Talk:Role-playing game

Archives
November 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 - August 2006 September 2008 - February 2009

Storytelling sentence

User:E. Edgeworth (editing previously as User:71.48.230.139) has removed the sentence "Role-playing games are a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling" multiple times. Not only do I (and, I'm assuming, User:IanCheesman, who has previously reverted E. Edgeworth's edits) believe the sentence is factually correct, but it is sourced to an article by John H. Kim (as are several other claims in the article). I've asked E. to bring this to Talk but he has thus far refused. I wouldn't object to the sentence's removal if contrary sources can be found, but as it stands it's backed up. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am against this particular statement myself. Roleplaying games are not necessarily "cooperative storytelling". They are games that give each player a role, and is supposed to deal with a series of situations developed by a referee. The term "role" here is rather loose, depending on the game in question. It could be as simple as "thief", or as complex as a character from a novel. While a narrative element is obviously present, as all players and referee describe their actions and decissions, this is not necessarily storytelling (a "story" in this particular sense, being refered to as a narrative with a plot). Storytelling is currently the most popular style of running a roleplaying game, but is by no means the only one. A cursory look at the mechanics and style of several games is evidence for this statement. While games like Deliria, by Phil Brucato aim to create a shared storytelling experience, games like Recon, by Erick Wujcik do not, and in fact require little or no plot development in order to be carried out. The arguments of what constitutes a "proper" roleplaying game constitute a heated debate in the community, and taking a side will make this article rather biased.

On a related note, I'd advice against using (for example) John Kim's article as supporting evidence. While respected, his writing constitutes an opinion piece, and should be viewed as such. Referencing him as a source of fact is not a good idea. Punga (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All references are to opinion pieces, to some degree; to label his as 'mere opinion' and avoid using him as a reference is to push the POV that he's wrong. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"An Introduction to Tabletop RPGs" states: "It is a bit like cooperative storytelling" (emphasis added). "A bit like" is notthe same as is. This source is evidence for removal of the offending sentence. Also, in "Role-Playing Games: And Overview", we find: "...a game like Werewolf... that defines itself as a story-telling game rather than a role-playing game". As such, story telling ≠ roleplaying. E. Edgeworth (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2009

I suggest the inclusion of a section that describes types of play, because role-playing games can be collaborative or cooperative, depending on how freely the game master allows her players to create the game world as the story unfolds. To say that the above-referenced sentence from "An Introduction to Tabletop RPGs" is "evidence for removal of the offending sentence" is silly, because the sentence isn't saying that role-playing is not collaborative storytelling by suggesting that it's "a bit like" the latter. If anything, the sentence counts as evidence in favor of keeping the offending sentence. In lieu of creating a new section, the second paragraph could also be modified like so, to get this across: "Most role-playing games are conducted like radio drama: only the spoken component is acted. In most games, one specially designated player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which each player plays the role of a single character.[2] However, the degree to which the GM directs the narrative of the role-playing game varies, as in some groups, the players play a larger role in shaping the narrative through their actions. In this way, role-playing games can be considered a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling." - Daniel J. Quinn 5:25, 22 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.130.117 (talk)

"Role-playing games are a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling."

This line keeps getting fought over, although it seems to me that only one editor has a problem with this line. Can there be some discussion over why this is a problem? It seems to make much sense to me and explain a lot to people who do not understand role-playing games. Any thoughts? - IanCheesman (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a POV statement based on an "ideology" in RPGs. On the contrary, as already noted, Gary Gygax stated that ""Storytelling" games are not RPGs. Neither are "diceless" games." at:<http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/71486-gary-gygax-q-part-v.html>E. Edgeworth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Stating that there is a difference between "storytelling games" and RPGs is different from stating that RPGs aren't a form of storytelling. The very next words from the Gygax post you cited are "An RPG creates a story...". I think what the point the article is conveying is that the players collaboratively create a narrative, as opposed to other genres in which a single author crafts a predetermined story. That seems to be Gygax's point as well. Are we just arguing semantics here?--Trystan (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Trystan's assesment of that quote. The answer that Gygax is answering is not the same one that we are discussing here.

"An RPG creates a story, does not follow a script. That's a play, possibly improv theater. In a real RPG the GM develops a backstory and plot, sets the scenes, and then the PCs interact with those and by their actions create the actual tale, the events and conclusion of which are indeterminate until that occurs."

You ask for references, here are some (I'm sure someone can better format these later for inclusion if needed in the article itself) -

Werewolf the Apocalypse (2nd edition) - Chapter 1 "Introduction" - "Although Werewolf is a game, it is more concerned with storytelling than it is with winning. Werewolf is a tool enabling you to become involved in tales of passion and glory, and to help tell those stories yourself." The beginning of the chapter continues on in this manner. In fact, the entire chapter 3 is titled "Storytelling".

Almost every other World of Darkness handbook has similarly worded sections and phrases.

GURPS (4th edition) - Chapter 1 "What is Roleplaying?" - "But roleplaying is not purely educational. It's also one of the most creative possible entertainments. Most entertainment is passive: the audience just sits and watches, without taking part in the creative process. In roleplaying, the "audience" joins in the creation. The GM is the chief storyteller, but the players are responsible for portraying their characters. If they want something to happen in the story, they make it happen, because they're in the story." Likewise, this continues in a similar vein for a while.

Dungeons and Dragons (4th edition) Player's Handbook - Chapter 1 "A Roleplaying Game" - "A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children." Again continues in this fashion.

Obviously, this is not an extensive list of every roleplaying game or system, nor is it a discussion from a separate source about roleplaying in general. It is, however, the three largest roleplaying game/systems that currently exist, and all three of them allude or outright say that roleplaying games ARE storytelling. - IanCheesman (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a pretty blatant "Appeal To Authority". I don't think I'd accept as infallible the opinion of a book publisher or novelist about what the novel "was", and I don't see any reason to be more reverential towards RPG publishers. Publishers and game designers don't "own" role-playing gaming. RB1956 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Any form of RPG I've ever played was a form of interactive, improvisative storytelling. If there's any other sort, I don't know about it.--Mátyás (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the problem I have with this statement is that it implies that the product of the activity is a story, which I disagree with. It can be one of the products of the game for sure, but it's also possible to have a very fulfilling and fun game where afterword nobody can remember what happened durring the game. Pdarley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Of course, I've watched movies and plays and read books where I couldn't remember anything that happened after I finished... - IanCheesman (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the description in that I'd read "Role-playing games are a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling" as an opinion being presented as a fact, and one that implicitly excludes and delegitimises other attitudes to role-playing gaming. In my experience, some RPG players (especially Gamemasters) are all about the storytelling, some are primarily into the opportunity for acting and characterisation, and some are in it for the gold, XP, levelling-up and "winning". An RPG offers many things to different people, and to suggest that the game "is" only one of them is very POV. RB1956 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we can say that RPGs are a form of storytelling without diminishing the fact that they are dramatic endeavours and games of chance as well. It makes more sense to me to add description of the missing aspects, rather than removing the one that is fleshed out.--Trystan (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The implication here is that RPGs are primarily one thing, but other things as well. I have no problem with saying that RPGs include storytelling, which IMO is a fact. I do object to stating that RPGs are storytelling (i.e. that is their defining characteristic), because I regard that as a POV opinion, and not a fact. RB1956 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on how an expanded section was worded. If we said something along the lines of "RPGs are a form of collaborative storytelling. RPGs are games of chance. RPGs are simulations. RPGs are a form of drama. ..." I don't think it would give the impression that any one of those items was the defining characteristic.

Perhaps summarizing one or two RPG theories from the link provided in the section would help. Then the discussion of the role of storytelling would be more properly cast as a description of one element of RPGs.--Trystan (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

RB1956, you might want to look over Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, particularly this essay. Including the opinions of significant people/groups (in this case, the major RPG publishers) is perfectly acceptable and not POV at all. IanCheesman did some great work above in quoting those people/groups, so I feel strongly that the sentence should stay. However, there is certainly the issue with including references in the article to support the statement, and so far we haven't backed it up beyond the reference to John H. Kim. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the sentence to something like "Major publishers of role-playing games consider them to be a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling", because it's best to say who is making this claim. (Many role-players, such as myself, would probably agree with the original version of the sentence, but our opinions aren't exactly notable. Maybe there's a major survey of role-players that could help here? Anyone know of anything like that?) Mention of other reasons for (or definitions of) role-playing such as Trystan suggests are certainly welcome if they can be sourced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting aside. Right after I say the opinions of individual role-players aren't notable because we aren't notable, Wil Wheaton comes along and says that role-playing is about "tell[ing] a story together" (link possibly NSFW). He's no expert of course, I just found it interesting and maybe something to work into the article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wyatt Riot: Sure, there's no problem with quoting the opinions of game publishers. My problem with an "Appeal To Authority" is where the writer in effect is saying "Look, all these important people agree with my opinion, so it must be a fact!" Quoting opinions is not POV, but I'd say presenting an opinion as a fact is POV. As I said above, I see no problem with saying that RPGs include storytelling, but I do object to stating that RPGs are storytelling (i.e. that is their defining characteristic), because I consider that a POV opinion, regardless of how many RPG publishers and TV celebrities may share it. RB1956 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth, and the only verifiable, reliable sources we have say that role-playing games are a form of interactive storytelling. If you can find other verifiable, reliable sources that state otherwise, then we can certainly include a blurb saying what their opinion is. But until then, we have to write an encyclopedia article around the available references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My remarks above refer to postings here on the talk page, where I thought it was appropriate to discuss the difference between an opinion and a fact, not the article itself. In the article at the moment, the opinion "Role-playing games are a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling" is simply asserted as if it were a fact, without any verifiable citation or source at all. If someone wants to cite the above game-publishers' comments in the article in support of it, that's fine. However the article text should not go beyond the evidence of such citations, and present the comments as something more than opinions. Maybe I'm missing the point and should shut up, but I'm at a loss to understand this determination to declare that RPGs are just one thing. RB1956 (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but I still feel that the Kim reference backs up the claim. PercySnoodle just went and added a cite to Kim after the sentence in question, so I presume that he feels the same way. The above references mentioned by IanCheesman should also be added because they are very clear in supporting the claim. RB1956, I understand what you're saying about the confusion on this page, whether it's about the article or just general chatting about the definition of an RPG. Everything I've said above has been about the article itself, not just a general discussion, per WP:TALK. Sorry if I was a bit obtuse about that. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The absolute statement "Role-playing games are a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling" goes well beyond what the citation supports. The only mention of the word "storytelling" in the cited web-page appears in the sentence "It is a bit like cooperative storytelling -- by announcing and describing to the other players what you are doing, you become part of the ongoing story." (my emphasis added), which is not as definite a statement as the one in the article. Furthermore the citation refers only to a sub-page of Mr. Kim's web-site, that dealing "Narrative Or Table-top Games", not all RPGs. Mr. Kim's main page "What Is A Role-Playing Game?" refers to storytelling only in the context of one sub-set of RPGs. Mr. Kim in fact seems to be comfortable with the idea that RPGs are not just one thing, so his article seems an odd citation for Wikipedians who favour an exclusive definition. RB1956 (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, didn't see this enormous discussion after I made my above comment (previous section)... I have written a possible example of how one could go about solving the problem without making an absolute judgment on what RPGs "are." - DJ Quinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.130.117 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove the POV agenda from role-playing articles

As a once avid fan of both traditional RPGs and video game RPGs, I can state without doubt that all of the articles about role-playing, role-playing games, and computer-based role-playing games here have been edited into misleading nonsense by one or two users with a clear agenda to put forth an archaic and unsupportable point of view about what a "real" role-playing game is or isn't. Your average researcher coming to wikipedia to learn what an RPG is, instead of finding clear information, finds a hackneyed argument on every page about why video games can't possibly be actual RPGs, or why "RPG" really only refers to tabletop RPGs; an argument that defies the majority of reputable sources and plain common sense.

I've put together a decent list of contemporary books, articles, and reputable sites to back up a series of edits I intend to make in the near future. I am suggesting the following:

- Condense the disambiguation page. There is no ambiguity between computer and tabletop role-playing games. They are called "role-playing games" for the same reasons, despite differences of opinion on which titles, media formats, or rule-bases provide the purist role-playing experience. Keep the disambiguation link to roleplay simulation for users looking for more information on those teaching methods.

- Change the main article to include common general information about all role-playing games, based on the main dictionary definitions, and include short descriptions and links to articles on the various specific types that are distinguished by what media, equipment, rules, and players are involved. These types would include tabletop, video games, MUDs/MMORPGs, computer-assisted, and live action, with perhaps some examples of sub-categories. There's a great book I'll cite that narrates through the history of tabletops and video RPGs, noting a seamless progression where basically the software took over as the GM as RPG video-games were introduced. The first paragraph of the current article is good. It turns into POV nonsense afterwards.

- Move most of the content in the main article to tabletop role-playing game(s) instead of redirect, acknowledging the retronym.

- Find and undo the numerous misleading and confusing edits made primarily by a single user to several articles including tabletop, Role-playing game (video games), role-playing, etc., all seemingly aimed at the singular POV agenda of declaring tabeltop RPGs the only true RPGs, and RPG video games a fraudulent impostor.

- Encourage those with a POV agenda on this matter to consider the issue on a broad range of contemporary sources (as opposed to a single 15-yr-old source that clearly acknowledges itself as only applicable in the context of a certain fan base) and at least form a more solid basis of research before editing everything back. Many video games do very much rely on actual role-playing, particularly when judged by the very definitions of role-playing in the existing citations (such as the "my character wouldn't do that" judgment).

Thoughts? --The Yar (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm opposed to this, but with such a huge change across multiple articles, I'd personally like to see the sources first. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say I'm opposed to this - it's pushing Yar's recentist POV over the existing, sourced one. If a reliable source can be found to say that role-playing occurs during video gameplay, in the sense of character-portrayal that the dab note explains, then obviously we should include it; though I'd be very surprised if such a source existed. However, even in that case I'd strongly object to moving the article to 'tabletop' RPG - that flies in the face of WP:NEO and the naming convention on misleading common names. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to support this, though I'd also like to see the sources first. In the lede of this article and Role-playing game (video games), there are several places that strike me as clear opinion. Most notable is the assertion that on-line RPGs don't involve role-playing; a surprising claim not really supported by the single source it is cited to. It seems like the entire current structure of these articles is based on a single website's assertion that "Games interacting with a computer in general do not involve roleplaying."

It's quite a stretch to call "tabletop" a neologism, given its wide spread use, even in academic sources, to distinguish between pen-and-paper RPGs and on-line RPGs. There is a difference between recentism and being reasonably current.--Trystan (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the aspect of neology that's bothersome; it's the misleading idea that the skirmish wargames that RPGs grew out of are the be-all and end-all of the game, when in fact few but the oldest retain that side except as an afterthought. Regarding your comment about online RPGs, I'm not sure quite what you mean. The article includes online text-based role-playing games as a variety of role-playing game. Some versions of the RPG and CRPG articles have mentioned that it's possible to role-play using the chat facilities of online CRPGs, though I don't know whether either do right at the moment; if not, that can be reinserted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow. It is possible to role-play while playing a computer role-playing game? I would have thought it would be impossible not to, by definition. —This is part of a comment by Trystan , which was interrupted by the following:

That depends on your definition. If 'role-playing' is 'whatever happens in games if they are called role-playing games' then yes; but that's a horrendously circular and useless definition; it's sheer sophistry to choose a definition just to make people sound right. If your definition is 'the playing of roles' then no; it isn't, because computers cannot yet recognise concepts like acting 'in character' that are a necessary part of role-playing. Yes, it means that RPG is a poor name for a video game genre. It is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I still don't understand why we are treating many types of RPGs as if they are not RPGs. This family of articles contains several ridiculously POV statements like:

The challenge of producing a video game with which players can interact through role-playing, rather than simply a framework within which they can interact with each other, is yet to be answered.

... a claim which is only very weakly supported in the text of the single website it is cited to. This article seems to be focused almost entirely on pen-and-paper RPGs, and addresses other forms in a comically dismissive fashion. —This is part of a comment by Trystan , which was interrupted by the following:

The article doesn't treat other games as if they were not RPGs; it treats them as if they were not the topic of the page, because they aren't. The video games grew out of RPGs when RPGs were still just skirmish wargames with a little oddity. The video games preserved the skirmish wargame, but could not and still cannot reproduce the role-playing. Most RPGs have all but dropped the skirmish wargame side; only D&D and its imitators still emphasise it. Meanwhile the features of CRPGs have been used so widely within video games that practically all modern games count as an RPG in some sense. So while they share a common heritage they share no common features nowadays and it doesn't make sense to try to cram them into a single article. It's been tried in the past, and it just leads to the marginalisation of RPG content in favour of video game content. There's no sensible way to have an article on 'all things called RPG'.Percy Snoodle (talk)

I think Yar's proposed scheme would make much more sense, with this being a parent article that describes and links to all of the various types of RPGs.

For such a major reorganization, perhaps proceeding by way of Wikipedia:Requested moves would be helpful.--Trystan (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the way to go if you want to go that way. But think, first, what the page on games containing role-playing would be called. "Role-playing games (pen and paper)" or "Role-playing games (tabletop)" would needlessly exclude LARP and online games that are within the topic while at the same time confusing the skirmish wargame at the heart of D&D's combat system for the role-playing; while a more accurate title like "Role-playing games (ones with actual role-playing)" or "Role-playing games (but not video games)" would be, as you put it, "comical". The more sensible thing to do is to accept that the one movement grew out of the other, and to disambiguate the latter movement.

Before we tear down the current structure to replace it with one that's been tried in the past and shown not to work, let's try to fix what we have. You seem to take issue with a lot of the language used in the article; is there a way we can work together to change the tone without changing the (sourced) content? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I originally considered that approach, but I couldn't see it achieving much. Unfortunately the very structure of the RPG articles, how they are named and point to each other, etc., is a major contributing factor to the misinformation right now. Someone hearing the phrase "role-playing game" and coming here for more information is overwhelmingly likely to have heard it in the context of a computer RPG. Such a user needs at the very least to find a general approach to the many current forms of the genre and a clear means of locating the detail they require. Not a convoluted argument as to why they are wrong about RPGs and ended up on an article that they probably weren't looking for. --The Yar (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The difficulties in writing about RPGs, given the various meanings of the term, are spelled out better than I could here: http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html - which I've also added as a second source for the more contraversial claim. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, that source does not support the claim you are using it for; it does not say that role-playing does not occur in CRPGs. It offers three alternative definitions of "role-playing," then says it is adopting the narrow third one without passing judgement on the other two.

My question is, why are we also adopting the narrow third definition of "role-playing", "to refer, specifically, to a type of interactive narrative" and dismissing all other RPGs as inaccurately named impostors? Claiming that RPG is a poor term for CRPGs because it does not meet our favoured, narrow definition is inherently non-NPOV. As an encyclopedia, our definitions need to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Besides, it's only in a very narrow sense that a player in an online game, controlling a character, acting as they think that character would act, and interacting with other player-controlled characters in a persistent game world is not engaged in role-playing. An MMORPG, for example, meets every criteria of an RPG set out in this article's lead paragraph.

If the topic of the article is restricted to a specific type of role playing game, then its title should indicate that. I don't think a title that excludes Live action role playing games is of too much concern, since there is already an article for that type of RPG. Role-playing games (interactive narrative) would be another option, based on the Oracle essay you linked to.

