic backstories over the collaborative, group-oriented spirit of the game. It's not about one person's story; it's about building something together.
Agreed on all points.
I totally agree. From very early on - decades ago - I settled into this style of running the game where even i don't know what's going to happen. I make sure the players understand that there is no "plot" as such, everything that happens is semi random unless dictated by player actions. In practice, I do this by having at least three alternatives for any major non-player decision and I roll randomly. The key benefits of this is that the players know i am not railroady and it keeps the game more fun for me. It started as the OSR "reaction roll" and "morale check" concepts and I just kept adding to them.
Gotta say, I've been adventure gaming for 40 years and your stuff is the consistently best for refining and learning how to what we do. It's so useful to have things scaffolded and discussed like this. As for this video's question: for me the campaign is the thing. The lasting changes I can make and the things that I can nurture and destroy. I never get into one shots because I am really animated by what I'll use the magic wand I found *for*, not just winning a series of dry challenges (though that is still a bit fun too :). The reason I can never get into wargames is because most of my experience with them is like an arid chess game: equal forces in a meeting engagement. I'd rather misdirect, organise logistics, protect my recruits, spy, assassinate, kidnap and frame people, rather than roll about 60 dice over the course of 5 hours with a 60% success rate because everything is balanced for my level. I'd rather beat something very hard with a nasty plan, or shoot my enemies in the back when they can't defend themselves - not because I'm a murder hobo, but because once violence is the way you solve your problems you owe it to the villagers you're defending to kill all the werewolves before they get another person. The sun is setting...
Whenever I try and describe ttrpgs to people I say it’s a choose your own adventure book with infinite possibilities. I’ve never heard ‘adventure game’ used before but I like it a lot more.
Odd, I define them as improvisational theatre with a few rules and dice. That's literally the opposite of your definition.
@@mobo7420 I would never touched RPGs if "improvisational theatre" was referenced. I can't stand silly voices and manneirisms at the table. It's a game, after all.
@@Rodgarcia666 I don't do silly voices and mannerisms either. It's not a "roll game" versus "Critical Role" dichotomy.
"Adventure game" only really works for games about adventures.
@@TMThesaurus Agreed, adventure game is a good fit for a certain type of RPG, like OSR D&D, but calling all RPGs adventure games is silly. Overall defining roleplaying games is extremely difficult as it covers such a wide spectrum of play styles, rules and preferences. I've always thought about it as a umbrella term for tabletop games which clearly are not board games nor pure improv and have a large degree of player agency.
I humbly think that the core value ttrpgs have is the infinite number of ways that emotions are shared. People can experience what they like in the way that they like, sharing it with others. This can create bonds that go beyond the time spent playing.
What a succinct explanation! I love the infinite possibilities discussion, as that is exactly why I love TTRPGs so much. Breaking free from the rigidity of most video games to something we at the table have a direct impact on is why my table plays the game. Couldn't agree more with the TUNIC explanation! Finding that launch point is incredibly important to set your players off running... sometimes literally!
I'm in it for emotional immersion. Into the world, my backstory, relationships both NPCs and PCs, and let everyone grow, change and develop themselves and their relationship. A good story and cool experiences tends to follow. When I am that invested, almost every choice becomes meaningful, because the relationships are all important to me, and every choice could either worsen or improve those relationship.
The more real in-context tears around the table, the better
I like that idea. Having an impact is rewarding. I don't think it's the only way to play of course, maybe it's a better way though, and it's important to keep track of time for this very reason. That way you know when other things are happening that the players will find out about so the world feels like it's more real.
Excellent video. Clear delivery and insightful analysis. Exactly why I love Ben and his contributions to the greatest hobby of all time!
Risk was a board game where roleplay emerged in the form of trash talk and player pacts and ultimately grew into a Random Event Table that introduced “Imperators” that were commanders that gave an offense bonus to troops in the territory they occupied. We also made Holy Relics that would provide a defensive bonus. Other random events were wild things like Godzilla, who would spontaneously depopulate Japan.
I didn't knew about TUNIC, but it's a great tool to do what I enjoy at my table so thanks.
I did something that is TUNIC-y in this regard: most skill a PC can use (spell, combat skill...) is on a kinda random cooldown (from a revamp usage dice from the Black Hack). This way, using a skill with big impact (teleportation, invincibility for a short duration, charm) is only usable once in a while and neither the player nor me know exactly when it will become available again. This make the choice of using it matter (since you don't have it for a time) and the surprise of the skill being available again make it a last resort/poker trick in some case.
