Worlds of Design: What Defines a RPG?

It’s a daunting task to try to define and characterize a segment as large and diverse as tabletop role-playing games in just a few words. But here goes.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.
​

“Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.” Helen Keller​

Some people won’t be happy with my definitions--which is my opinion, drawn from experience. But the purpose of such exercises is (aside from encouraging people to think) to narrow down something so that we can talk about it intelligibly.

Defining the Undefinable​

There are two ways to define something: 1) specific (as in a dictionary), but this usually leads to dispute even when what’s being defined is a single word; or 2) describe typical characteristics, even if it’s possible that some will not have all of those characteristics. I’m trying the latter, being general enough to think all the characteristics are necessary.

What makes an RPG a tabletop hobby RPG? An RPG, as we talk about them in the hobby, is a human-opposed co-operative game. There are four characteristics:

• Avatars,
• progressive improvement,
• co-operation, and
• GMed opposed adventure.

Simple enough, but in defining a concept it’s sometimes easier to explain what it isn’t.

What RPGs Are Not​

Role-playing games, as defined by the last word, are games and therefore require opposition. An RPG is not a puzzle (with a correct solution); an RPG is not a means for the GM to tell a story (reducing player agency immensely); an RPG is not a storytelling mechanism, whether for players to tell each other stories, or for the GM to tell a story. These things all exist, but to include them in the definition goes far beyond the realm of game. A game is a form of play, but most forms of play are not games.

Not Just Role-Playing​

Technically, a role-playing game may be any game where you play a role – which is a LOT of games, tabletop and (especially) video. It even includes some business simulations. I’m more interested in what makes a game a hobby RPG, a game played frequently by hobby game players. So I’ll discuss role-playing in terms of avatars.

What’s a “Pure” or “Real” Avatar?​

• A single thing/entity that represents the individual player, most commonly a humanoid
• All the player’s actions in the game emanate from the avatar
• The “pure” avatar is fully subject to risk: if it dies/is destroyed, the player loses (at least temporarily)

An avatar could be a spaceship, a tank (World of Tanks) or other vehicle, even a pizza-shape (Pac-Man). In video games, the avatar typically respawns. In hobby RPGs, the avatar is a creature, usually human or humanoid. (For more detail, read "The most important design aspect of hobby RPGs is the Pure Avatar".)

Avatars sometimes have a separate developer-provided “history” and personality (Mario, Sonic). Sometimes an avatar is a blank slate so that the player can more easily infuse his/her own personality or fictional character background into the avatar.

In many games, a "kind-of-avatar" is not the source of all action, nor does the game end if the avatar is killed. That’s not an RPG.

Progressive Improvement​

This can happen in many kinds of games. But in what we call RPGs, it’s some variety of:

• Gaining experience to rise in levels, and the levels give more capability (though the term “level” might not be used)
• Gaining skills/feats/features (which give more capability)
• Collecting magic or technological items (which provide extra options, defense, offense, etc.)
• Acquiring money/treasure (which can be used for lots of things)
• No doubt there are some RPGs with other ways to improve, for example via social standing if that is formally tracked

Does it need levels? No, but that's typically (conveniently) how increase in capability “without employing the loot I've got” is expressed.

So a game where the hero(es) don’t progress in capability – or only a little – might be an interesting game, but it’s not an RPG. Many of you can think of board, card, or video games of this kind. Well-known heroes in novel series rarely progress significantly in capability, for example James Bond.

You can have avatars without progression, you can have roles without “pure” avatars, you can have progression without avatars, but those are not what we categorize as RPGs.

Co-operation, Adventure, and a Gamemaster That Controls the Opposition/Enables Adventure​

• Yes, opposition. It’s not a game (I use the traditional sense) without opposition, though it might be a puzzle or a parallel competition
• I don’t see how there can be significant opposition without a GM/referee; unless you go to computer programming
• If there’s no co-operation, if it’s player vs player, it’s more or less a board/card game in concept

I include Adventure, because the stories coming out of the original RPGs would be called adventures. In the 21st century we do have novels that don’t seem to have any particular point other than describing everyday life, and I think that’s leaked over into so-called RPGs as well. Whether adventure is necessary is a debatable point (surprise), though I’m certainly not interested in RPGs without Adventure.

