Not All Pastimes Are Games

On the RPGSite, I posted my opinion that D&D, and many RPGs, are pastimes, not games. A game is a pastime, but not every pastime is a game, even if it's the kind of pastime that has a few rules. Without reposting every damn thing I said in that thread, it's the definite end point, win-lose conditions, and strictness of the rules (and fear of a lack of rules) that makes a game, a game. A pastime that isn't a game doesn't necessarily have that definiteness, that strictness, because the main goal of a pastime is to enjoy playing it, and keeping play going as long as you feel like playing. There doesn't have to be any other goal.

D&D originally was more of a pastime. You had a "scoring" system, based on treasure retrieved and monsters slain, but there was no end point which certified your "high score", and players had multiple characters, switching from one to another based on what they felt like playing. Characters started at first level and entered the "game" at any point; the "game" itself just kept going. Players set their own goals, and either met them or abandoned them, based on whim.

In summary, D&D is like Lewis Carroll's Caucus Race, where everyone runs around in circles until someone announces the race is finished and everyone wins.

Many RPGs work the same way, and are thus pastimes, not games. Some RPGs, or some adaptations of D&D, have a definite end point or at least a scoring point, with definite win/loss conditions. Turning D&D into an actual game means the rules must be stricter, because in a game, if a point comes up where you can't decide if someone is playing fair or cheating, or where it's not clear if someone has won or lost, the game breaks down. Everything must be accounted for, and ambiguity must be avoided.

The word "game" is used pretty informally; sometimes it just means "pastime", and other times it really does mean a game, in the strictest sense. Rational people would decide whether they want to play a strict game or just a pastime, then seek out other people with the same interests and enjoy themselves. This naturally applies to RPGs as strict games vs. RPGs as pastimes as well; if you don't like playing D&D as if it had a strict win condition, don't play with people who do, and vice versa.

Some people don't get this distinction. They like the game version of D&D, and they look at the phrase "role-playing game" and see the word "game". To them, all RPGs are strict games, and they can be judged based on how strict they are. People who don't play in a strict manner with intent to win are bad gamers. GMs who make stuff up without paying attention to fairness are bad GMs. And at no point is the hardcore gamer ever, EVER wrong for picking the wrong group.

I think every single argument about RPGs can be traced back to an argument about games vs. pastimes.

Rules vs. Rulings? Check.

Character Skill vs. Player Skill? Check.

Linear Fighter vs. Exponential Wizard? Check.

Cooperative Play vs. PVP? Check.

Character optimization? Check.

Edition wars? Check.

The munchkin is really just a hardcore gamer trying to win the game as quickly as possible, or pulling passive-aggressive nonsense because he's pissed off about the game not being very game-like. He doesn't get why the other players want to savor the whole fictional setting and keep playing as long as they want.

So here's my advice: decide whether you want a strict game or a pastime. Play one or the other, or change depending on your mood. But everyone: exclude the guys who can't tell the difference. they will only bring grief.