So what exactly IS an RPG?

[Taevyr]

Sure, a game with a huge amount of rules revolving around establishing who characters are, what they can do and what situations they are facing, isn't a roleplaying game... like many other arguments about how D&D isn't a roleplaying game or doesn't have roleplaying mechanics, the argument requires ignoring huge parts of the game. Or some contrived idea of what it means to make decidions from a character's viewpoint, carefully excluding tactical choices and the like from that.

It's the inverse of all these "but you can roleplay in Monopoly" remarks. Sure, you can not roleplay in D&D, if you purposefully neglect observance and enforcement of all those parts that encourage or require... but then you've reduced your D&D game to something different from the original product.

Exactly. D&D might not be the best at mechanizing/encouraging RP compared to some other tabletop rulesets, but it certainly includes mechanics to aid and encourage roleplay, though how well they're used certainly depends on the group and DM.

It's the same as playing Settlers of Catan with a group that disallows trade between players, then claiming it isn't a game of diplomacy. Sure, that way it's still perfectly playable as a simple resource management game (though probably a rather boring, unengaging one), but that doesn't mean it's not a game of negotiation, simply that you chose to ignore that part.

Or, perhaps a better example, playing an MMORPG without ever doing group content or working with other players, then claiming it's not an MMO but "merely a complex game with the option for inter-player cooperation". Just because a given player can choose not to engage with part of the game as it was intended to be played, doesn't mean it's not a key part of the game.

[Easy e]

Controversial answer: It doesn't matter what is and is not an RPG. What matters is if you enjoy the use of your time to engage with the game or not.

Needless classification, niche- making and gate-keeping is not necessary. It does not add any clarity and is may actually be counter-productive to the end goal of enjoying your time.

[kyoryu]

Controversial answer: It doesn't matter what is and is not an RPG. What matters is if you enjoy the use of your time to engage with the game or not.

Needless classification, niche- making and gate-keeping is not necessary. It does not add any clarity and is may actually be counter-productive to the end goal of enjoying your time.

Blue is for sarcasm. I see nothing sarcastic in that.

[Psyren]

A miserable pile of rulings.

That, I suspect, is because we have a few things we all agree is an RPG, D&D for example.

We didn't think of a definition for RPGs and then they existed, games were made and we describe them as RPGs. So we structure our definitions to include the games that we have been describing as RPGs.

In short, D&D is an RPG, if the definition doesn't include D&D. Then the definition is poor.

This. We make things and then make genres and subgenres to classify those things, not the other way around. "Soulslike" and "Metroidvania" became genres this way.

[Easy e]

Blue is for sarcasm. I see nothing sarcastic in that.

Still basically trying to figure out how much I actually believe what I wrote, so I decided to play it safe and use the blue text. :)

[kyoryu]

A miserable pile of rulings.

This. We make things and then make genres and subgenres to classify those things, not the other way around. "Soulslike" and "Metroidvania" became genres this way.

And those can be useful. I think they're most useful when they're fairly broad and not strict, and when there's enough core similarity that advice for one is applicable to the others more often than not.

Like, "is X a Soulslike?" is a useful question to answer things like:

1. Is advice for other Soulslike games generally applicable or not?
2. Will someone that likes other Soulslike things also like this?

#1 won't always apply, of course. But if the answers to them both are "yes" most of the time, then it's probably useful to keep them under the same umbrella. If the answers are almost always "no" then they shouldn't be.

Unfortunately a lot of times people hyper-focus on some pet feature they like in the umbrella, and get unnecessarily strict (or overly broad) so that the usefulness of the term is lost.

[Max_Killjoy]

One place definitions could be useful, is not in prescriptive mode (which is where a lot of these things tend to go), but in descriptive mode, so that people are more able to buy, run, and play games they're more likely to enjoy.

To some degree the argument over "is this an RPG?" can be avoided by treating different broad types of systems (and campaigns) as subsets of RPG.

For example, instead of arguing over whether a "storygame" is an RPG, the term "storygame" could be used to describe some systems so that someone like me is less likely to mistake that for an RPG they'd be interested in. I bought the books for Tales From The Loop and Things From The Flood because they're gorgeous and I love the setting, but I'd never make the mistake of running or playing a game using the system for those books, which is DEEPLY narrative-control based, and if it were me classifying them, I'd call them "storygames".

This wouldn't be to prescriptively control what games are made or are called RPGs, but to describe the game for everyone's benefit. No one wants players who are slowly and miserably finding out that yet another system or campaign wasn't what they were looking for.