The GM also allows the players to try to do “anything” that could be done in the current situation. Some regard this freedom-of-action (extreme player agency) as the defining aspect of RPGs, and it’s certainly vital; but think of a story RPG where the linear plot (typical of stories) forces players to do just what the story calls for. That’s not freedom of action. Yet story form may be the most common form of tabletop RPG.

And consider games like Minecraft. You can try to do almost anything there, too, but it's not an RPG.

Where does this leave computer RPGs? There’s not exactly a GM, though the computer tries to be. There’s certainly not as much freedom of action as with a human GM . . . But my goal was to define hobby tabletop RPGs.

Your Turn: What’s your definition of a role-playing game?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't have any problem with maps and figs (I pretty much need some form of maps or markers to keep track of position and distance in any game where those matter at all). There was just something that felt, I don't know, "stiff" about the whole structure of the game? I'm not sure I can express it well.

But I can't help but roll my eyes at "This is just like a computer game" because the damn game took the time to make sure its combat mechanics actually worked and gave something to engage with.

 

[Fenris-77]

4e is a fantastic small unit combat sim on the minis side. I say that with no sarcasm. It's just not what I want out of an RPG at all.

 

[pemerton]

4e is the only version of D&D I have any interest in playing. It has the most evocative backstory, that is built into many of the PC build elements (race, class, theme, paragon path, epic destiny). It has the only serious non-combat resolution in any version of the game, if you want your game to encompass anything more than doors, traps and similar dungeon architecture. And the combat system generates fiction that is richer than monitoring respective hit point tallies.

 

[Manbearcat]

4e is a fantastic small unit combat sim on the minis side. I say that with no sarcasm. It's just not what I want out of an RPG at all.

If I were to describe 4e, this would only be one of 8 significant aspects. It would probably be (my version of your what you're written above):

* The most tactically deep and diverse combat system in TTRPGs with consistently consequential decision-points on several axes as well as robust mechanical support for several Win Conditions ("slaying your enemies" is only one of many).

* Noncombat conflict resolution (the Skill Challenge) is handled exactly like Conflicts in Mouse Guard and Clocks in AW/Blades, leveraging all of the same principles and techniques.

* The keyword tech, broad descriptors, and player-facing mechanics that govern play enable thematically-coherent, diverse, improvised action declarations (in combat and in noncombat conflict resolution) akin (again) to several indie games.

* The Quest system that supports PC dramatic need as propelling play is (again) inspired by indie games.

* The thematic heft, focus, and tropes borrow from Greek, Norse, and Japanese Myth.

* Balance and breadth across all archetypes.

* Player-facing and transparent mechanics allow GMs to offload overhead.

* All of the above works in concert to enable emergent, Story Now play in a way that no other D&D comes close to supporting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ll admit to not getting all of that out of 4e. I’m sure it’s largely because I only played it for a while. I also expect that I likely wasn’t doing everything as described by the rules so much as I thought they were meant to be used. I’m sure I was mistaken on a lot of it, simply trying to do things as they had been done in prior editions.

There was quite a lot I liked about 4e as a GM. Skill challenges and monster stat blocks and minions and the way enemies were tiered. There were some drawbacks as well, but quite a bit I liked.

On the player side there was less I liked. My group enjoyed it for a bit, but I think the novelty wore off.

They asked to move over to Pathfinder, and I agreed. A move I now regret because Pathfinder for me was....ugh. It was a slow spiral down into everything I had come to hate about gaming.

I wish that I had either stuck with 4e and tried to get a better handle on it (based on what people have said since it went away) or else taken the opportunity to just move to a new game entirely.

