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]

You may be right about touch attacks and natural armor. But then even then, armor and natural armor are two different things. You can have natural armor and also be wearing a suit of armor on top of it (They don't stack, the highest one applies). That alone is a reason to keep them separate.

That's the same as wearing one suit of armor and another on top, though -- it's not a functional difference within the armor bonus class of AC modifiers and not unique or special to natural armor. Natural armor is often a dissociated mechanic that allows the monster designer to set an AC, slap the "natural armor" label on it, and not have to do much to justify it in the fiction. As @pemerton notes, why is a massive creature like an ancient dragon encased in armor that is better than even gods can craft? The answer is just, "because it's natural armor." This is dissociated from the fiction to a degree, as is having leathery hide but gaining no benefit from it if you wear a breastplate.

3.x is full of mechanical tags that don't engage the fiction very much and exist mostly because of game balance issues (which, imo, is largely failed in 3.x anyway).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I play 3.5/PF exclusively, and that is not my experience. PC build options in 3.5/PF have a lot of options which can create radically different characters, but they are not difficult to understand at all. The variation in effectiveness that can occur is a feature of almost any good system where you can create a character: not every choice results in an optimised character. That is the point and fun of building your own character. You can specialize or you can be an allrounder. Some feats are powerful, others less so. But you can create PC's that play very differently from one another and can do very different things.

Absolutely disagree, in the strongest terms. PC build requires system mastery to do to even a moderate ability, much less optimization. This is because PC build is full of trap or dead end options that look useful but are not, or are so much less useful that other options as to be worthless. The tier differences in power and flexibility that exist in 3.x are massive and largely not contested -- clerics, for instance, are just that much better than fighters: clerics are often better in melee than fighters with little effort and little loss to all the other things a cleric can do.

3.x PC build is full of the need to grok the system, grok the table you're playing at, and grok how to avoid the traps built into the PC build sub-game. Arguing otherwise is an inability to look critically at the game. It's a fine game, but the need for system mastery is one of the hallmarks of it.

 

[Imaculata]

That is presuming the average player seeks that level of system mastery and class optimalisation. I don't think that is realistic or reasonable to assume. Nor do I think it is reasonable to presume that is the intended mode of play by the designers. If you want, you can grog out just about any RPG system and render other character building options by comparison much weaker and sub-optimal.

The ability to create really weak or really strong player characters through your choices in leveling, is a feature not a flaw in my opinion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That is presuming the average player seeks that level of system mastery and class optimalisation. I don't think that is realistic or reasonable to assume. Nor do I think it is reasonable to presume that is the intended mode of play by the designers. If you want, you can grog out just about any RPG system and render other character building options by comparison much weaker and sub-optimal.

The ability to create really weak or really strong player characters through your choices in leveling, is a feature not a flaw in my opinion.

And, you're welcome to see it as such, but it's a strange thing to argue that it's not present. I also think it's strange to say that lack of system mastery means it doesn't matter -- even if the average player doesn't seek to have system mastery, that doesn't say that it's lack doesn't cause the system's many trap options and dead ends to disappear. The PC build structure is full of outright bad choices regardless of table or game.

 

[Arilyn]

Absolutely disagree, in the strongest terms. PC build requires system mastery to do to even a moderate ability, much less optimization. This is because PC build is full of trap or dead end options that look useful but are not, or are so much less useful that other options as to be worthless. The tier differences in power and flexibility that exist in 3.x are massive and largely not contested -- clerics, for instance, are just that much better than fighters: clerics are often better in melee than fighters with little effort and little loss to all the other things a cleric can do.

3.x PC build is full of the need to grok the system, grok the table you're playing at, and grok how to avoid the traps built into the PC build sub-game. Arguing otherwise is an inability to look critically at the game. It's a fine game, but the need for system mastery is one of the hallmarks of it.

