I’m a categorizer and always have been. Categorization leads to illumination, but the danger in categorizing is that every play style might seem to fit only the extremes of each category. In this article, I try to categorize the various RPG styles of play in a logical manner.
RPGs offer more freedom to act than other forms of tabletop gaming. The players can “try anything” because they have a human GM (usually!). The constraints on the players are the constraints of physics and other “laws” of the real world (also usually!). Not surprisingly then, there are almost as many ways to play RPGs as there are players. But we can still identify categories of the attitudes of players and GMs, which is my goal below.
We’re in a world of extremism, so I must caution that these are the extremes with a very large area in between where most campaigns and players typically operate. Ideally I’d show you a line with one extreme at the left, the other extreme at the right, and lots of space between the two. I've added reference to my Worlds of Design column(s) that primarily discuss each category.
These spectra don’t stand isolated from one another. For example, if fear of death/loss is real, players are likely to be quite cooperative within their group; if there’s little or no fear, it’s easy for players to be competitive with one another.
Players respond to combat as war by trying to avoid combat, by using stratagems to defeat the enemy without combat (or more often with only one-sided combat). When the game is combat as sport, players won’t work to avoid combat. (This seems a slight paradox, insofar as the players who have a more military orientation may tend to avoid combat, whereas some with a less military orientation may be happy to be in combat.)
I always think of my games as Good versus Evil, that there's a war on. But other gamers, especially those who prefer real-world shades of grey to fantasy black-and-white, may prefer non-violent means of resolution, whether via bargaining or confidence games, deals or theft. The black-and-white makes for easier GMing, I think -- but then again I have a military orientation despite never having been in the military.
The original GM ideal was the "god" who created everything, whose word was law. This requires creativity and imagination (and reasonableness), and can be a lot of work. Later the idea of a GM who as rules arbiter who relies on published material became popular. I think that's because it's easier to do, and consequently more people can be found willing to GM. A big limitation on the popularity of tabletop RPGs is the availability of GMs.
I ask you, readers, what spectra I should have/might have included? Also, what other strong relationships between the categories do you see?
This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. Lew was Contributing Editor to Dragon, White Dwarf, and Space Gamer magazines and contributed monsters to TSR's original Fiend Folio, including the Elemental Princes of Evil, denzelian, and poltergeist. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!
RPGs offer more freedom to act than other forms of tabletop gaming. The players can “try anything” because they have a human GM (usually!). The constraints on the players are the constraints of physics and other “laws” of the real world (also usually!). Not surprisingly then, there are almost as many ways to play RPGs as there are players. But we can still identify categories of the attitudes of players and GMs, which is my goal below.
We’re in a world of extremism, so I must caution that these are the extremes with a very large area in between where most campaigns and players typically operate. Ideally I’d show you a line with one extreme at the left, the other extreme at the right, and lots of space between the two. I've added reference to my Worlds of Design column(s) that primarily discuss each category.
| One Extreme | Lots in Between | The Other Extreme | Worlds of Design Column |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beat the Bad Guys | <===> | Save the World | Let's Not Save the World . . . Again |
| Completing mission is paramount (military) | <===> | Story is paramount | Mentioned in columns several times. |
| What’s best for the group is best | <===> | All about Me - the individual predominates | "All About Me" FRPG Part 1 and Part 2 |
| “There’s a war on” | <===> | Non-violent means to an end | |
| GM is “god” | <===> | GM is only a rules arbiter | |
| Combat as war | <===> | Combat as sport | RPG Combat: Sport or War? |
| “Hero” in absolutes/black and white | <===> | “Hero” in shades of grey | Heroes in Shades of Grey |
| HERO | <===> | VILLAIN | Heroes in Shades of Grey |
| Co-operative (within group) | <===> | Competitive (within group) | Tabletop RPGs Are the Most Naturally Cooperative Games |
| Real fear of character death/loss | === | No fear of death/loss (most computer RPGs) | Consequence and Reward, Tension, Threats, and Progression in RPGs |
These spectra don’t stand isolated from one another. For example, if fear of death/loss is real, players are likely to be quite cooperative within their group; if there’s little or no fear, it’s easy for players to be competitive with one another.
Players respond to combat as war by trying to avoid combat, by using stratagems to defeat the enemy without combat (or more often with only one-sided combat). When the game is combat as sport, players won’t work to avoid combat. (This seems a slight paradox, insofar as the players who have a more military orientation may tend to avoid combat, whereas some with a less military orientation may be happy to be in combat.)
I always think of my games as Good versus Evil, that there's a war on. But other gamers, especially those who prefer real-world shades of grey to fantasy black-and-white, may prefer non-violent means of resolution, whether via bargaining or confidence games, deals or theft. The black-and-white makes for easier GMing, I think -- but then again I have a military orientation despite never having been in the military.
The original GM ideal was the "god" who created everything, whose word was law. This requires creativity and imagination (and reasonableness), and can be a lot of work. Later the idea of a GM who as rules arbiter who relies on published material became popular. I think that's because it's easier to do, and consequently more people can be found willing to GM. A big limitation on the popularity of tabletop RPGs is the availability of GMs.
I ask you, readers, what spectra I should have/might have included? Also, what other strong relationships between the categories do you see?
This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. Lew was Contributing Editor to Dragon, White Dwarf, and Space Gamer magazines and contributed monsters to TSR's original Fiend Folio, including the Elemental Princes of Evil, denzelian, and poltergeist. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. If you enjoy the daily news and articles from EN World, please consider contributing to our Patreon!