I strongly disagree that there is no way to write a sensible overview article 'on all things RPG'. I think it is quite possible to trace the development of pen-and-paper, computer, and live action role-playing games at a high level with links to the specific articles. Not only possible, but badly needed. It would essentially ground the following scheme:

• Role playing game - presenting widely-used definitions of "RPG" and a brief overview of types of RPG, and how the developed in relation to each other, including:
  • Role playing game (interactive narrative) - mostly the current content of this article
  • Live action role playing game
  • Role-playing game (video games)
    • Computer role-playing game
    • Console role-playing game
    • Massively multiplayer online RPG

--Trystan (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem here is that you've mistaken precision for POV? Whatever their names, role-playing games and role-playing video games share no common defining features, since they use 'role-playing' in different senses; the sources support that, at least. In order to talk about role-playing games, it's necessary to use 'role-playing' in the sense it is used in those games, which is why the article starts by explaining that it will do so. We have articles devoted to the other meanings; but it still doesn't make sense to have an article on the union of disjoint topics. We don't have an article which unifies action movies and action video games, because they're not examples of the same thing. Similarly, we don't have an article which unifies role-playing games and role-playing video games, because they're not examples of the same thing. That doesn't mean - and isn't anywhere said to mean - that either are examples of bad things; so there's no need for you to take any offence or see any agenda here.

The articles at present are structured almost as you suggest, but with slightly different titles; because there's no common thread in the games, there's nothing for the common article to say, so it's a dab page:

• Role-playing#Entertainment provides widely-used definitions of "RPG" and a brief overview of types of RPG, and how the developed in relation to each other, as well as other uses of the term 'role-playing'.
• Role-playing game (disambiguation) points readers to the various root pages on RPGs and video games
  • Role-playing game describes RPGs
    • Live action role-playing game describes the subset of RPGs that are acted
    • Online text-based role-playing game describes RPGs that are played online.
  • Role-playing game (video games) describes the video game genre
    • Computer role-playing game, Console role-playing game, MMORPG and so on describe the varieties of role-playing video game

The only real difference here is that role-playing includes more than just games, and that LARP and OTBRPG are a level down. That's because they are also role-playing games in the sense of this article. While "interactive narrative" is better than "tabletop", it's still too narrow for the scope of this article; it excludes the gamist and simulationist aspects of the hobby. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I disagree that tabletop RPGs and CRPGs share no common defining features (everything in this article's lead paragraph applies to CRPGs), and don't think this is sufficiently supported by the sources. One is the briefly stated opinion of a website author who proclaims himself not to be an expert, and the second source explicitly makes no judgement on CRPGs.

Consider on the other hand this article which traces the development of MUDs from tabletop RPGs and analyzes the strong commonality between their role-playing experiences, rather than arbitrarily drawing a hard line between them. In particular, it states:

All [MUDs] provide worlds for social interaction in a virtual space, worlds in which you can present yourself as a "character," in which you can be anonymous, in which you can play a role as close or as far away from your "real self" as you choose. ... Authorship is is not only displaced from a solitary voice, it is exploded. The MUDS are authored by their players... And the self is not only decentered but multiplied without limit. There is an unparallelled opportunity to play with one's identity and to "try out" new ones.--Trystan (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention MUDs - MUDs are very much role-playing games in this article's sense; they're RPGs played over the internet and they're included in the article, under "varieties". MUDs and RPGs share role-playing in common; CRPGs don't contain role-playing in that shared sense. Percy Snoodle (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MUDs evolved into graphical MUDs, which were renamed MMORPGs. In some cases, the very same titles simply added graphics to become MMORPGs. I'm not at all clear why role-playing in a text-based MUD would be considered true role-playing, but role-playing in a graphical MMORPG would not.--Trystan (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MMORPGs can have elements of both role-playing games and role-playing video games; though most strongly emphasise the latter. The possibility of using the chat facility to play a role-playing game alongside the role-playing video game is mentioned under Role-playing game#Electronic media. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that rather arbitrarily divides the experience of role-playing in MMORPGs into two things that aren't really separate, but part of a unified experience. At any rate, I don't know that we're making much progress towards agreement here, so I'll move on.--Trystan (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why "arbitrary"? Do you not think there's a difference between acting out a role 'in character', and clicking buttons to control an avatar? Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(reseting indents) That is part of the fundamental misunderstanding here. RPG video games, to varying degrees (including a degree of "very much so"), incorporate the exact kind of purist role-playing you are talking about. I could argue that many types of tabletop RPGs are "just rolling dice, not role-playing." It is an entirely misdirected criticism that misunderstands both the intent of the design of the game, and how it is usually played. You also seem to be presuming that there need be an audience or some other conscious being present who can witness and judge a player's success at playing their role or else the player can't be role-playing. This view isn't substantiated. When I spend hours meticulously creating a custom set of skills, attributes, and facial and physical characteristics for a character in and Elder Scrolls video game for instance, imagining for myself an entire history and personality for him, and then set about pursuing the practically infinite number of paths and options laid in front of me in a huge, openly explorable world by strictly holding to decisions and choices and even dialogue options that only my "in character" personality would choose, then do you not think that I am role-playing? When I fail to take advantage of a valuable item lying idly on a shelf while the owner's back is turned, because my character wouldn't steal, am I not role-playing? [split]

Of course you are. But that's something you've added to the game, not something that was there in the beginning. You're role-playing, and you're playing a game, but that doesn't mean the two are connected. If, before I play chess, I come up with an elaborate back story for the king, and his and a rival kingdom, and imagine that when I move the pieces, I'm actually that king giving orders, am I role-playing? Yes. Is chess a role-playing game? Obviously not. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When I do steal, and the game recognizes it as such, and later I'm found with stolen property and branded a criminal and lose many options that ought to have been available to me as a virtuous character, is the game not appopriately GMing me? [split]

It's doing one of the GM's jobs, but that doesn't mean it's role-playing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When I play an assassin, deciding on my own to begin ruthlessly murdering other characters in their sleep for money (actions that are possible in the game but not required or even encouraged, and actions my real self would never do), and end up getting selected for a hidden society of assassins and pursuing an entire complex storyline I wasn't aware existed... you get the picture. [split]

I do. In each case, you're making choices from the game's options, and the game is applying the rules. You can choose to create a character, or not; it has no bearing on the game. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

These are just a fraction of examples. You are incorrect that video games took the RPG moniker simply because they used D&D-like statistics. And as Trystan has pointed out, no, your sources do not support any claim that tabletop and computer RPGs have nothing in common. That claim is wholly absurd on its face, and is not supported by the very weak 15-year-old sources you've used, and is countered by much more recent, reliable sources that are currently in print and give a much more clear and thorough treatment of the subject. Many video games back to the 80s relied heavily on complex statistics but never called themselves RPGs, because they didn't involve any playing of roles. Many other video games, in addition to relying on a numbers game to make it work, rely on the process of making decisions for your character(s), among a set of possible decisions, based on that character's role. [split]

'Possible set of actions' - choosing from a predetermined set of actions is a very different thing to characterising a novel personality. You could argue that the game developer has to role-play to create the character, but the player certainly doesn't: the work of characterisation has all been done already.

Here is an example of one of the texts I'd like to cite:

A series of simple concepts lies at the root of every role-playing game. These concepts are strung together into a feasible set of rules that are used to conduct a game. In this section, I discuss those concepts and give you a brief glimpse at the history of role-playing games, from the pen-and-paper roots to the modern computerized versions.

...Games have specific rules, plus a referee or judge that enforces them... when needed, players inform the GM of their intentions - what actions their characters intend to perform... it's the GM's job to take these actions, apply the rules, and determine the outcome...

Pen-and-paper games are named as such because to play these games, you only need reference books, pens, and paper. most traditional pen-and-paper games also make use of a set of dice, which works as a random-number generator.

LARP (or Live-Action Role-Playing) moved traditional RPGs up a notch. While maintaining their pen-and-paper roots, a LARP game has participants actually dressing for their parts and having parties in which they play their alter ego.

Breaking out of the pen-and-paper mold, computer RPGs first became mainstream back in the 1980s. At that time, classic games such as Ultima and Wizardry burst onto the scene, bringing gamers a whole new type of gaming.

Gone were the hassles of getting a groups of friends together to play. Also, the computer took the role of the GM, so players could jump in and start playing by themselves.

Of course, the gameplay is a bit more constrictive than the pen-and-paper type, where you have a human who can make some decisions better than a computer can, but with each new release of a computer RPG, the designers get a little bit closer.

From its meager pen-and-paper roots, role-playing had progressed, or rather evolved, into the definitive gaming genre it is today.

Adams, J. Programming Role Playing Games with DirectX. copyright 2002, Premier Press, pp. 6 - 12

I'm taking excerpts there, there are many more quotes that describe in more detail how computer RPGs reproduce the elements of a pen-and-paper RPGs in various ways, and a couple more books that present a similar history. We aren't talking MUDs and MMORPGS here, though there are quotes for that as well. The single-player computer RPG, along with MMORPGs, is one of the definitive archetypes of the RPG genre as it exists today. --The Yar (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That source makes it clear in the first sentence that it thinks role-playing is die-rolling and combat systems. That's fine, it's talking in the context of video games where that's what role-playing means. But in the context of role-playing, it means characterisation, so the source isn't talking in an RPG context. The source is also quite dismissive of RPGs - why would LARP be "up a notch" rather than another way to play? It only alludes to actual role-playing very obliquely - "what actions their characters intend to perform" - and although it doesn't address how a video game might tell whether a player was acting in character, the second-to-last paragraph is telling:

"Of course, the gameplay is a bit more constrictive than the pen-and-paper type, where you have a human who can make some decisions better than a computer can, but with each new release of a computer RPG, the designers get a little bit closer." - quite so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of your opinion on the matter, and I think it is the minority opinion here. I included that last quote only as an acknowledgment of the true nature of a valid point you're trying to make, in a larger context of a more accurate treatment of the RPG genre. I fully expected you'd single that out, and that only demonstrates your tunnel-vision POV agenda. [split]

WP:CIVIL, please. Percy Snoodle (talk)

I think that this quote appropriately acknowledges a difference in RPG video games, one that ought to be noted in the mai n RPG article that I am proposing. It does not by any means whatsoever validate a claim that RPG video games aren't RPGs. [split]

The claim is that there is a distinction between the two. Is that false? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Regardless, I'm not interested, or rather WP is not interested, in you debating with a source. [split]

I see that I have opinions while you represent Wikipedia. Interesting. Percy Snoodle (talk)

As a source, it is a book currently in print that gives a thorough and clear treatment on the matter. Your sources are a 15-year-old magazine article and a questionable Web site, [split]

It's arrant recentism to suggest that an older source is an invalid one; and as I've mentioned, your source is talking in a video game context, not a role-playing game context. It's a great source for a video game article, but a poor one for an RPG article. Percy Snoodle (talk)

furthermore neither of which support your opinion on this matter that you've injected into the article. Nevertheless, I intend to retain some of the information those sources present, but remove the overly biased reading into it that you've done. [split]

WP:AGF, please. Percy Snoodle (talk)

As for the debate between you and me, again, I could claim that when you are role-playing, all you are doing is talking, or rolling dice, or whatever, and that's all the game is, and any role-playing beyond that is something you decided to do on your own and isn't really what the game provided to you. By its very nature, role-playing comes from the player and not the game. But that does not provide a good-faith assessment of the game and completely ignores the actual intent of the design of the game and how it is played, just like your assessment of RPG video games. [split]

So are you arguing that the designers of, say, Nethack designed into the game that you would create a fully characterised PC which their game then ignores? Percy Snoodle (talk)

As your Web site source notes, if a spectator suggested a move and a player responded that his character wouldn't do that, then you're likely playing an RPG. Well, generally RPG video games are designed entirely around that very concept, with an overarching design purpose of giving the player the necessary freedom and structure to do what their particular character would do and not what their character wouldn't do, and not what their real self would do, and not what someone else's character playing the same game might do. [split]

That's what they're aiming for, no doubt. But as your source notes, they haven't succeeded. Percy Snoodle (talk)

I really think your pursuit is misguided. --The Yar (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your tone is harming your argument. Be civil, please. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an in-lined debate on each point will achieve much. I also don't think I've been uncivilized by any stretch. I did assume good faith and found indication that your edits are not in good faith, particularly noting your edits to Role-playing_game_(video_games) which present tabletop RPGs and how much better they are, right in the opening. [split]

Why do you think the article presents one as better than the other? It explains a difference, but never says one or the other is better. Percy Snoodle (talk)

I'm not the only user on this talk page to have noted that you strongly demonstrate a bias and POV on this subject to the detriment of the articles. I don't really want to make a counter-argument, I want to get rid of this opinionated silliness and just present a realistic treatment of the topics. I'm not claiming to speak for Wikipedia other than implying WP:NOR - there really isn't a place for you as a user to attempt to argue with the author of a citation. [split]

Yet you're doing exactly that, by presenting your opinion as more valid than that of the article's references. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Debating between you and me is of some use in trying to establish a consensus; debating the reliability of a source is also of value pursuant to Wikipedia:NOR#Reliable_sources. But your in-line debating with the text of a cited source, again, such efforts seem to indicate that your purpose here is to use WP as a platform for your point of view on a topic. [split]

So a willingness to debate is evidence of bad faith now? Interesting. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Do tabletop and video game RPGs have noteworthy differences? Positives and negatives each? Of course, that was never disputed and will be the major focus of the article I propose. [split]

And yet because you only seek to include video-game-role-playing, you seek to exclude non-D&D role-playing games and LARPs. Better, surely, to have an article on games of role-playing and games of video-game-role-playing? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Are they both equally RPGs? Yes, and the preponderance and reliability of sources have demonstrated, and will demonstrate, this. [split]

Then produce them. If you can demonstrate sources which talk from a context of role-playing games, which claims that role-playing video games also contain role-playing, then that should be added to the article. So far all I've seen is an article which explains what role-playing means in a video game context; no-one disputes that role-playing video games contain that. Percy Snoodle (talk)

As for "recentism," I think you are confusing an old debate that may have been going on in some circles at least 15 years ago that is no longer relevant. At one time I believe many people were attempting to call a wide variety of adventure games, story-based games, and other video games "RPGs" because they all involved some character you controlled who wasn't you. That seems to be the argument you think I'm making based on the talk page for Role-playing_game_(video_games). That is what the InterAction article you quoted seems to be addressing, too. [split]

That's indeed the case; but it's still a relevant debate because it's still happening right here; it's precisely the mistake you seem to be making. Percy Snoodle (talk)

You incorrectly cited that article as distinguishing RPG video games from RPGs... it doesn't. It distinguishes RPGs from a wide variety of video games that people might call RPGs. And I agree. There are a lot of video games that, especially back then, people tended to call RPGs but really didn't involve actual role-playing. But that debate within video gaming has been mostly settled, noting adventure games (not rpgs), console rpgs (similar to rpgs but more adventure-style involving only nominal role-playing), and computer rpgs (focused primarily on creating and playing a role distinct to other possible roles, very much the digital descendant and same genre as tabletop RPGs).

If so, it's because role-playing in video-game contexts has come to mean that quality which the video games share; they have, as the article states, co-opted the term. Percy Snoodle (talk)

There is a certain quality that has been highly distinguishable in video gaming going back many decades, where the game design clearly seeks to emulate the tabletop RPG experience, not only through D&D-style numerical statistics, but more importantly through the implementation of various roles one can play, distinct from other roles available in that same game. Such roles are often most simply "warrior", "thief," and "wizard," as well as "good" or "evil," but can obviously take much more complex and varying forms. [split] These games, to varying degrees of success (including quite successfully), are designed such that an integral part of the game experience is in the player's ability to play that role, to make choices that only a character in that role would make, equip themselves and take on responsibilities in such a way as that character would, and not how they wouldn't. In short, to offer a role-playing experience to the player.

In a video-game context, playing a game using a choice of character class is no doubt sufficient to qualify as role-playing. In a role-playing game context, it isn't, because there is no freedom to characterise the role. If the article is unclear that it's not talking in a video game context, it's not for lack of trying; but I'd be very happy to work with you towards making it more clear rather than tearing down sourced work and replacing it with misleading and out-of-context terms. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Successfully playing the role (as opposed to trying to have your clumsy wizard attempt to climb and sneak into a building, or trying to have your dumb burly fighter learn magic) leads to greater and greater development of that role, which in turn grants greater ability to succeed and proceed through the game. The entire media industry refers to such video games as "role-playing games" and many sources trace their lineage to tabletop rpgs and consider them all a part of the same rpg genre and rpg evolution.

Within a video game context, that is no doubt true. However, that is hardly "the entire media industry". Percy Snoodle (talk)

Despite your opinions about video games in general, there is no denying that the type of video games I'm talking about do in fact exist [split]

...no-one disputes that...

and are in fact called role-playing games [split]

...or that ...

for much the same reasons tabletop role-playing games are called role-playing games, [split]

...but that's false. Role-playing games are called role-playing games because the character plays a role much as an actor, improvising, would; the character grows and develops through the player's free choices. Role-playing video games are called role-playing games because they grew out of role-playing games, and the qualities of RPGs that they do inherit have come to be called role-playing, even though that's the one thing they didn't. Percy Snoodle (talk)

when games like Monopoly are not (hey, I'm playing the role of a real estate tycoon, right?).[split]

That is what you seem to be claiming. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Your points about retronyms and about the differences and pros and cons of various RPG formats are all valid and would have a place in a more relevant and accurate treatment of role-playing games. --The Yar (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

'Retronym' is some other editor's contribution; and I haven't said anything about pros or cons. Role-playing games and role-playing video games are both excellent, but different, paths to fun. I'm not editing in bad faith: I want wikipedia to present an accurate picture of both genres, without recentism or systemic computer-centric bias. To do that, it has to honestly report what the sources say when they're talking about role-playing games, not just about video games: and that is that role-playing video games do not contain that quality which, outside a video game context, is called role-playing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that continuing the debate between you and me will be very valuable to the articles. [split]

With respect, I disagree. I'm glad you've participated in debate rather than going ahead and enforcing your opinion on the page, and I'd ask you to continue to do so. Percy Snoodle (talk)

The majority of users and sources support me and I intend to go through with WP:Requested moves. [split]

I'm afraid that everyone in every debate on wikipedia always claims to have the support of the majority of users and sources, so I'm afraid that assertion falls a bit flat. Do you have any such sources which talk about role-playing games, except from a video-game POV? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Furthermore, I've already answered all of your points above and you seem to be willfully ignoring the majority of what I'm saying in favor of continuing a strawman that I have repeatedly, expressly disavowed. [split]

I don't see that you have answered the point at all: that 'role-playing' has one meaning in a video-game context, which you are trying to enforce, but does not retain that meaning outside. Can you answer that point? Percy Snoodle (talk)

However, out of a sense of intellectual integrity, respect and consensus building, I still want to put some effort here into further uncovering what it is we misunderstand about each other's points and each other's sources. Here are some questions I'd like your thoughts on:

What precisely is it that you consider role-playing? You say, "the character plays a role much as an actor, improvising, would; the character grows and develops through the player's free choices." In the first part, you seem to be saying that you are only role-playing if you are in-character role-playing. [split]

Talking outside a video-game context, that's a fair summary. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Talking like your character and pretending in real life to be your fictional character. [split]

What do you mean by "pretending in real life"? Percy Snoodle (talk)

That is not and has never been the defining element of role-playing, even when tabletops were the only rpgs. That is playing "in character," and is simply one way to play, typical of LARP and Masquerade-style RPGs as well as many MMORPGs, but usually not the norm for D&D, Warhammer, CRPGs, etc.

