Just What Is a Role-Playing Game, Anyway?

by Andy Church 

Let's step backwards in time to the 1970s for a bit. A company called TSR had just come out with a novel idea: a game in which most of the elements were left up to the players, a game with a truly infinite variety of incarnations. You may have heard of it: Dungeons & Dragons. Unlike traditional games such as Monopoly or bridge, D&D was very open-ended; players were not constrained by strict rules and procedures, but could do virtually anything they wanted (imagine robbing the bank in Monopoly!) in the guise of characters which they created. For all intents and purposes, the players were actually living in their fantasy world, rather than simply playing a game. Thus was born the "role-playing game."

What is it that makes a role-playing game a role-playing game? While it is difficult to pin down an exact set of characteristics for any class of games, we can find a few things that distinguish RPGs from other types of tabletop games--or CRPGs (substitute either console or computer; both are appropriate) from other types of computer games. One is length: tabletop RPGs can go on indefinitely, and CRPGs typically last from several tens to hundreds of hours. Another is the story-like nature of RPGs, and the focus on completing a goal, not on obtaining the highest (or lowest) possible score as determined by some preset metric.

A third difference is the lack of restrictions on actions--but is this really true for CRPGs? No, not really. We do not--at least not yet--have the technology to enable a computer to predict and respond to every action a player might want to make. So here we see a marked difference between classic tabletop RPGs, like D&D, and CRPGs, like Final Fantasy or Ultima. And as others have pointed out, there are differences between console games like Final Fantasy and computer games like Ultima as well.

So when we talk about a "role-playing game," what do we really mean? I believe that there is no single, absolute answer to this question. One can say that a role-playing game is "a game where you control a fictional character or characters and pursue a goal"--but doesn't Super Mario Bros. fit that description as well? I don't consider it one--but I can see how someone could. Or one could say that a role-playing game is "a game that has a distinct novel-like plot"--but early incarnations of D&D (at least) were simply "go find the treasure and kill the monsters," and there are many games commonly considered RPGs (take NetHack, for example) which are only that. Or how about, "An RPG is a game like the Final Fantasy series." Well, that obviously includes the Final Fantasy games. But what does "like" mean?

Given this wide range of games that are generally considered role-playing games, I see little point in arguing over how "RPG-like" a certain game is; the answer will vary from person to person. Don Wang, for example, in his editorial "The Lack of Role Playing Elements in Recent Squaresoft Games," cites several "role-playing elements" lacking in FFVII. In response, Tomm Hulett argues in "A Defense of RPG Elements in Squaresoft's Games" that FFVII is more RPG-like because it lacks those elements. All that Wang and Hulett have really accomplished is to state what they find enjoyable in role-playing games. Myself, I have a different opinion from both Wang and Hulett. There is certainly nothing wrong with giving one's opinion of a game--what is wrong is claiming that a game does or does not measure up to some objective "RPG standard." There is none such.

TSR, Dungeons & Dragons, and D&D are trademarks of TSR, Inc. Other game names are trademarks of their respective owners.