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...

tdenmark wrote: 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...

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"

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

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. :)

First let me answer these questions...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Stuart DJ Purdie wrote: I think the key is that the players take on a persona distinct from themselves.

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.

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

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

Ring Kichard wrote: One of the valuable parts of language is that words are subject to definition.

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.

Victor Gijsbers wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Wolfen wrote: You, Mr. Gijsbers, are nitpicking at semantics.

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.

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.

Wolfen wrote: 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.

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.

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.

tdenmark wrote:
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!

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

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.

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

Ron Edwards wrote: Any further discussion on the RPG definition issue?

quot;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.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: But the question is, "WHY define it?"

tdenmark wrote:

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: 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."

Even though this thread seems to have wound down, I though I'd interject with the idea of addressing part of the initial question:

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

Interesting, but I still don't think of CRPGs as RPGs, even after what you've just described with Morrowind or whatever it's called. It's a lot like racing, you see. Foot racing and horse racing and NASCAR. The object in each is similar, to be faster than the other guy, but the means and skills to do so are very, very different. Therefore, I consider a CRPGs it's own animal, regardless of how close they come to replicating or even exceeding the tabletop experience.

The only one I will alow is on-line chatting being used for gaming where the computer is essentially the dinner table around which everyone sits. In that case, it's not the computer that makes it happen so much as the computer is just a tool to fascilitate play. Otherwise everyone would either have to commute or write letters. Or such is my view on it.