What makes an RPG?

[C. Edwards]

Well, after following this thread, I would have to say that an rpg is a game that includes no component or combination of components that serve as a complete substitute  for the shared imaginary space of the players within the confines of the rules.  

The board, money, etc. in Monopoly would be examples of such components.  Sure, I can declare that my car token runs over the dog but such action is outside the confines of the system.  There is, in essence, not meant to be any shared imaginary space.  Hero Quest would be a board game.  DnD with miniatures and a battlemap is still an rpg because as soon as I declare that I'm trying to sweet talk the dwarven barmaid I have left the confines of the battlemap but am still well within the sytem and my actions can have an in game effect.

Edited to add that this seems to be in line with what Ethan is proposing.

-Chris

[John Kim]

Well, after following this thread, I would have to say that an rpg is a game that includes no component or combination of components that serve as a complete substitute  for the shared imaginary space of the players within the confines of the rules.  

The board, money, etc. in Monopoly would be examples of such components.  Sure, I can declare that my car token runs over the dog but such action is outside the confines of the system.  There is, in essence, not meant to be any shared imaginary space.  Hero Quest would be a board game.  DnD with miniatures and a battlemap is still an rpg because as soon as I declare that I'm trying to sweet talk the dwarven barmaid I have left the confines of the battlemap but am still well within the sytem and my actions can have an in game effect.

This is an interesting quality to note.  I do have some observations:

1) This seems to exclude a number of live-action games (LARPs) and online games (MUDs) from being roleplaying.  Because they cannot count on having a GM on hand, these games have absolute rules for what can and cannot be done by characters.  Of course, in-character dialogue like the sweet-talking above still has an affect, by influencing the decisions of the barmaid's player.  However, influence talking to another player is possible in any game.  

2) This definition can include wargames or miniatures play.  Many hard-core simulation players are willing to overlook the rules in order to get the "realistic" result.  There are even systemless wargames, where the results of each players move are determined by a set of judges.

[C. Edwards]

Good points John, I do have some comments:

1) This seems to exclude a number of live-action games (LARPs) and online games (MUDs) from being roleplaying. Because they cannot count on having a GM on hand, these games have absolute rules for what can and cannot be done by characters. Of course, in-character dialogue like the sweet-talking above still has an affect, by influencing the decisions of the barmaid's player. However, influence talking to another player is possible in any game.

1) While I don't have any real LARP experience I would think that any action the character takes that the player does not actually carry out (sex with another character, for example) would require the use of shared imaginary space.  The real world becomes the game board but the system allows for actions in-game that the players (components) cannot actually carry out.  The use of a shared imaginary space would be required.  I think some people would argue that two people in a room together consenting to pretend that the other person is someone else automatically implies the use of a shared imaginary space.  

MUDs! Hmmm, there's a tricky one.   I'll have to cogitate for a while on that one.  I'm starting to wonder if a game that allows free dialogue between characters (not players) to effect in-game events, without overriding the rules, is automatically an rpg.  That would put MUDs in the rpg category.  Character to character dialogue invokes a shared imaginary space.  If that dialogue were to gain you allies that accompany you to do battle it would have an in-game effect.

Since dialogue between players doesn't require any shared imaginary space, doesn't seem to be a substitute for a shared imaginary space and can be done, as you point out, in any game I don't think it is a relevant qualifier for rpg status.
 

2) This definition can include wargames or miniatures play. Many hard-core simulation players are willing to overlook the rules in order to get the "realistic" result. There are even systemless wargames, where the results of each players move are determined by a set of judges.

Overlooking the rules changes the game, naturally.  I can overlook the rules in Monopoly and thereby turn it into Monopoly the RPG.  

The judges in the systemless wargames you mention are judging on some particular criteria.  That in itself suggests "system" to me even if it isn't stated, written down, or explicitly understood by all the participants. Depending on just how exactly the wargames are played out, and what the unwritten criteria are, they may indeed be rpgs by my proposed definition.
 
-Chris

[quozl]

Well, as far as usage goes, I think it's pretty safe to say that no one is really claiming that Monopoly, Risk, or Settlers of Catan are roleplaying games.  

