Pillars, truth and RPGs
Another contribution that gave me the chance to think about the principles that govern RPGs is this post by an Italian GM. These readings don't produce much in the way of concrete results, but they do help to reach levels of awareness that would otherwise never be stimulated by 'basic' conversation.
Facing the question 'What is D&D?' (or a fantasy RPG in general) three pillars have been formulated by some experts and the author of the post revises them in the light of his experience and his view of RPGs. I'm doing the same... the first conclusion I come to is that there will be as many answers as there are people who adapt the rules to their own purposes. This means that anyone who has taken the liberty of modifying any part of the D&D rulebook will most likely show their own vision of what the game is... (assuming that the rule modification stems from a quest for something different from what the original game proposes). If my hypothesis has any basis, it is easy to imagine that an RPG as such will have a very wide spectrum of responses...
The proof is that, in my opinion, none of the three pillars mentioned by the D&D gurus and none of the three hypotheses put forward by the Italian GM represent D&D to my eyes... they are too detailed, too precise to be good answers for the average reader. The original question is legitimate and the answer may seem non-trivial... then I thought a lot and came to the conclusion that the answer is, unfortunately, trivial!
D&D has only one pillar: role-playing. Full stop.
The answers I have read are not wrong for that reason: they are the answers of those who want to see those concepts as the pillars of the game... a local proverb says 'the hammer only sees nails'... and so it is with the pillars of D&D. Far be it from me to be critical of those who have defined these pillars, or any other pillars for that matter. In fact, I too would define a few pillars of what I think are the most important for the game, but I don't think this answer can be considered universal.
To return to the answer I gave: role-play is the one element without which the game would collapse. As a term, 'role-play' can include or exclude different facets of the game, but what does not change is that this pillar is twofold: it has a function for the players as well as a function for the GM. Indeed, if up to this point the answer could be considered universal, I will now enter into the explanation and then present my own view of how the term 'role-play' can be understood.
For the player, the pillar of 'role-play' is the principle by which a player profiles a character and strives to make that character plausible and believable.
The pillar of 'role-play' for the GM is the principle that a master must give the game world coherence and depth to allow the players to apply their 'role-play' within the game.
Perhaps, indeed very probably, I am falling into the philosophical argument: what I am trying to convey is that whatever pillar everyone wants to erect in support of their own way of looking at RPGs, I am trying to get to the simplest nature of it (and perhaps that is why my answer is trivial!), but at the same time creates a solidity of play that makes the experience at the table enjoyable!
Thank you for quoting me. You're making an interesting point, but I have a couple of concerns.
First, in my essai my goal was to focus on what distinguishes the “family” of D&D from RPGs in general.
Logically, “being a GdR” (in short, roleplay) is an essential element of D&D, but it is also an essential element of Trollbabe, of The Pool, of Wanderhome, of Kagematsu, of Little Katy's Tea Party: it's natural, they're role play games.
If this was the only essential element, the D&D “family” would have nothing special and distinctive with respect to the others. Instead, the purpose of my new series of articles is precisely to go after those elements.
Second, your definition of roleplay doesn't entirely convince me.
To start, it's based on a distinction between players and GM that isn't so general: it's fully applicable to D&D but, for example, the last three games I mentioned before are without GM.
Above all, I don't think that roleplay means "the principle by which a player profiles a character and strives to make that character plausible and believable". Indeed, I've practical evidence, even firsthand, that we can play D&D with great satisfaction (and get beautiful stories from it) even without doing this at all.
All that's required is that the player makes decisions for the character and deal with the consequences. This is enough for the game to work just fine. No need to think about believability/consistency with respect to some predefined identity (I'm not saying it's wrong: just not mandatory).
I hope you don't mind me focusing only on criticism: I reiterate that I appreciate most of what you wrote. And thanks for this opportunity to exchange ideas!