It also adds flavor to the world and characters: ok you are a dragonborn, you can breath fire most of the time... but you're a humanoïd like everyone, sometime your throat is soar, sometime you are out of breath, so sometime, you can't use your fire breath each turn.
youtube shows this to me mere seconds after publication, this must be important.
*RPGS are about storybuilding*
Thought-provoking premise for sure! Thanks!
What stood out to me was the 'closed game-open game' classification. That makes perfect sense, but would arguably put the (OSR) Solo RPGs in the 'closed game' side as there is little to no "everything goes" experience - no GM to guide rules nor easing of the rules cuz that would be 'cheating'. I've often thought about what definition would make most sense in the (analogue) board game/RPG hobby of ours: eurogame vs Ameritrash is outdated, strategic vs story, mechanical vs thematic....none of these hold up, especially in a day and age where more hybrid games are being produced: board games with RPG elements, Solo RPGs that are all about solo journaling, RPGs that feel super crunchy and board games that are so light, the stories and role-play flow freely.
I think, in the end, that RPGs may not be about role-play - you're right - despite its most striking feature (WHEN present) but more about *storybuilding* . All games have a certain amount of emergent story that naturally occurs with players, some way of 'connecting the dots' of what's happening in the game, but RPGs truly are built around and singularly focus on the (communal) building of a story. This is why they are so easygoing with rules - they are subservient to building a good story! This is distinctfully different from 'closed games' where the goal is not 'the journey' but 'the win'. This is why those games are 'closed': the focus in on the end and the rules structure is there to make sure everyone plays on a level playing field. This is also why Solo RPGs have limited themselves to 3 types: Random Table Generation (RTG) and Choose-Your-Own-Adventures (CYOA), both of which are 'closed' and Solo Journaling ones that are 'open'. _Note that I am an RPG designer and currently working hard on designing a soloable RPG that is somewhere in the middle._
In the end though, for every attempt to come up with a definition, there are thousands of voices arguing about the 'fine print' of such a definition (which is good for this comment section, so, well done! 😄) but if one was to make a distinction, I think your 'Closed game' vs. 'Open game' provides enough clout to be used. It stresses where the focus lies: the rules structure with an aim to win or the storybuilding experience or journey itself.
Thanks for this video! 😁
I'm one of those who would agree on your point! The ability of making decisions and seeing how they integrate into a story feels like one of the most important elements of a TTRPG to me. If I'm playing a game and I feel like not much, if anything, from whatever I could decide matters, because everything is just going into the same direction anyways I mostly simply feel bored. I can still have fun (especially if the aspect of the "lack of freedom" is overt or if I realize that it's just what it is), because I can still do other stuff, like roplaying with my friends, trying to find little cool moments here and there, maybe by using a certain skill or whatever. But... I'll for sure feel quite disconected from the game, from the story, from the world, from what's actually happening. I feel like that can be overlooked, becasue "yeah, I still had fun", but talking about the gaming experience we all expect or would like from the game feels waaay too important to me.
Great video.
I've been playing and collecting these games since that little white box, and here's my perspective having watched the hobby evolve over the years.
Let me first start off by saying, how ever one wants to enjoy a "TTRPG" is entirely up to that person and that person's group. It's their game, their choice - not ours.
Nowhere in any of the more traditional/older games of this type is there a rule or suggestion that you must talk in a funny voice, wear a costume, put on makeup, or act like you're in a less-than-B-rated-low-budget movie (not to say that it didn't happen 😬). The taking on of an in-game role (i.e. role-playing) was a far less fanciful affair than that.
The key concept is this (with respect to "old school" play): You are not the character, you are the PLAYER. The character is a pawn in the game that you manipulate and use to interact with an open-ended, imagined environment. It is up to the player to decide what actions his or her character takes, and it's the job of the referee to dictate how the environment responds to those actions. The GAME is a test of your skill as a player, not your acting ability.
Read the examples of play in those games. The players in those examples don't normally say things like "Pour me your most expensive Darovian brandy, good barkeep!", to which the GM responds "Why certainly, fair lady. I shall attend to it in good haste!". Instead, its a game of "Is It Bigger Than A Breadbox?" between the players and the referee, through the lens of the character. For example: "Julea asks the bartender for something expensive. What does he have?" "There's a good variety. The high-end offerings cost 8 sp each." "Sold. Julea buys a nice local brandy."
All that to say that I feel Ben is correct. The "LARPing at the table" is a modern convention that was never the original intention of these games. Sure, even I'll use the funny voices from time to time (a cringe-worthy affair, to be sure!), but usually only for effect/humor. It's only natural that we want to do this when playing "make believe", after all. It is, however, NOT a necessary element.
