The four main forms of roleplaying games

[Tomas HVM]

I'm concerned in making criteria that includes all forms of roleplaying. To divide between different forms of roleplaying is another task. So I take these thoughts on the forms from the "criteria"-debate on RPGnet, and start this thread.

I'm inclined to divide the different forms of roleplaying like this:

1 - Verbal roleplaying (also called "Board RPGs" or just "RPGs").
2 - Live roleplaying (LARP)
3 - Animated roleplaying (on the computer, not like Baldurs Gate (tactical simulation), but web-games like Anarchy Online)
4 - Text roleplaying (email-games)

1 - The verbal roleplaying is related to storytelling, and share many of the narrative tools with this artform, but it is not storytelling. It is a form of roleplaying games.

2 - The live roleplaying  is related to teather, and share many of the dramatic tools with this artform, but it is not theather as such. It is a form of roleplaying games.

3 - The animated roleplaying  is related to film, especially animation, and it share many of it's filmatic tools with this artform, but it is not film-making as such. It is a form of roleplaying games.

4 - The text roleplaying  is related to literature, and share many of the techniques used by literary authors, but it is still not literature as such. It is a form of roleplaying games.

The borders between the forms must be considered hazy and unclear. I take it some games can be crossovers. The borders between roleplaying of one form and the artform it relates to, may also be hazy. Some kinds of live roleplaying games may be considered theather as well, as a text roleplaying game may be considered literature.

How roleplaying games are used is not an issue of form, it is an issue of intentions. Roleplaying games may be used in theachings, in therapy, as an artistic expression, or as entertainment. They are usually crafted to serve such a specific function, and may develop certain characteristics due to this, but they still pertains to the four main forms of roleplaying games.

Roleplaying games is a kind of games and should be treated as such in respect certain points of view. However; they have general features not found in other games, that set them apart in certain aspects. The simulation of characters and the creation of drama, is two of the most prominent of these "dividing" features. This makes it natural to consider roleplaying games as an independent form of games, and to treat them as such, although the interactive part of all games also is present as a basic principle of roleplaying games.

[Lxndr]

Just as a quibble, I would separate "text roleplaying" into two forms:

Real-Time-Text Roleplay, and Delayed-Text-Roleplay.  I'm sure you can come up with better names.

The former would handle things like IRC chats, MUSH games, and things of that nature.  The latter would encompass not only email and play-by-post games, but also the dying "art" of play-by-snail-mail roleplaying games.

In my opinion, despite the fact that they both use text, they are different enough to warrant separate categories.

[John Kim]

The borders between the forms must be considered hazy and unclear. I take it some games can be crossovers. The borders between roleplaying of one form and the artform it relates to, may also be hazy. Some kinds of live roleplaying games may be considered theather as well, as a text roleplaying game may be considered literature.  

I will add in something that isn't entirely obvious.  The distinction of what is "live role-playing" is usually based on the playing area.  "Live-action" RPGs are ones in which the players move around an area larger than a living room.  They also tend to have a larger number of players (16+).  However, they are often primarily or entirely verbal.  

You use the category of "verbal" for tabletop play, which I think is a misnomer.  Facial expression, gesture, and illustrations (like maps) can all play an enormous role in tabletop RPG play.  The distinction is really that it is played in a small area, not in the verbal-ness of it.

[Tomas HVM]

The distinction of what is "live role-playing" is usually based on the playing area.  "Live-action" RPGs are ones in which the players move around an area larger than a living room.  They also tend to have a larger number of players (16+).  However, they are often primarily or entirely verbal.

Sorry, John Kim, I find you wrong in all these postulates.

There has been larps made for one man, taken place in a closet. There has been larps made for a handful of men, taken place around a table. there has been larps made for thousands, taken place in the woods. They are all larps.

I think your arguments are based on a somewhat limited knowledge of the possibilities within the form of live action roleplay. The Scandinavian larp-scene has proven this to be wrong time and again.

