I would put it this way:

-----
An RPG is a game in which one of more people ("players") take on the role of single entities ("player characters"), and a single other person ("referee/GM/etc") adjudicates the actions of the player characters, and has the power to alter the rules.

Strictly, written rules, dice, paper, etc. are not necessarily, although they are customary.
-----

This definition can be found by tracing the history that lead up to the first published game unanimously agreed to be an RPG, D&D:

The Prussian wargame Kriegspiel, which originated about 1811, had a variant called Free Kriegspiel, in which a referee was allowed to change the rules to accommodate any unusual tactics the players might attempt. However, this game would probably not be considered an RPG.

To my knowledge, the first true RPG was Braunstein, a game based on wargame rules in which each player took control of a single character, and the referee (Major David Wesely) adjudicated their actions. Dave Arneson, coauthor of the original Dungeons & Dragons, was a player in the 4th session of this game (it wasn't really a campaign, just separate confrontations). You can read more about Braunstein here.

The first published RPG (and thus the archetype for purpose of definition) was titled and subtitled Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. The books don't directly give a definition of the game; they assume that you understand what a wargame is. It presents itself as a variation on wargaming.

Thus, the things needed for something to be an RPG are players with single characters, and a GM who can make up new rules.

Quote from: flyingmice;340539I'm not throwing up my hands! I'm saying let's agree to disagree. That way we can talk without hate-filled rancor. Where each of us is going to draw the line is arbitrary, so let's stop pretending it's something objective on any side. It's purely subjective, and any attempt to make our particular favorite boundary condition seem anything else is just rationalizing. if we can accept these things as matters of taste rather than matters of principle, the sooner we can discuss them as they really are.

Quote from: jeff37923;340546No offense, but I think it is a cop-out to say that there can only be subjective definitions of what a RPG is. There can be an objective, testable definition of a RPG and with that a discussion can actually progress.

I'm not sure if I differ from Clash or not on this, but here's how I would put it: I think people have good reasons for defining something as an RPG or not. Those are usually intelligible and rational, and often quite rigorous and testable. But they're not universal. Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."

Quote from: jeff37923;340546No offense, but I think it is a cop-out to say that there can only be subjective definitions of what a RPG is. There can be an objective, testable definition of a RPG and with that a discussion can actually progress.

There might be one and we could certainly invent one. The real question is whether that's more useful than the author's claim. I suggest that it's not, except when one wants to use it to bludgeon someone.

If you had a perfect, objective definition, what would you do with it?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340556Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."

Hmmm. I think if someone responds to a thread like this one and says something to the effect of "an rpg is a game wherein most participants control a singular character in creating a fiction situation in an interactive manner, often with the assistance of at least one player responsible for presenting or adjudicating situations", there's a good chance he's not saying that just because he doesn't like games that don't exactly fit that.

If someone starts an inflammatory thread or makes a blog post* to the effect that some game that obviously really chaps their hide and manufactures a set of "testable criteria" that their own favored games will obviously pass but games they dislike obviously won't, then yeah, it's most likely accurate to say "what they really mean is they don't like it."

* - yes, John Wick, I am looking at you

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340556I'm not sure if I differ from Clash or not on this, but here's how I would put it: I think people have good reasons for defining something as an RPG or not. Those are usually intelligible and rational, and often quite rigorous and testable. But they're not universal. Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."

Why not ? Because that's what it normally comes down to. Saying "X isn't an RPG" is easier than saying "X is a different kind of RPG compared to what I like" - esp since X more often than not plays like any other game. In other words "those good reasons" are normally just preferences and should be discussed as such.

Regards,
David R

First you will have to reconcile

"X is a different kind of RPG compared to what I like"

with

"X more often than not plays like any other game".

Otherwise one is going to have a lot of trouble getting one's point across.

Also, there are lots of RPGs I don't like, or at least have zero interest in, but I don't think of them as "not RPGs". So the two statements, "dislike" and "not an RPG", aren't congruent. QED.

Quote from: Hieronymous Rex;340555To my knowledge, the first true RPG was Braunstein, a game based on wargame rules in which each player took control of a single character, and the referee (Major David Wesely) adjudicated their actions. Dave Arneson, coauthor of the original Dungeons & Dragons, was a player in the 4th session of this game (it wasn't really a campaign, just separate confrontations). You can read more about Braunstein here.

The first published RPG (and thus the archetype for purpose of definition) was titled and subtitled Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. The books don't directly give a definition of the game; they assume that you understand what a wargame is. It presents itself as a variation on wargaming.

Thus, the things needed for something to be an RPG are players with single characters, and a GM who can make up new rules.

HR, you might find this interesting: http://ewilen.livejournal.com/tag/braunstein

Through Elliot Wilen's link, I found a pertinent quote from Wesely:

QuoteThe idea of having an all-powerful Referee who would invent the scenario for the game (battle) of the evening, provide for hidden movement and deal with anything the players decided thatthey wanted to do was not taken from Kriegspeil but was mostly inspired by 'Strategos, The American Game of War', a training manual for US army wargames Lt. Charles Adiel Lewis Totten, USMA 1871, publshed by Doubleday in 1880.