Rich

Actually, I am.  It's just that the roleplaying in those game is so minimal that it would be silly to market them as roleplaying games since the roleplaying is not the focus.  In my opinion, which is not shared by many, any game where you take on a different mindset when playing it has roleplaying elements.  

For example, when I play Risk, I do not act as myself.  I act as a power-hungry warlord trying to take over the world.  There is roleplaying involved and it is required to play the game (if everyone played themselves, everyone would pretty much just co-exist peacefully and there would be no Risk game).  Therefore, Risk is a roleplaying game but, again, the roleplaying is not the focus of the game so it is not called a roleplaying game or marketed as such.

[John Kim]

OK, I was going to offer up some problematic cases as a list.  

1) A solo "Tunnels & Trolls" adventure:  This is a solo gamebook but unlike choose-your-own-adventure has a full character sheet and uses the full RPG rules.  (As a related case, you could consider an RPG combat system used for a wargame scenario.)

2) The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen:  This is a storytelling game where each player makes up an outrageous 18th century noble and then they play a storytelling game in-character.  Actions are limited to storytelling and a special form of duelling.  

3) Free Kriegspiel:  A term for systemless wargames that I have mentioned.  There is a page on them http://home.freeuk.com/henridecat/">here.  This is a wargame with a judge or judges who decide the result of moves and combats systemlessly, based on their knowledge of real-world military.  Players may thus attempt anything they can think of, including unorthodox tactics, special actions, etc.  

4) A freeform mystery game like my own http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/murder/index.html">Business of Murder.  Here the players all have full character information and are allowed to say whatever they like.  The limit is that only dialogue is allowed (i.e. no touching, no actions beyond ones you would do in person).  

Personally, I would say that: (1) does not really have any role-playing. The solo gamebooks don't consider character as a limit in any actions: any enumerated choice is considered valid.  (2) is borderline, but is roleplaying in that the generated character changes what stories are told.  (3) is not generally roleplaying because the commander is not considered as a character -- but the procedure could be used for an RPG.  (4) is roleplaying.  

There are more cases: I may add to the list in a later post, or of course others may too.

[ThreeGee]

Hey John,

In the spirit of agreeing to disagree,
I would say solo Tunnels & Trolls is an RPG. It fits the form of an RPG, it is pitched as an RPG, it is an RPG.

I would say Munchausen is an RPG as long as the emphasis is on playing a lair and not on telling stories. Without that token, the game is just sitting around the campfire telling tall tales.

I would say free kriegspiel is an RPG. You have tokens of your own with understood properties, you explore the limits of what the judges allow in terms of world functionality, and you form a story as a series of events.

I would say murder mysteries are RPG-like. They are games with roleplaying, but your token (yourself) has no particular properties. I confess I am being arbitrary, but to me, that which belongs to theater does not belong to gamers, and vice versa. Being in essence improv, murder mysteries to me are not RPGs.

Honestly, the only functional definition can be, "Something is an RPG if someone says that it is." Anything else is arguing over semantics and/or inviting synecdoche. The Way that can be Named is not the Tao, and all that.

We also need to decide if RPG is an exclusive property. If something is a wargame, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is a computer game, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is an RPG, is it automatically neither a wargame nor a computer game?

Later,
Grant

[C. Edwards]

Here is my revised definition:

Any game that can be played in its entirety without necessitating the use of imaginary space, shared or otherwise, is not by design a role-playing game.  Furthermore, any game that allows activity in an imaginary space to have in-game effect without overriding the rules as written can be utilized as a role-playing game even if it is not, by design, an rpg.

That allows for Jonathan's Risk games, and other board games (Clue, Monopoly, etc.) that can, through player fiat, be utilized as rpgs without altering the written rules.

The definition also assumes that "Role-playing Game" is a poor title for the games we commonly place in that category.  The aspect of "imaginary space" in general is more important than whether the participant is portraying a particular character in that space.  That would put games such as Universalis and Once Upon A Time firmly within the spectrum of what my definition refers to as role-playing games.

-Chris

[John Kim]

I would say murder mysteries are RPG-like. They are games with roleplaying, but your token (yourself) has no particular properties. I confess I am being arbitrary, but to me, that which belongs to theater does not belong to gamers, and vice versa. Being in essence improv, murder mysteries to me are not RPGs.