In a larp the player will always represent his character physically. That is why costumes and make up have some importance in larps, not in verbal RPGs. Larps are always physical, however much you use your voice to communicate with in the larp. "Live action" pertains to this fact, and make the label a sensible one.

In a verbal RPG you may disregard the physical attributes of the player, and imagine him to be something completely different. His characterization rests heavily on his verbal presentation of the role. This is the reason "verbal" or "dialogue-based" is a sensible label on this type of RPGs.

Your theory on area-size as the dividing criteria is false.

I've written a manifest on larp, The Key Manifesto
http://www.fabula.no/manifest.html
- if you care to read some more on this form.

[Tomas HVM]

Just as a quibble, I would separate "text roleplaying" into two forms:

Real-Time-Text Roleplay, and Delayed-Text-Roleplay.

I aggree with you in the observation on this difference within the form of text roleplay.

However: they are both textual, and should be regarded as part of this form, the same way D&D and Universalis both are considered verbal roleplaying games.

[James Holloway]

In a larp the player will always represent his character physically. That is why costumes and make up have some importance in larps, not in verbal RPGs. Larps are always physical, however much you use your voice to communicate with in the larp. "Live action" pertains to this fact, and make the label a sensible one..

In theory, maybe. In practice, very many LARPs make hardly any use of props or costumes (check out any live game run by SIL-West, for example, where some people costume and some not at all ... or, hell, any LARP run at a con). Likewise, in many LARPs, players do not always represent their characters physically (combat would be a common exception). Many, many LARPs require that you "disregard the physical attributes of the player and imagine him to be something completely different." White Wolf, for example, publishes a Werewolf LARP, in which characters routinely turn into wolves, disappear into the spirit world, and so forth. Physically representing this is obviously problematic.

On the other side of the coin, players frequently represent their characters physically to some extent in tabletop games. People will wear costumes, use props, get up and pace around the room...

Now, I can agree that you can separate LARP from TT by which is the dominant mode of expression (so, in a tabletop game, most of the action will be represented by description while in a LARP most of the action will be represented by physical action). But I think the edges are a little blurry.

(I'm in at least one game in which text, verbal and LARP elements are all a component. I'd say that on balance it's a LARP.)

[Tomas HVM]

In practice, very many LARPs make hardly any use of props or costumes ...

I know. "Some importance" was my wording, and the costume is not essential to my argument.

Likewise, in many LARPs, players do not always represent their characters physically (combat would be a common exception). Many, many LARPs require that you "disregard the physical attributes of the player and imagine him to be something completely different." White Wolf, for example, publishes a Werewolf LARP, in which characters routinely turn into wolves, disappear into the spirit world, and so forth. Physically representing this is obviously problematic.

I know, and you are right, to a certain degree. Perhaps this wording rings more true: Live action roleplaying is always based on the players physical representation of his character. It is not always limited to this representation, and indeed many larps tend to use techniques more common in tabletop RPGs.

I consider the Werewolf LARP as bad larping, not trying to explore the real potential and limits of larp, only trying to convert (and to some degree: simulate) the tabletop RPG. As a larp it is quite primitive. I've been to quite a few larps, most of them with childhood problems (being a young form), but some of them interesting because they where far from the tabletop version of roleplaying games. Those games stood their ground as true larps, with the full methodic and fictional framework to support our roleplaying, without ever resorting to the use of dice, or primitive rules like: "players with a white band around their head are invisible".

On the other side of the coin, players frequently represent their characters physically to some extent in tabletop games. People will wear costumes, use props, get up and pace around the room...

Yes, and from this practise larp grew. I wrote on the player of verbal roleplaying games: His characterization rests heavily on his verbal presentation of the role. I don't see anything in your argument to refute this, so I take it you agree in the basics of this. It does not stop people from dressing up, and using such tricks to support their game. I'm also aware of the fact that verbal communication, face to face, rests heavily on mimicry, gestures and bearing.

