The Many Faces of Roleplaying: How ‘RPG’ Became Everything and Nothing

[Jacob Lewis]

I have found that the conflict and tension is largely overblown judging by what actually occurs at the table, whether in person or virtually, versus the debate that occurs in social media and message boards. I think individuals gravitate to different games and different playstyles, and sometimes there are games that people can find enough commonality to continue playing, while there are others that someone will say they don’t enjoy that particular game.

I’ve found games with a clear focus don’t really reduce the chance of someone disliking it because typically they still have to try the game to make that determination, and then afterwards they may hear about similar games and be more proactive in saying they don’t want to play. Vampire the Masquerade to my college friends in the 90s was a more narrative game (we didn’t call it that) but looked more like our AD&D games than it would LARPing. We were turning Call of Cthulhu into Pulp Cthulhu long before that was a thing…I appreciate games that state what they are and how they should be played but it’s not a silver bullet to ensure everyone plays the game the same way.

And to this day, I play with folks who range the gamut of power gamers to role players in the true “this is what my character would do” sense of the phrase, and we get along with virtually zero tension on that score.

I also agree with Umbran’s point about sports. I was reading the essay and thinking “well, apply that to video games - they come in all varieties too.” I don’t know that there’s anything particularly wrong, or even noteworthy about the term “roleplaying games” not being strictly defined. I just don’t think it’s a big deal in a practical sense.

I think that’s a fair read, and I’d agree the conflict rarely shows up at the table. Most people don’t argue about definitions mid-session; they just play. The tension I’m describing isn’t about players clashing—it’s about how habits and expectations shape what people believe the game is before they even sit down.

You’re right that focus and clarity don’t prevent mismatched play; even well-defined systems still get filtered through personal interpretation. But that process—the calibration, the trial-and-error, the quiet negotiation—is exactly what I find interesting. It shows how much we bring to the table before the game even begins, and how that baggage gets managed in play.

So no, I don’t think the looseness of “RPG” is a problem. It’s just a reflection of how much unseen effort goes into making that looseness work.

 

[MGibster]

I honestly wonder sometimes how gamers ever manage to communicate.

 

[LordBP]

I honestly wonder sometimes how gamers ever manage to communicate.

Most gamers aren't on this forum and real life communication is much different than online communication, so it skews the perception.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

@Deset Gled

I’m honestly not sure where all the hostility is coming from. I’m not raging against anything or trying to manufacture controversy. I’m just exploring how expectations around roleplaying games formed and evolved, and how that affects what players bring to the table—literally and figuratively.

The repeated comparisons to things like “video games” or “sports” miss the distinction I’m talking about. Those terms describe mediums—they’re defined by form and delivery. A video game is a digital medium; a sport is an athletic contest. You know what you’re getting just by the word alone. “Roleplaying game,” on the other hand, describes a mode of play—not a format or medium. That’s why it’s such a broad and interpretive category. It can be collaborative storytelling, tactical combat, or character-driven drama, and all of those are valid.

That’s what makes the discussion interesting to me: how we, as players, navigate that spectrum of experience and expectation. I’m not trying to redefine the hobby or lecture anyone about what’s right or wrong. I’m just pointing out that our comfort with ambiguity—and the dominance of certain systems—shapes what most people expect when they hear the word “RPG.” If that’s not worth thinking about, then what are we even discussing?

Just because you’re angry about what I wrote doesn’t mean it was written to provoke you. Only one of us seems intent on turning a discussion into a fight. I’m not here to spar or posture; I started a discussion meant for thoughtful engagement, not mockery. If the best response you can offer is a meme or a punchline, then you’re proving my point about how shallow most discourse has become. When you’re ready to actually talk about the ideas instead of the people sharing them, I’ll be here for that conversation. Otherwise, there’s really nothing more for me to engage with.

 

[Barner Cobblewood]

“Card game,” “board game,” and “video game” describe form — the physical or digital medium that defines how they’re presented and played. “Roleplaying game,” by contrast, describes function more than anything else. It can apply to anything from Gloomhaven to Fiasco to Baldur’s Gate.

I'm not sure I am persuaded by this. The adjectives card(-playing), board(-playing), role-playing describe how you game. There's a lot of ways to game, you can game game with cards, with boards and tokens, and you can game with roles. So perhaps it might help us understand your idea if you tell us what gaming means.

Also, the example of sports can help think through this. We can play a game of football, or we can play the sport of football. Most of us understand those don't have quite the same meaning, and if you're invited to play a game of soccer you shouldn't bring the attitudes of sport to the game. See Red Sanders.

The point is that playing a role does not entail playing a game, so role-playing games might simply be using playing a role to play a game.

I don't see any of this actually causing a communication problem, but that's just me. Perhaps an actual example of the problem you are trying to resolve might help the reader understand the points you are trying to make.

 

[payn]

@Deset Gled

I’m honestly not sure where all the hostility is coming from. I’m not raging against anything or trying to manufacture controversy. I’m just exploring how expectations around roleplaying games formed and evolved, and how that affects what players bring to the table—literally and figuratively.

The repeated comparisons to things like “video games” or “sports” miss the distinction I’m talking about. Those terms describe mediums—they’re defined by form and delivery. A video game is a digital medium; a sport is an athletic contest. You know what you’re getting just by the word alone. “Roleplaying game,” on the other hand, describes a mode of play—not a format or medium. That’s why it’s such a broad and interpretive category. It can be collaborative storytelling, tactical combat, or character-driven drama, and all of those are valid.