Just to clarify, in the sort of mystery that I am talking about, you have a distinct character.  For example, I come to the game and I have received with the invitation the character of Tim Kane.  I have a sheet explaining the background and personality of Tim including what he knows regarding the mystery.  So I have a character and a character sheet.  However, certain character actions are disallowed by the rules of the game (like attacking another player).  

I mentioned before that certain LARPs and MUDs also had definite limitations on character action.  To clarify about LARPs: some of them disallow actions that cannot be represented in the strict game rules.  For example, you cannot leave the designated play area -- and your character also cannot leave the designated play area.  

We also need to decide if RPG is an exclusive property. If something is a wargame, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is a computer game, is it automatically not an RPG? If something is an RPG, is it automatically neither a wargame nor a computer game?

I already stated that I considered role-playing to be a non-exclusive property.  It seems pretty clear to me that free kriegspiel is definitely a wargame, but is also by your definition a role-playing game.

[C. Edwards]

Hey John,

I'm going to attempt to field your examples:

1) Solo "Tunnels & Trolls":  Well, another cogitative  speed bump.  I've come to several different conclusions depending on my angle of approach.  I'm tempted to say that the very act of reading narrative text invokes an imaginary space.  For now I would rank this as rpg, maybe when my headache goes away I'll reconsider. ;)

2) Baron Munchausen: Lots of shared imaginary space with a handful of elements that make it an actual game instead of just group storytelling.  Definitely an rpg by design.

3) Free Kriegspiel: After reading up on this I would say that it definitely isn't systemless, just system lite.  The judges are basically assigning target numbers based upon their knowledge and experience, just like a GM in many circumstances. The game even uses a d10.

As for categorization, I would lean towards not an rpg by design, but like Risk, actions in an imaginary space might be able to alter in-game events without mangling the "rules".

4)freeform mystery: I'm out of time so I may tackle this one later.  Offhand though I would also say rpg by design.

-Chris

[ThreeGee]

Hey John, Chris,

John, I misunderstood you. What you describe sounds like a pretty straight-forward larp. It fits both the form and fuction of an RPG.

The exclusive/non-exclusive thing was more directed at others, but I am glad we agree.

Chris, I really have no idea what you mean by required shared imaginitive space, as you describe it. Can you phrase it another way? Does this mean that something like an improv game such as those on "Whose Line is it, Anyway?" would be an RPG? Would the collaborative process used to write a script or design a larp game session be an RPG?

Later,
Grant

[Sindyr]

<recovering from the debacle of trying to find meaning by 14 simultaneous conversations in another thread>

Okay, Why not start simple, and build up from there?

Question: What is a role-playing game; i.e., what do all things classified as a rpg have in common, be they pro-gamist, pro-simulationist, pro-narrativist, or whatever?

Step 1.  A role-playing game is a game in which you play one or more roles.

I know, that's obvious, but it leads us to the next questions,

What do we mean by role, in this context?
What do we mean by play, in this context?
What do we mean by game, in this context?

And here, I think, is the heart of the answer.  How you define (in context) each of these three, answers the question.

So let's do that.

For now, I am not going to worry about having webster-level accuracy, or making sure someone can't *deliberately* misunderstand me.  So if you find the definitions I suggest too loose or lacking "dictionary language", realize that I am not trying to propose an exact word for word, letter for letter definition, rather, I am trying to give enough information that, with a modicum of effort, the target definition becomes mostly obvious to all save those intentionally misunderstanding.

These are not intended to have the weight of legality behind them or to be used in life or death situations.  This is merely a public conversation, in which my goal is to bring up a shared reference between us, even *if* said reference isnt explicitly and rigorously described.

That out of the way, lets proceed.

Role:  I think we have a shared understanding of what this is, so I will lay down a few descriptors to verify that.  A role is simply a character or persona that is not completely identical to ourselves, that we imagine or consider.

Play: In this context, playing a role is to simply put onself mentally in the role's imaginary situation, and many times to make decisions for that role in the context of that imaginary situation.

Game: an activity engaged in for diversion or amusement, with certain rules. In this context, a game that has certain rules to help facillitate playing one or more "roles," for the purpose of amusement or diversion.

And that's that, I think.

So an rpg is simply a game (with certain rules), in which we "play" one or more "roles".

