Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9783058" data-attributes="member: 6667921">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.</blockquote>

Verification