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?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Does it really matter, in a cooperative game, that another PC is a bit better at something than your character? Is that player actually encroaching in on your fun by taking away your opportunities to play out an intimidation of an NPC? If they are, that's a separate issue from the mechanics of the system because it's an interpersonal problem rather than a mechanical one.

I think it can matter quite a bit, yeah. I get your point, but when there's one or a few characters who are effectively covering all needs, those other ones that aren't doing anything are just kind of along for the ride. I don't think that wanting to meaningfully contribute is something that is a separate issue, because this phenomenon is pretty pervasive throughout the entire system.

I think the problem with 3.x design was it kind of diversified things too much....I think players from earlier editions felt too locked in to their archetypes and roles, and wanted to see the ability to buck those limits. But I think 3.x went too far, and allowed all kinds of situations that create a tail wagging the dog kind of situation.

I think part of it is so much of the design is about bonuses.....everything gives you +3 or +5 to a check of some kind, or a collection of checks. So you get situations where characters like a Bard or Sorceror who require Charisma for their primary function then outshine someone like a Barbarian who wants to intimidate people. It's like....this is the one social interaction where that character may shine.....we need someone to scare the pants off this guard. Get me Ragnar......oh wait, he has a +6 and the Bard has +12? Okay, get me Silas Sevenstrings to come intimidate the guard.

If they did something like Advantage/Disadvantage or bonus dice or something.....then you can let the archetypes we're looking for be what we kind of expect them to be. So the Barbarian is allowed to be the big scary bastard we all want him to be, and the Bard is more the charming guy.

When it's nothing but bonuses.....then it's just "who has the highest total?" rather than anything based on the fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So the bard was better--was your character still good at intimidation? Was your character better at it than he would have been without the feat? Would the bard have been even better at intimidation if he took the feat Unless those are "No", then it's not really a "trap" is it? It's just, potentially, not as good a route as another one that another character happened to have open to them.

Does it really matter, in a cooperative game, that another PC is a bit better at something than your character? Is that player actually encroaching in on your fun by taking away your opportunities to play out an intimidation of an NPC? If they are, that's a separate issue from the mechanics of the system because it's an interpersonal problem rather than a mechanical one.

This argument is very strange to me. I should be happy with my choice because I was better at intimidation than I was without it? This utterly ignores the fact that, without intending to, the bard managed to be significantly better at intimidation that I was with effort! This argument is attempting to isolate the choice of skill focus from the rest of the option set and from the other characters at the table, proclaim it good, and then plop it back in and ignore the rest. It's specious.

And then the cooperative game canard. It's not a canard that the game is cooperative -- that's fine, but that the cooperative aspects mean I should be okay with using a build resource to attempt a character concept and then be fine when that build choice is overshadowed by other characters when they're not spending that resource or making an effort to excel in that conceptual space. I guess because it's cooperative and my character being worse at a core concept than the character that did it as an aside is fine because I can just stand back and let the other character do the thing better than me? Cooperation, right? Again, specious.

These arguments are fragile things trying to paper over the clear issues that exist in 3.x character design. Issues that the designers openly admit to as intentional! The goalposts whipsaw between complaining about terminology to trying to handwave away the fact that there are poor choices in the character build subgame in 3.x. There's no attempt at honest criticism -- 3.x certainly wasn't a perfect game, but I loved it for what it was -- just attempts to defend it from criticism.

 

[billd91]

This argument is very strange to me. I should be happy with my choice because I was better at intimidation than I was without it? This utterly ignores the fact that, without intending to, the bard managed to be significantly better at intimidation that I was with effort! This argument is attempting to isolate the choice of skill focus from the rest of the option set and from the other characters at the table, proclaim it good, and then plop it back in and ignore the rest. It's specious.

It's not specious. What's the feat's purpose? To boost your character's intimidation score. Are you putting on the additional expectation that it will make you the best in your group at it? Would you expect the designers to also have that same expectation not knowing what your group's composition would be?

 

[billd91]

If they did something like Advantage/Disadvantage or bonus dice or something.....then you can let the archetypes we're looking for be what we kind of expect them to be. So the Barbarian is allowed to be the big scary bastard we all want him to be, and the Bard is more the charming guy.

When it's nothing but bonuses.....then it's just "who has the highest total?" rather than anything based on the fiction.

But it doesn't have to be nothing but bonuses, it has never had to be nothing but bonuses. That's a play style choice, and if it leads people to complain about not being the best at something when they want to be and that causes them stress, then maybe the play style choice is an issue to address.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not specious. What's the feat's purpose? To boost your character's intimidation score. Are you putting on the additional expectation that it will make you the best in your group at it? Would you expect the designers to also have that same expectation not knowing what your group's composition would be?

The purpose of the feat is to be a poor use of build resource -- it's one of those choices that system mastery is supposed to steer you away from, not towards. That is does improve the skill a small amount (not as much as two synergies from deception and diplomacy, because lying and smooth talk help intimidate people, I guess) is the actual point! I'm not arguing that it doesn't improve the skill, but it does so at a high cost (a feat) and less than other options, such that without trying another character can end up with a higher bonus without spending the feat.

