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?

 

[heretic888]

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!

For me, it was precisely the opposite. I had zero exposure to Story Now games before 4E and it was my experience with that system that led me to the PbtA family of games. In fact, my initial reaction to Dungeon World was essentially, "what's the big deal? This is exactly how 4E plays outside of combat". Of course, I was 'The Skill Challenge DM' in my circles and lived and breathed on the DMG2, so there was that too.

I tend to agree with what was suggested upthread: a lot of people who "played 4E" actually "played 3E using 4E monsters and characters".

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I think that there is a difference between saying that some feats are generally better than others, which may have more circumstantial uses, and saying that some feats are trap options. The latter is an uncharitable reading IMO. He also, for example, mentions things like longswords being generally better than some of the other weapons. It's not necessarily a "trap" to use non-longswords, just that the longsword may have a more consistent edge.

I read it and I got a distinct feeling of smug wankers engaging in some gate keeping BS. I'm glad to see that Cook, at least, was able to grow a little and look back at the decision deliberately include obfuscation in the rules writing and realise it was a poor one.

 

[Manbearcat]

That interpretation depends on deliberately interpreting what he's saying in the worst light or not believing the rest of his blog post. Frankly, I don't think there's a reason to do either. "Trap" feats like Toughness are useful in the right circumstances and Monte identifies a couple (the stronger one is the one-shot convention game where the DM can't be certain what levels of experience players will have).

I think that there is a difference between saying that some feats are generally better than others, which may have more circumstantial uses, and saying that some feats are trap options. The latter is an uncharitable reading IMO. He also, for example, mentions things like longswords being generally better than some of the other weapons. It's not necessarily a "trap" to use non-longswords, just that the longsword may have a more consistent edge.

Can I assume that neither of you have much background in either/or MTG play or MTG culture? I’m asking this because here are the lines of evidence (which I would say are overwhelming) that push back against your positions:

1) Besides it being in plain view, WotC devs confirmed that 3e character building was MtG-inspired (or at least their confederates helped them).

2) Trap Options leading to Trap Deck Construction or Drafting (due to synergy or incoherency issues or the fact that the card is just a budget card without comparable “oomph” for its cost) is designed into MtG. Deck Construction or Deck Drafting (and the understanding of the strata of cards of varying and equal value and how to recognize synergies and work toward coherency) is a HUGE part of distilling skilled play (system mastery).

3) A Trap Option doesn’t mean it’s a “bad card.” It just means it’s use or value or integration with other cards either (a) isn’t readily obvious or (b) it’s prone to misconception without robust skill/experience.

4) Hence, when you’re playing against decks with high value cards that are well-synergized, you’re going to be disadvantaged (in the same way that your net contribution to Team PC will be disadvantaged against PCs built like top tier MtG decks...In turn yielding intraparty balance issues and party : obstacle balance issues).

That is what happened with 3e. Upon reflection they may have wished they would have muted this effect with more transparent signposting and/or tighter constraints (they did both of these things in 4e). But that doesn’t change the reality that “skilled play distilled by character building” was an emergent property of design (just like in MtG).

 

[billd91]

Can I assume that neither of you have much background in either/or MTG play or MTG culture?

No, you can't. Or, more accurately, you can try but you'd be wrong.

 

[Manbearcat]

No, you can't. Or, more accurately, you can try but you'd be wrong.

Then your position makes even less sense to me if it’s informed by all the dynamics at work here.

There is no misreading or lack of charity on my part. It’s just like gatekeeping in 2012-2014 held the same meaning as it does in 2021.

 

[billd91]

Then your position makes even less sense to me if it’s informed by all the dynamics at work here.

There is no misreading or lack of charity on my part. It’s just like gatekeeping in 2012-2014 held the same meaning as it does in 2021.

It's probably because you're failing to recognize that your calling them "trap options" reflects an inherently uncharitable bias - and that's not their intent.

 

[Hussar]

It is simply a misunderstanding of the rules on your part that you think there needs to be an ingame justification for the higher armor class in the fiction of the game. That is not how AC works in 3.5/PF. Dragons have high AC because they are top tier opponents, and their defense needs to match the offense of PC's at higher levels. That is the only reason necessary. Tough opponent == tough AC. Dragons are foes intended for high level PC's. PC's gain higher and higher attack bonusses as they level up, plus bonusses from feats, and bonusses from magical items. Add all that together, and a high level PC easily hits for 20 or 30+. So high level foes need an AC to match that.

Wow. Things certainly have changed. This comment right here would have gotten you labeled as a 3e hater for even suggesting that the mechanics in 3e were not 100% simulation based but, were rather based in gamism.

Now, the comment passes without so much as a raised eyebrow.

Time does change things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, like gamist abstraction hasn't been built into D&D since day one. Sheesh.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Agreed - they mishandled the rules presentation.
I enjoyed the two sessions I played... but not enough to actually ever run it.

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.

That was tried; it failed. 4E Essentials.
Calling 4E D&D with the rather different class abilities was a huge image problem for adoption by prior edition fans.
Including myself, who at one point actually loved D&D Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D 2E...

My knowledge of 3E/PF is a bit like your knowledge of 4e - limited play experience + a lot of reputation.