You're claiming that Warhammer, a tabletop wargame, is an RPG now? That goes a long way to show that your personal definition of role-playing is faulty. Percy Snoodle (talk)

In the second part of that statement, you are describing exactly what computer role-playing games are entirely designed to do and is exactly how they are played. Again, your source presents the "my character wouldn't do that" criterion. It's a great criterion that I fully agree with. It is the criterion that separates tabletop RPGs from other tabletop games, and RPG video games from other video games. It qualifies all RPGs quite well, video games or not. [split]

That's an interesting POV - let's apply it to video games. Suppose you're playing a video game and you've created a character which you imagine your avatar has. Under what circumstances could someone say the character "wouldn't do that"? The avatar's actions are restricted by the game engine, so nothing outside the possibilities of that engine could happen to prompt it; so we must be looking for something the game engine allows, but your characterisation does not. Does that happen? Suppose you've decided that your thief is cautious; not a deep characterisation, but it's something. You click to open a treasure chest without checking for traps. Does the game say "your thief is cautios - he wouldn't do that"? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Since the entire structure and naming convention of the articles in question, as well as several of your edits, are all based on your notion of true role-playing as "the character plays a role much as an actor, improvising, would; the character grows and develops through the player's free choices..." do you have a source for that? [split]

Kim and Rilstone, right there in the article. Percy Snoodle (talk)

our two sources say the following on this matter (paraphrased) 1) If you say, 'may character wouldn't do that,' you're role-playing. (which describes CRPGs very well), and 2) For the purposes of this writing I'm using 'role-playing game' to refer to tabletop RPGs, but I don't pass any judgment on the use of the term for other RPGs.

How can you possibly, in good faith, claim "systemic computer-centric bias" regarding my suggestion of a general RPG article that gives a plain, sourced, and equal treatment of all the commonly understood games known as RPGs, noting the key similarities among them all according to dictionary definitions of RPG and delineating main types based on the rules, players, and media/equipment used, including sourced pros and cons of each, linking to main articles on each? [split]

Wikipedia's systemic computer-centric bias is well known and recognised. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Systemic bias of Wikipedia. Percy Snoodle (talk)

How can you possibly, in good faith, claim a lack of bias in a collection of articles and naming conventions that many have noted as confusing and opinionated and all seem to be designed for the sole purpose of making an argument about why RPG video games aren't really RPGs? [split]

They may seem that way to you; but that's because you've misunderstood them. I fully accept that that means they are unclear, and would like to work with you to make them clearer. Percy Snoodle (talk)

How can you claim good faith at all when you even made edits to the RPG video games article that inserted directly into the introduction a discussion of why tabletop RPGs are real RPGs and RPG video games are not; they just co-opted the term; despite your source not really supporting that fact? [split]

Again, you've mistaken precision for opinion; let's work together to make it clear what the article means. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Are you aware that several users on this page and talk pages of other articles have noted your very apparent bias on this matter, and none but you have suggested any bias on my part? Are you aware that more than one user has plainly stated that your sources do not support the facts you've cited them as supporting?

--The Yar (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That sort of claim is made all the time; I could just as easily assert that "several users" have noticed your bias and "more than one user" has contradicted you; but without some evidence to back it up, it just sounds like someone trying to "play the system". Rather than question each other's motives, let's try to stick to working to improve the articles. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll address your points here in turn instead of in-line:

• Just look on the talk pages on the articles in question. I'm not making some spurious claim here - concerns of your bias in this matter are quite evident. All responses to my suggestion, save yours, have been positive.
  • You're still talking in generalities: "the articles in question", "All responses". Yes, you're not the first to come to wikipedia and misinterpret what it says; but that just means there's all the more reason to work to improve matters by making the page clearer; it's not a reason to tear down the existing, sourced work. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Linking WP's article on systemic bias did not address my issue at all. I am in no way suggesting a computer-centric view of anything. I am specifically seeking to remove a confusing bias that exists not only in your edits but in the entire structure and naming of articles on this subject.
  • You may not see it, but through your continued use of 'role-playing' in a video-game context, you've fallen foul of the wikipedia's systemic bias in this matter. Let's face it: everyone who comes here must be using a computer. So, they're more likely to be seeing things from a computer-user's mindset. If the edits and the structure is confusing, or suggestive of bias, let's work to improve that, rather than applying a known bias. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• The cites I provided from the Adams source were from the point-of-view of traditional tabletop RPGs; they were everything that chapter was about leading up to the cites I gave. The first chapter of that book is a transcript and recap of a tabletop RPG experience and then goes into detail on tabletop RPGs. [split]
  • The title of the book is "Programming Role Playing Games with DirectX" - pretty clearly, the book is talking from a video game perspective. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• However, I don't understand upon what grounds you feel that there is a burden here to provide a source that speaks from a particular POV. [split]
  • There's a burden to avoid systemic bias. That means interpreting each source based on its provenance. Your source is a video game source, so it should be interpreted as talking from a video game perspective. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Why did I even need to provide you a tabletop RPG POV source that talks about role-playing in video games?
  • You needn't - we have several already. However, none back up your position. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• I was talking about Warhammer 40K RPG.
  • Do you mean Dark Heresy? Percy Snoodle (talk)

• When I say "pretending in real life" I mean that using your body and voice to pretend to be the character instead of you being you and controlling a character in your and fellow players' imaginations. Your sources describe the "I open the window" style of role-playing as the usual form, which is first-person command (like a role-playing video game), but not in-character portrayal.
  • "body" would be specifically LARP; and "voice" would exclude online RPGs. I think you may have confused what you can see with what is actually happening. In a role-playing game, you could say "I open the window" to indicate that your character has decided to open the window. In a video game, you press a button to tell the computer to have the avatar open a window, because opening the window helps you to win the game. I don't mean to say that you'll never do the latter in an RPG; there are usually elements of both styles of play. But the former style isn't something a video game can recognise, so video games play to their strengths by building a game experience out of the latter. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• More than once now you've suggested that there need be some voice or personality which exists in the game and says to the player, "no, your character wouldn't do that" or else it isn't an RPG. [split]
  • No, it was you who insisted on that. I agree with the source that it's a good indicator, but I don't think it's the be-all and end-all. Percy Snoodle (talk)
• First of all, I've never heard of such a thing existing in any RPG except perhaps as advice for a novice to the game. Second, that also isn't what the citation we were discussing said.
  • Then why did you bring it up? Percy Snoodle (talk)
• It specifically talked about a hypothetical spectator suggesting a move, to which a player might hypothetically respond, "no my character wouldn't do that." Again, that is an excellent description of exactly what RPGs are, including video game RPGs. [split]
  • As I mentioned above, how would that ever come about? No move contrary to the game's engine is possible, and all the ones within it are. A player might add characterisation to such a game, and might be able to play by making wholly in-character moves, but that has no bearing on the game; a player could as easily do the same in chess. Percy Snoodle (talk)
• Third, yes, video game RPGs very much enforce and respond to this. Maybe there's an expensive item on a shelf. I could pick it up, and the game would recognize it not only as picking up, but also as stealing. [split]
  • Theft is incident, not characterisation. Would the game recognise if you'd decided that desperation had brought your character to theft? Would it know the difference if instead your character stole out of boredom? Percy Snoodle (talk)
• I sure could use the money to buy that sword in the next shop. A spectator might say, "no other characters are looking, grab it." To which I'd say, "no, I'm playing a Paladin. My character wouldn't break laws or commit negative karma acts." Or, "I'm a thief, but not a very good one yet. I'll probably make a lot of noise and get caught and end up in jail. I'll come back later." Or, "well, I'm a playing a fighter, but not a morally obligated one. Maybe I'll just grab it and fight off anyone who tries to stop me. That thing's worth enough for me to be branded a criminal in this town." [split]
  • You could do that, but the game would never know. In chess, a spectator might suggest that I could win by moving my knight backwards and a I could say "but knights are brave, they wouldn't do that" - but that doesn't make chess an RPG.

• Keep in mind that this is not just in one's imagination. [split]
  • Then where is it? How does the game recognise the characterisation you claim to add? Percy Snoodle (talk)

• The player's character was designed in detail to be one of these roles, and the game world allows them the freedom to pursue that role and will respond accordingly. The paladin, for instance, may belong to a particular church, and be favored by particular deities (all within the game) and lose many of the benefits of such relationships by doing evil. The church might only kick them out if they are caught, but the deity will disfavor them no matter what. The thief who ends up in jail will have all his stolen property confiscated and lose days or weeks of game time, but might meet another thief in jail who teaches them a little. The fighter who just grabs it will forever be treated as a criminal and lose access to most of what that town offers beyond what it offers to a brute criminal. And maybe an NPC member of his party will decide that this isn't what he signed on for and return home. Perform enough evil acts (and get caught doing it), and characters will run from you in terror or your appearance will change and become monstrous. Nevertheless, you can still play through the game, and quite enjoyably so, with much of the content cut off (and other content made available to you) because of your dreaded infamy. Kill people secretly for your own gain and avoid detection, and maybe you'll still be able to walk the streets as a normal citizen but you'll be approached by a representative of a secret society of assassins with a request to join them and do contract work. Some of that contract work may, for example, include killing off many operatives of the Thieves Guild, making it impossible for you to ever join their ranks and enjoy their benefits. Do good deeds and people will love you, offer you gifts and ask you to rescue their loved ones and so forth. Sufficient skill with magic will enable you to join and benefit from the services of local town magician guilds. Breaking the rules of those guilds will get you kicked out and lose those benefits, but nevertheless might be entirely appropriate action for a character you're playing anyway. All of this happens pursuant to the design of the game, depending on which RPG we're talking about (most of these examples are from Fallout series, Elder Scrolls series, and Star Wars KotOR), and you have the freedom to do one, some, many, or none of the things I described above as you move freely throughout the game world pursuing an enjoyable game experience from start to finish (and many of these games don't have an actual finish), and the game will respond as I described depending on how you structure your role.
  • All of that is incident: acts you've performed, or foregone. None of it is characterisation: the inner life of a character which determines, among other things, which acts they will choose to perform or forego. A character's actions demonstrate their characterisation, but the actions are not the characterisation. The article is quite clear that it is talking about games in which the characters' actions are determined by the players' characterisations, not just the players' choices of which actions to take. All non-trivial games provide the players with choices that have an effect on their fortunes later in the game. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• This is called role-playing. [split]
  • In a video-game context, yes; outside that context, no. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• It's why these are called role-playing games.
  • No, role-playing video games are named after role-playing games. I don't think, given the history, anyone could sensibly dispute that. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• The ability to choose or design your role, freedom to make decisions and act according to it, and be successful in the game pursuant to how you choose to play that role and how the rules of the game react to your portrayal. That's why tabletop RPGs are RPGs and Monopoly isn't. It's why video game RPGs are RPGs and action or adventure games aren't. That's role-playing.
  • In a video-game context, yes; outside that context, no. Please, try to step back and see things from a broader context. Then we can begin to improve the article without applying a video-game bias. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Again, however, most of this isn't what we need to cite or cource for this article. I'm just saying all this as a means of getting through to you that your stance on this matter does not reflect reality.
  • Presenting one's own POV as "reality" is another thing that seems to happen in all wikipedia debates. I'm not trying to present a single view, I'm trying to stop the more recent, video-game-centric biased position from being expressed at the expense of the older, broader position. I'm all for having the video-game context definition explained on a video-game-context article; but why should it be used outside that context? Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Sources noting that RPG video games are the descendant of tabletop RPGs are sufficient enough.
  • We have a great many such sources, and that fact is in several articles, including this one. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• If for no other reason, the simplest explanation should suffice. Tabletop and video game RPGs are called RPGs because they share a similar role-playing experience, not because one co-opted the name of the other in an inexplicable mistaken coup. --The Yar (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that really the simplest explanation, or is it more likely that the video games were named after the older games they sought to imitate? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, I don't do the in-line debating much. It quickly gets hard to follow as we fan into an n-threaded discussion. I will make some points again here together.

• Your two descriptions regarding opening a window are identical. Your claim that one is done "because it helps you win the game" is a false distinction. In a computer RPG, opening a window is just the same as it is in a tabletop RPG. It need not be part of accomplishing anything. Computer RPGs are specifically designed to be that way, to give you the freedom to do whatever you desire, even if it doesn't pertain to any quest or end-game.
  • So-called "sandbox" play is a good point, but misses the distinction I'm making. Satisfying the player's curiosity isn't the same as developing their character. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• You mention chess a lot. That doesn't apply to anything I'm describing. If someone were to reject a chess move because their knight was "brave," they would not be playing chess. Rather they'd be refusing to play chess and inventing their own simplistic RPG instead, using chess pieces. [split]
  • Likewise, if someone were to reject a move in, say, Diablo, they'd be inventing their own RPG to play alongside the video game. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• So yeah, it would be an RPG at that point, and I'd wonder what other design elements might be included to support decisions based on role as anything other than detrimental to one's ability to actually play the game. But aren't you arguing with your own source now? Anyway, despite your hypothetical chess-based RPG, chess is not designed to be played that way, and that isn't how people play it.
  • Nor are video games. You can play a simplistic RPG while you play them, but I've never known anyone to do so. You claim to, and I'll believe you, but I don't think that means you can speak for the game designers. Perhaps you're confusing immersion with role-playing? Percy Snoodle (talk)

• In contrast, here's a quote from an instruction manual for a popular computer RPG - "Getting in Character - You can enjoy the role-playing of all sort of specialized characters... if you want to role-play a character that best suits your personality, you should answer truthfully the questions you're given by Socucius Ergalla in Seyda Neen at the beginning of the game. If you want to have a character that grows in power more quickly, however, choose to create a custom character class." The entire design of the game and the reference material explaining how to play it is about personality, playing a unique character and role, etc.. The beginning of the game even includes a personality test that you answer based on yourself or based on any personality you choose to portray, and the game will help construct a character for you based on that personality [split]
  • Note that the source says your personality, not your character's personality. Note also that the source quite clearly assumes the player is interested in game-winning power, not characterisation. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Does chess have an instruction manual or strategy guide that discusses playing your knight bravely, or your bishop according to Catholic doctrine?
  • No. Does your source have such a thing? I don't see any such thing in your exerpt. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• You mention the game "knowing" things a lot, too. What do you mean by this? Does your favored RPG "know" things?
  • A role-playing game is "run" by the players, who can. A video game is run by a computer, which can't. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• You're continuing to accuse me of computer or video game bias.
  • For so long as you insist on the video-game-specific definition of role-playing, you display one. I'm not accusing you of bad faith: just trying to show you that your opinion is formed from a narrow POV. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• You sidestepped ever answering how you think this is true, other than dismissing it as well known that WP has a computer-centric bias. I'm asking us to create a general article on RPGs, discussing the defining characteristics as per the sources, yours and others, and then the various formats with some sourced notes of distinctions, limitations and benefits of each. I'm not the first on this page to make this request. [split]
  • No doubt you see it that way; but the single, unchangeable pure truth that you believe to be an unbiased definition of role-playing is in fact a video-game-specific opinion; by steamrollering your opinion over the existing work you'll be replacing a bias that you perceive with another one. If you can step back and see that your opinion is no more or less an opinion than any other opinion, we'll be able to improve the general article (which is at roleplaying) as you describe. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• ODDin, for example also noted that this artiucle seems to talking about a single specific POV on RPGs and present it as the only true RPG. If you feel it's truly important, there can even be a place in this article for you to note the sourced, minority opinion that computer role-playing games don't really involve role-playing. In fact, I've even located a much better source that supports this claim, and we can use it as well. Just remember Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutrality_and_verifiability, that having a source does not forgive one for putting forth opinionated point of view as if it were unbiased fact. Either way, your continued insistince that my suggestion is somehow "bias" is befuddling. It is very much intended to avoid put forth anything -centric at all.
  • Indeed. So let's not put forth the video-game-centric definiton, then? Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Simlarly befuddling, for example, was your insistence that the word "tabletop," despite it's widely-accepted usage, was somehow "deragatory" and "offensive."
  • See the section above for an explanation of that. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• You claim that my points would be valid in a video game context. But as I noted, you've even taken this confusing agenda to that article as well, inserting into that article's introduction a discussion on the misnomer and lack of actual role-playing. That makes it difficult to accept what you're claiming now.
  • If you feel the context of those statements is unclear - which were there in some forem long before I got here - and if you can suggest a way to make the context clear, please say so. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• This article is listed as an example of a tabletop game in the Tabletop game article.
  • Indeed. It's noted there that that is incorrect. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Yet again, sort of confusing that instead it's being used to make a point about what you believe real role-playing is or isn't, and includes all sorts of things that aren't tabletop RPGs. Maybe Tabletop game should link to Role-playing game (tabletop game) instead, an article that talks about tabletop RPGs. The RPG article I'm suggesting would also have a section on tabletop rpgs and link to that article.
  • Why do you continue to push such a narrow vision of non-video-game RPGs? "Tabletop" excludes almost all RPGs. Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Here are some more sources to consider.

Role Playing Games (RPGs) is a popular game form. RPGs have been translated into all media formats, and are also a rare example of functioning interactive narratives. Despite the popularity of these games, especially within computer games, and the possibility that experiences from RPGs could be used in designing interactive storytelling systems for next generation interactive entertainment systems, there have been very few academic studies focused on cross-platform studies of role playing games. In this paper, the results of a comparative analysis of pen and paper RPGs and computer RPGs, using an information systems perspective coupled with games analysis, is presented. The differences of the two game forms revolve around the different media formats and the limitations these impose and the options they provide. The formation of the collaborative story is a core feature of these games.

Tychsen, A. Role playing games: comparative analysis across two media platforms ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 207, 2006. ISBN:86905-902-

• • That just seems to be an introduction; I'd be interested to see more. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Like the Adams book I cited earlier, exactly the kind of treatment I want to give an RPG article

The Role-Playing Game (RPG) is one of the major genres of games, and has proven an extremely portable concept - from the physically embodied live action and tabletop formats to the various digital, mobile and even enhanced and augmented reality formats.

RPGs, which have proven an extremely portable game concept, provide different gaming experiences depending on the format, e.g. the physical dimension of LARPs as compared to the virtual world of MMORPGs and CRPGs [11]. Not only the game format impacts on how RPGs are played and experienced, but various other factors as well, not least the number of involved players.

Tychsen, Newman, Brolund, Hitchens. Cross-format analysis of the gaming experience in multi-player role-playing games. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference

Sure there are differences. Differences among role-playing games, of which CRPGs, tabletops, LARPs and MMORPGS are all types. Let's present it this way.

• • We do. See roleplaying for the general article. This article is about a genre called "role-playing games" which is not so narrow as to exclude everything but D&D. Perhaps it's the roleplaying article you should be trying to improve? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Trans-reality role-playing games are conceived of as a form of role-playing game evolving from and integrating established table-top, live-action and computer-based role-playing forms... In the case of Trans-Reality Role-Playing games (TRRPGs), a coherent, common and persistent story world must emerge that integrates different Role-Playing Game (RPG) forms including Table-Top (TTRPG), Live-Action (LARP), computer-based, and especially Massively Multiplayer Online (MMORPG), RPGs.

Lindley, C. and Eladhari, M. Narrative Structure in Trans-Reality Role-Playing Games: Integrating Story Construction from Live-Action, Table-Top and Computer-Based Role-Playing Games. Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play.

This sounds like fun, and complicated. Another type of RPG we might include in the new article. But note the list of RPGs types, of which CRPGs are, without qualification.

• • It's telling that he feels the need to define a new term just to be able to include all the genres. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Another example for overestimating the virtual domain is the movement and actions of so called Non-Player-Characters (NPCs) in role playing games. While the advancements in the field of artificial intelligence make the computer controlled actions of such NPCs more and more believable in computer games, they still pale against the richness of the social interaction with a human game master or storyteller.

C. Magerkurth, M. Memisoglu, T. Engelke, N.A. Streitz. Towards the next generation of tabletop gaming experiences. Graphics Interface 2004 (GI'04), London (Ontario), Canada, May 17-19, 2004. pp. 73-80, AK Peters

Hey, I agree. AIs are great these days but still can't match my favorite tabletop GMs. But here's your article that is clearly from a tabletop perspective, and talks a lot about the superiority of the tabletop, yet nevertheless refers here to CRPGs as simply "RPGs" when referring to them collectively with tabletops, and then "computer games" when differentiating them.

