What is a role-playing game?

[tdenmark]

How far can you push the envelope and still be called a role-playing game?  

Can a board game with a character you control be an RPG? (Talisman?)

Can a card game where you play a character be an RPG? (Everway?)

Is a computer game with a character with "stats" an RPG? (Zelda?)

Does it have to be storytelling?  Acting out your character?  Simply having a character with stats?

I know this discussion opens a can of worms (I hope!).

I ask because I am interesting in designing non-conventional RPG's that push the boundaries...

[Jared A. Sorensen]

How far can you push the envelope and still be called a role-playing game?  

...

I ask because I am interesting in designing non-conventional RPG's that push the boundaries...

Aw, Thomas. Maybe you oughta ask this some other place...'cause you know how we're all totally disinterested in pushing boundaries of RPGs...

Heh.

My personal definition of "What is an RPG?" is a bit shifty. For the most part, I think of an RPG as a game (goal-oriented play) in which one or more players assumes an alternate identity in order to move toward that goal.

I used to be much more of a hard-ass about it before I realized that characterization is not a requirement of RPGs (case in point, the first RPG - D&D).

As for your examples...I'd say that all qualify in at least the barest sense (although Everway is not a card game...). Moving in-ward, Talisman is "less" an RPG because there is no real identification with the "piece" (you are not the Troll, nor does the Troll carry out your decisions via the rules of the game). Everway IS an RPG, no question about it. Zelda is less concerned with RPG elements in favor of "twitch" elements (real time combat, for one)...but boffer-weapon LARP is more or less the same thing so who knows? :) It's a big old rusty can of mutant nightcrawlers, it is.

Ultimately, it's like defining pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." ;)

Postcrypt: RPGs bridge the gap between wargaming  (Warhammer 40K, Axis & Allies, Silent Death) and "storygaming" (Universalis, Baron Munchausen)...but the lines blur so darn much. Is D&D an RPG? Well how about if there's no characterization? Well how about if you're allowed to play multiple characters (or even armies)? etc. etc. etc. Thorny.

[Valamir]

Well blow me down, look who's here.  

If you're going to be at Origins be sure to stop by the indie booth and get in a demo of Universalis.  I'd say that game (designed by me and Mike Holmes) walks the line of "is this actually an RPG"

[Ring Kichard]

Ultimately, it's like defining pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." ;)

I know this was at least half in jest, but "Gah"! I've got all sorts of objections to that way of doing things. One of the valuable parts of language is that words are subject to definition. Anyway, "I know it when I see it," at best means, "I know what I'm familiar with," which isn't really of much use when you're trying to push the envelope.

The other bad definition, I think, is, "whatever is an RPG to you is an RPG." I think modern art has suffered quite a bit from this kind of definition. (Although, to be fair, The Lights Turning On and Off actually claims to be about exactly what we're discussing. Funny how circular the world is.)

So how about a straightforward definition like the following?

Role-Playing Game - n. A game that's chief element is the imaginary representation of the player or players.

It's a little awkward, but it should be clear what I'm going for. Are there any revisions?

[Paganini]

The thing with these definitions is that they hinge on something being imaginary, when that isn't really a requirement (or even an issue) at all. I could play myself in an RPG, or a historical figure. I could reenact a historical occurance. (I definately think that historical reenactments are a highly developed LARP.)

To support this, I think that Situation is the key to defining what an RPG is. Role-playing is guding an avatar (with which you may identify to a greater or lesser degree) through a *dynamic situation.* The fictitiousness of either the avatar or the situation is unimportant. All that is required is that they exist.

"Situation" is neccessarily left pretty vague here. I don't want to say that it's a "sequence of events," because that implies linearity, and an RPG doesn't have to be linear. But it does have to have *movement,* which is where the word "dynamic" came from. This movement is what more traditional types of games don't have.

