Defining Role-playing Games

[Thinker]

How would you define an RPG to other people that is simple, straightforward, and gets the point across that cannot also be applied to other activities or is self-evident?

We could start with saying that it is about storytelling. Unfortunately, storytelling also describes biographers, historians, journalists, sports writers, and novelists. Any series of events can be turned into a story. We even make up drama and get invested in the characters, regardless of the source of the events. What if we put it into the context of a game? Well, we could theoretically come up with the story of how I beat everyone at Monopoly or was crushed at Risk or how we all saved the world in Pandemic. We can't really say, "well in an RPG, it's all make-believe". That would apply to all of those games as well. We can't really invoke fictional world since that should be self evident and besides, no one ever mistook Candy Land for a real place. We can't say "well you take on the role of a single character" since in every other game you are only responsible for a single token or side.

So, what are we doing differently from all of those other games? I'd say that an RPG is a game where players utilize narrative, character, and environmental elements to overcome complex challenges that are constructed or controlled by a referee. That's kind of a mouthful, not easy to remember, nor easy to say. We could just say, "RPGs are games where players overcome in-depth challenges that are managed by a referee." I think that is accurate and gets the point across. It doesn't really make me want to play one, but I suppose you could add in another line like "and this one is about slaying dragons" or "in this one we hunt monsters".

What do people think of the definition? What is your own simple, straightforward, and gets-the point across definition?

[Earthwalker]

One thing a recent thread has learned me is this.

If you are going to state your definition for a role playing game maybe start the phrase with. For Me...

So

For me roleplaying games are about collaborative story telling. (Not what I think just an example)
It might stop arguments about who is playing the game right or wrong.

I recently had the chance to GM for some people playing their first ever game, I just felt I needed to stress, this is how I run things but its not the only way.

ITs difficult to make a short phrase to talk about the depth that is RPGs. Still if that phrase works for you, go for it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think there's any simple term or one-sentence description that can sum up "what is an RPG" and get the point across to any reader / listener.

* RPGs have similarity or overlap with other activities (writing fiction, improvisational acting, group storytelling, etc etc) but they aren't any of those things, and none of those things are perfect parallels to RPGs.

* Gamers engage in the hobby for different reasons, use different approaches to playing, and get different things out of doing it.

* Different systems have different rules and different presumptions about how the game will be played.


I think the key elements of what makes an RPG an RPG and not something else are:

* There's a shared imaginary space typically consisting of a secondary world / "fictional" setting, although that world can be pretty much the real world for some games. There will be characters (people) in that world. There is typically a player who is responsible in large part for managing all the "non-player" stuff in that world, from the weather to the random people in the streets.

* The primary point of player interaction with that world is a character, although some games encourage multiple characters and/or provide player-level / "author stance" mechanisms as well. Games that heavily disconnect the player from their character tend to be at the fringe or outside of "RPG", getting into "storytelling games" instead for example.

* There are rules of some sort that handle resolving attempted tasks or conflicts, often focusing on those with uncertain or unknown outcome. The depth, complexity, and quality of these rules can vary greatly.

[CharonsHelper]

I would explain it something like - "It's an open-ended board game where everyone works together."

It doesn't really match all RPGs, but it tends to match most of my favourite ones.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would explain it something like - "It's an open-ended board game where everyone works together."

It doesn't really match all RPGs, but it tends to match most of my favourite ones.

Probably includes a bigger chunk if "the board can be imaginary and huge" is somehow worked in.

[CharonsHelper]

Probably includes a bigger chunk if "the board can be imaginary and huge" is somehow worked in.

Maybe - but I thought "open-ended" sort of covered that. And I didn't want the explanation to be too long.

[kyoryu]

"An RPG is a game where players take on the part of characters in an imaginary world. One player is a referee, often called a Game Master or Dungeon Master. The referee tells the players what the situation is, and the players tell the referee how their character acts in response. The referee will then tell the players the results of their actions and how the situation has changed, and so on and so forth.

Dice are almost always used to help determine the results of actions, but sometimes cards are, and in rare cases there's randomization.

