D&D General What is an RPG and is D&D an RPG?

[EzekielRaiden]

Pretty straightforward two part question.

One: what is the definition of an RPG?

A miserable little pile of secrets. But enough talk… Have at you!

More seriously, I would say a roleplaying game is one where the player interacts with a fictional space, where the result of play is to resolve a conflict, overcome a challenge, or explore a situation or idea (inclusive or). In so doing, the player gains access to more tools or options, "character growth," which can change the nature, context, or magnitude of the aforementioned conflicts/challenges/situations/ideas, (hereafter "difficulties"). Further, this process of difficulty, resolution, growth, new difficulty, etc. is the intent of the design, not a byproduct or a meta-game instituted by the players on a game without any such design.

Two: does D&D fit that definition?

Yes.

 

[Pedantic]

I define a roleplaying game as any game where (1) players control personal avatars existing in a fictional milieu and (2) said avatars enjoy some degree of tactical infinity, which is in turn defined as the capacity to attempt any conceivable action, constrained only by the fictional positioning and not by the game's mechanics.

Put another way, if the player can say, "My character does (reasonable thing x)" and there's a way to resolve (reasonable thing x) that isn't necessarily specifically covered by the rules, you've got an RPG on your hands.

D&D very obviously fits this definition, as the definition was constructed to include everything shy of a free Kriegsspiele that isn't also a Braunstein.

This is is self-serving, but I'd quibble about the tactical infinity question. I think player's iterated ability to set their own goals and continue to set new ones after evaluation is significantly more important than the action declarations being unbounded.

 

[Reynard]

This is is self-serving, but I'd quibble about the tactical infinity question. I think player's iterated ability to set their own goals and continue to set new ones after evaluation is significantly more important than the action declarations being unbounded.

FYI I did not write the bit you quoted. I don't even know what "tactical infinity" is.

 

[Pedantic]

FYI I did not write the bit you quoted. I don't even know what "tactical infinity" is.

Sorry I'm not sure how I messed up the attribution. I've fixed the post.

 

[overgeeked]

FYI I did not write the bit you quoted. I don't even know what "tactical infinity" is.

Tactical infinity is the ability of the PCs to try anything rather than have their choices limited to a small menu of options. Basic shenanigans, really.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Tactical infinity is the thing that separates RPGs from wargames or board games where you might still be in control of a personal avatar. The lack of it is why HeroQuest and Gloomhaven are not RPGs (even if you do improvisational playacting and get "into character" while playing them).

Think of it this way: imagine a character standing in a dungeon corridor. It doesn't much matter whether the character is Roquhan the Bold (a fully-realized and fleshed-out personality, a warrior of renown with a 10-page tragic backstory and aspirations of revenge); Fighter #3 with 8 hp and Str 16; or a perfectly blank cipher. The character is in a dungeon corridor; you're in control of them. What do you do?

Making that decision — taking action — is roleplaying. It's not just some part of the game that you can take or leave, it is the game. It's playing the role, it's roleplaying. And what makes it roleplaying is precisely the fact that your choices are unbounded (or rather, bounded only by the specifics of the situation — by the fictional positioning). Do you go left? Go right? Listen? Sniff? Rap on the walls and floors in search of secret passages? Try to figure out how to do the same on the ceiling? Rummage through your possessions, hoping something will give you an idea? Make loud noises to attract wandering monsters to interrogate? Bellow out Randy Travis songs at the top of your lungs in hopes of frightening monsters away? Something else? The possibilities are functionally infinite in a roleplaying game; they are not infinite in a board game.

In HeroQuest, once you've fought all the monsters and searched for traps and treasure, there's nothing in the game to do but move on. You can't ever try to negotiate with the monsters or try something the rules don't cover. If you and your fellow HeroQuest players do make that provision — if you do add tactical infinity to the game — you're not really playing HeroQuest anymore, you're playing an RPG that you've made out of the (respectably conducive) HeroQuest board, pieces, and maybe game mechanics.

(And hopefully nobody gets too hung up on the illustrative dungeon setting; it's just a simple example that demonstrates the point. The concept is perfectly transferable to other settings and scenarios.)

 

[Reynard]

Tactical infinity is the thing that separates RPGs from wargames or board games where you might still be in control of a personal avatar. The lack of it is why HeroQuest and Gloomhaven are not RPGs (even if you do improvisational playacting and get "into character" while playing them).

Think of it this way: imagine a character standing in a dungeon corridor. It doesn't much matter whether the character is Roquhan the Bold (a fully-realized and fleshed-out personality, a warrior of renown with a 10-page tragic backstory and aspirations of revenge); Fighter #3 with 8 hp and Str 16; or a perfectly blank cipher. The character is in a dungeon corridor; you're in control of them. What do you do?

Making that decision — taking action — is roleplaying. It's not just some part of the game that you can take or leave, it is the game. It's playing the role, it's roleplaying. And what makes it roleplaying is precisely the fact that your choices are unbounded (or rather, bounded only by the specifics of the situation — by the fictional positioning). Do you go left? Go right? Listen? Sniff? Rap on the walls and floors in search of secret passages? Try to figure out how to do the same on the ceiling? Rummage through your possessions, hoping something will give you an idea? Make loud noises to attract wandering monsters to interrogate? Bellow out Randy Travis songs at the top of your lungs in hopes of frightening monsters away? Something else? The possibilities are functionally infinite in a roleplaying game; they are not infinite in a board game.

In HeroQuest, once you've fought all the monsters and searched for traps and treasure, there's nothing in the game to do but move on. You can't ever try to negotiate with the monsters or try something the rules don't cover. If you and your fellow HeroQuest players do make that provision — if you do add tactical infinity to the game — you're not really playing HeroQuest anymore, you're playing an RPG that you've made out of the (respectably conducive) HeroQuest board, pieces, and maybe game mechanics.

(And hopefully nobody gets too hung up on the illustrative dungeon setting; it's just a simple example that demonstrates the point. The concept is perfectly transferable to other settings and scenarios.)

Thanks for the explanation. I guess "tactical" threw me because the "infinity" in RPGs goes far beyond the combat aspects.

 

[Pedantic]

Tactical infinity is the thing that separates RPGs from wargames or board games where you might still be in control of a personal avatar. The lack of it is why HeroQuest and Gloomhaven are not RPGs (even if you do improvisational playacting and get "into character" while playing them).

I personally think this is a misdiagnosis. Board games are defined by having fixed victory/failure conditions and a pre-established time or condition for their evaluation. A game of Res Arcana is played to 8 points, Bus is played until all but one player has used all of the actions initially allotted them, I suddenly can't think of a game with a fixed number of turns, but they're numerous and you get the point. The player accepts those conditions as part of the games magic circle before play.

The RPG is different in that the player can accept or abandon new goals of play while playing, and play can continue (in most cases) after those goals are evaluated, and selecting new goals is a normative part of play. I think that's fundamentally more important a differentiator, and can conceive of games with a fixed set of actions but unbounded goals that should be considered RPGs.

 

[Maxperson]

I am leery of this position because it leads to the idea that one can make Monopoly a TRPG by playing it as one. I am inclined to think design intent trumps play intent here but I am reluctant to say you must have both if only because different people and different tables will consider differing play to be TRPG play.

We can all of us create RPGs. What does it matter if it was based on Monopoly or not? I think that if the group alters a game to turn it into an RPG, then it's an RPG. The original intent no longer matters at that point.

 

[overgeeked]

Tactical infinity is the thing that separates RPGs from wargames

Not all of them. Tactical infinity comes from Free Kriegsspiel.