That knowledge base gives me an impression that 3E/PF has extremely complex PC build rules (rivalling Rolemaster, it would seem) which don't seem to deliver a lot of pay-off, in the sense that PCs can vary quite wildly in mechanical effectiveness for no reason that seems to make much sense from the point of view of game play or game design.

No, not rivalling RM. RM has more steps, and more tables needed, as well as a lot more math.

It's similar in process:

• D&D 3.x
  • Generate Attributes
  • Pick Race
  • Pick Class
  • Determine skill points
  • Spend Skill Points. All skills cost 1 point or 2 points, and up to 4 ranks allowed for level 1.
  • Pick feat(s)
  • If needed, pick which class ability.
• RM
  • Pick Race
  • Pick Class
  • Generate attributes. (10x 1d100, assigned as desired) May or may not be modified by race; if class PR's under 90, raise to 90.
  • Generate potentials (roll d100 and table cross-reference with attribute)
  • determine skill points for adolescence (table lookup from 5 of the 10 atts)
  • spend adolescence skill points. Note that skills vary in point cost from 1 point per rank no limit to 25 points per rank max one rank per level, most allowing 1 or 2 ranks at costs under 10 per rank, with an average of 20-30 points per level. Each class has a different table. By RMC VI, there are over 60 classes....
  • spend Level 1 skill points
  • make background option rolls
  • depending upon GM selection of house rules, you may need to spend your dev points for when you level up to level 2, or you may need to do so when you hit halfway, or not until level 2 is hit...
  • If you raised Concussion Hits, roll the racial HD the correct number of times. Add to base from Attribute current scores.
  • If you raised Spell Points, roll the racial SP die the correct number of times. Add to base from attributes.
  • Note: I don't remember if one is supposed to do attribute gain rolls for adolescence and level 1.

It's similar in core concept, but not nearly as detailed a system.

There's a school of thought that sees 3E/PF as very "rich" or "deep" and 4e as "shallow" or "superficial", but I don't get that at all. It seems to rest on a very different conception from my own as to what makes a RPG rich and what the relationship between mechanics and fiction should be.

I fully agree on this - but I can see the 3E fanboy PoV on it, too... The variety in 4E is not in damage output, but in damage method and types.

That is presuming the average player seeks that level of system mastery and class optimalisation. I don't think that is realistic or reasonable to assume. Nor do I think it is reasonable to presume that is the intended mode of play by the designers. If you want, you can grog out just about any RPG system and render other character building options by comparison much weaker and sub-optimal.

The ability to create really weak or really strong player characters through your choices in leveling, is a feature not a flaw in my opinion.

My experience is about 30% seek system mastery, and 2/3 of those seek class optimization.
about 50% are there to play, but aren't worried about mastery, just play. And somewhere around 19% find pushes for system mastery by others annoying, but not enough to play, and 1% want special snowflakes to break away from the pack and the system mastery players.

As a recovering System Mastery type but not an optimizer type... the combination of GURPS, Hero, Rolemaster, and AD&D 2E Skills & Powers made me realize balance is an illusion, and that mathematical optimization not only was a timewasting exercise in one-ups-man-ship amongst the players I knew, but was actively detrimental to the appeal of those systems to me - the ability to generate a character to fit a concept, rather than to figure out a concept from the character as generated.

I don't know that I'd enjoy running Rolemaster these days... but it was the least susceptible to mastery of them three.
Hero was the one that actually comes closest to balanced, but even then, if you don't follow the everyman advice bits in 3rd Ed Champions, you're going to be underperforming.

 

[Imaculata]

When I think of trap options, I think of cross-class skills. Some feats that I think of are the ones that appear to provide a benefit, but are quickly lost or overshadowed by other options -- like skill focus.

They may be bad options, although cross class skills can be a very worth while investment depending on the skill. But they are not 'trap' options, in the way Magic the Gathering uses that term. Picking them will not result in a bad character.

Take for example the Alertness feat, which gives a +2 on Listen and Spot checks. Arguably any feat that just gives 4 extra ranks in skills is a bad feat, because a character gains plenty of skillpoints each level, and only a new feat each 3 levels. Feats there for are a very valuable power increase, and should not be wasted on gaining extra ranks in skills. The only reason one should even consider taking this feat, is if it is a requirement for another feat.

But a bad feat is not by definition a trap. Picking the skill will not break your character build, or make you a whole lot less effective than your other party members. Character builds in 3e do not require optimization the way a deck in Magic the Gathering does.

Magic the Gathering, and the MMO Guild Wars (which borrows the design principles of MtG, and which I am VERY familiar with), focus a lot on build synergy. In GW, the player has only 8 skills (much like a hand of cards). So picking skills that work well together is paramount for making a strong character. Character building in 3e is not like that. There is far less focus on feat synergy in 3e's design. It isn't like Magic the Gathering at all. There are no trap options.

If you want to make a strong character in 3e, it does help to specialize in something that builds upon the strengths of your class. Turning your squishy caster into a front line fighter is probably not a good idea. But turning your fighter into a tank, by picking lots of feats that increase his AC, will easily make you excel in that one thing. Other things you can specialize in are damage, critical range, mobility, attacks of opportunity, ranged combat, etc., to name a few. But despite all of the character build options, building a character in 3e never goes that deep as Magic the Gathering or Guild Wars. You will never end up with a character that picked the wrong skill or feat and now sucks. It is not that kind of system.