RPGs are wide and varied. The things I've just said are usually true, but some aspect might be untrue for particular RPGs. RPGs are also played for wide and varied reasons - for some, it's about the thrill of going into a dangerous situation and seeing if your wits and skill are enough to get you out of it. For others, it's the chance to live in an imaginary world. For some people, it's about getting into a deep story that they're a part of. For most people, it's some combination of these things."

[Thrudd]

A game where players adopt the role of one or more characters in a fictional world/setting, in which the outcome of their actions and events are determined by game rules. A great majority of these include a special role for a player who designs the setting and acts as adjudicator of rules and facilitator for the other players, rather than adopting a character role.

[Quertus]

Not all RPGs have a referee.

[Jay R]

I can't even come up with a simple phrase in common English for "dog" that clearly and unambiguously includes Pekinese and Great Danes but not wolves, and that includes feral dogs but not tame coyotes. [Linnaean taxonomy is not common English.]

Similarly, it's very difficult to describe a role-playing game. Some rpgs don't have DMs. Some don't have dice. I've played one that didn't have rules. Some people are focused on a competitive game, others on story-telling. So what is the essence of a role-playing game?

My shot at it is, "A role-playing game is a game in which you make choices for a single fictional character acting in a fictional world."

[Florian]

I don´t really think it can be drilled down to a simple one sentence solutions, even when we use a TLA for it.

- You play a game, so you follows rules how to play it. These rules mostly govern how you play a character.
- You (mostly) play it with one character, your game piece, fictional personality and window to the world.
- You play together with other people and you use language to describe what you do and what happens in the game, as well as what the result of the rules are.

[kyoryu]

Not all RPGs have a referee.

"The things I've just said are usually true, but some aspect might be untrue for particular RPGs."

Got you covered.

A game where players adopt the role of one or more characters in a fictional world/setting, in which the outcome of their actions and events are determined by game rules. A great majority of these include a special role for a player who designs the setting and acts as adjudicator of rules and facilitator for the other players, rather than adopting a character role.

Yup. Pretty close to mine.

[Quertus]

I think I would use the weasel words "usually", personally.

So, usually, an RPG is a game where you view a fictional world through the lens of a single imaginary character. You make decisions for that character, from the PoV of that character. Usually, the game has a single referee, who often creates the world, runs the world, and adjudicates the rules.

Usually, there are multiple players, each running their own characters, usually working together to accomplish one or more tasks.

This is likely still much more of a mouthful than the OP would prefer. But, as the man said, "Everything should be as simple as it can be - and no simpler."

[kyoryu]

I think I would use the weasel words "usually", personally.

So, usually, an RPG is a game where you view a fictional world through the lens of a single imaginary character. You make decisions for that character, from the PoV of that character. Usually, the game has a single referee, who often creates the world, runs the world, and adjudicates the rules.

Usually, there are multiple players, each running their own characters, usually working together to accomplish one or more tasks.

But this is likely still much more of a mouthful than the OP would prefer. But, as the man said, "Everything should be as simple as it can be - and no simpler."

I think "usually" is necessary. RPGs are wide and varied, and there is almost no statement about them that is universally true. Arguably "you control one or more characters" is, because if you're not playing a role, are you really roleplaying? That would exclude stuff like Microscope, but I'm not sure that's an unacceptable exclusion.

Apart from that, I can't really think of a single constant across all RPGs. Most games use some kind of referee, to an extent I think it's worth bringing up - but not all do. Most use dice - but not all. The wideness of the hobby is an asset, but it makes it difficult to pin down a strict definition without something basically saying "an RPG will have most, but not necessarily all, of these qualities".

[Quertus]

Arguably "you control one or more characters" is, because if you're not playing a role, are you really roleplaying? That would exclude stuff like Microscope, but I'm not sure that's an unacceptable exclusion.

I agree with you here, personally. Playing a role is the heart and soul of an RPG, IMO. If we can exclude Pluto as a planet, we can exclude Microscope as an RPG. But, then again, we include the Platypus as a mammal...