But again, it's your game, so play it how you want to. You do you, as they say. It is a game after all, and games are meant to be enjoyed! The RPG Police and Grognard Gestapo won't be kicking your door down, I promise!
[/ramble]
I only play Dnd, but it is interesting when we come up with an idea our DM wasn't anticipating. There were only two of us playing at the beginning of a session, and we decided to feed the intended BBEG of the dungeon, a Drake. After a nat 20 animal handling check, we managed to befriend it, and now we have a pet.
Another of the groups I was in managed to defeat all three versions of the final boss in our campaign by being friendly and boosting his ego.
Our DM had to have us come up with epilogues for all our characters on the fly since we had paid for our session and still had an hour to kill.
When it comes to immersion, I can get into the game whether I’m intensely playing one character an entire battlefield or just a pig on a board
Ace video! Good reminder to keep TUNIC in mind. Thanks Ben 🤘😁
All games consist of a few major elements. First is players, second is a playing field.
Types or genres of games are determined by three main factors: A desirable goal, freedoms/abilities, and overcomable barriers.
The key feature of TTRPGs is that the goals are set by the players, not the rules.
In American football, the goal is to get the most points by getting the ball to the opposing end of the field. That goal is set by the rules. Basketball likewise has a set goal that everyone knows and works towards. Football has some flexibility, because you can get points by touchdown, field goal, or even by tackling the opposing team in their end of the field. But all of these are set by the rules and are standardized.
In a TTRPG, the goals are set by the players. The DM might have an overall goal he wants the players to work towards, but he has to get buy-in. Different players may have (usually do have) different goals.
Another defining characteristic is the barriers are semi-determined by one of the players (DM) instead of by the rules. Though there are also the hard barriers set by the rules (like fireball isn't likely to work against heat-proof monsters).
The emphasis isn't the tactical freedom (which can be very limited by things like terrain and character level), but by the goals and barriers that are player-determined.
I mean this wholeheartedly: this has been the most important video on roleplaying games ever made.
Nice job Ben. You nailed it as far as I'm concerned. Thanks.
Excellent episode. Concise, meaningful, and might I add… Impactful.
I would say is that TUNIC applies to most games and is not unique to tabletop adventure games. Every choice in something like Street Fighter for instance has a material impact on the unknown outcome of the match, meaning each button press can be impactful. The difference with tabletop adventure games is that there are an infinite number of options which can be selected when the next impactful choice arrives as opposed to a limited, pre-designated number of choices as there are in video and boardgames.
Roleplaying is, in my opinion, the most interesting aid to help players make a choice between those infinite options. Players could choose the smartest, most tactically viable, or most personally satisfying option, but that doesn't line up with why I like these games. The play session is the story of the characters the players created - for that story to be interesting and entertaining, the choices made should align with a character's wants, ideals, flaws, and personality, not those of the player.
So I agree with you that TUNIC is the most important element of these games, but with the caveat that those materially impactful choices are made from an infinite number of options and selected based on aspects of the characters the players created and not their own dispositions. And I guess thats my long-winded definition of roleplaying and why it IS integral to these games.
(Edit: I listened to that part again at the 4-minute mark and I agree with you: the game won't break if players don't use roleplaying as a tool to make decisions, so technically, it's not essential. But to me, that sounds like a player that is begrudgingly at the table or ambivalent to what makes this type of game special. All just my opinion of course!)
The number one draw for me in role-playing games was "acting [playing a character] within a ruleset that is outside or different from the one of [my] daily life."
The rules are more like and added tool-set that help me know what is possible beyond mundane reality, but in ways that add challenge and fun. Consequences are still part of the fun; cause and effect, and some understandable limitations within the logic of the gameworld, lead to a sense of having accomplished something while using imagination
I’ll be honest; you lost me *very* early into the video, but then you rallied valiantly and regained me! I have subscribed as a direct consequence.
I agree that choices and the open ended nature of the game are the most important aspect and what sets it apart. I think most fans of osr would agree on that.
I think the idea of roleplaying being the most important aspect of the game comes from the fact that many people playing TTRPGs are playing things like dnd 5e, where "choice" is certainly an aspect to be considered, and many times a problem because of the amount of spells and skills available to players, but many are expecting a story to be made by the dm. The encounters must be balanced, the villains must be interesting, there must be character arcs, and more importantly you must consider the characters background etc.
