What is a role-playing game?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

An RPG is a means for imagining with a group. This may take a little bit of explaining.

First of all, there are probably many things that are also means to imagine with a group but are either not what could be considered and RPG or are, but are a fully-developed concept that can be taken completely separate from RPGs. WHen categorizing anything, expect overlap, aberration, and redundancy or you will either be disappointed or disagreed with hotly.

Second, the term RPG has become a word unto itself with meaning past or apart from the meanings of the individual words "roleplaying" and "game." Or at least I believe so. This is why I prefer to use the abbreviation "RPG" as the word itself. I don't always, but that's my ideal.

When trying to be all-inclusive with a definition like this, it will unfortunately have to be broad or it will leave something out. SOrt of like coming up with a definition for what a comic book is and including stuff on super heroes, thus leaving out any non-super hero comics from your definition of comic books.

I mean, let's face it, there have been several RPGs over the years that challenge our preconceptions of what a "game" is or what it means to "play a role."

There was also the word "spontaneous" in my definition but that seemed pretentious to just plain wrong. What I was hoping to get at was that the imagining was happening as the RPG is played. This was basically to help separate collaborative fiction from RPGs which can have the possibility of a second draft whereas an RPG does not.  If you can think of a way to include this, of if it should/shouldn't, let me know.

So, to answer your specifics, Everyway is indeed an RPG since it requires a group and for that group to imagine the environs, characters, and events during play. The fact it uses cards is incidental, actually. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you hadn't even read Everyway by calling it a card game. Personally, TSR's SAGA was more a card game than Everyway, but I think the point is made. Dice do not make an RPG, and stuff.

Legend of Zelda is not and RPG, nor is Talisman. Zelda lacks the group element and really doesn't require imagination so much, but that may be just my opinion. Talisman is played by a group, but again does not require engaging the imagination, which is a vital part of what an RPG is. These game are actually games in the traditional sense that has borrowed mechanical concepts and other trappings from RPG (mostly D&D in some cases).

It's sort of like pinball. You can make a pinball game out of anything. I always kind of liked the Dr Who pinball game, but you can look at your favorite table to see what I mean. The Dr Who pinball table took various elements for the TV series and created a layout of ramps, target, etc. These targets are just that, tagests ramps bumpers and thing. You could scrape all of the Dr Who arwork off of it and it would still be a playable game, it just would have little to do with Dr Who. (You'd also have to fiddle with the sound and the little dot-matrix screen, but you get my point, I think)

Talisman would be playable if you were to remove all references to medieval fantasy-like stuff. It may not make sense, with all of the little tokens to keep straight and why do you gain/lose them, but it would be playable.

Zelda is a little different. It has fantasy trappings, little elf kid with a sword and things. Change it to something else, like say Dig Dug or Mr Do, and who would even thing Zelda was a RPG? Well, some might, but many would not because an RPG is has to be fantasy. (see me take on this above)

I hope that answers your question.

[Victor Gijsbers]

I, personally, define game as any activity with definite standards for winning/advancement/resolution, or all of the above.

Which puts the card'game' "Mao" squarely outside of this defintion. The players have the power to change the standard for winning, so it's not definite - and hence, according to your definition, Mao is not a game.

Furthermore, being in the army is a game. There are definite standards for advancement: if you get promoted, you advance.

So, with your defintion, Mao is not a game, and being in the army is a game. I suggest your definition isn't very good. (And I point again at Wittgenstein, who claims that it is futile to try and define 'game', since there is no property which all games share - they merely form a 'family'.)

[Lance D. Allen]

Yes, being in the military is a game. I made it to Sergeant before I quit playing.

As for Mao.. I am not familiar with this, so you've the advantage of me. I'm sure, however, that if I knew more about it I could fit it easily enough into the definition.

I suppose that Risk wouldn't be considered a game either, as there are different variants of the game which the players can choose to play, thereby changing the standards to win or advance (although I do believe that all variants have methods for resolution, so...)

You, Mr. Gijsbers, are nitpicking at semantics. If this is the "game" you enjoy, I'm sure we could poke holes in each others theories all day, and chortle with glee as the other is forced to patch it because he didn't expect someone to come along and tear him down for no constructive reason, and so did not give the most watertight phrasing possible to his definition. Picking apart my definition does not give your points any more merit, by the way.

All snippiness aside.. Perhaps Mao is not a game by my definition. Many things are called games which, in my opinion, or decidedly not. For instance, Tarot cards are often sold as games, but if they are used the way they were meant to be, it is definitely not a game. Amusing perhaps, entertaining even, but not a game.