[Max_Killjoy]

I've linked to this in other discussions, but I do think it's relevant here as well.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...ytelling-games

[Florian]

I think "usually" is necessary. RPGs are wide and varied, and there is almost no statement about them that is universally true. Arguably "you control one or more characters" is, because if you're not playing a role, are you really roleplaying? That would exclude stuff like Microscope, but I'm not sure that's an unacceptable exclusion.

Stuff like Microscope, Durance or creating a Covenant for Ars Magicka are part of the setup phase/rules and not part of the role-playing. You prep the game by creating the game world, once that is finished, you role-play in it. This can be understood as replacing using a "setting" (like Forgotten Realms). You might have to alternate between handling the rules and playing the game, but that should not really affect RPG.

[RazorChain]

I would say: It's like a CRPG where you make a character and play that character. Instead of being restricted in your choices, you can try to do whatever you want. Usually you have more than one player who play characters and cooperate and one player who has the role of a Game master who narrates and adjudicates.

[Seto]

Giving a thorough, accurate and unambiguous definition of a TtRPG is a very different thing from summing it up in one or two sentences to get the point across.
When I have to do the latter, I say something like. "People sit together and create a story where everyone plays a character, (roleplaying) following certain rules (game), one of them generally does not have any one character, but offers obstacles to overcome, situations that they can react to." Sometimes I use the background of the person, e.g. if I know they like improv theater ("same, but with rules and fighting") or video games ("same, but Mario can decide to ally with Bowser instead of fighting him"). It's incomplete, but gets the point across. Then if the person seems interested or asks for clarification, I go into more details.

[Tanarii]

My definition/explanation for RPGs in general:

Role-playing games are about playing a game of imaginary character(s) in an imaginary environment(s), and making decisions about what they do, and what happens as a result.

Specific games have specific "what are they abouts", as do specific tables using specific games. It will not always match my general definition, nor will my general definition always be more relevant that the specific definition.

[kyoryu]

Stuff like Microscope, Durance or creating a Covenant for Ars Magicka are part of the setup phase/rules and not part of the role-playing. You prep the game by creating the game world, once that is finished, you role-play in it. This can be understood as replacing using a "setting" (like Forgotten Realms). You might have to alternate between handling the rules and playing the game, but that should not really affect RPG.

I'm familiar with the concept. Microscope can certainly be a *tool* for the setup of an RPG, and I'm generally on the "don't unnecessarily exclude people" side of things. (I personally tend to use A Spark in Fate Core for collaborative setting creation, but I digress...)

But I think that there's a case that Microscope, *by itself* can be reasonably excluded as an RPG, even if I probably wouldn't do it myself. And as such, I'm not super concerned if a general definition doesn't include it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm familiar with the concept. Microscope can certainly be a *tool* for the setup of an RPG, and I'm generally on the "don't unnecessarily exclude people" side of things. (I personally tend to use A Spark in Fate Core for collaborative setting creation, but I digress...)

But I think that there's a case that Microscope, *by itself* can be reasonably excluded as an RPG, even if I probably wouldn't do it myself. And as such, I'm not super concerned if a general definition doesn't include it.

From what I've read of it, it sits out there on the edge. It's a game that involves (snippets of?) roleplaying, but I'm not sure it's an RPG.

(And I'm also not sure it's not an RPG.)

[Aliquid]

When I was a kid, the "choose your own adventure" books were all the rage. So when talking to people of my generation, I would typically say:

"remember those 'choose your own adventure' books? Well imagine a game similar to that... where your options on what to do next are only limited by your imagination. You decide what the character does, and the rules (which typically include rolling dice) will determine the outcome."

[Pleh]

I like descriptive rather than prescriptive definitions.

Role Playing Games mostly require an element of Role Play, that is to say that the defining aspect of the game is carried by exploration of character. RPGs describe games that devise challenges and tools for victory defined by the scope of the characters brought into play, as opposed to being based on pre defined elements of play (such as pawns or tokens in more traditional boardgames)

[Tanarii]

Role Playing Games mostly require an element of Role Play, that is to say that the defining aspect of the game is carried by exploration of character.