[kyoryu]

One place definitions could be useful, is not in prescriptive mode (which is where a lot of these things tend to go), but in descriptive mode, so that people are more able to buy, run, and play games they're more likely to enjoy.

To some degree the argument over "is this an RPG?" can be avoided by treating different broad types of systems (and campaigns) as subsets of RPG.

For example, instead of arguing over whether a "storygame" is an RPG, the term "storygame" could be used to describe some systems so that someone like me is less likely to mistake that for an RPG they'd be interested in. I bought the books for Tales From The Loop and Things From The Flood because they're gorgeous and I love the setting, but I'd never make the mistake of running or playing a game using the system for those books, which is DEEPLY narrative-control based, and if it were me classifying them, I'd call them "storygames".

This wouldn't be to prescriptively control what games are made or are called RPGs, but to describe the game for everyone's benefit. No one wants players who are slowly and miserably finding out that yet another system or campaign wasn't what they were looking for.

I think in this case that's probably better served by something closer to "subgenres", as I suspect most players of a large number of these games would argue they are playing RPGs. Call them "narrative RPGs" or the like.

I tend to use 'storygame' for things closer to Microscope or Fiasco rather than Fate and Apocalypse World.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fun historical fact: when the first ever RPG was released it was not called an RPG. It got called that (eventually) by the small community that played it, and by 1975 you began to see references to roleplaying and roleplaying game as a term in, for example, the Greyhawk supplement or the Blackmoor supplement (in the back where the 'order more stuff' appendix was). My example here comes from Blackmoor, 9th printing, which was after Basic D&D (Holmes) had come out to compete with the original game, and after the Monster Manual (AD&D's first book) had been published)

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Collector's Edition — The original game of swords and sorcery role-playing with paper and pencil, in its original format. This is the game that started it all! Three booklets, boxed).

No price was listed.

I am not sure which newsletter or publication first saw that term - roleplaying - crop up, but the original use of the world 'role' was in a different sense than we use it now as regards this hobby.

There were three roles to be fulfilled in a group of adventurers, and those roles were Fighter, Magic User, and Cleric. (That's in Men and Magic, p. 6)

Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Thereafter they will work upwards — if they survive — as they gain "experience". First, however, it is necessary to describe fully the roles possible.
CHARACTERS:
There are three (3) main classes of characters:
Fighting-Men
Magic-Users
Clerics

They are roles, and they are also classes. You can also argue that elf and dwarf were roles too, if you'd like.

And no, nit picking about the word choices or ambiguity made in a rush-to-publish-volume-or-three are not worth further time for the simple reason that over time those terms took on new connotations in this game form.

I suspect that Jon Peterson (Playing at the World) may have figured out which place first saw this term published, but I suspect that it had been used at cons and in conversation long before that. (He has done some incredible deep dives into original notes and fragments ...)

[Psyren]

And those can be useful. I think they're most useful when they're fairly broad and not strict, and when there's enough core similarity that advice for one is applicable to the others more often than not.

Like, "is X a Soulslike?" is a useful question to answer things like:

1. Is advice for other Soulslike games generally applicable or not?
2. Will someone that likes other Soulslike things also like this?

#1 won't always apply, of course. But if the answers to them both are "yes" most of the time, then it's probably useful to keep them under the same umbrella. If the answers are almost always "no" then they shouldn't be.

Unfortunately a lot of times people hyper-focus on some pet feature they like in the umbrella, and get unnecessarily strict (or overly broad) so that the usefulness of the term is lost.

#2 is the more valuable question, but for me, what's important is why. Why would someone who likes Dark Souls enjoy Bloodborne, or Hollow Knight, or Remnant From The Ashes? I'd argue in most cases (not all, but most) they do, so it's important to understand what aspects those games have in common that warrant them getting a label like that.

For me the best treatise on the subject of game genre continues to be Extra Credits Aesthetics of Play:


It's aimed at video games primarily, but a lot of it applies to board and tabletop just as well imo. To wit: "If you start to think carefully about game genres, and really dissect them, you'll find that there are a few core aesthetics that almost every game within any given currently accepted genre will have in common. That is how we know genres, and that's how we know instinctively that certain games don't fit in with the rest." For most TTRPGs, I'd say the core aesthetics are (in no particular order) Fantasy, Expression, Community and Narrative. And then you can layer on mechanics (like rolling a die and comparing it to a target number, or having a speed stat that controls how far you can move in a turn) and dynamics (collections of mechanics) that work together to deliver those aesthetics through play.

