Worlds of Design: What Makes an RPG a Tabletop Hobby RPG?

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. I describe some characteristics.

View attachment 102280Picture sourced from Pixabay.​

I must be crazy to try to define/characterize a segment as large and diverse as this one in a few words. But here goes.

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 at length, even though not all of the group will have all of those characteristics. I’m trying the latter, but keeping it simple.

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 adventure.

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 includes some business and other training/education simulations. I’m interested in what makes a game a hobby RPG, a game played frequently by hobby game players.

What’s a “Pure” or “Real” Avatar?

• A single thing that represents the individual player, most commonly a humanoid
• All the player’s actions in the game emanate from the avatar
• The “real” 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 into the avatar.

Many board games use a sort-of avatar that is not the source of all action, nor does the game end if the avatar is killed or captured. That’s not an RPG.

“Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.” Helen Keller​

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 (which give more capability)
• Collecting magic items (which provide extra options, defense, offense, detection, etc.)
• Acquiring money (which can be used for lots of things)
• No doubt there are some RPGs with other ways to improve, for example if social standing is formally tracked

Does it need levels? No, but that's typically (conveniently) how increase in capability “without using loot” 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 a series of stand-alone novels 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.

“Adventure is worthwhile in itself.” Amelia Earhart​

Co-operation, Adventure, and a Gamemaster who Controls the Opposition

• Yes, opposition. It’s not a game (traditional sense) without opposition, though it might be a puzzle or a storytelling engine
• I don’t see how there can be significant opposition without a GM/referee
• If there’s no co-operation, if it’s player vs player, it’s more or less a board/card game
• Or it’s a storytelling aid

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 as the defining aspect of RPGs, and it’s certainly vital; but think of an imposed-story RPG where the linear plot (typical of such stories) forces players to do just what the story calls for. That’s not freedom of action. Yet many still call this 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.

I include adventure, because the stories generated by the original RPGs would be called adventures. In the 21^st 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, though *I’m* certainly not interested in RPGs without adventure.

Some people won’t agree with this characterization. That’s inevitable. The purpose of such exercises (aside from encouraging people to think) is to narrow down something so that we can talk about it intelligibly. If the question “what’s an RPG?” tends to be answered with “whatever I think it is,” discussions become difficult.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

That's interesting, actually. Obviously, MtG isn't an RPG. But if you put some kind of narrative framework in place where the players are all powerful planewalking mages, and the resolution mechanic would be actual games of Magic, could you generate something that looked like an RPG?

Sure, you could use MtG as the resolution system, though it would probably be a long walk for a short drink of water in that case.

I think it's difficult but not impossible to do so, and it speaks to an idea I'd float that "fiction with game elements on top" is more RPG-like, and "game with fiction elements on top" is more board game like. I mean, I wouldn't say that either Talisman, Monopoly, or Uno is an RPG, but Talisman is certainly more "RPG-like" than Monopoly, and Monopoly is more "RPG-like" than Uno. (Having a piece, moving it around and buying "property" gives at least the illusion of a narrative.)

RPG elements show up in a lot of computer games that aren't CRPGs. For example the legendary Deus Ex was one of the first FPS games to have elements of RPG advancement, substantial attention to player agency, and a lot of story with a pretty serious (as opposed to campy) tone, all of which was decidedly unusual at the time. For example, FPS grandbabydaddy Doom had character advancement but really only in the form of better guns. Now you see many games having them. The excellent Tomb Raider reboots (3PS not FPS) have strong RPG elements now, both character skills and gear.

If we want to bring up hoary old chestnuts about what constitutes an RPG, let's look at 4e. While I personally view it as a RPG (and a good one), the fact that the combat rules are so detailed and omnipresent, and don't rely on feeding into a fictional state to function is what led to the constant refrain of "It's not an RPG, it's a tactical skirmish game with RPG elements attached." Having strong elements to gameplay that can exist independent of the narrative are going to make a lot of people have trouble declaring something as an RPG, whether that be "playing a game of Magic" or "skirmish combat".

4E was an example of an RPG that took on lots of attributes of a tactical minis games and CCGs. I don't think it didn't fit the fiction, although it could encourage players away from them if they spent too much time thinking about their options and many of the adventures were written very much in the manner of a minis game. But I recall playing 4E that was definitely more RPG-esque. (Overall I wasn't a fan but acknowledge that 4E had many good ideas.)