I'm going to stick with the definition of the element of Role Play as saying: the defining aspect of the game is carried by making decisions for what your character does.

That can be informed by exploration of character. But it is hardly a required component of Role Play. Making decisions for what the character does almost always is.

Edit: I say that as someone who strongly believes in, and enjoys, "exploration of character" informing the decisions my character makes.

[Arbane]

Best description of RPGs I've heard, allowing for the fact that there are edge-case games it might not fit: "RPGs are like a combination of strategy boardgame and improv radio drama."

[Pleh]

I'm going to stick with the definition of the element of Role Play as saying: the defining aspect of the game is carried by making decisions for what your character does.

That can be informed by exploration of character. But it is hardly a required component of Role Play. Making decisions for what the character does almost always is.

Edit: I say that as someone who strongly believes in, and enjoys, "exploration of character" informing the decisions my character makes.

I don't really see a substantiative difference between your definition and mine.

To suggest that RPG is about, "making decisions for your character" but not necessarily "exploration of character" seems to say, "yeah, but you could just break character and it'd be fine." I would suggest you could move chess pieces any way you like, but only certain ways are legal if playing under conventional rules. Nothing wrong with changing the rules, but then are you really still playing chess, or would it be better to call it something else?

Then there's the whole chicken and egg thing about what is or isn't in-character. If you don't define what the character is like, is it possible to break from a undefined character? Or is the character rather defined by the decisions you make for them, their foil as a character only visible through hindsight?

I still say this is exploration of character, in either instance. Whether you map out the character in advance to constrain yourself to a narrative or just respond to stimuli as they present themselves, there is always that key element of choosing what seems best and most logical for the character (given whatever constraints or advantages are at play).

I would say that when the character should be responding to something or concerned about it and the player neglects or ignores that element, they have undermined the essential element of RPG. It may still be a kind of game, but probably not an RPG.

[Lorsa]

I usually describe RPGs as something like:

"It is like reading a book, except you get to be the main character and decide their actions in the world, whereas the rest of the world is played by the GM".

That's the simplest way I've found, but from now on I might use kyoryu's explanation instead.

[Tanarii]

I don't really see a substantiative difference between your definition and mine.

That appears to be because you're assuming that a character must be something other than an avatar of the player.

It is entirely possible to play almost any RPG with a character that is an avatar of yourself. You make decisions for the character based on what you would do. In that case, there is no additional character to explore, only decisions to make.

Edit: however, if you want to consider playing an RPG that way as exploring yourself, more power too you. I'm not going to tell you that's wrong.

[Pleh]

That appears to be because you're assuming that a character must be something other than an avatar of the player.

It is entirely possible to play almost any RPG with a character that is an avatar of yourself. You make decisions for the character based on what you would do. In that case, there is no additional character to explore, only decisions to make.

Edit: however, if you want to consider playing an RPG that way as exploring yourself, more power too you. I'm not going to tell you that's wrong.

Well, honestly if it isn't in some way exploring yourself, then you aren't really making decisions based on what YOU would do, rather what this alternative version of yourself would do (since you would not likely be capable of doing the things that the game expects from the heroes). Hence you've still fabricated this characterization and simply modeled it after yourself to whatever extent the universe in which the character is residing allows.

Put more simply, you would not be you if you were born into this other world (unless you are roleplaying an exact recreation of your day to day life, in which case... more power to you). If you aren't taking the time to put that element of translating yourself into your character (which is to say, just plugging your own brain into the body belonging to the world it is in), then you really are just meta-gaming, which isn't truly in the spirit of what can be called "role playing." At that point, it's almost more a subversion of the intent to play a role.

The important distinction between "playing yourself in a story" and "metagaming" is whether or not you set aside your out of game (or particularly Out of Character) knowledge and limit your decisions only to knowledge your character would reasonably have.

Sure, you can make a character based on yourself, but if you're roleplaying, it will still be a character that is in some ways actually different than yourself. The act of interpreting the decisions of a character and attempting to emulate that character's response is Roleplaying.