The communication of the situation to the players may even be deferred. This is why I think Diablo is an RPG. If you think about it, it closely resembles an old-school D&D campaign with railroaded adventures. You can go anywhere you want, but nothing happens until you go to the right place (or do the righ thing with the right item, or whatever). The designers are the GM, pre-constructing the adventure which the end users then experience when they play the game.

Eh, I'm having trouble putting this into words. Maybe someone else will dredge my meaning out of this and help. :)

[Le Joueur]

First let me answer these questions...

How far can you push the envelope and still be called a role-playing game?

It is the author that calls it that, so the limit is up to him (you).  There's no jury out there to censor works erroneously called role-playing games.

Can a board game with a character you control be an RPG? (Talisman?)

They could.

Can a card game where you play a character be an RPG? (Everway?)

Again, there's no reason they couldn't.

Is a computer game with a character with "stats" an RPG? (Zelda?)

According to their authors, they are; but according to me they are not (well, on extremely rare occassion, see below).

Does it have to be storytelling?  Acting out your character?  Simply having a character with stats?

Likewise, it doesn't have to be; it is a role-playing game if the cover says so.  Technically, there are no restrictions.

I ask because I am interesting in designing non-conventional RPG's that push the boundaries...

I see this happening all the time.  It makes me wonder, "Who's it for?"  As I've often said, "While everyone's out there pushing the envelope, I'll take the vacant middle ground; it sells."

I'd like to answer the question posed by the title of this thread, except I already have.  Simply put, "What would you do, if it was you?"

If it gets you involved (the main reason for character-centric play), engaged (are you playing if you don't care?), and gets you Thinking in Context (more than most board games), then you're playing a role-playing game.  There's a lot of confusion between 'playing a role' (in the theatrical sense) with 'playing a role' (as in 'being a part of the goings on') with this name of hobby.

What I don't think it is, is "let's pretend" for adults.  I see more role-playing gaming between two people walking out of the cinema arguing over what they'd do as the lead character than kids swinging sticks.  (I also see this as one of the principal reason for rules; the other is how they become a form of communication of esoteric and complicated concepts.)

Alas, the advent of 'computer role-playing games' has pretty much proven that there is no standard.  If you put 'role-playing game' on the cover and it sells, no one will have much of an argument; the proof of the pudding is in, as they say, the eating.  It's not a matter of "...but I know what I like;" it's whether the person you're talking to agrees with the publisher of said product.  It's less than subjective, it's arbitrary.

Do whatever you want; if it succeeds (according to your criteria and no one else's) then it's a role-playing game.  Personally I have this idea for a card game that puts you as much 'in the driver's seat' as The Riddle of Steel (but so far, not as cool), I plan to call it a role-playing game; who's going to stop me?

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

As we know from some rogue posts on rpg-create, being tied to a metal frame and lashed by someone in a gimp suit can also be "role playing".  Caveat emptor and all that.

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

Well, I used to define an RPG by it's potential duration.  An RPG is an infinite game, that has no nessecery end.  (An individual campaign might, but as something the GM added, not part of the game itself)

This definition would eliminate most board games, and computer RPG's, straight out, as they have a termination condition.

However, looking at some of the work on here, (e.g. nicotine girls, to name the most recent), it's clearly an RPG, but has some pre-programmed end condition.  Does that still count as an infiite game?  If so, then the definition would still be valid, but I'm not certain.

On what Paganini mentioned, I would first point to Ars Magica, and similar troupe style games.  One cannot used the singualr avatar exculsivly - it's clearly possible for a game to involve players playing more than one character, and still be an RPG.

I think the key is that the players take on a persona distinct from themselves.

[Jürgen Mayer]

I think the key is that the players take on a persona distinct from themselves.

Well, you could also play a roleplaying game where you play yourself (some call this "avatar roleplaying"). For example, I could run a game where Ron, Clinton, Jared and Joshua play themselves and where they slowly uncover a world conspiracy that begins to intrude their lives. I'd say that this would be a roleplaying game. Or I could play myself signing up at InSpectres...