• "tabletop" perspective again. Why so narrow? Percy Snoodle (talk)

I can go on. I found another great research paper that says that the software simply takes over as the GM in a CRPG vs. a Tabletop. --The Yar (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said, the debate between you and me about what real role-playing is or is not does not benefit this article. It is, and will likely remain, a matter of opinion. It is an opinion of a few, presented largely as editorial commentary in the sources cited. You are treating it as fact, using it to define and structure entire articles and topics, and the resulting confusion is evident. That is not what WP is for. [split]

• I agree, and I'm trying to show you that you are doing exactly what you're claiming I'm doing: pushing an opinion. Your sources above are interesting, and I'd like to see more, so I can tell whether they support the premise you claim they do.

At best, your point may have a place at the end of an article on RPGs or CRPGs as a "controversy over the use of the phrase 'role-playing.'" Or perhaps, "varying opinions on the true nature of role-playing." But even there it would likely be evident as someone just trying to use WP as an rhetorical platform (a plague even more endemic than WP's computer-centric bias).

• Rather than either of those, wouldn't it make sense to have a page called, say, roleplaying which discussed the various meanings of the term, and then have pages devoted to exploring each one? Isn't that in fact what we already have? Percy Snoodle (talk)

And there would be plenty of fact-based evidence to demonstrate that such controversy was not noteworthy, considering the ample selection of sources about various types of RPGs from various POVs that simply treat CRPGs as a type of RPG and do not contain any acknowledgment or mention of such a controversy over the naming or over the nature of role-playing. --The Yar (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to deny the idea of context. Do you disagree that a source can assume a single meaning from the outset, and never address the question of whether there might be others? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your confusion better now. I am not suggesting that there only be tabletop and video game RPGs. I am not, nor was I ever, suggesting that the role-playing games article be only about D&D and video games. Tabletop is one kind. LARP is another. Video games another. [split]

OK; assuming that's a partial list, so far, so good. Would you agree that it makes sense to group them by shared characteristics, to avoid unnecessary duplication? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Any RPG format that has a solid basis of factual, sourced evidence as being a significant RPG format ought to have it's own brief section in the Role-playing Games article as well as a link to a main article on that type. As more than one of my sources above note, the established formats of role-playing games include tabletop, computer-based, live-action, and MMORPGs.

As well as non-tabletop role-playing games? Percy Snoodle (talk)

In looking into this, several sources I've found on RPGs, regardless of what the specific topic of the source is, begin with a general background on what RPGs are, and include tabletop, CRPGs, LARP, and MUDs/MMORPGs. This is not about what should go in an article on role-playing, the sources are very clearly talking about RPGs.

OK, I'll assume that's why you don't like the idea that we could describe the disjoint types of game at roleplaying. But I do feel that it makes more sense, given that the various genres differ in both the meaning of "role-playing" and the meaning of "game", to take a higher-level view of them. I'm not necessarily against that being on a page called "role-playing game"; but I'm adamantly against the idea that the games described in this article be moved to a page called "tabletop role-playing game". The defining characteristic of the games described in this article is role-playing through characterisation. That includes D&D, which emphasises the combat system to an extent that it's fair to call it a tabletop game; it includes LARP and chat-based games; but it also includes scores of games such as Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game which have no tabletop or live-action component, and it doesn't include video games in which the characterisation is provided largely by the programmer, and only incidentally by the player. If you repurpose this page, where will the genre of role-playing through characterisation be described? Percy Snoodle (talk)

What I am suggesting is an unbiased article on role-playing games, not one called role-playing games yet featuring only the formats that some believe provide a true role-playing experience and then opinionated statements about why other established formats are actually ambiguous misnomers. [split]

That's laudable, but what you're asking for by taking the video-game-centric line is one called role-playing games yet featuring only the formats that some believe provide a true role-playing experience and then opinionated statements about those established formats are actually not ambiguous misnomers. Percy Snoodle (talk)

If you are going to continue to assert that this is somehow a "video-game-centric" viewpoint, then you will need to explain that better.

Fair enough, I'll give it a go. Role-playing games in the modern sense came into being because Gygax wanted to make a better wargame. In the resulting games, he and Arneson found that players were developing characterisation for their pieces. They called this "role-playing" and released a game, D&D, which provided a wargame-based-framework around which players could roleplay. Video games were produced which mimicked the wargame-based-framework; these came to be known within video gaming as role-playing games, and the activity of playing them came to be known within video gaming as role-playing. Meanwhile, the role-playing game industry gradually abandoned the wargame-based-framework and emphasised the characterisation aspect. So the meaning used within video gaming came to be less and less associated with the meaning used outside it. Video gaming is a very popular pursuit and a great many books and studies have been written from the point of view of the video gaming industry; it's only right that they should use that industry's term for the activities they describe. But whether they acknowledge the POV, or just assume it, it's still a POV and not the only one.

I believe I have very solidly explained and documented what this article ought to include, and have not suggested it be narrowed down or exclude anything, except for excluding statements of opinion.

Through your use of the term 'tabletop' you implicitly ask to exclude games of role-playing through characterisation which don't have a tabletop, live-action or computer-assisted component. I can only assume you're unaware of the existence of such games, and I'd recommend that you have a look through the articles in Cat:Role-playing games to see how much broader the genre is than just D&D and a few D&D clones. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Also I want to note that at this time your challenge to me is as follows: I am to provide you a source which speaks from a point of view that agrees completely with you, that role-playing games only include the kind of role-playing you believe is actual role-playing and not video games, and yet the source also says that video games are role-playing games. Is that correct?

No. If you want to show that video games are role-playing games in a sense other than the video-game-context one, you need to find a source which says that video games are role-playing games in a sense other than the video-game-context one. I don't think that's what you're trying to show, though; if the changes you propose are any guide, you're actually trying to show that the video-game-context meaning is the "correct" meaning which articles should use. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Do you recognize the absurdity this debate is pursuing?

Absolutely. You find yourself in an impossible position, because you start from a false premise: that role-playing video games involve the same sort of role-playing as role-playing games. You've provided sources which state the converse: that role-playing games involve the same sort of role-playing as role-playing video games; which is often (but not always) the case. But you won't find reliable sources that support your premise, because it's not factually correct. Percy Snoodle (talk)

I believe the one above is more than what should have been adequate, it is an article entirely about tabletop role-playing, but which clearly acknowledges computer RPGs as RPGs, despite the author's dissatisfaction with the experience they provide.

The article is far broader than just tabletop RPGs - it encompasses a wide genre of games, many of which have no tabletop component at all; as well as live-action and computer-assisted varieties of the same. The author's dissatisfaction shouldn't come into an article at all; nor should an article descend into sophistry trying to shoehorn in other topics which happen to share the topic's name. We have disambiguation pages for precisely that reason. Percy Snoodle (talk)

And you misintepreted what TRRPGs are. They aren't a genre that includes the other established formats as sub-genres, as you imply. They are actually a new form of RPG that incorporates multiple established formats into a single game. --The Yar (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're making progress. Here is the remaining fundamental problem: I am looking for an article on role-playing games. It will rely on straightforward definitions of RPGs and include what many current and reliable sources note as the "established formats" of role-playing games, noting the history, progression, similariteies, differences, pro, and cons, but only where stated as fact in reliable sources. It need not, at all, express opinions on which games really provide a role-playing experience and which do not. It need not contain anywhere within in it an argument that CRPGs really do provide a true role-playing experience anymore than it contain arguments about why they do not. It need not even discuss what a true role-playing experience is, or contain any sources that argue that CRPGs provide the same role-playing experience as other RPGs, since we've got ample sources stating as fact what are role-playing games without editorializing about which ones really give you a true role-playing experience. Not only do the numerous sources I've provided above list CRPGs as an RPG format, they also clearly discuss them with other RPGs formats as a collective genre of RPG, and make no mention whatsoever about them being improperly or ambiguously named.

Your Kim source, I just noticed, says it quite well: "The important thing (in my mind) is not which of these are 'really' role-playing, but rather what are the important differences between the types of games." Exactly. Kim obviously is aware of the many opinons on what is really role-playing and appropriately dismisses that from a factual treatment. And Kim then goes on to list Computer RPGs as a type of RPG. You've twisted that source entirely. Kim also says "I think it is called this because historically the experience and item gaining are inspired by tabletop RPGs" (which you've cited as fact despite the "I think" and the "I am by no means an expert"). Well, I think that's probably partly true but not the whole truth. I think it's also because the point of these games always included some aspect of learning how to play the role of the wizard, the role of the thief, etc., separately from one another and pursuant to some free decision-making about the role being played. I've been playing role-playing games of various formats for more than 20 years and I don't think you or a WP article will change my opinion of what role-playing really is. My opinion on it predates any personal experience with CRPGs and also logically includes all games known as role-playing games, so there is no need to attempt to convince me I'm being biased towards a particular format. But regardless, I don't need the WP article to put forth my opinions, or the opinions of sources that agree with me, on which formats really contain role-playing. I just want the article to be reasonable and less confusing and less opinionated and more relevant.

Conversely, you want (or rather have) an article that by its very structure is promoting a value judgment as to what games among the established formats of role-playing games actually provide a true role-playing experience. You have some sources that seem to agree with your opinion on where one might find a true role-playing experience, but they are still opinion. They do not state as fact that RPGs are classified into "those that provide characterization as a role-playing experience" and "those that do not." You invented that classification, based on opinions about the different formats. Furthermore, just the opposite, both of your sources akcnowledge CRPGs as RPG formats. They just then, in one case, editorialize that generally video games don't offer the player true role-playing, and why he thinks that is, and in the other case, state that for the purposes of the source itself, RPG would be used only to refer to certain types of RPGs. You've used this to create a confusing web of logic to structure an entire article based around one opinion of what a true role-playing experience is and hence classifying RPGs accordingly.

If anything, this argument would go under the article on role-playing, since the debate is over what role-playing really is, and not what is a role-playing game. Perhaps we'd have sources that could argue whether "role" is meant in the specific sense of acting and characterization, or in the general sense of a functional title and attributes. Keep in mind I've already provided a source that talks about role-playing in a video game context and you seem to agree with that within that context, so at best we'd have a section where "some say this, others say that." But even that would not be necessary unless there is a source that, rather than providing it's opinon on the matter, states as fact that such a controversy exists and is significant.

However, I do recant that the article should be tabletop role-playing games. There should be, as I mentioned later, an article on Role-playing games (tabletop games). PnP RPGs and video game RPGs, in their respective contexts, are just called "RPGs" and only qualified with additional words when a distinction is necessary. As opposed to LARPs and MMORPGs which are more often called LARP and MMORPG, unless they are being broadly referred to collectively with other RPG formats. And the article on tabletop would include just information that reasonably falls under that format category (noting that other tabletop games don't necessarily play on a table either). It wouldn't include LARP, for instance. Again, there is no basis in fact for there being categorization of RPGs into what someone feels is or isn't really role-playing. The sources do not support that such a categorization exists. The sources do support categorization into tabletop, computer-based, LARP, and MUD/MMORPG, and perhaps others as Wikipeidans see fit to cite. This is entirely irrespective of any commentary on why those are all discussed collectively as RPGs. As a factual matter, they simply are. --The Yar (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree we're getting somewhere, though you're skirting WP:CIVIL again. I'd like to start by observing that "tabletop role-playing games" and "Role-playing games (tabletop games)" are equivalent - even if you're excluding LARP and online games, which I don't think is sensible, there's no reason to exclude the great majority of role-playing games which downplay or omit the wargame-inspired gameplay of D&D. So, if you want to discuss role-playing games (in the characterisation sense, not the video game sense) then it's not sensible to use a misleading term like "tabletop". "Pen and paper" isn't any better.

Now, you raise the point that we should discuss that category of games which are called, for whatever reason, "role-playing games"; including both role-playing games and role-playing video games. That's sensible so long as there is anything to say about them. You've convinced me that there is enough material describing the shared experience that we could form such an article; you haven't convinced me that it should replace this article. I'd suggest that it should either form a section of roleplaying, as now; that it should have its own article role-playing (game mechanic), or that it should form part of a broader discussion on immersion (which WP rather lacks).

You also seem to wish to flatten the hierarchy in order to remove the distinction between role-playing games (characterisation sense) and role-playing games (video game sense). This is why you seem to want to tear down what's there: you don't just wish to promote the video game sense of the term, you seem to want to remove the other one. The gaming experience shared by role-playing games, be they LARP, online or otherwise, but not video games, deserves coverage on wikipedia. A great deal of the discussion arising from the indie game movement (e.g. GNS model) is devoted to it, so there's no lack of sources. If, as you suggest, we make role-playing games (the sort you're calling tabletop), LARP, and online games top-level articles, then we would need to explain the shared experience in each article. You say we should explain the differences; surely we should also explain the similarities? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting closer yet. The problem still remains that you are stating as fact that RPGs are classified into "those which employ and encourage Actor-style characterization, which some consider true role-playing," and "all other PRGs, which I call 'role-playing in the video game sense.'" You see what I'm getting at. These aren't facts.

Aren't they? That classification does exist; some do consider it that way; and I do call it that. Granted, that last fact isn't relevant, but its relevance isn't in question. The classification exists and is used to talk about role-playing games. Should we forbid wikipedia from repeating what's said about role-playing games, just because you dislike the classification? Percy Snoodle (talk)

So you acknowledge that you have no source that gives this classification as fact. It's opinionated analysis, not a factual classification. --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. We have several sources which make use of the distinction, here and on role-playing game theory. Percy Snoodle (talk)

You use the phrase "role-playing video games" as another means of excluding it from "role-playing games. I may have missed it, but do you have a source that uses the phrase "role-playing video games," and in particular one that states as fact that it is an established type of game that isn't a format of role-playing game?

The word is "distinguish", not "exclude". "role-playing video game" is used in the article when it wishes to refer to the sort of video games which are also called (in a video-game context) "role-playing games". It would be difficult to form sentences which talk about the distinction, without making the distinction. Percy Snoodle (talk)

So you acknowledge that you have no source for this phrase. It was invented to make an opinionated distinction where there is no factual one. --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. There is a factual distinction - unless you think that role-playing in the sense presented in the article doesn't exist. Do you think that? Percy Snoodle (talk)

You say, "you don't just wish to promote the video game sense of the term, you seem to want to remove the other one," I say these "senses" of the term represent valid opinions but are not based in fact.

So, you deny that there is a form of role-playing based on characterisation in reality, outside of opinion? You assert that if someone is role-playing through characterisation, that's just their "opinion"? Yet if someone is playing a game which refers to their avatar as "you", then it's "fact" that they're role-playing? Can you justify that? Percy Snoodle (talk)

No, I'm saying that it is a matter of opinion that they should classified as such in an encyclopedia. What you or I assert or deny about real role-playing isn't really the issue. That which sources state as fact is more relevant here. I'm not interested in continuing the debate about what is or isn't role-playing. Not only has your stance in that debate once again reverted to the same strawman debate that does not pertain to anything I believe or suggest, but more importantly, I have no interest in structuring this article based on your opinion or mine or anyone else's. As I'm sure you know, there are many fans who think "real" role-playing is dependent on some other quality that neither you nor I would agree with. How would we equitably entertain every one of these opinions if, by your assertion, the entire structure of articles on RPGs can legitimately be based on any opinions anyone might have about which do or do not involve "real" role-playing? What you have is a vague assumption on the existence of opinions about what distinguishes this from that, without any sources that back up this distinction as the primary classification of the topic, and plenty of sources, including your cited sources, which dismiss this distinction as not important, and, more importantly, sources which do state plainly as fact what the primary classification actually is. How can you continue to claim that this is an appropriate way to present supposedly factual information? --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If that was what I was doing, I couldn't. However, we do have sources which support the distinction we make. You don't like them, but we still have them. Percy Snoodle (talk)

As I've said, I don't wish to promote any of these senses, but remove them all, or at best treat them as opinion and not fact with the same treatment WP articles usually give opinions.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you consider the video-game meaning of role-playing to be "fact" while the older sense is "opinion". The video-game meaning is at least as much an "opinion" as the older sense. Percy Snoodle (talk)

No, please try to understand, I am saying that both "meanings," or even the assertion that such meanings are relevant, are all a matter of opinion. You keep bringing up the "video-game meaning of role-playing," and that is a concept without any basis in fact. As I've stated more than once, nothing in this article will attempt to state as fact that "people playing RPGs on a computer or video game console are enjoying the exact same notion of a 'role-playing experience' as anyone else playing a different format of RPG." I simply want the page to present the same classification of formats that can be found, stated plainly as fact without any commentary, in numerous sources, including a few I've cited here in this discussion already --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a laudable goal, but what it seems like is that you want to present your choice of classification, which you have chosen by looking only at sources which talk from a video-game context, in order to support your opinion. You neglect to take into consideration sources which talk about role-playing games in the context of role-playing games. If you really want the page to present the same classification of formats that can be found, stated plainly as fact without any commentary, in numerous sources, then I have good news: it already does. Percy Snoodle (talk)

You say I want to "flatten the hierarchy," I say we need fact-based sources that clearly state such a hierarchy even exists.

You want sources to say that people role-play through characterisation in RPGs? We have those. You want sources to say that they don't in video games? We have those. You reject them as "old" or "unreliable" because they don't support your opinion, but we still have them. Percy Snoodle (talk)

No, I don't want any opinions on who is and isn't really role-playing. As I said, I would like to see a source that gives a factual account of this hierarchy that you mentioned. Like, using the word "hierarchy," and using it as a formal classification of "RPGs" and "not RPGs but called RPGs." [split]

I'm using "hierarchy" to describe the layout of the articles, not as a formal classification. Percy Snoodle (talk)

You don't have such a source. [split]

I do, just not one you recognise, because it doesn't support your opinion. Percy Snoodle (talk)

The sources you have cited both state opinions on what "role-playing" is, or how the phrase "role-playing" is used (note that this article is RPGs, not role-playing), but then both mysteriously also go on to give definitions of role-playing that clearly include OD&D and CRPGs (demonstrating, as one source admitted, that he simply is not knowledgable about it, and as the other noted, that he is talking only in a specific context), and furthermore, list CRPGs as formats of RPGs. --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it bad to "admit" to talking in a specific context? As I've been trying to tell you, this article describes role-playing games from the context of role-playing games. You're trying to make it talk about role-playing games from the context of video games, which is inaprropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Peer-reviewed academic papers and published books in print that state as fact "the established formats of RPGs are..." should carry more weight in describing the types of RPGs and how WP articles on the different RPG formats might be structured. Op-ed magazine articles and web pages that clearly disclaim themselves as opinion and contextual, and still include the same established RPG formats as fact-based sources, but then provide commentary on the nature of the experience they provide or how they think they may have become classified as RPGs, while these sources may offer valuable and reliable information for the WP article on RPGs, they do not validate the structuring of WP articles and the suggestions of fact within those articles to conform with their stance in the ongoing debate.

They certainly don't invalidate it, though. You've yet to produce a source which says that the distinction doesn't exist. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Your challenge is that in order for two things to appear in the same wikipedia article, there must be a source which clearly states that there is not an important classification distinction between them. That would make editing Wikipedia absurdly difficult, and as it were, I've already given you your own source, which clearly states that the distinction you are trying to draw, the one upon which the articles in question are structured, is "not important." On the other hand, sources with sections titled "background on role-playing games" which then state, "the established formats of RPGs are..." without any qualification of one of them being "not really..." seem to me to be an ideal source for why a WP article on RPGs might list and break itself out in such terms. In short, the idea that I must give you a source that declares role-playing in video games to be an experience without any distinction from storytelling games, is absurd. This article is on role-playing games, not on someone's opinion of a true role-playing experience. --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my "challenge" is that in order to include something in an article which does not appear to belong to that article's topic, there should be a source which states that it does. This article's topic is role-playing games, and it clearly states that in context that means that they involve characterisation by the players. According to every source which mentions the issue, role-playing video games don't involve that; so they're off-topic. Percy Snoodle (talk)

You say, "The gaming experience shared by role-playing games, be they LARP, online or otherwise, but not video games, deserves coverage on wikipedia." I say LARP, online, and other formats do deserve coverage, as established formats of RPGs in the general article and in their respective main articles, and I've clearly stated as such. That they share a gaming experience exclusive to other formats (which might be described by one as that they tend to encourage Actor rather than Director style of characterization, or by another described with the unsourced classification of "video-game-style role-playing,") is a matter of opinion. The nature of the "gaming experience" you describe, as I said, might find a place in a theoretical section in the role-playing article, since it is the "true" nature of role-playing that it seems to have a stake in, but not in a factual treatment of the form of entertainment known as role-playing games.