All of these are illustrations of why I think we're talking about a family resemblance.

 

[pemerton]

This may be interpretation of "improvement". If you play Monopoly, are you "improving" if you gather a lot of cash? Does a change count as "improvement" if it only exists within one instance or arc of play, and is then discarded?

Well, my understanding of Monopoly is that gathering a lot of cash is winning/

In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it is possible for PCs to improve by earning XP without succeeding in their goals, because a PC's milestones - which trigger XP accrual - are independent of a PC's goals. I think this generates play which is quite similar to comics (or at least the Marvel comics of the 70s through mid-90s, which are the ones I know well) in which character development and transformation arcs are somewhat independent of the minutiae of the plots they are engaged in, which to some extent provide a backdrop to that development. Eg Wolverine can demonstrate trouble with his temper whether he is being captures by the Brood or beating up on Hellfire Club thugs.

I find this aspect of the system an interesting change from 4e - in which the system generates a more robust tendency towards PC success - and Burning Wheel, which is much more intense and interweaves PC goals and concerns much more tightly into the details, and even the minutiae, of the external fictional situation.

Anyway, is this improvement? At my table it is - the players contrast Cortex+ Heroic, which has fairly significant PC improvement, with Classic Traveller which has little or none.

 

[TwoSix]

I strongly disagree with the claim that 4e's combat rules don't rely on feeding into a fictional state, or at least that they differ from any other version of D&D in this respect.

The core rules - roll to hit, roll damage, manage a hit point total - are no different from any other version of D&D, and none of these systems depend upon the fiction nor yield any fiction (until we get to the final blow). In Vincent Baker's terms, they are all "boxes to boxes". Baker suggests that a successful hit roll generates leftward-pointing arrows (ie generates some fiction - "you hit me!") but that's been very hazy in D&D at least since Gygax's DMG; in 4e this is often less hazy because the conditions inflicted suggest clearer fiction than an abstract "you hit me".

Sure. I think it's an aspect of most of the D&D family that I'm familiar with (I haven't played enough 1e or Basic to speak with any kind of expertise), 4e just stripped off enough of the illusion of simulation to put it into a RPG "uncanny valley" of sorts.

The games where I've seen a fair amount of people say "It's not REALLY an RPG" are the ones I feel could provide examples that help clarify some of the delineations the OP is considering; 4e, sadly, falls into that category despite my disagreement.

RPG elements show up in a lot of computer games that aren't CRPGs. For example the legendary Deus Ex was one of the first FPS games to have elements of RPG advancement, substantial attention to player agency, and a lot of story with a pretty serious (as opposed to campy) tone, all of which was decidedly unusual at the time. For example, FPS grandbabydaddy Doom had character advancement but really only in the form of better guns. Now you see many games having them. The excellent Tomb Raider reboots (3PS not FPS) have strong RPG elements now, both character skills and gear.

Sure. It's hard to find a AAA game these days that doesn't have RPG elements. Heck, sports games have RPG elements now.

4E was an example of an RPG that took on lots of attributes of a tactical minis games and CCGs. I don't think it didn't fit the fiction, although it could encourage players away from them if they spent too much time thinking about their options and many of the adventures were written very much in the manner of a minis game. But I recall playing 4E that was definitely more RPG-esque. (Overall I wasn't a fan but acknowledge that 4E had many good ideas.)

All of these are illustrations of why I think we're talking about a family resemblance.

Yea, I definitely agree with you on the family resemblance aspect. It's why I'm curious about some of the systems that have a tendency to be called out as "3rd cousins twice removed" of the RPG family.

 

[Umbran]

Well, my understanding of Monopoly is that gathering a lot of cash is winning

But, it is *also* the resource you spend to make things happen in the game. A Monopoly dollar is a victory point, and a resource you spend to hopefully win more victory points.

Anyway, is this improvement? At my table it is - the players contrast Cortex+ Heroic, which has fairly significant PC improvement, with Classic Traveller which has little or none.

Set aside your personal table for a moment, because we aren't talkign about you, but about games in general. In the game as written the basic intent is that you pick up a pre-generated character and play through an Event. The next time you played, you pick up a different character, and play a different Event, and any improvement you made in the first Event is not relevant to the second.

So, I ask again - does it count as improvement if it only lasts for one instance or short arc of play?