The whole "dont prep a plot" is fantastic advice that I think almost everyone on the community here knows, but I am not sure most players are having campaigns formatted as that. So the concept of roleplaying your character becomes more important. If you don't do that, the story built around it won't make sense as important segments of the game have been tailored specifically for the character you should be roleplaying
But that's just a theory.
"Impactful" is not enough.
Drawing your shotgun and charging vs falling back and pulling out the sniper rifle is a very impactful choice that does not make an FPS into an RPG.
The difference, IMO, is that in other games, from chess and cards to Doom and Starcraft, the choices are free and impactful, but they are supposed to be tactically optimized.
In TTRPGs, I think, in addition to "impactful," the choices need to at least allow, and possibly encourage, a certain level of arbitrary lack of optimization.
Not stupid or intentionally bad. "The two corridors are identical, but one smells bad and the other is cold." Which is the optimal tactical choice?
So, I think your acronym should be TUNIXC, where X stands for arbitrary/uncertain/unoptimized.
Then, the optimizing wargamer can try to make the tactical choice based on the available information, while the roleplayer can decide based on his character history and quirks.
I think you've misunderstood the argument: Ben doesn't seem to be saying that impactful choices define RPGs and set them apart from other games, he seems to be saying that "openness" is characteristic of RPGs and helps to define them, and (as a result?) providing and making impactful choices is where much of the fun comes from. TUNIC is not supposed to define RPGs but help you design better RPGs and have more fun playing them.
No, I totally agree. This is an excellent encapsulation of my entire RPG experience and what makes a good, exciting game for players and the GM alike. I tended to borrow the term "interesting choices" but "impactful" is a good term too, as is the observation about shortening that time until the next choice.
I love this concept and even without being conscious of it, I've been doing something similar. Increasing player choice opportunities and having interesting consequences is paramount.
I LOVE ALL Questing Beast videos!
I would say the same thing a completely different way - I want the party to genuinely fight for their survival at every turn. Some would call this balance, but it just ensures that every little decision is an impactful one.
Tunic and character agency that can override the players will. The players can be read as dark intrusive thoughts in the characters' psyche.
I think there are 2 core elements to TTRPG:
1 - scope of player control is singular beings in an imagined space.
2 - open choices where *human mind* is deciding (interpreting) the outcome while playing.
Many games are very open while being clearly not RPGs, like truth or dare, drawing games or original kriegspeil. Minecraft is also extremely open, but are missing the human element.
Big agree that open decision-making and problem-solving are the essence of TTRPGs.
This makes me think about TTRPG's without a GM, where players come up with the situations and details on their own, leveraging help from Yes/No, Abstract, and Dedicated oracle tables.
"Tactical Infinity" feels kinda cheap if you yourself made up the situation you're engaging. You can always just move the goal posts around, so to speak. If you made the problems and obstacles, and you think of a solution that doesn't quite work, you can just change the problems and obstacles to make it work.
We are in agreement. In general, the thing that makes RPGs different from other games (and which gives layers the unique experience that only RPGs provide) is the openness of the game. The more closed the game (which is a function of the GM's way of running the game), the more "railroady" it becomes (and the less fun).
My favourite style of RPG is ironsworn/starforged where you are GMless and the game has 0 prep the tunic per hour is doubled maybe even trippled as all players get to generate the locations obstacles npcs and plot as a GM and a Player. Mixed success resolution means all decisions have a likelihood of failing or passing at a cost to make all risky action tense . Acting in character isn’t the main reason I’m enjoying it
I think you're right about the importance of openness. As other commenters have noted, agency is a related (yet distinct) concept. And they both support a core RPG concept which, in my view, is best understood in contrast to other, more traditional games. Chess, Monopoly, et al have well-defined objects and ends. How often have gamers read sentences such as 'The object of the game is...', 'The game ends when...'?Although there will be goals and objectives that emerge within campaigns and/or sessions, RPGs themselves are not so limited in scope.
Better With Bacon has some very interesting conversations about this theme.
You are too kind. 🙂
What I love the most about TTRPGs is that they are open games, as you described. Tactical infinity. Imagination is the limit. The most outlandish of actions were as accessible in the 70s as they are now. You don't need computers to set a breaching charge on a pillar to collapse a building on a giant to defeat it.
I agree with T.U.N.I.C. Meaningful choices are what keep the players engaged. One such choice can get them going for a while, and they should definitely start with one. Again, the fact that you don't need computers is a tremendous boon. You don't have to say no to a specific outcome because of an animation constraint.