This changes the RPG lineage a bit, I suppose.

Also this:

QuoteBy the way, I did not like the term "role-playing game" when it appeared, as "role playing games" that had nothing to do with what we were doing, already existed: The term was already being used for (1) a tool used to train actors for improvisation (an example being the Cheese Shop Game since imortalized by Monty Python) and (2) a tool used for group therapy and psychiatric analysis ("Pretend you are an animal.  What kind of an animal do you want to be? How does your aniimal feel about Janet?") And using this already overloaded name did not help us look less nutty. I favored "Adventure Game" but that was siezed-upon at the time as a replacement for "Hobby Game" or "Adult Game", and now we are stuck with "RPG".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340556I'm not sure if I differ from Clash or not on this, but here's how I would put it: I think people have good reasons for defining something as an RPG or not. Those are usually intelligible and rational, and often quite rigorous and testable. But they're not universal. Nevertheless it's a load of bollocks to respond to someone's claim that "X isn't an RPG" by saying "What they really mean is they don't like it."

That's precisely my point, Eliot. People differ, and exactly where a line gets drawn depends on the person. Even if you frame it beautifully with words, the meaning of those words will differ slightly from person to person, and that sought-for precision slips away. Words are not numbers, and treating them as numbers is putting a square peg in a round hole. We define words by other words, and those words by still more. Words evoke a concept, and those concepts will differ. Is "bread" warm, homemade, and fresh from the over, or cold, spongiform, and fresh from the plastic wrapper? Bagette or sourdough? Buttered or without? These inflections color words, and while you and I could both look at a slice and both say "That's bread!", we may look at different slice and one will say "Bread!" while the other shouts "Cake!", because there are things on the borderland of bread and cake, which partake somewhat of both, and the difference is in our minds, not in the slice.

-clash

Actually no reconciliation is needed. IME people recognize descriptions of gaming activity even though they may have no interest in the specific game itself. It may deviate from the way how "they do things" but it does conform to what they consider "gaming" in general.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;340564Also, there are lots of RPGs I don't like, or at least have zero interest in, but I don't think of them as "not RPGs". So the two statements, "dislike" and "not an RPG", aren't congruent. QED.

Sure when it comes to you. When it comes to the rhetoric of others - not QED. BTW what games are not RPGs in your opinion?

Edit : Brother, we have been over this before. I remember Sett's thread about Forger & Thematics or something like that. If I recall I mostly agreed with you.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Monster Manuel;340451When does a game stop being an RPG for you?

When it doesn't say so on the cover.

Quote from: Imp;340501Additional complication: basically any RPG can be played as a non-RPG, typically by ditching the roleplaying elements entirely and going pure skirmish boardgame with it (...).

I'm sure there are other non-RPG ways to play RPGs but I can't think of them right now.

Trade simulation game via Traveller.
One person, one book, lots of tables and dice.

When you put it on the shelf as part of a collection and don't play it.

It stops being an RPG when:

a. It stops being centrally about players playing a Role. For example, if the idea of "players making a story" is more important than the individual roles they're playing.
b. It stops being about the GM emulating the world. So if players have the power to meta-affect the world outside of their own character's actions. Likewise if the sense of emulation is placed secondary to other concerns (ie. "story").
c. It stops being a game. If its meant to be a therapy exercise or an educational tool or a business seminar aid, then its not an RPG in our sense of the word.  Likewise if it is presented as avant-garde "Art" or some kind of "mental exercise" which has no actual game value, ie. "misery tourism".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;340633It stops being an RPG when:

Quote from: RPGPundit;340633a. It stops being centrally about players playing a Role. For example, if the idea of "players making a story" is more important than the individual roles they're playing.

I think I probably agree with that actually.

Quote from: RPGPundit;340633b. It stops being about the GM emulating the world. So if players have the power to meta-affect the world outside of their own character's actions. Likewise if the sense of emulation is placed secondary to other concerns (ie. "story").

Adventure! and Buffy the Vampire Slayer aren't rpgs?  Really?  I think this one's a bit absolute, some meta-mechanics don't stop it being an rpg, it's when they go from being a supplement to the general rules to being the general rules that possibly a line is crossed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;340633c. It stops being a game. If its meant to be a therapy exercise or an educational tool or a business seminar aid, then its not an RPG in our sense of the word.  Likewise if it is presented as avant-garde "Art" or some kind of "mental exercise" which has no actual game value, ie. "misery tourism".

RPGPundit

Obviously, though I'm not sure Grey Ranks is meant as a therapy session, educational tool or business aid nor that it's presented as "art" or a "mental exercise".

We all had names though, that is meant as an educational tool, and so your test would apply.