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?

 

[Umbran]

I don't get the idea that 3E and 5e D&D are somehow immune from scrutiny or criticism.

5e clearly isn't immune. Heck, Morrus is currently running an entire game-design project for a his own spin on 5e, due to what one might term its inadequacies. And folks are critiquing and home-brewing solutions of bits and pieces of it they find insufficient on the site all the time. There's sometimes a bit of wrangling over "it ain't broke don't fix it" but it is nothing compared to the animosity of the past.

If you have issues speaking about 5e, we might have to consider that there's a tone issue involved - because how and why you talk about it may bring out the worst in some people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, honestly, the current Big Dog among editions of a game always have the advantage (and disadvantage to critics) that there's going to be a disproportionate number of people who will defend it, and some of them rather--vigorously. That's always going to be pretty tiring. That doesn't mean its more resistant to criticism than any other edition, but it does mean it requires more energy to do so because of the raw amount of pushback you'll get.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't get the idea that 3E and 5e D&D are somehow immune from scrutiny or criticism.

They're obviously not immune to criticism, but people can nevertheless be pretty touchy when you criticize things that they have invested themselves into psychologically and emotionally. But go on nearly dedicated TTRPG system community and criticize the system, and you will get pushback from some fans who believe that the system in question can do no wrong.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They're obviously not immune to criticism, but people can nevertheless be pretty touchy when you criticize things that they have invested themselves into psychologically and emotionally. But go on nearly dedicated TTRPG system community and criticize the system, and you will get pushback from some fans who believe that the system in question can do no wrong.

Yup. Used to see it on the M&M boards when they were still alive regularly. Doubly so if you come across as an outsider in any way.

 

[Aldarc]

Yup. Used to see it on the M&M boards when they were still alive regularly. Doubly so if you come across as an outsider in any way.

I think my opinion of the Cypher System also personally soured a bit after interacting with some fan content creators (not anyone at MCG mind you) who were not interested in engaging (i.e., shutting down) even critical questions about weaknesses/problems of the system or possible areas of improvement.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yup. Used to see it on the M&M boards when they were still alive regularly. Doubly so if you come across as an outsider in any way.

Its especially annoying for two-fold reasons:

* The Purity Test for being able to critique seems to frame the commenter as having to be a fundamentalist; someone so deeply partisan that they wouldn't criticize the game in the first place!

* Those demanding the fealty to the above Purity Test often have less experience (sometimes far less) running the system than those they're demanding bend the knee to the Purity Test (eg, the number of commenters on these boards that have more experience than I running AD&D or 3.x is VANISHINGLY remote...yet, they get to tell me that I have no right to critique those systems?).

Its a circular cluster-eff.

1) Are you a fundamentalist partisan that would never offer a critique in the first place? No? Well then you can't criticize!

2) Do you have less experience than me running this game? No? Well then you can't criticize!

3) Do you have more experience than me running this game? Yes? See 1!

Quite the critique-insulating loop!

 

[Hussar]

Not a module, a hack (like Scum and Villainy).

Yes, stand-alone game.

Again, I freely admit my ignorance.

But, you're saying I could play this game without any prior experience with Blades in the Dark? Or, do they simply reproduce enough of the mechanics from BitD so that I can play this scenario. Because, from the description, that's exactly what this sounds like. You're playing a BitD scenario, exactly the same way I'd play a D&D module. It's not meant to be replayed, nor is it meant to be a complete RPG in and of itself, in that I won't use these mechanics to make new scenarios.

There's a question. Is something an RPG if you cannot use the mechanics to create scenarios with it? Thus, a module isn't an RPG - you don't use Isle of Dread to do anything other than play Isle of Dread. And, yes, I realize I'm tiptoeing around the idea of RPG's being game creation engines, but, I think it's a valid point. Something that distinguishes RPG's from other games is that we use RPG's to create something, and it's that something that we play.

If a game cannot be used to create something, is it an RPG? Or simply what is commonly referred to as a module?

 

[pemerton]

If a game cannot be used to create something, is it an RPG? Or simply what is commonly referred to as a module?

I thought Band of Blades was mentioned as an example of a RPG with an end-state. My Life With Master and Nicotine Girls are presumably two more examples of this. Arguably so is 4e D&D, though I would accept the counter-argument that the end-state is so "off in the distance" relative to the normal course of play that it doesn't exercise much practical constraint on gameplay.

As to whether a RPG must be used to create something - well, all RPGing in the course of play will create a fiction. (Unless the play is super-hyper-scripted, in which case it will produce a variant interpretation of a pre-existing fiction. I think some CoC modules lean in this direction.)

Presumably Band of Blades will produce a fiction via play. I don't know it, but I imagine it's replayable. (I'm happy to be corrected by @Aldarc or @Manbearcat if I'm wrong on that.)

As to whether creation in advance of play is important for RPGing - I personally don't think so. I've run games where we just sit down and start.

 

[Campbell]

5e clearly isn't immune. Heck, Morrus is currently running an entire game-design project for a his own spin on 5e, due to what one might term its inadequacies. And folks are critiquing and home-brewing solutions of bits and pieces of it they find insufficient on the site all the time. There's sometimes a bit of wrangling over "it ain't broke don't fix it" but it is nothing compared to the animosity of the past.

If you have issues speaking about 5e, we might have to consider that there's a tone issue involved - because how and why you talk about it may bring out the worst in some people.

I think critiques that are primarily technical in nature like how many skills a fighter gets or how stealth mechanics work are more apt to get taken as a matter of taste. I think it's much harder to have conversations that are critical of the underlaying play process, division of authority, goals of play, etc. without it being taken more personally. One is critical of a small piece. The other is calling into question how the whole project should function.

 

[Umbran]

One is critical of a small piece. The other is calling into question how the whole project should function.

So, what you miss (and it is kind of typical that folks miss it, so don't take that personally) is that the other is calling into question how the person you are talking to runs their own game, if they use that product.

Critique of that overall process of play, et al. is almost never phrased in terms of personal preference, but of absolute right and wrong of gaming. And if I am running a 5e game, and 5e is bad, then my game is bad by extension. It is therefore personal. They aren't defending 5e, so much as they are implicitly placed in the position of defending themselves.

Folks are generally too deep into the theory they prefer to remember that people use it, and love it. Anyone who wants to critique it wants to be so correct, and speak their point so emphatically, that they forget that their critique needs to be leavened by the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have loved it for years now, and that probably ought to be considered as an empirical cap to how objectively bad that process, et al. could possibly be.