I think this is where folks are disagreeing with you. "Storytelling" is specific type like the baseball sport version of RPG, while "tactical combat" might be the American Football version. I think your issue is the distinctions are not as sharp as you would like. I say "you" because its your essay, but you are making it sound like its ours. You are putting the horse before the cart by assuming everyone agrees with you about the term RPG, and so far it looks like some of us dont.

That’s what makes the discussion interesting to me: how we, as players, navigate that spectrum of experience and expectation. I’m not trying to redefine the hobby or lecture anyone about what’s right or wrong. I’m just pointing out that our comfort with ambiguity—and the dominance of certain systems—shapes what most people expect when they hear the word “RPG.” If that’s not worth thinking about, then what are we even discussing?

It would be easier to discuss if we werent being told what our perspective is and then being asked why we have that perspective as you see it.

Just because you’re angry about what I wrote doesn’t mean it was written to provoke you. Only one of us seems intent on turning a discussion into a fight. I’m not here to spar or posture; I started a discussion meant for thoughtful engagement, not mockery. If the best response you can offer is a meme or a punchline, then you’re proving my point about how shallow most discourse has become. When you’re ready to actually talk about the ideas instead of the people sharing them, I’ll be here for that conversation. Otherwise, there’s really nothing more for me to engage with.

Sometimes a picture says a thousand words. I dont speak for @Deset Gled here, but a lot of your posting since the OP is focused on posters themselves and how you are a victim of all these poster's contributions to the point of this thread being an exercise in sealioning.

Let me try this from another angle. If you are really interested in folks perspective then you ought to take them at their word on what they think of your argument. Instead you are staking a position on your claim tot he point its preventing you from moving on to discussing folks interest on the topic (which I do think is interesting).

 

[Jacob Lewis]

While I get where you are coming from, as noted by others this is such a broad issue across, well certainly the English language but likely across all or nearly all languages. There are just some things that get put into a vast and broad category. An issue, perhaps, but mostly/"only" I would say if someone has only been exposed to a narrow subset of closely adjacent things within that category. Imagine someone sees a chihuahua and learns that's a Dog. Then they see a pomeranian and a boston terrier. Dogs. Cool. "Do you want to meet my dog?" "Sure, I love dogs!" Then they come face to face with a great dane that's nearly the same height as them...

But once you get that there is a breadth to the category, the issue rapidly diminishes.

And given, again, that it is so common we're all familiar that many categories get or have modifiers and sub-headings. And with things like the weather we encounter that kind of thing every day.

In the end, perhaps the only "concern" here is that it's a reminder that, because things are so broad, when we talk to others, or market something, or are inviting someone into a game, or etc, it's good to include some amount of those modifiers and sub-categories to ensure clear communication as to what we are talking about.

(Now, if only we can reclaim RPG away from computer games so that we don't need to say TTRPG that would make me happy... it's like saying ice hockey. Of course hockey takes place ice. Unless, of course, it's road hockey or ball hockey... that's the only time you need to add a modifier. )

That’s a fair comparison, and I agree that broad categories aren’t unusual — language thrives on generalization. The difference I was aiming at isn’t that “RPG” shouldn’t be broad, but that its breadth carries particular consequences because of how play expectations form around shared imagination and collaboration.

I think part of the disconnect here is that “roleplaying game” operates on two overlapping but very different levels of meaning.

On one hand, it’s a general descriptor — any game involving character progression, narrative choice, or role assumption, whether digital or analog. That’s how we end up with video game RPGs, tactical hybrids, or narrative board games all falling under the same umbrella.

On the other hand, it’s also a specific product category: tabletop games published primarily as books or PDFs, often using dice, imagination, and collaborative storytelling. Within this context, “RPG” doesn’t describe a mechanic or genre — it describes a format of play.

The trouble is that most people don’t consciously separate those meanings anymore, so when we talk about “RPGs,” analogies like sports or dogs get tossed in to simplify the concept. They sound intuitive, but they obscure the real tension — that this label has become both a catchall for everything and a brand shorthand for one particular kind of game experience.

That’s why these discussions feel circular. The analogies make the ambiguity sound harmless, when in reality it shapes how games are understood, marketed, and compared to one another. It doesn't make for an easy topic to discuss, but maybe that's what makes it more interesting (and challenging) to me.

 

[KYRON45]

Most gamers aren't on this forum and real life communication is much different than online communication, so it skews the perception.

If i had never played an RPG before and reached out to a forum to get some insight.....i'd never play an RPG.

 

[môrgondír]

Wittgenstein argued in his Philosophical Investigations that there is no single feature shared universally by all games, but rather that all games share what might be called 'resemblances'. For much of the long history of language, 'game' has enjoyed and participated in various degrees of vagueness.

"Role-playing" also participates in vagueness; it seems to follow naturally from the fact that two nebulous terms, "role-playing" and "game", taken together, are not going to admit of convenient or simple understanding - this admission does not of course preclude "RPG" from being used however the term is perceived to best serve marketing, or for that matter, any other interest(s).

 

[KYRON45]

A wise man once said...."RPGs aren't really games, they are activities".
The quote comes from that beautiful mess of 5e recording from @SlyFlourish. I'm not sure who it was that actually said it.
Calling them "games" causes.....problems.