As noted, "Role Playing" was a term chosen to differentiate the game from war games, board games, sporting games, etc. Players played a "role" in the scenarios being played out - but how they play the role is up to themselves: Acting out someone deeply invested in the situation as if they lived there; or a game player moving pawns around with no investment just intellectual curiosity concerning outcomes. Some people enjoy deeply involving "stories" they take seriously - others play as an excuse to drink and eat and gossip with friends, having fun and larking around with no seriousness. "Oh shhht! Lolland was dissolved by the acid. Guys, find a Wish to get him back!" versus "Oops, another PC dead. Where's my backups? Okay, here's Dullard Lunkhead. Let's see how long he lasts."
This is the difference between a gamer whose character is a toy to be replaced and a roleplayer who actually experience the world through his character. Sure both are wonderful ways to play, but in different groups with different GMs.
I've heard an idea before, probably even on this channel, that what we fundamentally consider to be the "D&D experience" is typically a bunch of modular subgames plugged together; we use subsets of closed rules to logicize and resolve the openness of narrative, which by its nature introduces conflict. There are rule subsets for things like combat, travel, survival and social interactions to varying degrees across games. Your observation that roleplaying games introduce rulesets or procedures in order to better fit the theme is the means by which these games establish narrative genre. To this end, I think roleplaying games will endeavor to enforce this genre through these modules, which, if switched out or omitted, will change the tone of the game, potentially increasing or decreasing player agency in favor of procedure. Roleplaying games are about agency, but the narrative is going to shape the scope and impact of decisions and can be more or less resilient to drastic player actions based on how rule subsets are prioritized and interact. Cool video, thanks Ben.
Yeah I did a video called "DnD is not a game, it's games" based on an idea that Luka Rejec (Ultraviolet Grasslands) came up with.
@@QuestingBeast I particularly enjoyed that video as it did a lot to bring that vague concept of several different games in one to the forefront of how I understand 'open' games like D&D and others like it. Very good video.
HeroQuest is basically a fantasy ttrpg without the role-playing elements. It's fun, but it feels very different from an rpg.
Maybe your playing heroquest wrong?
@chromeego7903 how do I have fun wrong?
@@scottlurker991 You know it is possible to have fun wrong right? Or have you never pulled the legs off a spider? But I'm mostly just yanking your chain....mostly. I play HeroQuest or 'Hewow Qwest' with my 6 year old. He's scared to open the dungeon door because hes scared of what could be behind it - hes 6. When he opens the door he becomes Ragnar the Barbarian brave as anything. He always forgets to search for traps or look for loot. You can see the different ways he plays the game from my friends and I. As we grow up we often decide that games like HeroQuest are tactical games to be won, so we focus on that more and search for treats and traps in every room. But there is no reason you can't play it as an RPG. Which is the right way to play? None can say.
I've spent the summer watching '4D roleplay' - these guys are SERIOUS RPGers. They strip down a system to get at the ROLE PLAYING part of the game. They sensor their language to only express how their character would see the scene and never ask the GM questions (because the GM isn't really there). They make some interesting points and I've learned a lot from them. BUT they are obnoxious to talk to because they think they are the only REAL ROLE players... Everyone else is playing tactical Hero Quest just with more rules. This kind of discussion is valuable, but has the danger of making RPGestapo out of us "This style of roleplaying is correct, all others are herecy!", as is evident in the comments. I would say it's possible to play chess as a RPG if you go into a soliloquy of how your queen is defeating a Bishop with courtly etiquet. The other player might be just playing tactically that dosn't change the game you are playing.
Great video. I was thinking about this very thing just the other day. for me it boils down to just two things:
- Good turn structure, not too free-form. Each player should get their turn to make a decision and each decision should have some impact. This works across scales - combat, dungeoneering, travel and downtime.
- Objective reality, limited GM fiat. The GM shouldn't be making too much stuff directly on the fly. They should arbitrate the relationships between the setting, the system and the player choices. Rolls should be made in the open and/or player-facing, and the outcomes should be predictable.
I'm inclined to agree, Ben! I think that any game where the game engine (a DM or GM usually) can prompt the players with "[here is the situation], what do you do?" and not be limited to X, Y, A, B, L, or R (or whatever) options is an rpg. Some give hard rules for specific actions (PbtA) without explicitly saying "no, you can't do that other thing". This can confuse some players, who see character sheet entries (literally "moves" or "playbook" in PbtA), but the freedom to cut down a tree and break into the front door instead of asking around for a character who can pick locks is still there. Amateur acting is not required.
