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?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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).

Sigh, and the goalpost shift again, from "it's okay you aren't that good at intimidate as that other character, you're cooperating!" to "you should have cooperated more if you didn't want to waste your resources, it is a cooperative game, after all."

I mean, pick a line of attack already.

 

[billd91]

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.

It's labeled a trap because people want to pass on some kind of malignant deficiency toward the designers, more like.

 

[billd91]

Sigh, and the goalpost shift again, from "it's okay you aren't that good at intimidate as that other character, you're cooperating!" to "you should have cooperated more if you didn't want to waste your resources, it is a cooperative game, after all."

I mean, pick a line of attack already.

Why? Both lines of attack work for me. I don't see why I need just one.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mechanical progression of PC abilities is definitely NOT required, even though it is most common.

Non-mechanical progression is, and it's what we typically call the character's "story".

For instance, if you take D&D rules and apply them to a knockout PvP combat tournament game without a story, I wouldn't call it a RPG, even if you level up after each match!

 

[D1Tremere]

Mechanical progression of PC abilities is definitely NOT required, even though it is most common.

Non-mechanical progression is, and it's what we typically call the character's "story".

For instance, if you take D&D rules and apply them to a knockout PvP combat tournament game without a story, I wouldn't call it a RPG, even if you level up after each match!

I would agree but I would also extend your statement by saying that we are discussing multilinear evolution over progress. In other words, characters should change over time in relation to their story arcs but that change could be a progression or a regression. This is also very subjective!

 

[billd91]

For instance, if you take D&D rules and apply them to a knockout PvP combat tournament game without a story, I wouldn't call it a RPG, even if you level up after each match!

Depends on how much weight you assign to the idea of "playing a role". Does it require a story to develop and is a story more than just a listing of events in the order in which they occur. Does it need the avatar's "eyes" to look through?

I think part of what may need to be considered here is whether or not the avatar in question is expected to act differently depending on what he is, how he's configured. If they all act the same regardless of configuration (like a shoe or a thimble) and are indistinct in behavior, then you're really looking more at pawns than avatars. On the other hand, the Dungeon board game expects somewhat different behavior depending on whether you're playing the elf, hero, superhero, or wizard and that's not really a role playing game.

 

[pemerton]

I've built they thematic chatacter with skill focus in Intimidate, only to have the bard character be much, much better at it without trying solely due to synergy bonus from the skills he did pick. Even trying to have a fighter/rogue be good at intimidate was a trap option because a bard will bury you without effort, thenatics be damned.

As someone who has only played a small amount of 3E D&D, this is the sort of combo-riffness that it seems to have a reputation for.

In Rolemaster a character with high Presence and Empathy will have a better Intimidation bonus than one without; and a character with a class/build bonus to Social skills likewise. But it's fairly transparent, so in my experience no one is likely to be caught by surprise. Also, skill ranks are not quite as precious a commodity as in 3E, so it's probably more feasible to invest a bit outside of your character's main schtick.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

It does have to be bonuses because that's the way the game works. The game says "here is the way to be good at something" and that way is to have the highest bonus to your roll. The game does not give you any other way to be good at something.

There may be some ways of which I'm unaware.....I know that the options for 3.5 kept rolling well after I stopped buying books, and that Pathfinder went even further with it. But from what I recall, whoever in the group has a higher bonus in something, they are the best at it.

The only alternatives would seem to me that A) the party lets me roll the Intimidate checks because it suits my character, even though he's mechanically weaker at it than another character, or B) for the GM to apply some kind of benefit for the Barbarian character that wouldn't apply to the Bard. With A) my character is actively reducing the chance at success for the group, and B) seems to very much go against the codified approach that this edition has.

Are these what you have in mind for playstyle choices?

 

[aramis erak]

As someone who has only played a small amount of 3E D&D, this is the sort of combo-riffness that it seems to have a reputation for.

In Rolemaster a character with high Presence and Empathy will have a better Intimidation bonus than one without; and a character with a class/build bonus to Social skills likewise. But it's fairly transparent, so in my experience no one is likely to be caught by surprise. Also, skill ranks are not quite as precious a commodity as in 3E, so it's probably more feasible to invest a bit outside of your character's main schtick.

Unpacking this for the unfamiliar...
Rolemaster skill ranks have a built in diminishing return. The first 10 ranks are +5 each, the next 10 are +2 each, then the 3rd ten are +1 each.
There are few skill synergies (and those few are two separate rolls, one on skill A, then one on B. EG: Adrenal Moves and Weapon Skills) unless using an optional rule
Each class also has a per character level bonus to certain skill areas; at mid-levels this can actually make additional ranks of skill somewhat less useful.
Also, almost all skills are available cross-class, albeit at sometimes exorbitant rates... if you wizard wants to learn Broadsword, they can... but it's going to be pricey, and the fighter is going to get the automatic +3% per level, while your wizard will not...

The one caveat is the unskilled penalty - it's a whopping -25. So, rank 1 at +5 is 30 difference from no ranks. Anything you want to make routine actions covered by a skill likewise skips rolls at one rank... so a smattering of rank 1 skills isn't uncommon.

 

[pemerton]

This discussion of 3E D&D Skill Focus as a "trap option" is puzzling.

As far as I can tell, @billd91 and @Imaculata don't disagree with @Ovinomancer that taking Skill Focus (Intimidate) didn't and probably couldn't have made his Fighter/Rogue PC mechanically impressive at Intimidation. They don't disagree that there may have been better if less intuitive options to try and strengthen the character's Intimidation bonus (eg fishing for Synergy bonuses). And they don't disagree that while the game appeared to present the goal of trying to make the character impressive at Intimidation a realistic one, in fact that goal was probably doomed to failure, especially in a party containing a Bard.

Given all this, if Skill Focus (Intimidation) doesn't count as a "trap option", what would?