We have sources to say it exists; if you can't produce a better source to say it doesn't, then you're merely asserting your own opinion. Percy Snoodle (talk)

You have sources stating their own opinion. Not only does that represent an original source (since you are using someone stating an opinion as evidence that the opinion exists), but it is also merely using source to validate POV. I've already given you a source that clearly talks about how to go about "role-playing" in a video game. Part of the problem is that if any source I give you mentions a video game, then you say "well yes, that's the video game perspective, not the real perspective" and hence it is literally impossible for a source to exist which talks about video games but is, to you, unbiased.

The problem with all of that, of course, is that there are other opinions on this matter, perhaps not mine or yours, who might make all of your same arguments as to why their view of role playing "really" is ought to determine the structure of the WP articles. This article [1], for example, from the same collection of essays that your source comes, cleary states that LARP is not role-playing. "...in role playing, you don't actually run around pointing your finger-gun and pretending to shoot bad guys. Instead, the action all happens in your mind... You don't act out the things that happen. You describe them, and talk to the other players as if they were the characters they portray, having the adventures you are describing for each other." Should I edit the article to remove LARP as not really an RPG based on this essay? I'd rather not. This one [2], again, same collection of essays, states that RPGs aren't about characterization at all, but rather about believable escapism, noting that while PnP RPGs ask you to imagine the setting and experience the characterization, CRPGs ask you to experience the setting and imagine the characterization. The author then supposes that pencil-and-paper RPGs will one day be overtaken by their "computerized cousins." Which they have, according to a recent study asking people at a LARP convention to identify their preferred RPG, with the majority naming a CRPG. Shall I use that essay or study to declare computer RPGs as the only true RPGs of today? Again, I'd rather not. I really like this one,[3] too (same collection of essays). It discusses the movement at the time to declare games based on stories and characterization as not role-playing games at all, but rather "story-telling games." "What's wrong with approaching a roleplaying game with an attitude that your character is little more than a playing piece?" it asks. Surely, these are your nemeses. Shall I use that essay as a basis to remove any story-telling-focused games from the RPG article? Again, no, that would be cherry-picking op-ed pieces in order to state one opinion among many as if it were fact. Shame on anyone who insists on using WP for that purpose. In contrast to all of these, I still rather prefer sources that simply say, "the established formats of RPGs are..." and then discuss the similarities, difference, pros, cons of each. --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all great; but rather misses the point. Once you have that article on these so-called "formats" of role-playing game (and as I've said before, I rather think you have two: roleplaying and role-playing game (disambiguation)) it is appropriate to discuss each type. In so doing, we need an article which discusses this type of game. The name of this type of game is "role-playing game", and it is discussed in this article. Why should this article cease to exist? Percy Snoodle (talk)

You even seem to acknowledge that the origin of the phrase "role-playing game" (I believe it was AD&D 1st ed rulebook) was regarding a game that was not a "true" role-playing game as you see it.

I never said anything of the sort. Early role-playing games didn't emphasise role-playing, but it was there.

How much does it have to be "there," according to you? For the purposes of the WP article, how do you propose we go about deciding which games had enough of it "there?" Would it perhaps be easier and preferable to dump the entire debate and instead look for sources that plainly state what the established RPG formats are? --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not do both? Why not have an article which states what the "formats" are, and one which discusses this "format"? Percy Snoodle (talk)

Surely you can understand that this point of view creates confusion in a factual encyclopedic treatment of RPGs when it is used as the underpinning of the entire article, instead of as perhaps a section on opinions regarding true role-playing experiences. --The Yar (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If it said that, that would be confusing; but it doesn't. Let's work together to make the article clearer, so the confusion doesn't arise again. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. One thing that will make it clearer is to remove all the nonsense about role-playing games adding "sophistication" and other similar fanaticism. Another change would be to include the most commonly played RPG format, CRPGs, in the varieties section. Yet another would be to remove most of the information in this article and instead place it in main articles on each of the primary formats, including LARP, tabletop, computer-based, etc. If there's one I left out there, and you've got a good source indicating it as a main form of RPG, then certainly it would belong as well. In the end, we get a simple, factual treatment of what RPGs are without rambling on about various theories and opinions and which games are or are not "really" role-playing despite being called role-playing.--The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Rather than tearing down the article and replacing it with your opinion, let's work together to make the article clearer so the confusion as to its topic doesn't arise again. The topic of the article isn't "everything that happens to be called role-playing games" in the same way that the topic of Venice isn't "everything that happens to be called Venice". We have a disambiguation page to point people to other topics with the same name. Percy Snoodle (talk)

I think we've reached the end of any progress on this discussion. As I've more than adequately demonstrated, we are talking about types of RPGs, just as every source, both yours and mine, clearly list types of RPGs. There are LARPs and tabletops and CRPGs and others, but you insist that there must be some overarching classification of "true" RPGs, according to those sources which share your opninion on the matter of what role-playing is (not what a role-playing game is) and in stark contrast to various other opinions and also in stark contrast to stated fact. You are unable to see the difference, in a factual treatment of role playing games, between a collection of essays theorizing on the various mutually exclusive natures of role-playing, and a source that simply states as fact that the established formats of role-playing games are ____. We are not talking about ambiguous homonyms. While there may be many theories on which have more "real" role-playing in them, including many theories that disagree with yours, "role-playing games" refers to them all. We could just as easily distinguish everything according to which ones offer a real "game" instead of which ones offer real "role-playing." Again, not valuable. At this point, I will finish my sandbox samples and submit a suggested move. I intend to retain most or all of the existing written content, just restructured, with more opinionated comments removed and more facutal ones added. --The Yar (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we were ever at risk of making progress with this discussion, since you still don't seem to recognise that the topic of this article isn't the video game derived meaning you misinterpret it as. The argument you're trying to construct is based on a fallacy: that everything with the same name, has to the same type of thing. You understand the term "role-playing games" in the video-game derived sense, and so you can't accept that the article describes them in the original sense. You can write an example article about "role-playing games" in the video-game derived sense, and I'd be fascinated to see it; I'm sure the contents will be an excellent contribution to wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that it should replace the article about role-playing games in the original sense. Percy Snoodle (talk)

Your source is a fan web site that says, "I'm no expert, and talking about what is or isn't real role-playing isn't what's important, but I think that if you're playing a computer game you can't be really role-playing." It then nevertheless lists CRPGs as a form of RPG. You cite this source to support a statement of fact that CRPGs do not involve role-playing and hence do not belong in an article called role-playing games, and that the structure and definitions of articles on various RPG topics ought to be based around what non-expert Kim unimportantly thinks about role-playing. My source says, "The established formats of RPG are tabletop, LARP, Computer-based, and MMORPG" as a simple matter of fact without theorizing on true role-playing or any other qualification of the facts. Is your stance that the former cite is fact and the latter is opinion? Or that they are both opinions? Do you see the words in the Kim source that make it clear it is an opinion? Did you read all the essays I linked you that had similar opinions that LARPs can't be true role-playing, or that story-telling can't be true role-playing? Do you understand my stance on the matter of making this article be about what is or is not "real" role-playing (I'm against it), and that a statement of fact about the established forms of RPG need not put forth any opinion at all about theories on on real role-playing? --The Yar (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also against making this article be about what is or is not "real" role-playing. However, I'm also against making this article be a recentist coatrack, obscuring discussion of role-playing games with discussion of video games. The topic of this article isn't "everything called role-playing games, rightly or wrongly", it's "games in which one plays [through characterisation] the role of a character". The other things which are called role-playing deserve coverage; but they have sensible alternative names so their articles are found elsewhere. The genre of games in which players role-play through characterisation doiesn't have a sensible alternative name, so its article is found here, and a dab page points users to the other games with the same name. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A thought occurs: have you seen Role-playing game theory‎‎? The sources you reject here are just a few among those listed on that page. Whatever comes of this debate, we ought to use some of those sources on this page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, many of these sources might find a reasonable place in a WP article, but only as evidence of various opinions that do not have much bearing on the established facts. --The Yar (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So, since the sources disagree with you, they are "opinion" where yours describe "established facts"? Interesting. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am expressing no disagreement with a source. Only noting which reflect competing theories and opinions and which plainly state fact. You seem to be oblivious to the truth that even your own sources, despite their opinions that you've cited, neverthtless state that the distinction you've drawn is unimportant, and plainly list CRPGs as a type of RPG. --The Yar (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For so long as the sources that state "opinions" are the ones that disagree with you, and those that state "facts" are the ones which agree with your opinion, that argument isn't going to hold any weight. Have you considered that the ones that agree with you might be talking about one sort of thing - the thing you're talking about - and that the ones that disagree with you might be talking about a different sort of thing? And that that different sort of thing might deserve coverage on wikipedia? And that that different sort of thing might be the topic of this article? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've made clear more than once, I am not disagreeing with any sources. All those op-ed essays present interesting but conflicting opinions on the matter. Taken together, we'd have to eliminate every single form of RPG from this article, as those essays collectively exclude computer-based, LARP, and story-focused games as not role-playing. I actually do happen to agree very much with one of the opinion essays (the one that is against debating any of the generally accepted RPG forms and promotes director-style control over a playing piece as included in true role-playing) and will readily admit that despite my agreement with it, it is still an opinion piece. But for me, this has never been about me as a user agreeing or disagreeing with a source. As I've said, there really isn't a place in WP for users to debate with the information in a source. I am merely pointing out clear indicators that differentiate statements that are presented as opinions from statements that are presented as facts. When your Kim source plainly lists CRPGs as a form of RPG, and says that it is unimportant to argue about which ones provide the truest role-playing experience, but that he "thinks" you aren't really role-playing when you play a computer game, you ought to be able to discern from that what is being presented as opinion and what is being presented as fact. That isn't me "disagreeing" with him or anything he's saying. I'm merely asking all users to take an honest look and glean what is appropriate for encyclopedic content, and not confuse one contentious opinion on role-playing theory as if it were the factual basis for classification of RPGs. --The Yar (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you think this is a contentious matter, except between ourselves. There's a community of people who regard role-playing as you do; they produce and enjoy video games, and that's great. Wikipedia discusses that community's chosen genre of games from that community's point of view - the POV of the sources you provide - at role-playing video game and its related articles. But there's also an older community of people who regard role-playing a different way; they produce and enjoy games of characterisation. Wikipedia discusses that community's chosen genre of games from that community's point of view at role-playing game and its related articles. So far, no problem. However, it seems that because you see the video game community's POV as "fact" and the older community's POV as "opinion", you don't think the older community's chosen genre of games deserves coverage. If you would just see that both communities have produced reliable sources in support of their opinions, then you might not have such trouble accepting that both genres deserve coverage; and instead of trying to tear down the coverage of the older genre, you could work to improve the coverage. I'm happy to accept that the tone of the article needs work; please, please, please would you consider working with us to improve it? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest rename

I suggest renaming this and related articles to Pen-and-paper role-playing game to distinguish from electronic video games. I know there's indication elsewhere, but a change in the title could help. SharkD (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - if we really feel we need to make sub-articles for each of the various types of roleplaying, then that could be done, but this should be a general article , about the whole subject. - IanCheesman (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree as per IanCheesman. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree - but per IanCheesman it won't be as simple as just renaming this article. This article is about "all forms of RPGs except one." The subject needs a reorganization on WP to fix the confusion. --The Yar (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not about "all forms of RPG except one", it's about original form of RPG - and the varieties thereof. The newer form has its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree.... and per Percy Snoodle's comment, then this page should be the base to direct people to all of the variants even if it covers the origins of the overall class of games as well. Renaming the page would not eliminate the need for a page with this title covering this subject. BcRIPster (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming of role-playing articles

The naming of the role-playing articles relating to tabletop RPGs, LARPs, video RPGs, and MMORPGs does not currently meet WP:NAME. That policy states that "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." The current structure in which "role-playing game" is taken to refer specifically to tabletop role-playing games contradicts that policy. "Role-playing game" is not unambigious in referring to tabletop role-playing in common usage or in the literature. It is sometimes used in that sense, but also sometimes used in the sense of referring specifically to computer games, and often used to refer to a broad class of games that includes live-action RPGS, tabletop RPGs, computer RPGS and massively multiplayer online RPGs. For this reason I propose that the following naming structure be implemented:

• Role-playing game - The current article will be edited to describe role-playing games in general, as a class of game that includes tabletop RPGs, LARP, computer RPGs, MMORPGs, and any other variants all described on an equal footing. This is the least ambiguous and most easily recognisable approach to matching the content of this page to the name.
  • Tabletop role-playing game - This article will describe tabletop RPGs. Much of this information is already present in the current article and can easily be moved.
  • Live action role-playing game
  • Role-playing game (video games)
    • Computer role-playing game
    • Console role-playing game
    • Massively multiplayer online role-playing game

Much of this structure already exists, the only editing required would be to Role-playing game and Tabletop role-playing game. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support this change. RPG has certainly grown to stand for more than just table-top gaming and video game based RPGs are just as significant as their table-top cousins if not frequently related by content. Anything to provide a clearer explanation of this class of gaming would seem to be a win in my mind. BcRIPster (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I like your hierarchy, although all the article titles should be singular, right? ("game" not "games") There are some odd side articles floating around as well, such as Japanese role-playing game and even Polish role-playing game. The basic structure of this article seems good, though, as it is able to summarize the contents of all the RPG child articles (varieties, history, character creation, statistics, etc.). --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the titles should be singular (I copied "games" from an article that has them wrong). Have fixed them in my post now. Any side-articles could be cleaned up separately from this main name/subject tidy. The test for whether Japanese role-playing game should have its own article is whether that variety of RPG is notable in their own right, which is a separate question to what we're looking at here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and an article about JRPGs would likely be a subset of the Console role-playing game article, which means it probably would not be covered in this larger Role-playing game umbrella topic article. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - I also support this change; I think WP:PT is a key point here. I don't think "All RPGs except video games" meets the criteria for a primary topic, in that it is not "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer."--Trystan (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than saying that the article currently describes "all RPGs except video games", I would say that the article currently specifially describes tabletop RPGs, with just a hat-tip to other varieties of RPG. Look at the first paragraph of the lead and the sections on Gameplay, Purpose, History, Game systems, Campaign settings, and Publishers. If you are familiar with tabletop RPGs, it will quickly become apparent that this entire article is about tabletop RPGS. Only the end of the lead and the Varieties section are about other forms of RPG. The content of the article is quite incoherent in this sense. 90% of the content is specifically about tabletop role-playing games. The remainder of the content implies, bizarrely, that LARP and video RPGs are varieties of tabletop role-playing game! Certainly they have evolved from tabletop role-playing, but in reality they are other mediums that are also referred to as "role-playing game", they are not varieties of tabletop role-playing as the article currently implies. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have said, your point about WP:PT is correct. It's similar to what I'm saying about WP:NAME. Many people visit this page and are surprised that it's about tabletop roleplaying games, because the term "role-playing game" has a much broader meaning than that. That shouldn't happen, it's a poor match of page name and content, which is why I'm proposing this change. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has a focus on tabletop RPGs and their history because the best historical example of a role-playing game is the tabletop. The genre of video games called RPGs are not "role-playing games" because they do not meet the criteria for what a role-playing game is. If the motivation here is to broaden the meaning of "role-playing game" to include CRPGs and video game RPGs in concert with a perceived view that the "role-playing game means video game RPG is popular" in order to establish WP:PT (for which no evidence has been given), then I would like to see research that describes what attributes make up a "role-playing game" in this sense, and how then one distinguishes all the games now classified as role-playing games from any other interactive game. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm weakly (probably very weakly) opposed to the change. The first RPGs were tabletop RPGs, and the rest are varieties. Kind of like the article on guitars is largely about acoustic guitars and only briefly goes into electric guitars (and also links to that article). But at the same time, I can also see the reasoning for the change. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first role-playing games were tabletop games. But the remainder are not varieties of tabletop game. They are varieties of role-playing game. And tabletop, even though it happened to have been the first, is also a variety of role-playing game. Wikipedia article naming does not work on what came first. It works on what terms are generally recognised to mean now. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The first role-playing games were tabletop games, since they derived from wargames. The wargame element was ported to video games, and became known as RPGs, while the non-electronic tradition mostly discarded the tabletop element, and also became known as RPGs. The two traditions share a name and part of their history, but almost nothing else, so it makes sense to handle them on separate pages. I agree that users expecting the video-game term RPG will end up on this page, which details the other term, but the disambiguation notice lets them know where the other term is detailed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, not this again. Oppose. This article is about one of the two types of game that are called role-playing game. It isn't specifically about tabletop role-playing games; it's about games in which players role-play characters. This includes games which do involve tables like some editions of D&D; it also includes LARP, play-by-post games, and non-tabletop roleplaying games like GURPS, Vampire, OTE, some editions of D&D and indeed most of CAT:RPG. It doesn't include the other type of game which is also called role-playing game, a genre of video game which is only historically related to this type of game. The two types of game have almost nothing in common beyond name and a shared history, so to have a shared article with content beyond a dab page makes no sense. Also, since tables are not involved in most modern RPGs except as a place to put snacks, the name "Tabletop role-playing game" isn't a good one for an article.

The problem seems to arise because there are at least three concepts with the unqualified name "role-playing game". The actual hierarchy is:

• Games
  • Games of player-provided characterisation
    • Role-playing games (original sense)
      • Role-playing games (not LARP or PBP; could have tables or not)
      • LARP
      • PBP
  • Games of author-provided or no characterisation
    • Video games
      • Role-playing games (video-game sense)

Hope that clears things up and explains in particular the usual problem with these suggestions - that it's inappropriate for CRPGs to be a child of this page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument may seem intuitive to you, but it isn't based in Wikipedia policy. According to WP:NAME, the name of the article should be linked to the subject in an unambiguous and expected manner. Your "oh dear, not this again" reaction to this proposal is a symptom of this not being the case. People visiting this page are frequently befuddled to find that it is about tabletop role-playing games, and describes other forms RPG as a type of tabletop RPG, as demonstrated by the incessant requests to fix this. Your denial that this page is about tabletop RPGs is not defensible. You know that "tabletop RPG" doesn't mean that a table is used, as the topic has been discussed here before. The term is commonly understood to be synonymous with "pen-and-paper RPG", "traditional RPG", or (as described in the article), RPGs that are "conducted like radio drama". The phrase "Most role-playing games are conducted like radio drama" clearly indicates that this article is about tabletop RPGs, a term that includes GURPS, Vampire, etc. The article is clearly not about larp or video RPGs, they are only mentioned in passing. Every single section of the article apart from the end of the lead, the Varieties section, and perhaps the Purpose section is explicitly about tabletop RPGs. You need look no further than the Gameplay section to see this: "The players describe their characters' actions, and the GM responds by describing the outcome of those actions." That's tabletop RPG. Read the History section, it's a history of tabletop RPGs. Tabletop RPGs should have their own article, and the tabletop material from this article should be moved to it. This article should be made to refer to what people expect when they hear "role-playing game", as per WP:NAME. It should describe how the various forms of RPG evolved, starting with tabletop and moving onto LARP and video RPGs. It does not matter that some video RPGs do not include leeway for player creativity in role-playing interaction. They are part of the broad family of role-playing games, and share the common name and history. They are one of the main things that people expect to find when they search for role-playing game, and therefore to follow WP:NAME this page should be changed to describe them in the context of role-playing games in general. The fact that the various responders have different opinions about what this page is currently about clearly indicates that something is quite wrong with it. My proposal would make its content unambiguous, and the content of the new Tabletop role-playing game page unambiguous. The name of the tabletop page can be debated later, it's not the question I'm raising here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've conflated two of my objections here. One concerns the scope of this page, the other concerns the name "tabletop RPG".