Great video! Love these deep thought Questing Beast videos
I don't think the examples you gave of "roleplaying" in other games are accurate. A player of a first-person shooter does not control their character in the same way that a person would logically act in that situation. They run in and shoot with no regard for their characters life, which is not roleplaying. They aren't making decisions based on what would be the most realistic for their character, they are acting in their own best interest as a player of the game. Most traditional games work this way, you have a goal that is deemed "optimal", either gaining points or beating an opponent, and you do everything you can within the rules and boundaries to achieve that goal. There is no secondary consideration of an imaginary persons opinion on those actions.
In roleplaying games that's different, the concerns of your character are more important than your concerns as a player. In good roleplaying games, the "gaming" aspect is designed such that the players are encouraged to make decisions that accurately simulate the actions a character would make in the world being presented. Just as the gaming systems are meant to aid the GM in simulating a believable world, the same systems should encourage the players to simulate believable characters, and hopefully the systems are also fun as a "game" so that they enjoy playing that role!
Roleplaying involves making decisions based not on what you think is best, or what would be optimal for you as a player, but what an imagined "other" (your character) would choose to do based on what THEY find beneficial. This is what happens often with characters who have oaths, such as paladins. The players at the table know that taking some course of action would give them rewards, more power or gold, but one of the characters would never take that course of action. A paladin would never steal a sword, even if the player would have an easier time during combat using that sword. Good roleplayers choose not to pursue the most optimal "game-state" and rather opt for the choice which may punish them as a player but aligns with the desires and beliefs of the character they are role-playing as. This doesn't happen in chess or non-rpg video games. It does happen in some video games though, where a player may need to forsake some "game" advantage in order to properly simulate the actions of their imagined character. They may have to give up a powerful weapon because taking it would require their character to sacrifice innocent people. They as a player want that weapon, but their character cares about the consequences, so they leave the weapon behind. These video games are called RPG's too for this reason. It's more than a game, you're playing a role, acting as your character.
I think this is primarily why the term stuck. It's a descriptor for a type of game in which players at the table primarily explore what their character wants in an imagined world. They shouldn't just be doing what they feel like doing, they should be playing a role accurately. This is the fundamental principle of roleplaying games, and I don't think you're playing an RPG if you're not focused on accurately simulating what your character would do, just as I don't think a GM is running an RPG if they aren't accurately simulating the world as it would be. So I think roleplaying is the primary important factor of an RPG, and I think your thesis in this video isn't accurate. I hope my rather long comment illustrates why I think that way and provides some meaningful insight into the topic. Thanks for reading.
This is an amazing video that dissects the subject deeply and accurately.
There's a lot of material out there detailing different "types of players", and the style you describe is certainly captured there. And I've met a few. FWIW (read: nothing) I've always found immersive "in the character's head" roleplaying experience to be the cardinal requirement of the best game sessions I've ever had.
That said, the thought of sitting around just collaboratively story telling would meet that and would fail terribly at being anything I consider to be a role playing game. So I definitely think there are multiple elements. And what you describe is mandatory as well. But, imo, real roleplaying is at the top of the list of must be part of the experience.
I'm actually in a side game that is like what you say here. And it is a good group of guys and we do a lot of over the table BS talk. So I have fun. But I really have been bummed by how little I enjoy the game.
Nice one, Mate!
I'd never seen your channel before and from the title I thought it was referencing Tunic the video game 😆 But I stuck with it and appreciate your good food for thought abt TTRPGs.
Welcome aboard!
For me, the core feature of a Role Playing Game is Role Playing. And by Role Playing I mean Character Acting. Role = Character, Playing = Acting.
Story is an important aspect of this, but mostly I am interested in the Immersion of exploring and interacting with the world and other Characters (PCs and NPCs) through the eyes of my Character, or better said, *_as my Character._*
Exactly, show (through choices and dialogue) not tell what kind of a person your character is. That's roleplaying.
yes, but what if your DM wrote a story and runs it like a director of a movie? You have no real choice. If you go in wrong direction he immidiately puts you back on main track and some interactions feel like cutscenes that you have no say in (for example something pushes you into well but you can't try to fight or jump over it because his story depends on you falling in) I think it breaks immersion when you cut down on player agency and makes you feel like this is DMs story not yours to make. So for me the agency is core and roleplay is second because roleplaying when you know it doesnt matter is no fun for me and I think this video is also about it.
3:36 There are some ttrpgs though that do rely on roleplaying such that removing it breaks them down at the core. Ones that don’t have a hard divide between exploration/social encounters and combat encounters, and combat often isn’t strictly defined by actions, movement, hp/damage, and resources such as spell slots. Like with Masks, you play out scenes and are just as likely to receive emotional conditions as you are physical wounds in a fight, which are resolved with roleplay options such as fleeing or comforting them in following scenes. Your position in a grid doesn’t matter so it’s far removed from a war game. Your PCs’ relationships with each other is a huge factor in the mechanics as well, unlike the relationships between named Warhammer characters during a game.