[Azuresun]

Controversial answer: It doesn't matter what is and is not an RPG. What matters is if you enjoy the use of your time to engage with the game or not.

Needless classification, niche- making and gate-keeping is not necessary. It does not add any clarity and is may actually be counter-productive to the end goal of enjoying your time.

Objection--that's not controversial in the least.

[KorvinStarmast]

For me the best treatise on the subject of game genre continues to be Extra Credits Aesthetics of Play.

Bravo, nice link. The fellowship/teamwork aspect is one of the aesthetics that draws me to games on line (even LoL, with its hard core competition, is loaded with teamwork elements). I also play Hearthstone these days with a heavy dose of Abnegation as the appeal. (Yes, it's competitive, but I am not someone ever at risk of going to a championship match). I think that the teamwork aspect of a lot of TTRPGs is a core of their appeal - be it Traveller, shadowrun, D&D, Dungeon World - and that is why MGS is so jarring when it is encountered.

@Easy e: another vote for "blue text not necessary."

[Willie the Duck]

I think in this case that's probably better served by something closer to "subgenres", as I suspect most players of a large number of these games would argue they are playing RPGs. Call them "narrative RPGs" or the like.

I tend to use 'storygame' for things closer to Microscope or Fiasco rather than Fate and Apocalypse World.

For this reason, I'd almost say this would work better using a flags/tags model than a category one. The Max's of world are going to dislike something like Fate regardless of whether it fits into a shared consensus category of either 'storygame' or 'narrative RPG,' or worse yet the game end up in another bin like 'one shot' or 'GM-less game' because those were overriding categories. Instead, I'd think they could benefit from game X being labelled 'Roleplaying game [multi-player, multi-session, DMed, warning: contains codified narrative-control mechanics].'

[Burley]

I think on this concept a lot, when I'm playing video games. Why is Final Fantasy an RPG and Legend of Zelda is also an RPG?

When am I not playing a role in a game, right? I guess, like, Tetris? So, is it an RPG because there's maths and level ups, or because I decide what my character will do, in and out of combat, by way of listed selectable options? Does the input matter? Does the system matter? Is it about the narrative or the gameplay?

I can say that I love RPGs and it holds true for Tactical RPGs, JRPGs, Action RPGs, Tabletop RPGs, etc. But those are all pretty different, in concept and in practice. I know an RPG when I see it, but I can't tell you what it is. But, it's not a catch-all term. You can tack level-ups and equipment and damage numbers onto an Assassin's Creed game, but its not gonna fool me into calling it an RPG.
Why do I think of Kingdom Hearts to be an Action RPG, but not Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, when they're all mechanically about pressing X until it's time to press Triangle? They all have equipment and skills to unlock and you gain [currency] from defeating enemies that is spent toward making your character stronger. Is it because KH calls it experience points and DMC calls it red souls (or whatever, haven't played in a while).

Many RPGs, especially JRPGs, use the silent protagonist trope to identify that you, the player, will be Playing the Role. You'll have allies and enemies, but you are this person and you can name them. They don't speak, because that's you and hearing yourself speak would create a cognitive dissonance. But, isn't Doom Guy is a silent protagonist, with a skill tree and upgrades? Is it not an RPG because I don't select the letters to name him, even though he's Grim Harold in my head?

So, maybe an RPG is something where you play as a role (presumably the hero), making choices on their behalf that will affect the experiences the character has. But, also, I have to be able to see the characters' stats and how they effect and are effected by the rest of the world.

[kyoryu]

For this reason, I'd almost say this would work better using a flags/tags model than a category one. The Max's of world are going to dislike something like Fate regardless of whether it fits into a shared consensus category of either 'storygame' or 'narrative RPG,' or worse yet the game end up in another bin like 'one shot' or 'GM-less game' because those were overriding categories. Instead, I'd think they could benefit from game X being labelled 'Roleplaying game [multi-player, multi-session, DMed, warning: contains codified narrative-control mechanics].'

100%! I am completely in favor of tag-based models overall.

[Max_Killjoy]

Many of the computer games called "RPGs" aren't really RPGs, I think, because they lack for choice space.