To clarify: I'm not saying that the phrase "verbal roleplaying" need to exclude your physical self, or any techniques connected to it, but basically these roleplaying games are focused on the verbal intercourse, and their true potential and limitations is to be found in the investigation of this aspect.

The same is true for larps (the physical aspect), text RPGs (the textual aspect) and animated RPGs (the animated, visual aspect).

However; they are all roleplaying games because they also share some important aspects, like the acting of a role, the interaction with or between roles, and the interaction with the fictional world around the role.

I am open to hybrids between these forms. I will criticise them as sharply as any other games, and up until now the only hybrids I have seen have left unresolved most of the problems attached to such a design strategy, and thus they have all been bad games.

So we should always bear in mind that roleplaying games may be played in a multitude of ways, and must be taken to have unknown potential in each of it's incarnations. And some of the incarnation may come with certain problems that need to be resolved, for the game to be good.

[Lxndr]

Tomas>  Both live action and what you call "verbal" games are verbal, insofar as they have the players speaking directly to one another, but they are still very different machines.

There are massive differences between a real-time-chat text game, and a non-real-time text game, differences at least as strong as your "verbal" vs "live action."  Pacing, length of the individual entries - it's not like it's just a different ruleset (i.e. D&D vs. Universalis), it's actually a different medium, despite the fact that they both use "text."

[Jack Aidley]

What use do you see your divisions being?

[James Holloway]

I know, and you are right, to a certain degree. Perhaps this wording rings more true: Live action roleplaying is always based on the players physical representation of his character. It is not always limited to this representation, and indeed many larps tend to use techniques more common in tabletop RPGs.

I consider the Werewolf LARP as bad larping, not trying to explore the real potential and limits of larp, only trying to convert (and to some degree: simulate) the tabletop RPG. As a larp it is quite primitive. I've been to quite a few larps, most of them with childhood problems (being a young form), but some of them interesting because they where far from the tabletop version of roleplaying games. Those games stood their ground as true larps, with the full methodic and fictional framework to support our roleplaying, without ever resorting to the use of dice, or primitive rules like: "players with a white band around their head are invisible"..

Sure. But the bad LARPing is LARPing nonetheless, right?

Now, I'm the first to say that I don't like LARPs that don't make full use of the format. Games that don't take the opportunity to exploit the physical, spatial nature of LARPing drive me up the wall. But we have to recognize that (at least around here, and it wouldn't surprise me if this were true in most of the US -- obviously, UK LARP culture is very very different, and Scandinavia is different again) they make up the majority of LARPs.

Consider, though: what benefits do you (and I) hope to get from games that explore what we'd like to see in LARPs? And what benefits are the people playing in the games we don't like hoping to get out of them? Because, in general, I think they're getting some kind of utility out of them, rather than just being too dumb to realize they're in bad games.

[Tomas HVM]

I wrote:
I consider the Werewolf LARP as bad larping... etc.

Sure. But the bad LARPing is LARPing nonetheless, right?

Yes, my comment on this is a sidestep, not really an argument on what is or is not a larp.

A "live action roleplaying game" is very many different things, made by people with diverse intentions, and played by people with as many intentions.

The same is true for text roleplaying, and verbal ones, and the computer roleplaying games.

Which brings me to another comment, made by "Lxndr":

There are massive differences between a real-time-chat text game, and a non-real-time text game, differences at least as strong as your "verbal" vs "live action."

it's your prerogative to be of this opinion, and I am in no position to argue with you on basis of my experience with these games, which is scarce regarding email-games, and nonexistant when it comes to the chat-games.

However; I do perceive these games to be text-based, although wastly different, and as such they should be placed in the same category. There is no reason we could not split this category into two subcategories, being instant-text-RPGs and delayed-text-RPGs. From your arguments I take that to be a good solution.

Both live action and what you call "verbal" games are verbal, insofar as they have the players speaking directly to one another, but they are still very different machines.