 

[pemerton]

Sure. I think it's an aspect of most of the D&D family that I'm familiar with (I haven't played enough 1e or Basic to speak with any kind of expertise), 4e just stripped off enough of the illusion of simulation to put it into a RPG "uncanny valley" of sorts.

The games where I've seen a fair amount of people say "It's not REALLY an RPG" are the ones I feel could provide examples that help clarify some of the delineations the OP is considering

Well now we're in the interesting territory!

In RQ, being hit (in the mechanical sense) isn't an illusion of simulation. That mechanical outcome correlates to a rather specific outcome in the fiction (we know where you were hit, and have a pretty good sense of how badly you were hurt, whether your were maimed, etc). Likewise in Burning Wheel, Rolemaster most of the time, etc.

In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, which in mechanical terms is a very contrasting system to those one, there is no illusion of simulation either. If you are adversely affected then we know how (Physical stress, Mental stress, Emotional stress, or a descriptive Complication) and we know, roughly, how badly (d4 - hardly at all, d12 - almost succumbed, greater than d12 and you're out of the action).

MHRP/Cortex+ won't generate as many rightwards arrows on its own, however. In RQ, BW or RM if your arm is maimed then that bit of fiction excludes action declarations like "I hack away at them with my two-handed sword!" Whereas in MHRP/Cortex+ an opponent can put a stress or complication die into their pool (ie my penalties are your buffs) but that can play as purely boxes-to-boxes until the opponent actually uses that pool to generate some new fiction. This is part of what makes MHRP/Cortex+ far less gritty than a system like RQ, BW or RM.

When we get to the D&D family of games, there are generally no gritty leftward or rightward arrows in combat (unless we turn to magic). Nor are their descriptors that can be leveraged in the MHRP/Cortex+ style. There's just positioning and hp ablation. This is why I find the idea that 4e "tore away" some veil of simulation so hard to make sense of. To me, it actually increase the number of leftward arrows because it has such a wide range of condition infliction - so eg when the fighter with his polarm does Come and Get It we don't just know that he's attacking 4 gnolss, but that he's wrongfooting them with his polearm. That's more fiction than you get with AD&D.

On it's own that fiction won't generate rightward arrows - in that respect it's a bit like MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. But anyone playing it as purely boxes-to-boxes is (to my mind) not exploiting the system to its full. (Eg p 42 clearly depends upon rightwards arrows.)

It seems that the "illusion of simulation" may not have been much more than my mechanics use feet rather than square as a unit of measurement or my mechanics for determining how hard something is to hit include the phrase "natural armour bonus". But that's not rightwards arrows. We don't have some mechanics-independent sense of how tough a red dragon's skin is, which then lets us read off a natural armour bonus (this contrasts with RM, RQ and BW, in which the opposite is true).

For my money, fiction in RPGs isn't about labels. It's about the actual processes that we use to play the game and resolve declared actions.

 

[pemerton]

Set aside your personal table for a moment, because we aren't talkign about you, but about games in general. In the game as written the basic intent is that you pick up a pre-generated character and play through an Event. The next time you played, you pick up a different character, and play a different Event, and any improvement you made in the first Event is not relevant to the second.

So, I ask again - does it count as improvement if it only lasts for one instance or short arc of play?

An "event" might last for half-a-dozen sessions or more. If my PC is getting more effective over that time (in virtue of spending the XP I accrue to improve my numbers, eliminate disadvantages, etc) then I count that as improvement. I've got not reason to think that my intuitions or my table's perceptions are particulary at odds with the norm here.

From the point of view of design, you could also see this as a way of reconciling the defeault use of pre-gens with a degree of player choice in respect of PC build. One of the first things my players like to do is to spend XP to adjust their affiliations to their taste and/or what they see as the emerging patterns of play.

Do you disagree? When you play MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, do your players not set about earning XP and spending it?

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Sure. I think it's an aspect of most of the D&D family that I'm familiar with (I haven't played enough 1e or Basic to speak with any kind of expertise), 4e just stripped off enough of the illusion of simulation to put it into a RPG "uncanny valley" of sorts.

I've used the term "uncanny valley" for this before, too. It really lines up with the idea that a genre is a family resemblance, uncanny being when something is in between families, like Planet of the Apes apes, who are too human to be apes and too ape to be human.

The games where I've seen a fair amount of people say "It's not REALLY an RPG" are the ones I feel could provide examples that help clarify some of the delineations the OP is considering; 4e, sadly, falls into that category despite my disagreement.