I also separate Free-form Roleplaying (hereafter FFRP) from the category of games. It is highly entertaining, but there are no standards for winning or advancement, nor even, really, for resolution. There are excepted means which push FFRP to the border of RPGs, but in the end, I do not think there is sufficient grounds to call it a game.

Some things that are common to some games, but not all that I have discarded for that reason:

Entertainment/fun: Most games are entertaining and fun, or at least are supposed to be. However, Wargames (I don't mean tabletop) are ofttimes decidedly not entertaining, and NOT fun. I am specifically referring to the sort done by the military for training purposes. They can be fun at times, but usually they aren't. Something about not bathing, not sleeping, poor food, continual manual labor and combat stress (albeit simulated) just doesn't add up to a good time. Yet it is still a game. It has all three of the aspects that I used in my definition. Standards for winning: usually killing the enemy and not being killed. Standards for advancement: usually more of the same, only doing it better and more efficiently. Standards for resolution: usually MILES and various other training devices and simulations.

Interaction/Sociability: The very fact that 1-player computer games are so prevalent denies this one, though it is also a common factor in many games.

Competition: This one is close, but also not quite definitive. It can be argued that in even the most simplistic of "games" -say, tossing a coin and guessing heads or tails- that there is some modicum of competition; you -vs- yourself or chance. If you want to shave that close, then competition can be considered one of the definitive factors.. I however don't wish to pick that nit.

Conflict: Yes, every game I can think of has some level of conflict, whether it be man -vs- man, man -vs- nature (chance, life, etc.) man -vs- society, or man -vs- self. However, this falls under resolution, IMO. Resolution is the factor which allows you to move beyond the conflict, thereby advancing, winning or what have you.

And, after some thought and my above ramblings, I do actually wish to add to/modify my definition. Advancement should actually be considered Reward/Punishment.

And finally, I am ready to address Mao, despite knowing nothing about it beyond it's name. The fact that it HAS standards for winning or reward/punishment is enough to classify it under my definition. That those standards may change by the choice of the players simply falls under resolution. It's like playing Kings, the drinking game. Every card drawn has the potential to change the standards for reward/punishment or winning (whereby winning, I assume, is to not pass out/vomit/not draw the last king/whatevetr... I dunno. I've lost the game, but never won.) It's all part of the resolution standards of the game.

Okay, I think I'm done.. for now.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

You, Mr. Gijsbers, are nitpicking at semantics.

Now now. All you need to do is revise you original definition.

I, personally, define game as any activity with definite standards for winning/advancement/resolution, all of the above, or a means to define or revise the above.

Or something to that effect.

[Lance D. Allen]

I edited the post and expanded upon and revised my definition, Jack. Seems, after hitting Send, that I wasn't finished with the point after all.

[Victor Gijsbers]

You, Mr. Gijsbers, are nitpicking at semantics. If this is the "game" you enjoy, I'm sure we could poke holes in each others theories all day, and chortle with glee as the other is forced to patch it because he didn't expect someone to come along and tear him down for no constructive reason, and so did not give the most watertight phrasing possible to his definition. Picking apart my definition does not give your points any more merit, by the way.

This topic is about finding a defintion for 'roleplaying game'. You give a defintion for 'roleplaying game'. I claim that your definition isn't good enough. And suddenly I'm 'nitpicking at semantics'? That's what the topic is all about! The question we are adressing here is, by its very nature, a semantic question. You can hardly get angry at me for talking on[/]-topic...

By the way, as with all definitions, it is possible that two different people find two different definitions. If you think it's all right that FFRPs are not within the defintion of 'game', we have a fundamental disagreement there, and we'll never be able to find a defintion we both agree to.

[tdenmark]

I had no idea this topic would stir up this much discussion.

There seems to be a wide variety of definitions of RPG.  Wait, let me restate that, there seems to be a broad, subjective definition...no, no that's not right.  There is a downright arbitrary definition of RPG's here, which gets back to Jared's first post about the definition being much like pornography.

I have to agree with that "definition", but the following post by King Richard makes a good point:

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.

As an artist, and I mean classically trained artist not-just-some-fanboy-hack (don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for fanboy hack artists, they know what they like and try to draw exactly what -they- like, unlike many sell out "fine artists" out there, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!) who has studied the various art movements (and RPG's are art!  albeit a very, very small field of art) I have to agree that modern art has suffered much from this definition.