Both verbal RPGs and live RPGs are fields I have extensive knowledge on. I have made games in these forms, and discussed them at length, to the point that I have written artistic manifests in both forms.

Although you raise an interesting issue on the similarities of these two forms, your postulate on them both being verbal games is ill perceived and false. Larps in general are limited by, and have their greatest potential from, their base in the joint physical representation of player/character. The character looks through the eyes of the player, make use of the players senses, and inhabits his body. The first vehicle of action in larps is the players body, and the first vehicle of setting is his physical surroundings. This is the fundament of a live action roleplaying game.

The fundament of a verbal roleplaying game is different; not only does it consist of dialogue between roles, but it also uses verbal narrative in various forms. It is based on the verbal communication, both to make ingame dialogues, and to make action and setting come alive. The first vehicle of drama is the narrative, combined with the players imagination. You may say that the character has to look through the "inner eyes" of the player, as both action and setting is given shape within the players mind.

A comment on the side of the main argument: the narrative aspect of verbal RPGs is in fact much more of a defining trait than the ingame dialogues. We tend to say "my character does..." and "my character says..." a lot more than we actually speak out for our character.

So the verbal and live action RPGs are indeed different forms, in respect of the fundament they build upon, the way they are made, their potential and limitations, and in practical gaming.

And what benefits are the people playing in the games we don't like hoping to get out of them? Because, in general, I think they're getting some kind of utility out of them, rather than just being too dumb to realize they're in bad games.

Most games give something back to the players, and even bad games can be good! The primitive structure of the game, the inadequate method and/or the badly perceived fictional framework, don't always stop the players from having a good time, or making a great game out of it. The players are resourceful individuals, gathered to participate in a creative activity, and as such they often create gold out of garbage.

I'm full of respect for players left with a bad game, in any form, players who insist on making the game shine like an unmatched diamond, with their spontaneus ingenuity!

At the same time I do not care one diddly squat about gamesmiths doing a bad job, leaving their players to struggle with inadequate methods, bullshit settings, and no idea on the vision of the game.

Most gamesmiths doing this fail to se the true potential of their form, and try to work against it's limitations. So there is huge benefits to gain from defining these forms, looking at the special potential and limitations (what will my form do well, and what must I avoid) of each form, communicating it, and thus enabling conscious choices on what games to make.

I'm talking ideals, of course, but it has helped me to think and talk on the games I make, and that's at the core of this forum.

[John Kim]

The distinction of what is "live role-playing" is usually based on the playing area.  "Live-action" RPGs are ones in which the players move around an area larger than a living room.  They also tend to have a larger number of players (16+).  However, they are often primarily or entirely verbal.

Sorry, John Kim, I find you wrong in all these postulates.
...
In a larp the player will always represent his character physically. That is why costumes and make up have some importance in larps, not in verbal RPGs. Larps are always physical, however much you use your voice to communicate with in the larp. "Live action" pertains to this fact, and make the label a sensible one.  

In a verbal RPG you may disregard the physical attributes of the player, and imagine him to be something completely different. His characterization rests heavily on his verbal presentation of the role. This is the reason "verbal" or "dialogue-based" is a sensible label on this type of RPGs.

Sorry, I should probably rephrase that.  Within my experience in the U.S., any game which is 16+ people and takes place over an extended area is usually labelled as a "LARP" -- regardless of whether people dress up in costume or physically act out action.  That is just my observation about how the word is used.  You can, of course, suggest a different definition of "LARP" which makes more literal sense -- but you should be aware that it may conflict with how the term is used in U.S. gaming conventions and elsewhere.  

A game system like, say, Mind's Eye Theater uses verbal narration and rock-paper-scissors for conflict resolution, yet it is labelled and marketted as "live action".  This would perhaps be considered "verbal" in your category.  However, you should be aware that within the U.S. this is commonly called "live action".  I agree with you that it is a misnomer, but it is common usage.