When I've argued that this page doesn't solely cover tabletop RPGs, I'm using the term in your sense. This page - as it says in the dab notice and lead section - covers the tradition of games in which one plays the role of a character though characterisation. That tradition includes LARP, PBP, and the games which you are calling "tabletop RPG".

When I've argued against using "tabletop" in an article name, it's not because I'm unaware that people use the term. However, the term is only ever used to make a distinction that is already sufficiently made by the dab notice; we don't need to go on using an incorrect term and we certainly don't need to force users to use an incorrect term every time they want to link to the page.

You speak of a "broad family" of role-playing games, but there is no such "broad family", any more than there is a "broad family" of conurbations called Washington. Yes, the start of the two traditions' history is linked; and yes, the most recent edition of D&D does import some concepts from the world of video games; but aside from that, they're entirely separate: they do different things in different media, and any attempt to describe a "broad family" will just end up switching between the two as it describes their separate development.

Lastly, we know from experience that it's impossible to comingle the two separate traditions into a single page without almost completely destroying coverage of RPGs in favour of CRPGs. The latter are vastly more popular, and so more and more CRPG content gets added until there is no room for RPG content. It's happened before, and your proposal - although made in unquestionable good faith - would take us back to the situation we had in the bad old days when RPGs couldn't get a word in.

I hope I've addressed your points - it's difficult not to reply point-by-point :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - with one caveat. Not sure if Computer RPGs and Console RPGs need to have separate pages, the difference is mostly software, not style. Both styles can have single player, multi-player, and online modes. But I would not object if others want to create/write/edit both pages. Actually, not sure wither needs a page at all, and that would leave only MMOs as a sub page to Video Game RPGs. While I understand there are a few people who strongly feel that electronic RPGs do not deserve the name they wear, the fact is, that's the name they have. Players, designers, sellers, and more all identify the games as RPGs. If we want the articles to have any consistency, then it's time to own up to that fact and do it. I will agree that both "tabletop" and "pen/pencil and paper" are inaccurate terms, but I am not sure what else works. Simply calling them RPGs does not work, as RPGs as a group is so much larger. - IanCheesman (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether they "deserve" the name RPG; for better or worse, that is their name, just as that is the name of the non-electronic tradition of games. But the fact that they have the same name as the non-electronic tradition doesn't make them the same thing. They are distinct traditions of game, and what they "deserve" is separate coverage. What Ryan is proposing is to remove coverage of the tradition of characterisation-based game, in favour of a hierarchy that excludes most non-electronic non-LARP games. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The test for a primary topic is whether the subject has significantly more coverage than any other topic that could share that name. Regardless of the ultimate name and scope of this article, the current issue is whether it has the overwhelming dominance required to occupy Role-playing game. Given the comparable traffic to several RPG articles, I think it is fairly clear-cut that it doesn't.-Trystan (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Primary topic" here, but I'd argue that common sense is where we should start. There are two types of game called RPG: games of player characterisation, and a genre of video games. While I agree that the video game genre is more popular, it makes more sense to have "Role-playing game" and "Role-playing game (video games)" than it does to have "Role-playing game (role-playing games)" and "Role-playing game". Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Trystan is referring to WP:PT, which states that the article for a name should be about the thing most commonly associated with that name. In this instance, video RPGs may in fact be the thing most commonly referred to as "role-playing games", and therefore this page should not be about something else according to WP:PT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that page. I still think the argument holds - since there is no sensible parenthesis for a page on RPGs (in the characterisation sense) we end up in a situation where common sense has to come before WP:PT. If a sensible parenthesis could be found, then I'd argue for a disambiguation page at Role-playing game, since the two traditions are largely separate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Let us grant that WP:PT dictates how a page must be named. Where then is the evidence that "video RPGs may in fact be the thing most commonly referred to as 'role-playing games'"? How do we know the term "role-playing" is used more often to mean video game RPGs than the retronym tabletop RPGs? If there is no evidence for a consensus, then one must either make the umbrella topic a disambiguation page, or go with history, which pairs "role-playing" with games of collaborative storytelling and characterization, (the "tabletop" and the LARP, among others). DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Computer role-playing game and Console role-playing game pages already exist. Apart from the re-purposing of the Role-playing game and Tabletop role-playing game pages, my proposal doesn't involve changing other pages in the structure - I was just documenting the rest of the structure that is already in place. Percy, I'm not proposing to remove coverage of the "characterisation-based game", that distinction could still be described on this page insofar as it is supported by reliable sources. Further, my proposed structure will not "exclude most non-electronic non-LARP games"! All role-playing games will be described on an equal basis on the role-playing game article, rather than the current situation where tabletop role-playing games is the main subject of the article and LARP and video RPGs are shunted into a "varieties" section. My proposal also involves creating a new Tabletop role-playing game article that is solely about tabletop RPGs, just as the LARP article is solely about live action RPGs. Tabletop is just one of many types of role-playing game. It should be handled the same as the others, and the name role-playing game should bring visitors to to an article about the broadest understanding of its meaning, because any other approach is going to cause the type of confusion we already see. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are proposing to remove coverage of the "characterisation-based game", since your hierarchy doesn't include a page for it. Where is the parent article of LARP, PBP, and non-larp non-electronic RPGs (tabletop and non-tabletop)?

Assuming that we were to have such a page, it might be possible to address your other concern, which seems to be that non-electronic non-LARP games are treated at a higher level than LARP and PBP. That's a reasonable concern; while I don't see a pressing need for it myself, I'm not opposed in principle to having an article that deals with non-electronic non-LARP games as a child of the main "characterisation-based" RPG article, so long as we can find a name for it that doesn't enforce the POV that they are necessarily tabletop or P&P games (consider e.g. Amber DRPG, which requires nothing beyond the players) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I do wonder whether presenting them as something other than varieties of the same thing gives the impression that (characterisation-based) role-playing is split more strictly than it really is; there's a continuum of games from genuinely tabletop games through more storytelling-oriented games to live-action ones, and from rule-bound to freeform; and the same can be said of playing styles within individual gaming groups. I know in our group there are some who're more inclined to "act out" simple actions than others. This isn't necessarily an objection, but it's something to keep in mind. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My proposal will remove "characterisation" (in the limited sense you're using it) as a factor in the structure of the articles. However, the characterisation argument can still be made in the role-playing game article. Which is how it should be, because the characterisation argument is a point of view, and the structure of Wikipedia pages should not be forked by point of view. The weakness of the characterisation argument as a means of structuring the articles becomes apparent when examining MUDs, MMORPGs, and other video RPGs where players interact like Neverwinter Nights. In such games players frequently base their play on characterisation. So your approach would actually require a huge portion of electronic RPGs to be included in the RPGs-of-characterisation page, while others such as single-player electronic RPGs would be excluded. That's a very incoherent structure, and still a POV fork. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You say 'My proposal will remove "characterisation" [...] as a factor in the structure of the articles.' - this is exactly my problem with your suggestion. You're excluding the possibility of discussing that thing which makes RPGs different to every other game - effectively ending coverage of RPGs on wikipedia at all.

You also argue that it's incoherent to include characterisation games which occur over electronic media - MUDS, MMORPGs, etc... - but not to include other similarly-named games which do not (as part of the game) include characterisation-based play. The distinction seems fairly concrete - could you elaborate on why you think it's "incoherent"?

You close by asserting that making the concrete distinction between games of characterisation and other games is a POV fork. I'd counter by saying that lumping all similarly-named games together is a much stronger POV push, downplaying the importance of characterisation as a defining element of RPGs when that's exactly their defining element. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the crux of the matter. What Ryan is proposing to do is excise "characterization" (which we shall take to mean assuming the role of a character and playing it out in a collaborative storytelling environment through improv) from the basis of an umbrella article for "role-playing." If we excise this as a means to fork the different varieties of role-playing game, what is a role-playing game then? Is it whatever an industry decides it means in any given era? Is a role-playing game anything that has RPG attached to its name? If that is the case, the overall "role-playing game" article would have to begin with the history that describes where the term "role-playing game" originated in order to provide any sort of context as to what it means. It would have to explain the meaning of the original term (as described above). Naturally, this will involve wargames and characterization, which is what was added to them in order to create the first "role-playing game"--the tabletop. Such an article would have to go on to list ongoing permutations of the game (the LARP, the MUD, the MMORPG) in the way Ryan has laid out, and explain that the video game industry adopted the term RPG to mean something entirely different than its original sense, so that readers could reference the video game RPG article to get a sense of what those sort of games are like. Omitting the history and the original sense of the term does an injustice to someone who is trying to learn about "role-playing," what it meant at its inception, and how it has multiple meanings now. Characterization and the tabletop gain precedence in the discussion of role-playing because that is where role-playing began, and if the articles are divided up as proposed, a visitor who lands on role-playing game will be left without that important knowledge. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "Characterization" when used to refer to a subset of games...I am still confused by this term. Where does it come from? Is that a term you have come up with to label the groups? Just confused is all. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I'm using it to refer to the games described by this page, since the term RPG describes both traditions of game. It's not a label I've seen elsewhere, so I'm not proposing to use it in an article or article title. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although tabletop etc. RPGs begat video game RPGs, when looking at what role-playing games are, as opposed to their evolution, the order of play is fairly irrelevant, they're all separate entities under the RPG umbrella rather than a hierarchy. For instance, Japanese console RPGs were heavily influenced by western computer games like Wizardry, but when explaining Japanese/console RPGs as they are now is The Bard's Tale (1985) relevant? Hardly. Likewise, is it necessary to talk about TSR when trying to explain Final Fantasy? I think this is a fair proposal, make the article about role-playing games in general, and leave the in-depth history/hierarchy/evolution to the relevant sections in each sub-article. Someoneanother 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually scratch that. I need to go someplace like now and this issue requires further reading. Someoneanother 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support This change will make the content of this page far more intuitively linked to the title, because it will be about all role-playing games, and will make for a new Tabletop role-playing game article that also does exactly what it says on the tin. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So what happens to non-tabletop games such as Amber DRPG? Where do you think we should discuss the common features of all the player-characterisation games? Percy Snoodle (talk)

• Amber would be covered under the Tabletop role-playing game page, or whatever it might be called. "Tabletop RPG" is a term commonly used to describe all traditional, pen-and-paper RPGs regardless of whether a table is required. Because it is commonly used as such, it's irrelevant whether you personally find it suitable. However, if we analyse the best literature we can find on the subject, and find that "Pen-and-paper RPG" is the more commonly used term, we can use that. What we can't do is call it "role-playing game", because that's very ambiguous, or "non-LARP, non-electronic RPG", because that's ridiculous. What you need to bear in mind is that "tabletop RPG" and "pen-and-paper RPG" are terms, not descriptions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• How about we change Tabletop role-playing game to Traditional role-playing game - this links all these games to the historical process by which people sat down with books and wrote out their character stats, then played the game with people in a room. Still probably not the best term, but it avoids the whole "table issue", the "dice issue", and the "miniatures and map issue". This makes it very easy to put games like Amber in this section along with all the rest. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If a consensus emerges here to call the new page "Traditional role-playing game" I don't have a problem with that. The question of what to call that new page is rather tangental to this discussion. The proposal is that the subject of the Role-playing game article should be all role-playing games, and that "traditional" or "tabletop" games should be described on their own page (just as all other varieties of RPG are). What that new page is called is really another question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Even if "traditional role-playing game" is a suitable name for an article on non-electronic non-larp characterisation-based games - and I'm not convinced it's a term with sufficiently wide use to justify its game - that doesn't address the problem of what to call the article on characterisation-based games in general; they are still just called "role-playing games" and as such they clash with the video game genre. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I know the name is not the paramount issue here, just hoping a small consensus could start snowballing the deep divide here. - IanCheesman (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Now that I see the problem for what it is, it's suddenly a lot more simple. This is a decent article which does what it says on the tin, deals with role-playing games in the original sense (which is still ongoing). The problem is people looking for the video game genre, which this specifically is not. That doesn't require anything much, let alone tampering with a perfectly good article - the only thing needed is a big obvious hatlink pointing directly to the video game genre article. Problem solved, phone soon. The only reason it's an issue now is because readers have to get to the bottom of the lead before it's explained that this article isn't about what a lot of readers are looking for. Someoneanother 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Percy Snoodle has made his point multiple times in a very articulate manner. I, unfortunately, cannot claim that I could be as persistently polite as he has been, but I certainly agree with him and will lend him my support. As long as video games limit creativity and characterisation beyond the imagination of the authors, they are interactive novels rather than Role-playing games. From (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Following Wikipedia policy, it doesn't matter whether we think video RPGs are really "role-playing games" or not. It only matters that this is the name used for them. They are both equally well-known as "role-playing game". So they should share this page, along with other role-playing game forms such as LARP. The argument that one sort is a "real" role-playing game and the other is not is an emotional, idiological point, and however well argued it may be it has no bearing here according to Wikipedia policy on this subject. It only matters how the terms are usually used. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The issue of whether they are really "role-playing games" is a red herring; the fact that they are equally well-known as "role-playing game" isn't disputed. But they aren't types of the same thing, so it makes no more sense to have a single page for them than it does to have one that covers both Washington and Washington, D.C.. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unlike your example, the varieties of role-playing game are closely related by a common heritage and common attributes. An article that describes the class of role-playing games and all the varieties on an equal footing would illuminate the similarities and differences between them, and their shared heritage. Your analogy is very poor. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the two traditions diverge at their very beginnings, so their shared heritage is tiny. If you think they share common attributes, I'd be fascinated to know what they are. The only constant in characterisation-based games is the basis in characterisation; for any other attribute, there is an RPG without it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support While tabletop RPGs are the original RPGs, they are no longer the only thing called that. When multiple things share a name, we're supposed to have either a disambiguation page or, if the subjects are related, a main page on the general topic. CRPGs are known as RPGs to pretty much everyone but tabletop enthusiasts. As such, there will be many people looking for CRPGs that will type "RPG" or "Roleplaying Game" into the search. And as much as they may have evolved differently, CRPGs are still decended from traditional ones. Also, I don't totally agree with author vs player characterization, as a lot of one's choices is constrained no matter what you play. Depending on the game, you'll choose a race, appearance, class, gender, and background. While your choices are certainly more constrained in CRPGs, choices are still limited in traditional RPGs as well, through the setting and GM fiat. Granted, the term RPG in the videogame sense has been diluted to the point of uselessness nowadays, but the term still exists. I personally think that this page should only touch on the different types of RPGs, with the above recommended sub-pages describing them in more detail, as per the proposal. -Tainted Conformity ^Chat 01:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment "When multiple things share a name, we're supposed to have either a disambiguation page or, if the subjects are related, a main page on the general topic." - I agree, but there is no "general topic" in this case; none of the defining features of non-electronic RPGs are present in CRPGs, and most modern RPGs lack the defining features of CRPGs. So all that's appropriate is a dab page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So, even when everything shares a history, and flavor, a name, and people generally refer to them as connected, because the mechanics are different, they share nothing in common. If we were to look at this biologically, for comparison sake, the current proposal is to make Carnivora about all Carnivores, not just cats and associated animals, with a separate page for Felidae. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a brief shared history, but the two traditions diverge almost immediately, with RPGs developing the player-characterisation aspect while CRPGs develop in other ways. The name, yes - no-one is denying that - though the "tabletop" crowd might like to. I'm not convinced people refer to them as connected - at least, not beyond acknowledging their shared beginnings; people do get confused by the shared name, though. As for flavour - the experience of the two couldn't be more different. One is shared by a group of people; the other, between a person and a team of game developers. In one, the environment is imagined; in the other, it is presented. In many ways they are opposites. Taxonomy is full of instances of things being lumped together because they are superficially similar. The current proposal is to make Plants all about Mushrooms. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The starting conditions in a role-playing game are never constrained to the extent that they are constrained in a video game RPG or an MMORPG. Players oblige to GM fiat, and the rules can be adjusted to serve the needs of the players. In a video game RPG, there is no arguing with the console or the computer, nor is there a possibility of collaborating to create a story or outcome that is not already predefined (or a permutation of predefined parameters within the game). Someone suggested above "The problem is people looking for the video game genre, which this specifically is not. That doesn't require anything much, let alone tampering with a perfectly good article - the only thing needed is a big obvious hatlink pointing directly to the video game genre article." I definitely agree with this fix. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

cont 1.