I've just finished a game called Dungeoneer for //citizengames.com and my intention was to make it as much an RPG as possible (we're talkin' old school D&D RPG here), while still maintaining the closed, rigid design necessary to make a boardgame work.


Valamir wrote:

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 believe you mean Gen Con, right?  I will be sure to visit...and you all will have to make sure to get in on a Dungeoneer demo!

[Valamir]

Valamir wrote:

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 believe you mean Gen Con, right?  I will be sure to visit...and you all will have to make sure to get in on a Dungeoneer demo!

Ack, of course I did...Gen Con...

Just checked out Dungeoneer...will it be available then...if so you've got one sale for art alone.

[tdenmark]

[quote="ValamirJust checked out Dungeoneer...will it be available then...if so you've got one sale for art alone.[/quote]

Gen Con is the plan, but I don't think the printer is going to have final boxed sets to us by then.

At worst you'll get to see a set of the actual cards and be able to order the set (and get a special promo card) there.

At best we'll have a limited number of sets to sell.

[Valamir]

Well if the best comes through see if you can save me one.  

If the idea takes off you should see about getting a Rune tie-in license.  That would be an ideal match.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Thomas, congrats on Dungeon, but if that's the new topic, let's take it to the Publishing forum.

Any further discussion on the RPG definition issue?

Best,

Ron

[tdenmark]

Any further discussion on the RPG definition issue?

The police do a mighty fine job of keeping this town in order.  :)

Good point Ron, and I would like to continue the definition discussion.

Let's see.  We left off at "Defining RPG's is a lot like defining pornography..."

A literal translation of the term "role-playing" where one pretends to be a character not themselves (and even pretending to be yourself in an RPG is not really being yourself...), and "game" meaning there is a "structure, rules and/or guidelines to conduct, behavior and/or actions to achieve an objective" is well within the commonly accepted notion of what an RPG is.

Now pushing the boundary of what an RPG "is" could mean going outside this definition, but still creating something that is recognizably an RPG.

For example, M:TG took many of the popular notions of an RPG, and stepped sideways with it toward a popular past time (collecting cards).  You pretend to be a powerful wizard and so on.  That makes M:TG fit within the literal translation of RPG I gave above, but I think most of us would agree that M:TG is not an RPG.  So the literal translation is not an acceptable definition.

It seems to me it would be possible to define RPG, as we can all tell when a game is truly an RPG or is not.  The definition escapes me, and brings me back to the RPG like Pornography point.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

[quote="tdenmark]It seems to me it would be possible to define RPG, as we can all tell when a game is truly an RPG or is not.  The definition escapes me, and brings me back to the RPG like Pornography point.[/quote]


But the question is, "WHY define it?" The only good reason I can think of is so that we can try to create RPGs that break (or at least challenge) the definition. That is, the set-in-stone-definition is a constraint and we either work around that constraint or we go against it. Either way, we're innovating and stretching our creative legs...

- J

[tdenmark]

But the question is, "WHY define it?"

All meaningful discussion starts with a definition of what is being discussed.  Take Scott McLoud's excellent "Understanding Comics" for example, which begins with a definition of "comics".

And yes, as a game designer, I'd like to be able to push that notion as far as possible.

I just had a thought (which may very well prove your "WHY define it?" question).  

When discussing evolution, paleontologists often get caught up in the classification game.  Arguing whether or not a particular fossil belongs in this category, or that one.  When in fact the point of evolution is that the fossils represent a continuous lineage from fossil A to B through to C, and the categories we assign them (A,B, & C) are really abitrary and useful only to us in discussing and understanding the past.

So, perhaps RPG truly is undefinable and represents a broad area of "Games" that seamlessly blends across different types.

[Le Joueur]

But the question is, "WHY define it?"

All meaningful discussion starts with a definition of what is being discussed.  Take Scott McCloud's excellent "Understanding Comics" for example, which begins with a definition of "comics."

Ooh!  Ooh!  I did that!  I did that!

I came up with "indulgent, unstructured, engaging, communal, narrative entertainment enacted with consensual suspension of disbelief."  Yuck!

Now I always go with two parts "Well, if it were me..." and one part "thinking within the Context of the Game," add enough cooperation and sharing to thin it down, and then season to taste with self-indulgence and escapism.

(Why does 'system matter?'  That'd be the cooperation and sharing part.)

Fang Langford

p. s. Why define it?  I don't; I work to describe it, so I can sell it to people who don't know what it is.