4E was an RPG but it fell into the "uncanny valley" by virtue of putting so much detail in terms of novel mechanics, setting shifts, etc. As I have said before, there were a lot of good ideas in 4E despite me not liking it that much overall (playing was OK; I hated DMing it).

Yea, I definitely agree with you on the family resemblance aspect. It's why I'm curious about some of the systems that have a tendency to be called out as "3rd cousins twice removed" of the RPG family.

Well I think the general mechanism is that when you end up with a game that's "neither fish nor fowl" people don't quite know what to make of it.

4E was a good example of this. There were just a ton of changes from prior editions, and many of the changes were in the direction of pushing players towards miniatures and maps and the power cards just pushed people towards the obvious conclusion of minis game/CCG influences. I noticed longtime players thinking this way and becoming more like they were playing that kind of game, being much more focused on their characters enumerated powers. The original 4E adventure design philosophy was also very much in the minis game mode, too.Now if it had been a totally new game without the "family history" of being D&D people might have said "oh, interesting minis game and CCG elements... OK". Of course it wouldn't have sold super well because basically no other game but D&D really sells, but there it is. I think there were similar issues with shift between old World of Darkness and new World of Darkness, but the fact that World of Darkness players weren't nearly as vehement about mechanics and nWoD didn't make for a notable mechanical shift. The fact that D&D tends to be the "only game in town" for a lot of people changes its status, too.

Again, this doesn't mean it's a bad game! An analogy might be having fine dining experience at a place that's supposed to be a bar and grill.

 

[pemerton]

4E was a good example of this. There were just a ton of changes from prior editions, and many of the changes were in the direction of pushing players towards miniatures and maps and the power cards just pushed people towards the obvious conclusion of minis game/CCG influences. I noticed longtime players thinking this way and becoming more like they were playing that kind of game, being much more focused on their characters enumerated powers.

I believe spell cards were published for AD&D. And for as long as I can remember, players of spell casters in RPGs would address situations by reviewing the spells they had available.

This relates to my post in reply to [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]: the idea that the player of the AD&D caster is engaging the fiction when reviewing a spell list (because in the fiction the PC has memorised spells) while the 4e player is only engaging the mechanics (because in the fiction the PC doesn't have all these rationed powers) rests on a very thin/veneer idea of the fiction. It's not actually engaging and changing the shared fiction.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I believe spell cards were published for AD&D.

But not in such a core and central way.

And for as long as I can remember, players of spell casters in RPGs would address situations by reviewing the spells they had available.

Indeed they would, but the difference is that 4E made everybody operate in that fashion and do so essentially every round.

This relates to my post in reply to @TwoSix: the idea that the player of the AD&D caster is engaging the fiction when reviewing a spell list (because in the fiction the PC has memorised spells) while the 4e player is only engaging the mechanics (because in the fiction the PC doesn't have all these rationed powers) rests on a very thin/veneer idea of the fiction. It's not actually engaging and changing the shared fiction.

Yes, absolutely, but why does, say, the fighter think "oh, I can only do 'Come and Get It'" once per day?

Vancian style casting always was one of the sore points that people had in Ye Olden Dayes of D&D. Folks constantly changed that and fiddled with the system. Now I get that 4E Daily powers aren't exactly the same thing if you want to argue that point, but they're very much in the general idiom of Vancian spells. 4E, by making a common framework for all characters, dramatically emphasized this. From a game mechanical/game balance standpoint it may have worked well, but I recall many players saying, essentially, "I'd really rather be able to just roll to attack and not have to worry about all these powers." A friend of mine is a good example---he's a great player in many ways, but he really just hates the level of character building and tactical play that was necessary to get much out of a 4E character. Yet 4E, especially the early version, made everybody do that, certainly assuming they wanted to be effective.

 

[pemerton]

But not in such a core and central way.

Power cards weren't core to 4e either. An AD&D caster can use a written list of spells rather than spell cards. A 4e player can use a written PC sheet rather than power cards. (My table didn't use power cards after the first session or two, when it became clear that they were annoying and inefficient compared to a more traditional PC sheet.)

I recall many players saying, essentially, "I'd really rather be able to just roll to attack and not have to worry about all these powers."

Sure. But that doesn't bear at all upon this "uncanny valley" idea about the relationship between fiction and mechanics. Presumably that player didn't enjoy playing mid-to-high level AD&D casters, or if he did he played fairly poorly or relied on others to tell him what spells to cast.