They're much more like acting out a role within a story with some degree of freedom as to how, but always going to the same ending or a very fixed or only superficially different set of endings. Solutions to problems that aren't coded into the game, are impossible to choose. If The Story relies on an NPC betraying you, then that's always going to happen, no matter what. If The Story relies on the character holding the idiot ball, they're going to hold it no matter what the player does or chooses.

[Berenger]

Is freeform roleplaying actually roleplaying?

I‘d say it‘s roleplaying, but not a roleplaying game.

[kyoryu]

Many of the computer games called "RPGs" aren't really RPGs, I think, because they lack for choice space.

They're much more like acting out a role within a story with some degree of freedom as to how, but always going to the same ending or a very fixed or only superficially different set of endings. Solutions to problems that aren't coded into the game, are impossible to choose. If The Story relies on an NPC betraying you, then that's always going to happen, no matter what. If The Story relies on the character holding the idiot ball, they're going to hold it no matter what the player does or chooses.

So are heavily railroaded RPGs RPGs? Many of them offer less choice space than your typical BioWare game.

[Psyren]

Bravo, nice link. The fellowship/teamwork aspect is one of the aesthetics that draws me to games on line (even LoL, with its hard core competition, is loaded with teamwork elements). I also play Hearthstone these days with a heavy dose of Abnegation as the appeal. (Yes, it's competitive, but I am not someone ever at risk of going to a championship match). I think that the teamwork aspect of a lot of TTRPGs is a core of their appeal - be it Traveller, shadowrun, D&D, Dungeon World - and that is why MGS is so jarring when it is encountered.

Indeed - and I think a lot of AAA games have gotten more expansive over the years and so deliver on multiple aesthetics. Hearthstone has many different sub-games inside it, varying from the standard constructed PvP Ladder Play mode, Duels, Arena, Battlegrounds, the various singleplayer roguelike modes that debuted in Kobolds & Catacombs, the singleplayer constructed boss rush modes like Karazhan, the pure puzzle modes in Boomsday and so on. We even started getting narrative-heavy modes in Into The Barrens+ that delve into Azeroth's history and lore.

But I digress.

Many of the computer games called "RPGs" aren't really RPGs, I think, because they lack for choice space.

They're much more like acting out a role within a story with some degree of freedom as to how, but always going to the same ending or a very fixed or only superficially different set of endings. Solutions to problems that aren't coded into the game, are impossible to choose. If The Story relies on an NPC betraying you, then that's always going to happen, no matter what. If The Story relies on the character holding the idiot ball, they're going to hold it no matter what the player does or chooses.

I understand why you feel this way and what your standards are for roleplaying - but personally, I don't think a definition of RPG that excludes things like Dragon Age, Skyrim, Deus Ex and even The Witcher is especially useful. We'd likely have to agree to disagree on that.

(Not to mention that these objections apply even to D&D CRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment and Neverwinter Nights, as well as spiritual successors like Pillars of Eternity and Divinity Original Sin.)

[kyoryu]

I honestly feel that CRPGs are different enough from TTRPGs (maybe not inherently, but due to current technological limitations) that trying to apply definitions across them doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense, and will just muddy the waters.

[Max_Killjoy]

So are heavily railroaded RPGs RPGs? Many of them offer less choice space than your typical BioWare game.

There is a line beyond which a railroaded RPG isn't an RPG, it's just the GM storytelling and expecting the players to play along.

I honestly feel that CRPGs are different enough from TTRPGs (maybe not inherently, but due to current technological limitations) that trying to apply definitions across them doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense, and will just muddy the waters.

Which is part of why I don't like CPRGs being called RPGs -- calling them RPGs leads to that exact confusion that they are the same thing or similar enough to be treated as the same thing.

[NichG]

The most open CRPGS are more open to choices and to character immersion than many tabletop RPGs... Things go back and forth, and both mediums have a range of levels of execution. CRPGs have a peculiar strength for immersion that tabletop can struggle with - you can spend a lot of time doing things which are only meaningful to you and don't have to respect spotlight sharing or pacing of others at the table. In something like Skyrim or Fallout 4, you can spend hours on highly personal base customization, decoration, domestic ritual, etc. Hard to do that in a tabletop game without boring everyone else...

Rather than 'everything should be in a neat box to avoid muddiness', I'd say its interesting to look at places where you get unexpected advantages or difficulties towards executing a particular vision, and learning from that to the betterment of both.