• Oppose CRPGs (and their varieties) are not role-playing games, they are a genre of video game. "Tabletop" and "pen and paper" are (inappropriate) retronyms. This is akin to making "video game tennis" subordinate to "Tennis," the actual sport. What's at stake here isn't a contention between "elitist" tabletop gamers and video gamers, it's really a matter of classifying things correctly. Let's put all "political" arguments aside, because as someone who loves both video games and role-playing games, I don't feel that the two genre of games are competing with each other. I believe Ryan Paddy is wrong about this because he believes role-playing video games are a type of role-playing game, when they are not. What we have here are two types of games, really, each with its own hierarchy of genres. The video game industry uses the term "role-playing game" to mean a certain genre of video game in their catalogs with attributes that are distinct from other genres of video games in their catalog. The arm of the publishing industry that publishes "role-playing games" (primary WotC and White Wolf) uses the term to mean that genre of books as distinguished from other genres of gaming books. As a member of the publishing industry, I can even attest to the distinction within the industry. Both senses of the term are "valid" in the sense that they are contemporary--that is, used in common parlance by consumers of either industry. So the argument that one has subverted the other is false. But "role-playing game" as "a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization" is the top of the hierarchy when it comes to that type of "game," in the same way that "video game" is at the top of the hierarchy as "an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device." What follows, then, is that "role playing video game" is a subset of the video game: it "form[s] a loosely defined genre of computer and video games with origins in role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons." Right? Makes sense, and that's how we have it right now. By creating an umbrella article for "role-playing game" that includes "role-playing video game" alongside the other varieties of "role-playing game" (as defined above) is confusing, because video games are not varieties of role-playing games. Many articles besides just this one would have to change if that kind of revision were made. It would be much more helpful to include a section in the existing article about this naming controversy, because I do agree it's a prevalent issue that people do discuss, especially since the advent of the role-playing video game. I'm fairly young, but I remember growing up around 1999 when WotC ultimately bought out TSR, and learning about this distinction as I learned that console/computer RPGs and role-playing games are two distinct types of games. The problem will be finding sources that discuss the issue to cite. Percy Snoodle is right and has argued this very clearly several times before. DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nice ad hominem attack in your blog, been a while since someone has suggested I've got rabies. ;) I'm not particularly a video gamer, by the way, I'm more of a tabletop role-player and especially a larper. As you note, the category "video RPGs" include MUDs, MUSHes, MMORPGS, and whatever you call GM-arbitrated computer RPGs like Neverwinter Nights, not just games like Dragon Age: Origins. Percy admits that some video RPGs meet his unsourced personal definition of RPGs with "characterisation", and you seem to agree too, and yet they're not described on this page. So it's pretty clear that this page, in its current form, is not actually about RPGs with "characterisation". It's about tabletop RPGs. Percy is saying the article is about one thing, but if you read the article, it's clearly about something else. So, imagine if we made this article to be actually about RPGs of characterisation. It would talk about role-playing games of characterisation, the various types, and the evolution of them - which would have a big hole in the middle, because things like MMORPGS that have characterisation evolved out of things like Ultima that arguably don't, which evolved out of tabletop RPGs. And then do you know what the article on RPGs of characterisation would not do? It would not go on to describe the history, rules, settings, and publishers of tabletop role-playing games. And yet, that is what it currently does. The ugly truth is that this is not currently an article about RPGs of characterisation. That's just an incredibly flimsy excuse to make the role-playing game article about the one true and original meaning of the term "role-playing game": tabletop role-playing. Because right now, that's what this article is about. To make a coherent argument that this article should be about RPGs with "characterisation", you would have to admit that tabletop role-playing should also have a separate article of its own, rather than only being described as part of a category of game. But the reality is that many editors have ideological reasons for wanting to visit role-playing game and find the description of tabletop role-playing games there, because they see that as the true meaning of the term. But ultimately, Wikipedia policy doesn't call for the "meaning of the term" to decide what article should have what content. It calls for articles to be about what the title is usually used for. I'm not a rabid video gamer, or an epistemologist (although I am occasionally irascible). I'm a Wikipedia editor who puts my personal feelings aside to follow the rules of Wikipedia. And this article doesn't follow the rules, which is why I'm proposing to change it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reply Hi Ryan, no "ad hominem attack" intended; it's really a satirical blog post, intended to make us all look somewhat ridiculous (as we are). I actually admire all this discussion of the nature of RPGs, which is why I called attention to it. But anyway, my contention is that "tabletop" rpgs are one form of "RPGs proper," which are games of characterization (as well as, in my reading about RPGs and in my own humble opinion, games of collaborative storytelling) for the reasons I outlined in my article, so I see no contradiction on that point. RPGs of "characterization," if we want to call them that, are (mostly) the types of games this article describes. As we've both noted, however, some MMORPGs are capable of facilitating role-playing, and yes, categorically they are video games. So I would actually support some discussion of MMORPGs in the current Role-playing game article, if appropriate articles can be sourced. When you say, Wikipedia policy "calls for articles to be about what the title is usually used for," how do we know what the term role-playing game is "usually used for"? Our debate here demonstrates that there are at least two senses of this term, and as Percy suggested below, if consensus held that we should create an umbrella page for Role-playing games, you would have to make that primary page a disambiguation page, according to WP:PT, which you cited earlier. I personally disagree with that assessment, but I'd settle for it, because it is the least egregious thing to do. DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum Looking back on the proposed hierarchy, I guess the problem I'm seeing (and the basis of my article) is that "Role-playing game (video game)" is not a child of "Role-playing games," specifically because these types of games do not allow characterization or improvisation within the assumption of a role (and the other reasons I outlined in my article). So a hierarchy something like this: Role-playing games (a disambiguation page) -> Role-playing game (pen and paper) (resembling this article and including a history of the tabletop), Role-playing game (live-action or LARP), and Role-playing games (computer-assisted) might make sense to me, because it allows us to classify certain video games within the scope of role-playing games, such as MMORPGs and MUDs. DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It seems a common feature we're agreeing on is that the tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG variety should have its own page (the name of which we can worry about separately). Which leaves the question of what this role-playing game page should be. In my opinion, it should be a page that describes the various related media that share the name "role-playing game". It can still distinguish between those that involve characterisation, and those that don't, without excluding either. Percy says that this article should (and supposedly already does) describe RPGs of characterisation, as he calls it. Personally I would need to see some solid reliable sources such as academic journal articles and books from mainstream publishers that make this distinction before accepting that this is not a POV fork. A POV fork is when topics get split into articles based on one of several conflicting opinions rather than a strongly accepted practice, and it's contrary to Wikipedia policy. I've yet to see such sources, and in any case the point is void because of the Wikipedia policy WP:NAME, which requires us to write articles to match what the title is best recognised to mean. Which leads us to the third option to turn role-playing game into a disambiguation page. Insofar as tabletop and video RPGs are both equally well known as "role-playing games" (which I think could easily be established via reliable sources, which is how these things are done, and which nobody here is particularly debating anyway), that's option would be consistent with policy. However, I still think that having this article describe all subjects known as role-playing games would be preferable. It's not like we're talking about describing unrelated topics like Orange and Orange County in the same article. All the activities described as role-playing games share a common heritage, and there has been plenty of back-and-forth of content between them over the decades, so there would be a lot of value in describing the relationship between the various activities described as role-playing games. If we're going to follow policy, our choice is between having this article be a disambiguation page and having it describe the history and relationship of the activities known as role-playing games. I think it would be sad to go for the disambiguation page option, because the discussion of the interesting subject of the pool of activities known as role-playing games would be lost and in its place we'd have a dull list of links. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were taking about Oranges and Orange Counties, Orange is a disambiguation page.--Trystan (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a dab page is a poor compromise - but it's better than having a page whose topic is "things that happen to be called role-playing games", for two reasons: firstly, there isn't anything that all such games have in common; and secondly, wikipedia's known systemic biases mean that the video RPG content will always crowd out the characterisation RPG content.

Also, I'm not convinced that the point has been made that a page is necessary for non-larp non-electronic characterisation-based role-playing games - although I'm interested to see further discussion on that point. The unqualified term "role-playing game" does, in the context of characterisation-based games, usually refer to such games. There's a definite sense when reading RPG material that they are in some way the "default" RPG, and LARP and PBP are variations on that central sort of game. What would the argumnent be in favour of splitting the traditional games off from the page on the tradition that they began? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with that assessment (I get the sense from reading RPG material too that "role-playing game" as used by RPGs is the default sense of the term), but it looks like there's no way around the WP:PT issue ("If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "[disambiguation].") except to turn Role-playing games into a DAB page and thereby prevent RPG video games from inappropriately creeping back into the article about role-playing proper... I did pose the Goth (Germanic tribe) vs. Goth (subculture) argument--that page points to the oldest sense of the term rather than a DAB--but there doesn't seem to be any interest in that line of reasoning, unfortunately. --Alkah3st (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth raising that point at the WP:PT talk page - if the de facto policy is that the original sense of the word "wins ties" like that, then the page ought to be updated.

As you note, the category "video RPGs" include MUDs, MUSHes, MMORPGS, and whatever you call GM-arbitrated computer RPGs like Neverwinter Nights, not just games like Dragon Age: Origins. Percy admits that some video RPGs meet his unsourced personal definition of RPGs with "characterisation", and you seem to agree too, and yet they're not described on this page. So it's pretty clear that this page, in its current form, is not actually about RPGs with "characterisation".

Ryan - have you considered that it is possible for something to be two sorts of thing at once? That an apple, say, can be "plant" and "food"? The games you describe are RPGs in both senses - but that doesn't mean that there is only one type of thing with the name RPG. You say also that "they're not described on this page" - but they're right there, in the "Electronic media" section.

If you feel the page gives too much weight to non-larp, non-electronic games within the tradition of RPGs, then that's a fair concern and one that we can try to address. It would be great to get your input as a larper to help balance the page out. But it's demonstrably not the case that this page is solely about what you would call a "tabletop" game. The varieties of RPG are right there.

I hope you don't mind me quoting part of your comment; if you feel I've taken it out of context, sorry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to echo you on this point, but I feel I need to further comment on that remark. MMORPGs are different than video game RPGs for one important reason (which I described in my blog post): "the virtual environment of the MMORPG enables human players to characterize avatars [i.e., improvise] and tell stories in the same way that traditional role-playing games do, even though the limitations of the software pose limitations on the execution of the players’ imagination in the storytelling process." In a single player video game RPG, you can't do these things. So MMORPGs and certain multiplayer games, while being online video games, can also serve as a platform for role-playing. This is why I suggested replacing the inclusion of video game RPGs with something like "computer-assisted" role-playing in Ryan's proposed hierarchy. Further, I disagree with Ryan that the category "video RPGs" includes "MUDs, MUSHes, MMORPGS, and whatever you call GM-arbitrated computer RPGs like Neverwinter Nights." When I say "video game RPG" I mean exactly the opposite of these things--what in (console) video game parlance means Final Fantasy and the like. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling a MMORPG a type of video RPG is not my invention, it's a part of the existing article structure that I didn't propose to change at this time. See Role-playing game (video game). Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're defining terms so that single player RPGs aren't RPGs and MMORPGs aren't video games, how are readers ever going to makes sense of anything?

There is an important distinction between interactive narrative RPGs (in which I include some video games, particularly MMORPGs) and RPGs that don't involve characterization, like the recent Dragon's Age: Origins. But that distinction is not communicated to either users or editors (hence the endless debate) simply by arbitrarily saying "these roleplaying games are roleplaying games, because the involve roleplaying, but these other roleplaying games don't involve roleplaying, so they aren't roleplaying games." It's immaterial whether we like it or not that the term role-playing is used to cover a broad swath of games, with varying degrees of narrative freedom and emphasis on characterization, and coming in a wild array of formats. It's also immaterial that once-upon-a-time the meaning of "Role-playing game" was unified and clear. The term is simply used in a broader way now, so if we want to distinguish (though preferably not drawing absolute, easy dichotomies) between collaborative narrative games and single player computer games with a set plot tree, we need to do so using other language. Finding a name for the present content of this article that conveys its scope would go a long way towards that goal.--Trystan (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted below in response to Ryan's revised proposal, I think if the main article Role-playing games pointed to a disambiguation page where the two senses of "role-playing game" led to two different taxonomies Role-playing game (traditional) and Role-playing game (video games), and potentially others as the need arose, users who have no concept of the word "role-playing game" could investigate each sense. If they read Role-playing game (video games) first, they would learn that this genre of video game has its roots in Role-playing game (traditional), and if they read Role-playing game (traditional) first, they would learn that some video games are vehicles for the kind of characterization and improv we see in tabletop and pen and paper RPGs. They would also learn that Role-playing game (traditional) originated the term. Hopefully that makes more sense? DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a very clear structure. The one suggestion I would have is that some of that could be explained briefly right at Role-playing game, making it a brief article rather than a bare disambiguation.--Trystan (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing that too. A few sentences after each, or perhaps an opening paragraph might be helpful before the taxonomies. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

cont 2.

There are obviously a lot of contentious issues at play here, so perhaps we could narrow the discussion to the proposal at hand, to move the content currently located here and replace it with something inclusive of all RPG articles. To make that determination, as set out by WP:PT, all we need to determine is whether the current content of this article is the primary topic associated with the term Role-playing game. If it isn't (i.e. there are other articles of similar prominence that also could be described by Role-playing game), then the move should take place. Things we don't need to decide at the moment:

• What the "branch" of articles on RPGs covered by the current content of this article will ultimately look like.
• What article name the content currently located here should ultimately be located at.
• Whether RPGs (video or otherwise) with little to no characterization are "real" RPGs.
• Whether some computer RPGs involve characterization.
• Or even whether there is enough commonality between video RPGs and other RPGs to justify a common article. If there is, it would be the primary topic and therefore located here, but even if there isn't, Role-playing game would simply be a disambiguation page.--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do need to decide what article name the content currently located here should ultimately be moved to, because every article in Cat:Role-playing games would need to be updated to point to it, and the category itself would need to be renamed.

We don't just need to work out whether this is the "primary topic" - we need to apply common sense. Yes, it may be that in an ideal world we'd have CRPGs or (more likely) a dab page here, but if there's nowhere to put this page, it isn't sensible to move it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with common sense is that it is rarely common. Mine tells me that it is not a sensible practce to give one article squatter's rights to a certain name based on an unwillingness to settle on an alternative distinguisher (with the unwillingness itself based on a prescriptive approach to how the term properly ought to be used). If characterization is the defining element, why not role-playing game (characterization)?-Trystan (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving role-playing game (disambiguation) here, and moving this page to role-playing game (characterisation) might be an acceptable compromise, though I'm dubious. It would be necessary to move Cat:Role-playing games and its children as well, and to put something in place to prevent its recreation, or else we'd end up making a lot of work for ourselves keeping things correctly categorised. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the content of the current article is the primary topic associated with the term, so I disagree that it makes sense to move it. This is not a prescriptive approach, it's logical. For my reasoning, visit: http://www.dquinn.net/wikipedians-debate-the-nature-of-the-role-playing-game/ DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to think why I'm dubious about using "characterisation" as a parenthesis, as distinct from being dubious about needing one at all. I think it comes down to this: while characterisation is the defining quality of a role-playing game, it's not often why people play. A player playing a dungeon crawl is interested firstly in the challenge and atmosphere of the dungeon crawl; a player immersing themselves in a rich fantasy world is interested in the worldbuilding; a player working to advance the plot in a storytelling game is interested in the narrative. The characterisation is part of the game - and the it's the only common element in all the different types of RPG - but it's only the means to the end: fun. Putting it there in the title gives the impression that it's the point of the game, and excludes games where the characterisation element is slight. Our problem, I suppose, is that the original tradition of role-playing games is well-named; any attempt to find a title other than "role-playing game" gives us a less good one, and any attempt to pin it down further than "role-playing" narrows it down too far. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Other things that most RPGs (including electronic, LARP, tabletop, etc.) have in common - character development (including story, physical and mental stats, equipment, etc.), community (including online communities, background information, PBP, etc.), and flavor (RPGs are almost defined by the rich flavor that comes dripping from them, and are often in a fantasy or sci-fi form).

Every game and game system that has ever come out changed some things while holding true to others. RPGs themselves were a change to miniatures wargaming, a new set of options (leveling the individual, fantasy flavor, etc.), while losing some of the original (historical, large groups, etc.).

Yes, when video games started trying to break into the RPG format, they often fell short, especially on the community and character building aspects. That is largely a hardware and software issue. The systems just couldn't handle it. Just like early systems could not create 3D graphics. As the technology has advanced, some of the games have been making major strides back towards the character and community aspects of RPGs.

This is what really should be on the main RPG page. Creation. Expansion into non-Tolkein fantasy. Expansion into classless systems. Expansion into systems where you actually act out your character's actions instead of just rolling a die. Expansion into the electronic market and the problems associated (and some of the solutions later found). It doesn't have to be long, and many sections would like to main articles.

The current RPG article, with only a few changes, is almost perfect for Role-playing game (traditional) (reordered my earlier suggestion to match other titles). And with a title of "traditional", we can mold that to what we want. Let's include info on all the characterization driven forms of RPGs. I would certainly include PBP and other freeform RPing as a form of "traditional". Doesn't mean it can't also be mentioned on Computer RPGs. Yes, some links will have to be changed, but I bet many of them will do fine to still link to the new RPG article.

Yes, there is a massive difference between a Final Fantasy game and a D&D game. But the local campus organization holds a game night once a week, and people show up to try role playing, video, larp, and tabletop (as well as other games (board games, card games, trivia, etc.).

It's not a perfect solution, but lets explain to the world out there the history of why they both use the same term, what the similarities and differences are. Isn't that the reason for Wikipedia? To share the information we have, instead of hiding it away? - IanCheesman (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your list of common features highlights my point that these aren't common features. Character development in the sense of story is part of characterisation; character development in the sense of statistics isn't found in all RPGs; there are a great many one-off games and freeform games without it. Plenty of gaming groups exist in isolation, so community isn't a part of it. And flavour? Yes, they all have flavour, but the experience of each game is different - as I've said earlier, a dungeon crawl has a very different flavour to a political game. So really the only constant in RPGs is the characterisation - the thing which the tradition is already named for. It's also the one thing which video games cannot possibly reproduce - at least until we have AI capable of telling whether or not a player is acting "in character".

Your list of what ought to be here seems to be precisely what is here, in the history section. It charts the expansion into other settings and other playing styles. So I don't see the problem there.

Your final part - that we shouldn't hide information - is a very good argument for keeping the traditions separate. Look how much information there is on CRPGs and their various combat systems, and try to imagine finding content about RPGs if it was hidden among that. In fact, you don't need to imagine - find an archive of wikipedia from the early noughties, and see how bad it was. We don't want a return to those dark ages. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

cont 3.

• Revised proposal The term "role-playing game" refers equally to tabletop and video RPGs. Therefore, following WP:NAME and WP:PT, this article should either be a disambiguation page or about both of those activities (and the other activities like larp that are also known as role-playing games). The discussion of which activities known as role-playing games involve characterisation can be had on the role-playing game page. In summary, I think that there's actually a lot of commonality in the positions expressed by all parties here and the remaining distinction is extremely minor. Tabletop games should have their own page, it doesn't make sense to piggyback them on this page. This page already includes a discussion of video role-playing games, which Percy seems to be happy with, so it already describes the uses of the term "role-playing games" in general. So really, we're no longer disagreeing over the structure. We're only disagreeing over whether this page should say that video role-playing games are really role-playing games (i.e. defined by Percy as games of characterisation) or not. Which is the sort of daily editing discussion that can take place separately to this discussion. So I propose that we create a page that specifically describes tabletop/pen-and-paper role-playing games, move the content from this article that is about tabletop role-playing games to that article, and summarise the nature of tabletop RPGs in this article (much as larp is summarised here). If this proposal is accepted, we can then decide what the name of the new tabletop RPG page should be before moving ahead with the split. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment whether video RPGs are "really" role-playing games isn't at all an issue. They're "really" role-playing games, in the video-game sense of the phrase. Also, this article isn't supposed to be "about" tabletop games, it's "about" role-playing games in the characterisation sense of the phrase. Don't confuse the article's content for its subject: if you think the article is biased in favour of tabletop games, let's work together to improve it and reduce the bias. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Question Could you lay out the proposed structure like you did in the initial proposal (for the Wikipedia-handicapped like myself?) I think a visual would be helpful. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment All I'm proposing here is that tabletop/pen-and-paper RPGs have their own dedicated page, separate to this one. This seems to be something that both Percy and yourself agree is appropriate, regardless of whether the Role-playing game article becomes a disambiguation page, continues to cover "characterisation" RPGs as it presently does, or anything else . Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Musings I think that would make sense if this article became the disambiguation page Role-playing game (disambiguation) that exists now. The only difference would be that the content of this article would have to be contained in something like Role-playing games (traditional) since obviously the main Role-playing games page would point to the disambiguation page. To help show the types of role-playing games within Role-playing games (traditional) one could have a TOC of some sort at the top of the article that lists Live-action role-playing games, Computer-assisted role-playing (to allow for an extended article on MMORPGs and MUDs as they pertain to characterization-based role-playing in the virtual world, similar to what is summarized in the current article), Freeform role-playing, etc. This way, people who have in mind video game RPGs when they type "role-playing games" into Wikipedia land on this disambiguation page, and can click through to that subsection of video games, and people who have in mind the original form of role-playing games can continue on to this article. I think this kind of partitioning in a disambiguation page allows the two senses of the term to be quarantined, if you will, into their own separate taxonomies that is obvious to either gamer. And in the future, if some other sense of role-playing game comes into common use (say, Role-playing game (holodeck) ??), one could simply add it to the Role-playing game disambiguation if it didn't fit into Role-playing game (traditional) or Role-playing game (video game)? The thing I am adamantly opposed to is classifying video game RPGs inside of an article about role-playing in the traditional sense, because they are such different things, and I think this sort of separation would solve the problem, because the main disambiguation page Role-playing game would not show that video game RPGs are children of Role-playing games (traditional), instead it would list it as an alternative use of the term. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to say this, but I think we are getting very close to an agreement to change Role-playing game to Role-playing game (traditional), and have something a little larger than a DAB in Role-playing game. Is that something we can tentatively agree upon, and start working on how the two pages will look? Or if someone trys to do so, will it reverted back instantly? - IanCheesman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - I, for one, am most definitely in agreement.--Trystan (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though we ought to hear Percy's response as well, since he has spent a lot of time working on these articles, and I really just sort of stumbled upon your debate! DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that we're "changing" this page into another one. Rather that we're moving some of the content (the stuff that is totally tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG specific) into a new article specifically about that subject. But it's a semantic point, because the end result is the same. Having said that, I think once that new page is agreed and created there's a separate discussion to be had about whether role-playing game should become a disambiguation page, continue as a "characterisation" RPG that also happens to describe computer RPGs (which it currently does), or become a general article about all things known as "role-playing game". This new proposal does not address that, it is solely about whether to create a new page specifically on tabletop/pnp/traditional RPGs. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm skeptical about what exactly from this article could be moved into Role-playing game (traditional). Above, I imagined that the entire article would be moved. As I said above, moving this article (in its entirety) into Role-playing game (traditional) and then creating a disambiguation page at Role-playing game that lists the two major senses of the term: Role-playing game (traditional) and Role-playing game (video game) makes sense to me - and I'd even think it would be helpful to see a lead explaining the reason why we have these two on that page as Trystan notes, but if you have in mind to create a new article at Role-playing game that attempts to define the role-playing game as something that is a bridge between video game RPGs and traditional role-playing games like the tabletop, LARP, free-form, MUD etc, then I think you'll run into all the problems that we have addressed above, because the video game RPG does not contain characterization and improvisation like the "traditional" role-playing game (with the exception of MMORPGs and certain multiplayer games), which is the "traditional" role-playing game's defining feature (as Percy Snoodle notes below). (Aside Consider Gothic on Wikipedia. This is just a disambiguation page that points to all the possible uses of "Gothic," in both a modern and in an historical context. I bet a lot of people think of the 20th century Goth subculture when they type "Gothic" into Wikipedia, in the same way a lot of people think video game RPG when they type "Role-playing game" into Wikipedia. But while the historical meaning of "Gothic" art has a variety of superficial similarities to the modern Gothic art/fashion subculture, the two are not the same thing, and are not well-served by being described in the same article. And what's more interesting is that if you type "Goth" into Wikipedia, you get an article on the Eastern Germanic tribe, rather than an article that talks about what Goths were in relation to what Goths are at the moment as a subculture.) --Alkah3st (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (formerly DJ Quinn)

