In your "better fighter" example I'd contend that there are (at least) two essential features of a D&D character: class and level, and this is evident when one compares a classic D&D character to a current iteration D&D character. In your example Fighter #2 wouldn't be a "bad" classic D&D fighter as the levels increase, since the difference in Strength characteristics would be less of a factor in determining "distance from the essence" (or whatever the philosophical term is) of "classic D&D fighter". The opposite is true in the current iteration of D&D, where the six core attributes are significantly greater factors in the essence of a "D&D character" at low levels, and still significant at high levels (though less so than at low levels). And this difference in essence is why classic D&D (and its ilk, like ACKS) is objectively superior to current iteration D&D: as a player I have more agency in determining "fun fighter to play" in classic D&D (where a Str 9 fighter is still "playably fun") than the current iteration D&D (a Str 9 fighter is "playably unfun"). Or something like this. :-)
I quite agree, actually. The viability of characters with different ability scores is a big benefit of old school play. But I hope you will forgive me for not delving so deeply in my example(s). The essay was already quite long!
Yes, long but very enjoyable read. In the wave function of "D&D character" the factors in order of importance are class, level, attributes; alignment, equipment, appearance and name are somewhere in the second tier. Probably.
I find that people, especially more socially disaffected people, can't really grasp that saying something is different isn't a denigration of that thing. I like apples and oranges, I can evaluate both of them in very overlapping ways, but an apple and an orange are different and if I went to bite into my apple and I got peel and pith and citrus flavors, I'd be likely be unhappy even if it was a wonderful apple shaped orange.
Saying two things are fundamentally different, and saying that they have different optimal uses because of those differences, should be relatively normal and uncontroversial, but alas it is not.
Have you considered using a phrase other than TTRPG to describe this sort of game? If you had replaced all above mentions of TTRPGs and instead just talked about (for example) D&D, the definition offered becomes much less controversial. As you observe, the term TTRPG has been so heavily diluted that it's virtually useless for ontological purposes, and a new word would seem to avoid that baggage.
But why? Why must he retreat in his terminology when the alternatives (e.g., story games) have names they can stick to which are also better descriptors thereof?
The most controversial element of TTRPG is "Table-Top", which in practice is so diluted as to be relatively meaningless to begin with. It is also the earliest concession, to distinguish it from (primarily) CRPGs.
Interestingly, CRPGs have their own subdivision into related subgenres - the open-world game retains the ideal of a player who can interact with the world and its story on his own terms; the interactive novel retains the idea of a player making meaningful choices; the JRPG is the players being along for the ride enjoying the story while power tripping; and then there are the Wizardry-style games in which logistics, tactics, and care are vital to avoid a quick and painful death.
The CRPG is forced to make such compromises because computers are dumb. And each of these subgenres are each built with a priority of capturing some portion of that original essence of the TTRPG.
By contrast, a story game is less concerned with the essence of a TTRPG, and seeks more to reclaim the tradition of telling tales around the campfire. A Board Game (or the Gloomhaven Variety) is, similar to the CRPG, an attempt to get at the essence of TTRPG without the GM (we are all of us familiar with the dilemma of a group of players, but no GM).
But the TTRPG? What subdivision is appropriate here? That the players play a (single) role is right there in the name. Why would such terminology be more appropriate in a story game, in which players play multiple roles? Meanwhile, "game" distinguishes itself from such things as psychological therapy.
So, if there is a genre of play more deserving of the TTRPG, what is it, pray tell? Then, and only then, would it be appropriate to propose a new title for the root from which all other RPGs (with the exclusion of story games) draw their sustenance.
(Incidentally, with regard to the initial topic of player agency, it is instructive to look toward the rising and persistent popularity of both Rogueli[k/t]es and Interactive Fiction in recent computer gaming)
In your "better fighter" example I'd contend that there are (at least) two essential features of a D&D character: class and level, and this is evident when one compares a classic D&D character to a current iteration D&D character. In your example Fighter #2 wouldn't be a "bad" classic D&D fighter as the levels increase, since the difference in Strength characteristics would be less of a factor in determining "distance from the essence" (or whatever the philosophical term is) of "classic D&D fighter". The opposite is true in the current iteration of D&D, where the six core attributes are significantly greater factors in the essence of a "D&D character" at low levels, and still significant at high levels (though less so than at low levels). And this difference in essence is why classic D&D (and its ilk, like ACKS) is objectively superior to current iteration D&D: as a player I have more agency in determining "fun fighter to play" in classic D&D (where a Str 9 fighter is still "playably fun") than the current iteration D&D (a Str 9 fighter is "playably unfun"). Or something like this. :-)
I quite agree, actually. The viability of characters with different ability scores is a big benefit of old school play. But I hope you will forgive me for not delving so deeply in my example(s). The essay was already quite long!
Yes, long but very enjoyable read. In the wave function of "D&D character" the factors in order of importance are class, level, attributes; alignment, equipment, appearance and name are somewhere in the second tier. Probably.
I find that people, especially more socially disaffected people, can't really grasp that saying something is different isn't a denigration of that thing. I like apples and oranges, I can evaluate both of them in very overlapping ways, but an apple and an orange are different and if I went to bite into my apple and I got peel and pith and citrus flavors, I'd be likely be unhappy even if it was a wonderful apple shaped orange.
Saying two things are fundamentally different, and saying that they have different optimal uses because of those differences, should be relatively normal and uncontroversial, but alas it is not.
I concur, sir. But much that ought to be uncontroversial is sadly not.
Have you considered using a phrase other than TTRPG to describe this sort of game? If you had replaced all above mentions of TTRPGs and instead just talked about (for example) D&D, the definition offered becomes much less controversial. As you observe, the term TTRPG has been so heavily diluted that it's virtually useless for ontological purposes, and a new word would seem to avoid that baggage.
No. I'm taking it back. It's mine and they cannot have it.
But why? Why must he retreat in his terminology when the alternatives (e.g., story games) have names they can stick to which are also better descriptors thereof?
The most controversial element of TTRPG is "Table-Top", which in practice is so diluted as to be relatively meaningless to begin with. It is also the earliest concession, to distinguish it from (primarily) CRPGs.
Interestingly, CRPGs have their own subdivision into related subgenres - the open-world game retains the ideal of a player who can interact with the world and its story on his own terms; the interactive novel retains the idea of a player making meaningful choices; the JRPG is the players being along for the ride enjoying the story while power tripping; and then there are the Wizardry-style games in which logistics, tactics, and care are vital to avoid a quick and painful death.
The CRPG is forced to make such compromises because computers are dumb. And each of these subgenres are each built with a priority of capturing some portion of that original essence of the TTRPG.
By contrast, a story game is less concerned with the essence of a TTRPG, and seeks more to reclaim the tradition of telling tales around the campfire. A Board Game (or the Gloomhaven Variety) is, similar to the CRPG, an attempt to get at the essence of TTRPG without the GM (we are all of us familiar with the dilemma of a group of players, but no GM).
But the TTRPG? What subdivision is appropriate here? That the players play a (single) role is right there in the name. Why would such terminology be more appropriate in a story game, in which players play multiple roles? Meanwhile, "game" distinguishes itself from such things as psychological therapy.
So, if there is a genre of play more deserving of the TTRPG, what is it, pray tell? Then, and only then, would it be appropriate to propose a new title for the root from which all other RPGs (with the exclusion of story games) draw their sustenance.
(Incidentally, with regard to the initial topic of player agency, it is instructive to look toward the rising and persistent popularity of both Rogueli[k/t]es and Interactive Fiction in recent computer gaming)