Is Magic the Gathering an RPG?

No. As it stands, Magic the Gathering does not specifically have rules governing the playing of a role.  In Magic the Gathering, you do play a wizard, but that wizard is not treated as a "role", with a persona that is played; but instead as a "unit" whose abillities are played.

Could Magic the Gathering be augmented into an RPG? Yes, fairly easily. I can think of three things, that if altered, would qualify MtG for being an RPG.

1) A character generation system which would allow for character traits, such that the "wizards" have quantifiable differences apart from the deck construction and contents.  In other words, a way to "personalize" your "wizard."

2) A system for the "wizard" to improve it's stats over time, and the continuity of a "wizard's" role such that some changes and improvements carry over from round to round.  In other words, the ups and downs of the "wizard" are continuous through multiple sessions, creating a continuity of character.

3) A back story, to give flavor and purpose to the card game, to make the card game symbolize something meaningful in a context larger than that of a single session.  In other words, an imaginative creation that allows the players to imagine their "roles" in situations that are not all completely identical.

All three of the above elements are for the purpose of creating the "wizard" as a *role*.  But as it stands now, MtG's "wizard" is not a role.

I think that, when cogitated about, this becomes relatively straightforward.  More so that I would have guessed, actually.

OK, this is the scary part...  so, what do you guys think? Is this workable?  Doesn't this pretty much do the trick?

As far as I can see, any rpg, whether Gamist, Simmist, or Narrativist, would *have* to meet with the above.

However, that's not to say that you couldn't have a *non*-rpg that was Gamist, Simmist, or Narativist.

-Sindyr

[quozl]

Sindyr, I we all agree on "play" and "game".  It's the "role" we disagree about and if we should even try to define the parts of roleplaying game to discern the meaning of the whole phrase.

[Sindyr]

Again, it is simplistic, but perhaps:

1) Let's use the simple definition of role above? (See NOTE in above section re: explicitness and rigorousness)

2) I think it seems to make perfect sense to try to define the elements of the phrase "roleplaying game" to discern the meaning of the whole phrase. If we were trying to understand the phrase "waiting for the other shoe to drop", then it would make sense not to depend too heavily on the meanings of the individual phrase elements to understand the whole phrase, but I think the phrase "roleplaying game" is not a metaphor, it is what it is.

-Sindyr

[CplFerro]

Dear Mr. Kim:

Regarding your examples:

:::::1) A solo "Tunnels & Trolls" adventure: This is a solo gamebook but unlike choose-your-own-adventure has a full character sheet and uses the full RPG rules. (As a related case, you could consider an RPG combat system used for a wargame scenario.)

This is not an RPG, because it is governed by a machine, not a man.  It is a choose-your-own-adventure book with RPG tropes.

:::::2) The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen: This is a storytelling game where each player makes up an outrageous 18th century noble and then they play a storytelling game in-character. Actions are limited to storytelling and a special form of duelling.

This is an RPG, if perhaps a GM-less one.  Situations are transformed by one or more participants making principled decisions, using the rules as an aid.

:::::3) Free Kriegspiel: A term for systemless wargames that I have mentioned. There is a page on them here. This is a wargame with a judge or judges who decide the result of moves and combats systemlessly, based on their knowledge of real-world military. Players may thus attempt anything they can think of, including unorthodox tactics, special actions, etc.

This is a roleplaying game where the characters are armies rather than individual men.  As such it's no different in principle than using Titans or forces of nature as characters.

:::::4) A freeform mystery game like my own Business of Murder. Here the players all have full character information and are allowed to say whatever they like. The limit is that only dialogue is allowed (i.e. no touching, no actions beyond ones you would do in person).

This is a roleplaying game.



Cpl Ferro

[C. Edwards]

Hey Grant,

Shared Imaginary Space is where Exploration (as defined in the GNS essay) takes place.  In a game that is not an "rpg by design" (by my definition) Exploration is not accounted for as a means to affect game play and therefore the game can be played in its entirety without ever entering into an Imaginary Space (Monopoly, for example).  When Exploration can be brought to bear in a game effecting manner that doesn't alter the existing rules you have instance of a non-rpg being utilized as an rpg.

"The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own."   -from "GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying Theory" by Ron Edwards

Hope that helps clarify,

Chris