I have my own opinions, close to Pundit and many others around here of what an RPG is and isn't. However, I'm willing to give a game like WFRP3 the benefit of the doubt for now. So I realize that there's a split somewhere in there.

On the other side from me, there are the people who seem to think that calling something an RPG makes it one.

So how about you? When does a game stop being an RPG for you?

I do realize this will turn into a flamewar, but hopefully it will be entertaining, and some useful stuff will come out of it in the process.

Step 1- Someone will contend that games where a battlemat or other physical artifacts are needed to play BtB are no loger RPGs, but boardgames.

Step 2- D&D 4E will be tagged.

Step 3- The 4E defense brigade will move to the sound of battle: their "favorite game" being attacked.

Step 4- At least 30 pages of needless personal attacks will ensue.

Step 5- I'll still read the thread for sheer entertainment value.

All snark aside, I think that the question you pose is actually quite intriguing.  I'm inclined to think that going too far towards boardgame mechanics makes an RPG become a boardgame, but going too far the other direction makes an RPG become cooperative story hour.

The specifics on where those two borders exist, though, will largely be a matter of taste and opinion for each person.

For me, I need to give it some more thought before I can articulate my opinion.

For me, if people still play roles, and it's a game, then it's an RPG. I'm not a purist. That doesn't mean I will automatically like the result, mind!

-clash

Thanks for the replies. I ask this question because I tend to agree with Clash's post, but my current game in progress has an abstract combat system that superficially resembles a board game.

For me, the line is when you start taking things away:

-The GM and player roles
-Freedom of choice to take any action within a character's power
-Freedom to run any type of story that can conceivably happen in a setting.
-Rules that serve as a framework for the game. Though I prefer them to represent the "physics" of the setting, I'd still consider something an RPG if it did the rest. I just might not play it.

Stuff like that. I'm not so concerned with how you get there, just that you can do the things above and more.

The idealized form is a book, some dice, paper, pencil, a group of player and a referee. Each player playing an individual character that advances in capabilities as challenges in the campaign are overcome. Each session is linked to the previous session in plot.

However this idealized form started in miniature wargaming. So there this large area where there is a lot of intermediate steps leading to the idealized form above. Many of these intermediate steps continued to be used to this day.

So defining an exact break point is an exercise in futility. The extremes are easily seen as different forms of gaming but the middle is a muddled mess subject to personal preference.

To make matter worse even in the idealized form you could use a wargame to resolve some aspect of the game. For example the player leading an army.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;340457Thanks for the replies. I ask this question because I tend to agree with Clash's post, but my current game in progress has an abstract combat system that superficially resembles a board game.

See In Harm's Way: Aces in Spaces, IHW: Aces And Angels, and IHW: Wild Blue. Air combat is pretty much a board game, pushing markers around on an abstract flow chart. No one has ever said they aren't RPGs. I wouldn't worry about that, MM.

-clash

Here's my opinion.  I'll define what RPGs are, not what they aren't.

- A face to face game played at a table.
- Players take on fictional roles.
- Players share an imagined space where their characters exist.
- Randomization or resource management or a combination is used to determine actions or evens in this imagined space.

Really, that's all I need.  If you're not at a table, not playing a role, not in an imagined space, or don't have some kind of rules for things that happen, you probably aren't playing an RPG.

If the author claims it's an RPG that's good enough for me. I don't see a ton of value in getting this categorization precise, though.

Edit: except as a way to bash things I don't like, of course.

Quote from: Maddman;340462Here's my opinion.  I'll define what RPGs are, not what they aren't.

- A face to face game played at a table.
- Players take on fictional roles.
- Players share an imagined space where their characters exist.
- Randomization or resource management or a combination is used to determine actions or evens in this imagined space.

Really, that's all I need.  If you're not at a table, not playing a role, not in an imagined space, or don't have some kind of rules for things that happen, you probably aren't playing an RPG.

So you an't role play over a Vid link? or to extend it over a Virtual environment or a wiki then its not an RPG?

Quote from: Halfjack;340465If the author claims it's an RPG that's good enough for me. I don't see a ton of value in getting this categorization precise, though.

Edit: except as a way to bash things I don't like, of course.

If one isn't playing roles and/or it's not a game, I would be a bit upset if I bought it as an RPG. I'm not going to castigate it publicly, though, especially if I liked it anyway. I may be wrong about the roles/games thing, and my taste is manifestly not everyone's. Particularly RPGNet's...

-clash

Roleplaying: Players assume the role of characters in a story/adventure/scenario (whatever you want to call it) and decide how those characters act and react to situations encountered in the course of play.  A GM may or may not be present as well.

Game: There are rules to determine the success and failure of the actions of the player characters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;340466So you an't role play over a Vid link? or to extend it over a Virtual environment or a wiki then its not an RPG?

I have to chime in with this.
I have 2 live groups and one online group, and the online group has better roleplay than the live ones do, sometimes.

Two considerations.

1. Does the game product itself lay claim to "belonging to the genre of RPGs" (by e.g. saying this on its cover)?

If the answer here is yes, that's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for it  actually being a RPG (see the respective examples of OD&D and [insert game you'd like to knock on]), but it's a good indication as to which market the producer wants to tap into, which shelf area in stores he wants the product to hit and so on. And maybe that's all that really counts in a number of debates surrounding the difficult "is it a RPG or not?" question. See, sometimes the more interesting question isn't "does this neatly fit everyone's understanding of a RPG?" but "could this usefully expand the market of RPGs?". Case in point, Warhammer 3rd.

2. Does the game lend itself well to roleplaying, irrespective of its publisher's claims and intentions with the game?

I have experienced sessions of Runebound and Arkham Horror where people acted out what happened to their characters in all sorts of hilarious and wonderful ways, bringing about ten times more inter-party banter (all conducted in character voice) than some combat heavy D&D 4E sessions I've been in. That doesn't slide these boardgames into the RPG area, or lessen 4E's credits as a RPG. But these experiences color my personal assessment of these games with respect to their "RPG aptitude". And infinitely more so any marketing campaign or forum discussion ever could. Problems only arise when people mount general claims based on personal experiences and, in the process of doing so, knock other people's experience.

Quote from: Maddman;340462Here's my opinion.  I'll define what RPGs are, not what they aren't.

- A face to face game played at a table.

You jumped the shark right there, man.

Most of my groups over the years have played at couches, not around a table.

I'll go ahead and tag 4E: It's as close to the line without exiting RPG as I've seen.

Battlestations! (Gorilla Games, 2004) is an RPG with a board. It's sold as a board game, but at it's heart, it's got all the elements I need for RPG:

1) Each player controls a single character, which may be of their own creation.
2) the player has sole control over what the character attempts to do.
3) one participant is deemed to not be a player, but instead a gamemaster
4) the gamemaster picks the scenario
5) the gamemaster informs the players of the results of their characters' actions
6) much of the action occurs as narrative above and beyond the movement of bits on board
7) character success can be measured by means other than success at the scenarios