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

[Deset Gled]

In 1982, playing a "video game" had a very limited definition. It meant games like Space Invaders, Pong, and Pac Man. It was limited to arcades and Atari. Today, playing a "video game" can mean anything from a professional esports event, to a color matching game on your phone, to a group of tweens chanting "6 7" in a Roblox ripoff on Among Us. A video game can be played on anything from a calculator to a $10k racing simulator.

And yet, there is no problem. No tension. No conflict. The term "video game" is still used, and easily understood. It still has meaning.

It's the same with RPGs. "The Problem of the Label"? "The Modern Paradox"? These are not real problems. They are talking points used to ragebait and argue on the internet. They have no real meaning. Just another attempt to conjure more jargon and otherism in a fan base already overflowing with jargon and otherism.

RPGs will still exist. The term "RPG" will still be used to describe them. The world goes on, and simply does not care. If you want to channel your pedantry, you're just as well off pointing out that the OP clearly does not know what a "paradox" is, and is using the term incorrectly.

 

[billd91]

I think it’s exactly where the ambiguity comes from. If the defining feature of an RPG is “taking on an individual and exploring their growth,” that already assumes a certain kind of interpretive engagement that not every RPG delivers, especially in the digital space. Tactical or progression-based RPGs often abstract that element, focusing more on system mastery than inhabiting a role.

Inhabiting a personality, but not necessarily a role. An individual doesn't need to have a distinct personality to be playing a role that has different interests and priorities than another role. And those could be expressed mechanically.

And that’s fine — the spectrum of design is broad. But the shared use of the “RPG” label pulls all of these under the same roof, which is where friction starts. People who value expressive, character-driven play find themselves in the same conceptual space as those who approach the game as a tactical exercise.

So? Why exactly is this a bad thing - other than the idea that maybe they shouldn't be playing at the same table. But then, there are a HOST of other reasons that might be true even if they're both playing in value expressive, character-driven modes or procedural modes.

That overlap isn’t always productive — it forces negotiation over what the game is for instead of letting people find the experience they want more directly. That’s not about gatekeeping; it’s about acknowledging that the label “RPG” invites everyone into a shared space that’s often too crowded and too vague for anyone to feel at home in.

Negation over what the game is for? Isn't that always going to be a part of what letting people find the experience they want more directly is? It's just another factor to negotiate out of many others. Whether you want it to be about gatekeeping or not, it absolutely WILL be used to keep out those"dirty roll players" or anyone else who doesn't see RPGs within the same narrowed lane.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

@Umbran
I appreciate the engagement, but I want to clarify the focus of the essay. This isn’t about gatekeeping or arguing that people can’t handle broad categories. It’s about how the label “RPG” functions in marketing, communication, and player expectation. The term sometimes implies universality and a common type of experience, even though the games themselves deliver very different design and emotional goals.

Examples like Mind’s Eye Theater don’t contradict this; they illustrate the predictable divergence of player behavior within a clearly signaled experience. Most participants understood the intended style of play. One group exploited the system deliberately; that’s a matter of human choice, not ambiguity in what the game is.

Similarly, Session Zero isn’t a failing or an ignorance gap; it exists because the “RPG” label is often imprecise. It’s a social tool for aligning expectations that would be far less necessary if games were upfront about the type of experience they offer — whether combat-heavy, collaborative, or narrative-focused. I use D&D as an example because it often touts itself as the “world’s most popular roleplaying game,” positioning itself as inclusive of all styles of play and claiming no boundaries, which is precisely why the tensions around expectation versus experience are more visible there.

The core point remains: the label “RPG” is marketed as broadly inclusive, but it cannot reliably communicate what any given product actually delivers. That tension between expectation and design is the real phenomenon under discussion, and neither MET nor social negotiation techniques undermine it.

Feel free to disagree or dislike. I’m just sharing thoughts and sparking conversation that interests me.

 

[The Soloist]

Games I designed back then I saw turned into browser games not too long ago. It's not the same

If by that you mean I can play tonight with my fiends of the 80s but we each stay in different cities hundreds of miles apart, then yes it's not the same, it's better. Also, you can't (willingly or unwillingly) cheat.

 

[Deset Gled]

That tension between expectation and design is the real phenomenon under discussion, and neither MET nor social negotiation techniques undermine it.

The only tension here is the tension you bring with you.

 

[Kannik]

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. )

 

[MGibster]

The term roleplaying game has come to mean many things and, in doing so, has come to mean almost nothing at all. It evokes ideas of adventure, character, and choice — but those ideas manifest in wildly different ways depending on who’s using the word and what kind of experience they expect.

I really don't think it has. At least among gamers, while there are plenty of different types of roleplaying games, I don't think anyone is at all confused about what a roleplaying game is. If I tell Bob that Vaesen is a roleplaying game he'll know what that means even if he doesn't know what kind of RPG it is. Generally speaking, classifications in a hierarchal system isn't a problem for most of us.

A television show was a program produced to be broadcast over the airwaves and watched on television. Everyone understands what a television show is even if it's not very descriptive. Leave it to Beaver, Monday Night Football, ABC Evening Report, The Twilight Zone, and Perry Mason are all understood to be television shows even if they're all very different from one another. We're all capable of easily understanding there are different kinds of television shows just as we're able to recognize there are different types of roleplaying games.

In short, while I think that your thesis might have value, it's really about presenting a preferred current argument- and it's not an accurate representation of the past. IMO, YMMV, etc.

I had to double check to make sure you weren't the OP.

 

[Clint_L]

Similarly, Session Zero isn’t a failing or an ignorance gap; it exists because the “RPG” label is often imprecise.

Of course it's imprecise. That's a feature, not a flaw: it's a broad term within which various sub-categories, and sub-sub-categories, etc. are subsumed. That's just...how language works. We understand, for example, that the word "sports" denotes certain very general features, while "baseball" denotes more specific ones, and "our beer league team, the Soft Cider Siblings" more specific still.

Session 0 exists to clarify participant expectations about how to apporach whatever specific game is being played. This is not different than having a gathering at the beginning of your beer/soft cider league season to make sure everyone is on the same page.

I don't really follow the problem that you are pointing to. Of course broad terms need clarification for specific contexts. It's no good to tell the gang, "we're going to play on Friday; everyone make sure to create a roleplaying game character!" That's like telling the gang "we're going to play on Friday; everyone make sure to bring some sports equipment!"

 

[Stormonu]

Keep what works, throw out the rest. Those at the table can determine what roleplaying is for them, what's all put in the book is just advice and ideas that provides a platform to work on, and a suggestion how to make it fun.

 

[aramis erak]

The term "roleplaying game" has not been firmly tied to actual roleplay in the theatrical sense since it came out - None of the pre 1980 games I have to hand use it.
There have been, since that time frame, multiple kinds of play.
There were and are those for whom,,,

• it is a minis wargame with campaign advancement.
• A series of rp scenes TOTM to link combat scenes played out as minis/board games
• it is almost pure RP with occasional gamed combat
• it is a theater of the mind boardless wargame'
• all points between those.

It's been a worthless and non-representative lable since it was in print.
Neither D&DOE, T&T 1e, nor Traveller '77 include the term "roleplay" nor "role-play." I don't have RQ 1e, but 2e is the oldest I have seen using the term, and it's 1980.