I didn't want to be the best, but when the bard was twice as good without effort, it really points out that spending the feat was a wasted choice that I could have used to improve other aspects of my concept and just understood I wasn't going to be that good at intimidate compared to the other characters, even if I attempted to focus on it.

You're trying to spin this into saying I'm arguing that the feat did nothing -- this is far from the truth. I'm saying that it doesn't do what it appears to do, and that it requires system mastery to understand that selecting this feat is a poor use of your limited resources in character building. IE, it's a trap choice.

 

[Imaculata]

It is not a contest of who is better at what. It is a cooperative game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is not a contest of who is better at what. It is a cooperative game.

This is a canard, which I address above. This is attempting the argument that my character not being as good at intimidate as another character is fine because the group succeeds on the back of the more effective character at those challenges. What it ignores is that my character could have been better at another useful thing had I not engaged the trap option in this one. It also ignores the argument that trap options exist to encourage system mastery, which is exactly what happened here -- I selected a choice to cover that base and discovered that other characters did it better and I needed have bothered. This is the flaw in the cooperative game argument -- it, again, attempts to isolate a choice, examine it in only on context, and then treat the argument as generally applicable. It is not.

 

[billd91]

These arguments are fragile things trying to paper over the clear issues that exist in 3.x character design. Issues that the designers openly admit to as intentional! The goalposts whipsaw between complaining about terminology to trying to handwave away the fact that there are poor choices in the character build subgame in 3.x. There's no attempt at honest criticism -- 3.x certainly wasn't a perfect game, but I loved it for what it was -- just attempts to defend it from criticism.

Picking up the feat to boost your intimidation isn't necessarily the most cost-effective way to boost your intimidation score. That's true. But it's going to be more cost effective as a fighter who has lots of bonus feats than a barbarian, it's going to be more cost effective in groups without a character gunning to maximize their charisma, and it's going to be useful for DMs building NPCs they want to have an edge in demoralizing PCs. So yes, system mastery and figuring out where these things are better/worse is a feature just like choosing between a long sword or two-handed sword has been since 1st edition (back then it was: do I want to do more potential damage against large opponents vs have very little chance of finding a magic one in a hoard).

But "trap"? That's internet negativity culture. So you didn't "optimize properly" by someone's standards. I bet he wasn't spending any ranks on it and, assuming it was a class skill for you, you'd have outpaced him.

 

[billd91]

This is a canard, which I address above. This is attempting the argument that my character not being as good at intimidate as another character is fine because the group succeeds on the back of the more effective character at those challenges. What it ignores is that my character could have been better at another useful thing had I not engaged the trap option in this one. It also ignores the argument that trap options exist to encourage system mastery, which is exactly what happened here -- I selected a choice to cover that base and discovered that other characters did it better and I needed have bothered. This is the flaw in the cooperative game argument -- it, again, attempts to isolate a choice, examine it in only on context, and then treat the argument as generally applicable. It is not.

It's not really a flaw in the cooperative game argument. You could have cooperated to the point of coordinating builds with the bard player and any other players so that the option was more cost effective - in the long run if not the immediate short one (depending on relative Charisma scores).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Picking up the feat to boost your intimidation isn't necessarily the most cost-effective way to boost your intimidation score. That's true. But it's going to be more cost effective as a fighter who has lots of bonus feats than a barbarian, it's going to be more cost effective in groups without a character gunning to maximize their charisma, and it's going to be useful for DMs building NPCs they want to have an edge in demoralizing PCs. So yes, system mastery and figuring out where these things are better/worse is a feature just like choosing between a long sword or two-handed sword has been since 1st edition (back then it was: do I want to do more potential damage against large opponents vs have very little chance of finding a magic one in a hoard).

But "trap"? That's internet negativity culture. So you didn't "optimize properly" by someone's standards. I bet he wasn't spending any ranks on it and, assuming it was a class skill for you, you'd have outpaced him.

You're stuck on semantics. The "trap" option is that the option doesn't do what's anticipated -- that you need to have a strong understanding of the entire system to understand how that option can be used. If you just select skill focus going by what it says, it underperforms and you can end up with exactly my situation. I've admitted that I didn't understand, at that time, how skill synergies can work to vastly outperform the skill focus feat. I had a lot of system mastery in other cases, because I almost always GMed 3.x, but that doesn't help character build mastery. I was caught up by the fact that the bard character, with no effort, vastly outperforms my select of a feat that looks like it's intended to help a character excel at a skill. It doesn't, and understanding this requires a good deal of system mastery to grasp the interactions. That this is labeled a "trap" is because it is -- if you don't know to look for it, you can fall into it, just as I did in my example. That there are ways to employ the feat in a better manner with sufficient system mastery and other build choices (play a fighter?) actually works towards my point rather than against it.