[Zak Arntson]

A small note, spurred by Stuart's great observation. An RPG does not have to be infinite, as many of the Forge-folks' games go to show. In fact, I think this could be one of the "misconceptions of an RPG": Many consider the long campaign style the only type of roleplaying, and a single adventure is always only part of the whole (regardless of whether play is aborted after the adventure or not). This is supported by "campaign world" supplements, and definitely is _not_ limited to D&D.

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, Zak's right, duration is meaningless for definition. It is however a potential feature of RPGs. And, as we've seen, you can play yourself (see Villains & Vigilantes 1981 which requires it) or a historical figure (I once played the Bhudda; talk about intimidating roles).

Your objection to imaginary, however Nathan, is misplaced. By imaginary I think he meant, or should have meant non-real. That is, if I play Churchill, the character Churchill does not actually exist. He is imaginary. This is part of the definition of charaters, however, and so can be ommitted. This would make the definition something like:

- goal oriented play mainly involving portrayal of characters in some manner by the participants.

By this definition, Talisman is not an RPG because there is no real focus on the character in any substantive sense as compared to the activities of rolling dice, moving pawns, and tryng to figure out how to win. Even in the most gamist of RPGs, the players cause things to occur by directing actions of the pawn character. That's where I'd draw the line there. Do you ever say, I go here, or Ragnar goes here? If so, then it's an RPG, if you just move the pawn on the board, then it's not.

As for card games (primarily card games, as opposed to everway which is primarily done with pencil and paper, etc; definitely an RPG), there have been a few that were designed to be primarily an RPG. I can;t speak to their success, but I see no reason why any physical or mechanical tool m,akes any difference in whether or not it's an RPG. The only quesiton is whether the game is carried out by directing a character. Hence miniatures can be used for RPGs, miniatures pretty much making it a board game in any case.

Computer RPGs are just that. It's a completely accurate description. That are very limited RPGs, and often allow no actual interpersonal play between players. But RPGs nonetheless. You direct a character's actions, and that's the primary focus of play. One could play a tabletop version of Baldur's Gate very easily. The GM would give you scripts when you encounter people with allowable things to ask, etc. The computer format in no way makes a difference to form, just quality. Eventually, computers will be able to run less limited games, eventually reaching the level of freedom available in face to face today (not unlimited, there are limits to the FTF format as well).

This is the only definition that I can see as being valuable as it pertains to all RPG activities. Not to say you can't then subdivide. Freeform, LARP, Tabletop, etc, all imply some subdivision. When in doubt, simply be specific. Maybe a particular game is on the border. In that case, just say what it does, and then people can make their own judgements about whether it's something they want to play.

All IMO, OC. :-)

Mike

[Victor Gijsbers]

Alas, the advent of 'computer role-playing games' has pretty much proven that there is no standard.

A bitter statement which leaves me bewildered. What's wrong with CRPG's? (I'm talking games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment and Arcanum here, not games like Diablo; which I refuse to call an RPG as the character has no personality creatable by the player whatsoever.)

One of the valuable parts of language is that words are subject to definition.

Are they? I disagree. Talking about definitions, Wittgenstein said about games:

We are inclined to think that there must be something in common to all the games, say, and that this common property is the justification for applying the general term "game" to the various games; [but] games form a family the members of which have family likenesses.
Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? - Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not all be called 'games'" - but look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. ... Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball-games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost. ...is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience [i.e., solitaire , in which there is no competition]. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. ... Think now of ring-a-roses; here there is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared!.... And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing; sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities in detail.
67. I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc., etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way. - And I shall say: 'games' form a family.

Maybe this remark gives us the answer to the topic's main question too.

[Le Joueur]

Alas, the advent of 'computer role-playing games' has pretty much proven that there is no standard.