I guess you could argue these should be called “collaborative storytelling” games or something, but I also personally don’t consider a FPS to be an rpg since you generally don’t get choices to affect the outcome. Are you “rolewatching” the protagonist of a movie, that always has the same story?
Great video, Ben.❤ Thank you.
The more i think about it ...the more i realise it might be true ...most memorable and enjoyable stories of all players i know (me too)included an interesting choice
Maybe I'm not comprehending, but I totally missed what TUNIC stands for, please help!
Time Until Next Impactful Choice
I agree with you about what makes these types of game systems (RPG, Adventure, whatever you want to call them) unique. Whether you play as an audience to the characters in the story or are fully immersed while dressed up and voice acting makes little difference to the fact that the system offers players a breadth of agency to negotiate challenges presented by the Game Master.
Also, I might try using the term "Adventure Game" in place of "Role-Playing Game" when attracting new players going forward. I find a lot of folks instantly become sheepish with "Role-Play," and I have to explain to them that they don't have to voice act, dress up, or do any of that to have fun.
Anyway, good video!
As far as I’m concerned, a role-playing game is an RPG if it fulfills the following requirements: 1. The player interacts with the game through the mechanical medium of a character and its kit. 2. The primary focus of the game is in the exercising of the player characters kit. And that’s it. If it does not have a role-playing aspect to it, then it is not an RPG.
The term RPG has evolved outside of its correct context alongside the games that carried that designation. Now it carries a connotation that doesn’t align correctly.
Agency, the concept you're thinking about is called agency. It's been a hugely debated topic in TTRPGs for well over 40 years.
Thanks - Nice video.
Have you read "The 4th Category" by Rob Kuntz, where he describes the open system that Dave Arneson showed Rob and Gary Gygax when they playtested Blackmoor for the first time. It was a gobsmack to Rob and Gary who realized that they'd never considered this 4th category of games, that it was innovative and multiplied the referee's creativity in collaboration with the players. That book also discusses the evolution of the closed system, which encouraged canned settings and adventure booklets. The closed system is intended to feed the brand and increase sales - something that the open system (OD&D) wasn't about. My friends at Chaosium pioneered the closed system with settings, adventures, and very high production values all in one compelling rules and setting, RuneQuest & Glorantha. This level of competition frightened Gary and TSR, which caused significant changes to their business model and turned the D&D system into a closed and highly branded product.
My regular groups has people who had cut their teeth on Vampire: The Masquerade. For them the roleplay is most important. I was quite indecisive during combats and my situation was worse because there was no player communication. Combat was carried by characters who acted on their own volition and each player would make turns that necessitated a change of my plan for action during the round which brought me additional head-aches. I adapted with the years and learnt to ultilize my character's ability to shout stuff to others during my turn. I still maintain tough that there is nothing wrong with players discussing tactics out of character. After all players want what their characters want - to win. I am not sure if I am right tough. What is your take on this. Very interesting video and I agree. I have played with people who just are not adept at roleplaying characters but have a knack for tacitcs, problemsolving or mechanical aptitdue for the rules. THey never were some sorts of elephants in the room.
I've played plenty of Vampire: The Masquerade (and other TTRPGS), I don't think there's anything wrong with some out of character discussion to work out what you're all intending to do in a given combat round, especially if your characters are within ear shot/eye contact of each other. Sometimes it's just a lot easier/faster to say "I'll do this if you wanna do that" or whatever, and just keep things moving.
If your GM and fellow players insist that everything needs to be done in character, and your characters are standing next to each other, then I don't see anything wrong with saying something like "my character looks at your character and asks them 'what should we do?'". or something like that. If your characters are separated from each other, it makes more sense that out of character planning is restricted or not allowed, because the characters couldn't co-ordinate their actions within the reality of the game world.
Every group is different, and some groups prefer as little out of character conversation as possible, but I think most groups are open to at least some amount of out of character planning because it is just quicker/easier than doing absolutely everything in character.
Thank you, this inspired me.
IMO, one of the things that helps separate TTRPGs from many - but not all - other types of games is that "the Fiction" matters in how the participants engage with the rules and in how those rules are adjudicated. Even for a player wielding their PC as a pawn, the Fiction matters.