This has absolutely not been my experience. I have played and GMed a lot of PF1 and have never found character building to be riddled with trap options or require system mastery. Yes, there are some weak feats in later books, but I don't think they'd ruin the fun of a player who chose one. This view comes up a lot, as well as people like me who push back. I think it depends on how the game is played. If it's played with the expectations of characters being as tough as possible, then yeah, there could be barriers If a GM runs the adventure paths as written, then, oh yeah, there'll be trouble, as those arcs have great stories but way too much combat. I rip out huge encounter chunks. It's too bad because the story can get lost under the weight of pointless battles.

So, you do have a point about PF. But lots of us don't play it that way. A legitimate complaint could be made that its not good for beginning GMs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In my experience with Pathfinder 1e, the differences in builds often boiled down more to mechanical efficacy rather than variety. And the delta between what a casual player would make and what a more optimizing minded player would make could be huge.

This could indeed all be avoided with some effort toward shifting focus of play, but ultimately the very presence of all these options invites that kind of play.

It’s a “The blade itself inspires violence” kind of thing.

 

[Arilyn]

In my experience with Pathfinder 1e, the differences in builds often boiled down more to mechanical efficacy rather than variety. And the delta between what a casual player would make and what a more optimizing minded player would make could be huge.

This could indeed all be avoided with some effort toward shifting focus of play, but ultimately the very presence of all these options invites that kind of play.

It’s a “The blade itself inspires violence” kind of thing.

I have made a ton of cool unique characters with PF. Having a lot of options allowed unique mixes, giving me themes not possible in other F20 games.

PF players seem divided into roughly two groups-the ones using the character options to wring the most mechanical and efficient clout and the more narrative players happy to have choices that actually back up the character ideas in their heads. Because F20 games are about picking from a menu, rather than creating from scratch like other games, the huge amount of choice is a boon for players who love character creation. My group were happy to have a game that allowed this, and were genuinely puzzled when PF gained this reputation as a power gamer game. We simply didn't see that in the rule set. Stepping back and looking at the game objectively, I see how it can be used that way. We defaulted into a more narrative style, so these problems just did not come up. And we are not unusual, or there wouldn't be all this fighting over the "true" nature of PF.

Having said all this, PF is not my absolutely favourite game. I prefer 13th Age for F20, and games like Fate and Cortex are my favourite systems. But we did have a lot of fun with PF, creating many hours of pulpy fun, with nary a problem with trap builds or accidental broken characters.

 

[pemerton]

If you want, you can grog out just about any RPG system and render other character building options by comparison much weaker and sub-optimal.

This claim isn't true.

It's not really true of B/X D&D. In AD&D it's only true when it comes to selecting spell load-out - and that is a deliberate design feature.

It's not true in 4e D&D. It's not true in any of the systems my group is playing at the moment: Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant or Cortex+ Heroic.

I don't think it's true in RuneQuest. Or HeroWars/Quest.

It's not really true in Rolemaster - if you put build points into (say) Carwrighting rather than (say) Swordfighting then - self-evidently - your PC will be better at building carts than at fighting with swords, but there's no trap as it's self-evident, and presumably there's a reason you want your PC to be a cartwright. Spell lists can be a bit of an exception, which is why over time in our group some revisions were made to get rid of pointless imbalances.

 

[chaochou]

This claim isn't true.

I don't think it's true in RuneQuest. Or HeroWars/Quest.

It's definitely not true in Runequest, or Herowars. Or any of the Powered by the Apocalypse games.

It's not true in Sorceror, or Bushido, or Paranoia, or Tunnels & Trolls, or Blades in the Dark, or Privateers and Gentlemen, or Call of Cthulhu, or dozens more games I've played either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think it's true in RuneQuest. Or HeroWars/Quest.

With RuneQuest the answer has to be "it kind of depends." Its probably hard to talk about with most basic character options (the fact choosing and further investing in weapon skills tends to make you more combat capable is pretty much tautological, though there's the issue that throughout most of the system's history there were simply better and worse weapon choices is hard to argue), but I think it can absolutely be claimed when it comes to cult--and thus divine magic--choice.