[Batcathat]

While CRPGs are their own thing, with their own strengths and weaknesses, I think the term is pretty reasonable. That said, it's not always used very well. I think something like Skyrim or Fallout is enough like their tabletop relatives for the term to make sense, but then you have games like Diablo where the "RPG" basically stands for "you have stats and they can change over time" where I think the term is less apt. Obviously there are a lot of grey areas and subjective opinions.

[Witty Username]

I do wish Diablo was refereed to more often as a hack and slash. That genre better describes its mode of play in my mind. That being said, I do remember the first Diablo having some intriguing in an RP way features, what quests to peruse and approaches to take, maybe it was the dungeon running that left me that impression though, it was long ago for me.

That does get into some interesting things like something having RPG features without being an RPG, DungeonHack comes to mind, with it being made with the AD&D ruleset, but you are delving a dungeon hack & slash style rather than worldbuilding, interacting socially or whatever else.

How much do people feel character creation is important to RPGs?

[Batcathat]

How much do people feel character creation is important to RPGs?

That's an interesting question. It's certainly one of my favorite parts of RPGs, but I wouldn't say it's necessary. If someone published a game that didn't include it, I would probably be hesitant to try it but I wouldn't say it wasn't an RPG.

[Vahnavoi]

How much do people feel character creation is important to RPGs?

A roleplaying game needs characters, so someone will need to create them.

That someone doesn't need to be a player, though. Preset characters made by a game designer or a game master work just fine.

[Psyren]

I honestly feel that CRPGs are different enough from TTRPGs (maybe not inherently, but due to current technological limitations) that trying to apply definitions across them doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense, and will just muddy the waters.

Which is part of why I don't like CPRGs being called RPGs -- calling them RPGs leads to that exact confusion that they are the same thing or similar enough to be treated as the same thing.

It's true CRPGs and TTRPGs are not the same thing - but as I posited above, what defines a genre is not how you treat it but rather the reasons you play it, i.e. the core aesthetics you're looking to experience. The biggest core difference between CRPGs and TTRPGs is Community (since the former are most often played solo, and even the multiplayer ones tend to be very different than the latter) but the other three big ones like Narrative, Fantasy and Expression are all there.

That's an interesting question. It's certainly one of my favorite parts of RPGs, but I wouldn't say it's necessary. If someone published a game that didn't include it, I would probably be hesitant to try it but I wouldn't say it wasn't an RPG.

A roleplaying game needs characters, so someone will need to create them.

That someone doesn't need to be a player, though. Preset characters made by a game designer or a game master work just fine.

Agreed, and I'll go a step further. If you join a D&D table at a convention or a FLGS for example, and they hand you a pregen character sheet - are you no longer playing D&D at that point? Are you no longer playing an RPG?

The core aesthetic of Expression is tied to character creation, sure, but you can also express yourself through a character after they've been built - the actions you choose to make, your behaviors in the "three pillars" most TTRPGs use, and last but not least, the build choices you make with that character after it's been created. Even a barebones CRPG like Diablo lets you configure your build as you level, never mind something like Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's true CRPGs and TTRPGs are not the same thing - but as I posited above, what defines a genre is not how you treat it but rather the reasons you play it, i.e. the core aesthetics you're looking to experience. The biggest core difference between CRPGs and TTRPGs is Community (since the former are most often played solo, and even the multiplayer ones tend to be very different than the latter) but the other three big ones like Narrative, Fantasy and Expression are all there.

Even if I agree with "why you play it?" as a defining feature (which I have some issue with, especially given the reasons specifically listed), the "why you play it?" of the two is different enough to not call them the same thing.

CRPGs lack a level of openness that's key to why I'd choose to play a TTRPG instead -- character options are much more constrained, and you WILL be following along with a pretold story, any choices or branching outcomes won't change the actual outcome or overall plot, just some details. You'll never be able to pretend to join the BBEG, or actually join the BBEG, if those aren't prewritten options.

A strongly railroaded tabletop campaign also largely, IMO, fails to be an RPG for the same reasons... it's just DM's Story Time.

[Psyren]

I agree that CRPGs have a more constrained possibility space, but I disagree that that disqualifies them from being RPGs in practice. Take your example of joining the BBEG - yes in theory that's possible in a TTRPG like D&D, but in the vast vast majority of them that just doesn't happen, or at best it's a fail state like it would be in a CRPG that offers the same option (insert spoilery example here like J*** E**** or K****.) D&D doesn't suddenly stop being an RPG because the Big Bad is Shar and joining her means no more campaign world to play in for example.