The problem with the poll is that you asked a game design question, with right and wrong answer, not an opinion. Polls are only good to ask people's opinions.
I'm working on a definition for RPG just as of now, I'll post it here: “A Role-Playing Game is a game in which all the participants (one or several) interact with and share control over a collectively imagined context, where that interaction and control aren't entirely bounded by the rules.”
Two factors of what make roleplaying games unique: choice and consequence. As already stated, RPGs present a near infinite array of choices which grant players the impact of characters created, the importance in a story's progress, and commits them towards immersion. Consequence allow those choices to matter to the players and the story. Neither of these features can be utilized in a console game, which present save points and railroaded programmed paths, resulting in, at best, a limited experience.
While roleplay as an act isn't necessary, it is something that can also be chosen to increase a group's fun, depending on the group and, according to a system, can be more easily facilitated in a seamless manner, such as the Jane Austen RPG, as opposed to just spackling it as a veneer for any game that doesn't encourage it, such as a kid barking while moving one's doggy piece on a Monopoly board.
When I first discovered RPGs, the amazing part was having a character in an actual world. I wasn't just playing inside a set of rules that simulated something. It was in a *world*. I could do anything a person with my PC's characteristics could do in that world. It was the opposite of the old game Myst, which was a beautiful painting stretched in front of a bunch of annoyingly arbitrary puzzles. I think "a world" is the same as what you called "infinite". The rules don't limit the actions you can declare. None of this requires a PC who has their own separate personality. The world is the key. The rules cover a tiny but useful subset of the infinite number of things that can be done in a world.
To me, roleplaying it isn't just playing a character, but that your character has its own unique skills, relationships and personality and that isn't just flavour, it is part of the gameplay.
I think being open is one elements of roleplaying games, but it isn't the only thing that set them apart. Roleplaying is, to me, a core feature, that the more a game focuses on the more it is a roleplaying game.
Another feature that I think is a core element of those games is interactive storytelling, the GM tells you where you are and how everything that isn't the playable characters behave and you control what your character is doing, what choices they are making and how they are interacting with the world.
No group of 3+ people will be playing the same game, the same way.
#1 rule is have fun.
I 100% agree. Not open-endedness and players making choices -- that is the core principle of RPG gameplay. Next it should be captivating and immersive as well.
I liked this. I generally struggle with the term role play. It’s so loaded and seems to mean different things to different people. People often take it to mean “put on voices” etc which I find cringe. Exploration, player choices in a potentially infinite world, some combat, puzzles etc are the most fun and interesting elements for me in these games and “Adventure game” seems pretty apt for this while avoiding the baggage so I think I’ll probably start using this term. TUNIC is useful too. Thanks!
As a GM I like your definition T.U.N.I.C., I have binders of planned adventures, paths I thought would happen that never did because of TUNICand allowing thebplayersbto respond and interact to the environment we all create. It is why I choose to GM one system, as i become intimately familiar with the mechanics i am less constrained by detailed planning and can be more responsive (vs. Reactive because I was not prepared). SN: as a GM preparation for adventure build, used or unused is part of "my play" and fulfillment which kind of sets the Game Masters of RPG apart from a so called player. IMHO
I could not disagree more. The difference between an immersive RPG session and a non-immersive roleplaying session is night and day. When everyone at the table is immersed in the world and plays their character to fit the scene the experience is amplified a hundredfold and sticks with you for the rest of your life. It is an experience on par with the best of real world experiences - yes, including THAT. Roleplay is not just essential, it is the quintessential element of RPGs - otherwise you're playing a boardgame with a slap of cringe on top of it. The only reason I have a massive collection of RPG products is because of the power of an immersive game session. TUNIC is ALSO essential - put the two together and you'll never be the same.
What it seems you are broaching is the idea of "what is the essence of an RPG"?
ie. The philosophy of Aristotle.
In my opinion, you are getting really close, but as you said, Kriegspiels have this openess but I would not consider them RPGs.
Instead I would posit that it is Agency that is the essence of an RPG.
This is covered in Alexander Macris' book/TH-cam channel
Arbiter of Worlds.
Very similar ground being covered on the Tomb of Lime channel
There is a action adventure video game called Tunic which is what I thought the video was referencing lol.
For me the point of an ttrpg is for the players (the GM is a player) to experience their story in a verisimilitudinous setting. The rules are there to facilitate the forward momentum of the narrative by providing a way to adjudicate conflict and action.
For me, if the players want to role play that's fine, if they want a layer of abstraction between themselves and their character that's fine.
I agree with you that part of what makes the hobby so special is the fact that consequential choices are made by the players.