A bitter statement which leaves me bewildered. What's wrong with CRPG's? (I'm talking games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment and Arcanum here, not games like Diablo; which I refuse to call an RPG as the character has no personality creatable by the player whatsoever.)

You refuse to call it (Diablo) a role-playing game, yet it (and it's ilk) are clearly marketed as such.  This is what I mean by "no standard."

The reason I said that computer role-playing games are "rarely" role-playing games is because of a loophole in how I think of role-playing games.  Two guys walk out of The Crow talking about Brandon Lee's character and what they'd do in it's place, to me that's the basis of role-playing gaming.  Now if you really liked Final Fantasy IX, and go back to it thinking about how you'll play it this time (and no I don't mean how you'll manage your resources to beat the odds), you could very well be role-playing gaming.

A funny aside: we got FFIX a while back and played it as a family.  My son and daughter are too young to read so the wife and I took turns hamming up the lines.  It wasn't long until I wasn't playing the game to win, but just to be a slut (hey, that's how the principal's lines went).  A great time was had by all.  Unfortunately we were no match for the bosses near the end and had to give it up.  Months later I approached it again after a little research on the internet, knowing what made for a more powerful character, and tried it again.  Sadly, 'playing to win' soured in comparison to 'being a dog' and I never finished it.  That's how I know the difference between RPGs and CRPGs.  (And how I know that I'm just a tabletop gamer.)

Ultimately my point remains that too many things get away with calling themselves role-playing games for there to be a singular or simple definition.  I'm still rather fond of looking at it (for tabletop) using the word role as in 'Russia played a role in Napoleon's defeat' as opposed to 'Sally Field won an Oscar for her role in....'

Take that as you like it.

Fang Langford

[Victor Gijsbers]

This is going dangerously offtopic, but you should try and find "Planescape: Torment" in the bargain bin of your local computer store. It uses the AD&D2E rules, but it fights against them at every turn. You won't have to 'play to win', as you cannot lose: your character is immortal. There is combat, but the game's main focus is on the brilliant story, dialogues, characters and roleplaying decisions. It comes frighteningly close to being a truly narrativistic RPG. ;) Anyway, I just want to suggest that 'you have to play to win' is not a property of all CRPG's.

[Lance D. Allen]

An interesting discussion, but for the most part, easily and previously defined in my mind. I think the best, simplest and most accurate way to define the term "Roleplaying Game" is to take the words, break them apart, and define them individually.

Last word first: Game. I, personally, define game as any activity with definite standards for winning/advancement/resolution, or all of the above. All sports have standards for winning, advancement (usually in the way of points) and resolution (throw the ball, hit the ball, run, catch the ball, etc..). Card games and board games are the same. Wargames too. Roleplaying games don't necessarily have to have all of them, but they invariably have at least one. If they do not, then they are not, by my definition, a game.

First word next: Roleplaying. Broken down to the root words of playing and role. Playing a role. It's that simple. If you are not playing a role, you are not roleplaying. You might be playing the role of a piece of furniture, and doing a piss-poor job of it, but you're still roleplaying.

Now we combine the definitions. An activity with definite standards of winning, advancement and/or resolution in which the participants are playing roles.

This definition I consider very, very hard. In a given situation, it either is or isn't. But whether something fits the definition (circumstances change, but the definition does not) varies. A game of monopoly, played the way it was meant to be, is most certainly not a roleplaying game. You are neither the pewter piece on the board, nor the money-hungry land-merchant competing for your piece of the pie. On the other hand, the players can consciously take on these personae, using the game board as the primary resolution mechanic, and the standards for advancement and winning. I've read of one such occurence in the FRPG Bible that sounded like it was quite a good time (though I've never had the jones to attempt it myself). In that case, even Monopoly could be played as a roleplaying game.

However, for the sake of definitions, I will stick with this: A Roleplaying Game is a game which is designed to be played under given conditions for winning, advancement and/or resolution via the mode of playing a role.