 

[Manbearcat]

I’ll admit to not getting all of that out of 4e. I’m sure it’s largely because I only played it for a while. I also expect that I likely wasn’t doing everything as described by the rules so much as I thought they were meant to be used. I’m sure I was mistaken on a lot of it, simply trying to do things as they had been done in prior editions.

There was quite a lot I liked about 4e as a GM. Skill challenges and monster stat blocks and minions and the way enemies were tiered. There were some drawbacks as well, but quite a bit I liked.

On the player side there was less I liked. My group enjoyed it for a bit, but I think the novelty wore off.

They asked to move over to Pathfinder, and I agreed. A move I now regret because Pathfinder for me was....ugh. It was a slow spiral down into everything I had come to hate about gaming.

I wish that I had either stuck with 4e and tried to get a better handle on it (based on what people have said since it went away) or else taken the opportunity to just move to a new game entirely.

My guess is that if you looked at it and ran it with some fresh, post-Blades-eyes, it would be very different for you.

A lot of people tried to run it like a continuation of 3.x. 4e is not remotely 3.x and it will fight you hard if you try to run it like that.

Run it like some kind of combination of PBtA, Mouse Guard, Cortex+ w/ extremely crunchy tactical combat and it will sing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My guess is that if you looked at it and ran it with some fresh, post-Blades-eyes, it would be very different for you.

A lot of people tried to run it like a continuation of 3.x. 4e is not remotely 3.x and it will fight you hard if you try to run it like that.

Run it like some kind of combination of PBtA, Mouse Guard, Cortex+ w/ extremely crunchy tactical combat and it will sing.

Right, I’m sure I wasn’t approaching it the right way. I wasn’t familiar with any of those games at that point.

I also think that the initial core books likely could have been a bit clearer, but that’s a guess based on what I’ve heard since. I had the core three books and then like the first couple of follow ups (maybe Martial Power and PHB2, but I could be wrong). To me, the books just seemed like unending splat options that often rendered earlier options moot.

Like, I grasped skill challenges enough to make them work, and I liked them a lot. I think the formalized structure made things a bit unclear for many.

I expect I’d likely grasp more of the intent now, being much more familiar with PbtA and BitD and similar games. I don’t expect to actually return to, though. There’s no way my players would go for it. Also, I plan on closing out my current 5e campaign (post-lockdown) and then that’ll be the end of GMing D&D for me for the foreseeable future.

 

[Arilyn]

WOTC themselves didn't do 4e any favours. The 3 combat encounters per session, the poor skill challenge explanation, the whole, "this isn't your Dad's D&D" and just the general way the game was marketed did not actually showcase the game's strength. I didn't like 4e at all, but seeing the game from other posters' perspectives, I can see the merits that had been obscured.

 

[Manbearcat]

WOTC themselves didn't do 4e any favours. The 3 combat encounters per session, the poor skill challenge explanation, the whole, "this isn't your Dad's D&D" and just the general way the game was marketed did not actually showcase the game's strength. I didn't like 4e at all, but seeing the game from other posters' perspectives, I can see the merits that had been obscured.

4e advocates like myself have detailed a robust, forensic breakdown on the issues of the PHB and DMG and their trivial solves.

If it was mildly iterated upon and edited with those solves in mind as an indie game within today's TTRPG marketplace, it would be an easy sell to a huge number of people. It would fly off the shelves and be lavishly praised. It would probably bring in a large number of MtG players who only casually play TTRPGs, Gloomhaven players, and PBtA/MG/FitD players. That is a chunky market share for an indie game.

 

[chaochou]

I’ll admit to not getting all of that out of 4e.

I didn't either, despite being familiar with PbtA and Burning Wheel and other such systems. I'm not saying for a second that one can't run the game @Manbearcat describes, but my version of 4e was 'knockabout co-operative combat romp'.

As it happens, I tend to think 4e excels at co-operative combat romp far more than anything else, but I can see how it could be used in the way mbc and @pemerton regularly describe. I just tend to find other things better suited to that style - such as PbtA and Burning Wheel!