Having this page become a disambiguation page is one of the options. But regardless of which option for this page is taken, tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG should have its own page. Which is why this revised proposal is limited to creating a new page for tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG. In terms of the content of that page, it would no longer need to discuss video RPGs or larp, so those parts (essentially just the end of the lead and the "Varieties" section) would not be moved there. If you prefer to think of it as moving this entire article to the new tabletop/pnp/traditional page and then removing the parts about video RPGs and larp, that's fine with me. The end result is the same. As I note below, I'm happy for this page to become a disambiguation page when that content move takes place, and then we can continue to discuss whether that's the ideal content for this page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that in order to have a discussion about what should be in Role-playing games we must first move this article into Role-playing games (traditional) or something similar. We can do that right now, if some of us have in mind to create an article that merges the two senses of the term, because that is the real subject of this entire debate. If we do move the article as you propose, don't our actions suggest that we agree Role-playing games (traditional) and Role-playing games (video games) do not share enough in common to be joined as one article? What more would there be to discuss, except to continue developing these articles independently? --Alkah3st (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG should have its own article, per WP:N. It can't be under the name Role-playing game, because that name is too ambiguous, per WP:NAME and WP:PT. So the decision to create a new article about tabletop/pnp games with content from the current article does not relate to the question of whether the various activities known as "role-playing game" are too diverse to discuss together, it's just following policy. In the previous proposal, we had six editors in favour of making Role-playing game about all games that use that name, and four editors against (one of which was very weakly). Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but that does indicate that there is a majority of support for having Role-playing game cover all activities that use that name, if not a consensus. My current proposal that we make a separate article on tabletop/pnp RPGs doesn't presuppose anything about the current article, except that it should not be solely about tabletop/pnp RPGs, which we all agree. My suggestion is that we create the new page (with a lot of content from this page), make the current article a disambiguation page (because everyone has agreed that's a reasonable option), and then continue discussion on whether that's the most appropriate form for it until we reach consensus. Nothing is ever settled in any final manner on Wikipedia, so no one can predict what form role-playing game will take in the long term. Let's make it a disambiguation page for now, and then let the usual process of discussion over that continue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I agree to making Role-playing games a DAB (as Role-playing game (disambiguation) is right now and moving the entire article that is here now into Role-playing game (traditional). However, your proposal also includes the intent "to move the content from this article that is about tabletop role-playing games to that article, and summarise the nature of tabletop RPGs in this article (much as larp is summarised here)." Are you amending that proposal now such that we are agreeing to make Role-playing games a bare DAB like Role-playing game (disambiguation), and move its current content into Role-playing game (traditional)? --Alkah3st (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind this question, you answered in detail in the bottom thread. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wavering on whether or not we ought to have a child article on traditional (non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games). The current article does assume that they are the "default" sort of RPG, and discusses the other types by comparing them with the default. That's a POV which needs addressing, whether by creating a child article, or just by explaining that the article is doing so for purely historical reasons, since the traditional games are the ones which developed first.

It may even be that the best way to address the bias isn't to split the content out, but rather to merge content in from the LARP, freeform, and OTBRPG articles. The OTBRPG article in particular needs an awful lot of work.

Ryan - from your perspective as a larper, could you point out which bits of the article have the greatest bias in your opinion? If they turn out to form a sensible basis for an article, we can start to worry about what to call it; if, on the other hand, they're problems that we can address within the article, then I'd argue that we should try to do so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is not the right question. You assert this article is about RPGs of characterisation in general. Therefore, I would say that it's clear that the various sorts of RPGs of characterisation that are notable, including OTBRPG, larp, pen-and-paper, and MMORPG, should all have independent articles because they are independently notable of this subject. All of those topics are independently very notable in that they all have extensive coverage in the literature, so they should all have their own articles, and they all do have their own articles except for tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG. Tabletop/pnp is independently notable, so it should not be lumped into an article on "RPGs of characterisation" of which it and larp are both types. As for what aspects of this article are currently suitable to be moved to an article specifically about pen-and-paper games, I can only repeat what I've written before: the entire article except for some of the lead and the Varieties section is specifically about pen-and-paper, and uses examples from pnp RPGs. Most of it could be moved, leaving us with either a page with somewhat more detail about "RPGs" (which could either be defined your way as games of characterisation, or my way as games that bear that name), or a disambiguation page. We could make it a disambiguation page to start with (because that's very simple to implement) until a decision is reached. In any case, this revised proposal is solely to move pnp/tabletop RPGs to their own article, because there seems to be widespread agreement on that change among the editors here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that there are conditions that some of us have for going forward with the proposal - for me, moving this article into Role-playing games (traditional) or something like it is acceptable only if Role-playing games becomes a disambiguation page (with a lead at most, which should be a subject of discussion before we go ahead with slicing and dicing). --Alkah3st (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I can't possibly give a guarantee that Role-playing game will never become longer than a certain length, I can say that I would support making sure any such article clearly elucidates the distinct meanings and largely separate traditions, and is limited to neutral, well-sourced, and notable material that doesn't duplicate either Role-playing game (traditional) or Role-playing game (video games).--Trystan (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Holding that position is like hitching an amendment to a law it doesn't relate to. The subject of tabletop/pnp/traditional RPGs is notable and therefore should have its own page, regardless of what this page is for. The only exception would be if this page is solely about tabletop RPGs, which is not an option per WP:NAME and WP:PT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, I really would like to know which bits of this article you think need fixing. Whatever we do, we should work to improve all the articles, and if the main RPG article has a bias, we should address it.

Remember also, notability is not a sufficient test for a topic, it's a necessary one - just because non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games may have enough coverage to pass a deletion debate, doesn't mean that then need to be treated separately. It's important to remember that one good page is better than four bad ones. One of the requirements for a featured article is that it must hav "breadth" - it should cover all the aspects of its topic. Our first responsibility is to address the issues in this article, bringing it up to standard in all the areas it covers. Once that is done, we should see whether an article specifically on non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games would be justified; if it would only repeat points made in the main article, then there's no reason to spin out a more specific article - it would only end up being merged back. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are close to consensus on anything, I think it's moving this entire article, holus-bolus, to Role-playing game (traditional) (or some variant thereof, and creating a disambiguation page for here. That doesn't doesn't have to be the end of it, but whether Tabletop role-playing game gets split off of Role-playing game (traditional) or the disambiguation page at Role-playing game becomes a short article are separate issues. If we try to decide them all now at once, we'll just get mired down again.--Trystan (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the new article would be solely about tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG, in the sense of role-playing games that are conducted verbally or "like a radio play". So splitting tabletop RPGs away from it wouldn't make sense. Are we actually in agreement that's what the new article would be about? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the proposal is to move the content of Role-playing game into Role-playing game (traditional) (or something like it) and then "move the content from this article that is about tabletop role-playing games to that article, and summarise the nature of tabletop RPGs in this article (much as larp is summarised here)." It's this part that we're not in agreement on. I support moving the entire article into Role-playing game (traditional) and making Role-playing game a DAB, nothing more. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with making Role-playing game a DAB, and then continuing discussion of it. As for moving the all of the current article to the new page on tabletop/pnp RPG, I have to ask why? Why would we want to discuss larp in the new page on tabletop/pnp RPG, except perhaps to note in passing that larp sprung off from tabeltop/pnp? And the same for video RPGs? That's the only content I'm saying we shouldn't move to the new page, because the new page will be specifically about tabletop/pnp RPGs. That's the difference between the scope of the current page (which I think is incoherent) and this new page. Are we agreeing that the new page will be solely about tabletop/pnp RPGs, the sort that are conducted verbally "like a radio play", or not? I thought it was clear that was what my proposal entailed, but please be explicit if you think the new page should be about something else. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I'm understanding: Role-playing games would be a DAB (a list like Role-playing game (disambiguation). Role-playing game (traditional) would be this article, minus the graphs on LARP, etc (they would just link out to the corresponding full length articles). Am I misunderstanding? This I support. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like we're on the same page. The new article on tabletop/pnp RPGs would be just like the existing article, except that it would treat larp/video RPGs more briefly, and as descendants of the tabletop/pnp form (not as "varieties" of it). This would probably involve some tweaking of the lead, and replacing the "Varieties" section with a different section about the influence of tabletop/pnp RPGs, probably ranging from larp and video to movies. (Edited to add my sig, wasn't logged in. And I would add again: this stuff can be sorted out through the normal editing of the new page, it's not something that has to be decided here). Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Crystal clear to me now. Thanks for explaining at length. --Alkah3st (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryan - it sounds like you object to the word "varieties" and prefer "descendants". Could you explain why you think "variety" is unsuitable? In almost all the uses of the term, it implies a descent from a "stock" variety. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

It sounds like we are approaching a consensus to:

• Create a new article that is specifically about tabletop/pnp/traditional RPGs. A name for the new article will need to be decided that is "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" per WP:NAME. I think this will involve a brief review of the literature on our parts. I have access to academic journals and will make a list of usages in those sources. If people can add usages from other sources including published RPGs and books about RPGs that'd be great, so we can make an informed decision. The content of the new article will closely resemble the content of the existing article, with some tweaks to make it clear that larp and video RPGs are descendants of the tabletop/pnp form, not varieties of it.
• Make Role-playing game a simple disambiguation page. There seems to be a consensus that this is acceptable. We can then resume discussion of whether the page might better serve some other purpose, but it's entirely foreseeable that the page may remain a DAB.

How does that sound? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have access to many published RPGs that could be helpful in finding a name for the "traditional" RPG. I'll browse through the various "What is role-playing" headnotes to see what I can find to share. --Alkah3st (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I may have people mad at me for this, but I attempted to be Bold, and have moved most of the content around. See Role-playing game (traditional) and Role-playing game. Now we can start working on the best ways to make these pages work, and can start working on link changes. Unless someone decideds I was too bold, in which case you can revert it all back, I guess. - IanCheesman (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks nice actually. I am putting together a document to make available to everyone that includes excerpts from the "What is role-playing" sections of various published tabletop RPGs. I'm sure this will be useful in the continued editing of that article and for future reference too. --Alkah3st (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your edits, but I think we should have a discussion on the name of Role-playing game (traditional) on that article's talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, you may want to have a look at all the pages that link to "role-playing game", many of which will need to be edited. It may have been sensible to agree on a new name first, so that we don't have to repeat the work of linking everything to the new name if it changes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki question for you all. Would it be against Wiki policy if I listed these excepts I'm collecting in a subpage of my User talk page, so that we can reference/modify it? Or would it be better to just link to the document on my own server from my User page? These are like 1 paragraph bits that are somewhat revealing as to how the tabletop/p&p RPGs refer to themselves so it would qualify as fair use (arguably, as is the nature of fair use, of course). --Alkah3st (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just post the excerpts on the relevant article talk page, it's fair use. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly all I see is consensus to throw numerous paragraphs of text at what should have been a simple signpost change at the top of the article. All that disambiguating the page has done is make sure that 100% of inbound links to Role-playing game need disambiguating instead of only some of them. The third link on the disambiguation, Roleplay simulation, has nothing to do with role-playing games. There are two items, one which was already in place and another which could have been signposted at the top of the article, everybody would be able to find what they were looking for quickly and easily, do we really need to make it more complicated than that? Someoneanother 02:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think roleplay simulation is useful for disambiguation, because some users will visit role-playing game looking for information on roleplay training for firefighters, police, bank tellers, etc. Those industries sometimes use "role-playing game" to describe their roleplay simulation training. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, we have to remember that "role-playing games" at the disambiguation page now refers to anything that can be called a role-playing game, so as Ryan notes, it would make sense for roleplay simulation training to be listed here if indeed these industries use the term in their own way. --Alkah3st (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert this move on technical grounds because it was performed by cut and paste move, which is problematic for a number of reason (primarily because it separates the article's contents from its history). --Muchness (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be best for us to reach a consensus on the name of the new page, before doing the move via the correct procedure. The name role-playing game (traditional) is one that had been mooted but not yet researched or agreed on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Partly support, partly oppose - moving the dab page to the unqualified title is only sensible if we can find an appropriate qualifier for this page - "traditional" isn't going to cut it for a type of game that's only been around since 1974 - and we need to be certain that this isn't going to cause administrative nightmares with the categories, or that it's just being done as a first stage towards putting CRPGs as the root and making traditional RPGs an adjunct to them, as they were back in the bad old days.

Spinning out an article about non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games is also only sensible if we can find an appropriate name for them. "Tabletop" is absolutely unsuitable - misleading common names are one of the titles that policy tells us to avoid. Further, we have to be sure that there is sufficient content to justify a spin-out; simply repeating ourselves isn't a solution to the problems that people have identified.

Finally, I oppose moving this article to become the new non-larp non-electronic non-freeform page. We need to make our top-level page good, and the best way to do that is to improve the article we have, rather than starting from scratch with good intent but no clear idea of what to put there. Perhaps the best way to do this is by putting some drafts as subpages?

If these concerns can be addressed, I'd support the proposal. Otherwise, no. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Name for new page

It looks like the contents of this page will be moving to a new name, one unambigiously indicating that the content is about tabletop/pen-and-paper/traditional RPGs. What should the name be? We need to look through reliable sources and see what names are used to differentiate RPGs that are played "like a radio play" from the other activities that are called "role-playing game". Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Below is my splurge of sources for reference. Not many name themselves or the genre, though White Wolf products tend to use "storytelling game" and D&D derivatives use "fantasy roleplaying game." Some refer to tabletop and pen and paper, as well. Hopefully with more references from outside the games themselves, we can find a common name. --Alkah3st (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. Doesn't look like there's any strong direction coming out of those, but that's good to know. I'll go through academic sources tomorrow. They're often more concerned with differentiating between pnp, live, and computer RPGs because they compare the varieties. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - that's going to be an excellent resource both for naming and for determining what content to put where. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources

I searched for "Role-playing game" on Google Scholar. These are excerpts defining RPGs from the articles I found, in the order they came back. I list every result that I could get access to, apart from some that were repeating a topic... one article about simulating river farming in Senegal is enough, for example. I searched the sources for "traditional", "paper", and "table" to see if any of our identified likely terms were present. I think these results are useful both for finding a name for the tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG article, and also for demonstrating the varied use of "role-playing game".

Barreteau, Bousquet & Attonaty (2001) Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems

Multi-agent systems and role playing games have both been developed separately and offer promising potential for synergetic joint use in the field of renewable resource management, for research, training and negotiation support. ... Players take the roles of farmers, each cultivating a plot in the same irrigated scheme in the Senegal River Valley. They are situated in a first room which represents the space of villages. This room contains two sets of tables, representing named villages in the game and equivalent to friendship groups in the model. In this same room, two other single tables represent the two groups in the game, who implement the collective rules.

Fine (1983) Shared Fantasy: role-playing games as social worlds

I shall examine one particular form of gaming: fantasy role-play gaming. A "[fantasy] role-playing game" has been defined as "any game which allows a number of players to assume the roles of imaginary characters and operate with some degree of freedom in an imagainary environment" (Lortz 1979:36). ... This role-playing is oral, and does not involve physical acting. ... "The regular Saturday crowd was all playing this strange and incomprehensible pen and paper game called Dungeons & Dragons, and would not deign to involve themselves in anything quite so mundane as a miniatures battle" (Shapero 1979:11).

Iljashenko (2007) Role-Playing Game: Role-Playing Game as Effective Method of Learning a Foreign Language at School

However, there is no unity of opinions concerning the term “role-playing game” in the theoretical publications. Some authors see role game as playing short scene, discussions on a free topic, reading by roles, staging of one-act plays, etc. (Livingstone, 1988). ... On the basis of the concept analysis of “role-playing game”, the following definition can be formulated: Role-playing game - the game form of the educational activity organization, carried out according to the developed plot, the distributed roles and the planned communicative problem by a teacher.

Morris & Hartus (2004) Role-playing games

The game that Gygax and Arneson created was of course Dungeons & Dragons... almost thirty years later, virtually every element of computer role-playing can be traced back to that humble mimeographed rulebook. ... In the field of face-to-face role-playing, the decades since Dungeons & Dragons have seen great diversity. ... In a paper and pencil RPG the Dungeon Master says...

Barreteau (2003) The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: characterization of associations

Role-playing games and models are increasingly being associated for educational purposes as well as for dealing with negotiation topics. ... In-between games and theater, RPG are group settings that determine the roles or behavioral patterns of players as well as an imaginary context. A RPG is the performance of a roughly defined situation that involves people with given roles (Mucchielli 1983). ... RPG encountered in science or development processes can be categorized into three types of uses: training, research or policy making (Peters, Vissers et al. 1998; Barreteau, Bousquet et al. 2001). The first one is however predominant. They aim at placing players in real life situations in order to train them to react to specific conditions or to foster interactions among them according to a specific question. These types of training tools, often used with professionals in training sessions, are the most common RPG. ... Another kind of RPG, considered as a learning tool for the player, constitutes thought support: players are put into a situation that is comparable to one they might encounter and from which they learn the consequences of the reactions they might have. They are used, for example, to prepare government establishments for a terrorist attack, or with army leaders to simulate war in war games.

Yee (2006) The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games: Motivations, Emotional Investment, Relationships and Problematic Usage

MMORPGs are a new class of Multi-User Domains (MUDs) – online environments where multiple users can interact with each other and achieve structured goals. ... While it is commonly thought that MUDs descended from table-top role-playing games (RPGs) such as Dungeons and Dragons, the two genres emerged around the same time and co-evolved beginning in the early 1970s and became popular during the 1980s. ... 68% of respondents (n 3415) have experience with table-top role-playing games.

More later. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. At least the small samples we have here show that terms like fantasy role-playing game, pen and paper role-playing game, and table-top are not isolated cases. "Face-to-face" is interesting too, as it specifically rules out MUD and MMORPG while allowing for other tableless + paperless variations. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy role-playing game is too ambiguous, it could refer to the genre. I actually have the same problem with "traditional" as a description, it's too ambiguous. You could have traditional computer RPGs, or traditional educational RPGs. "Tabletop" and "pen-and-paper" don't have this problem. "Face-to-face" is ambiguous because it could mean larp. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about "traditional" and "face-to-face". "Tabletop" and "pen-and-paper" have the same problem as "fantasy" - they're too specific; "tabletop" excludes all but the oldest games, and "fantasy" excludes a great many games in other genres. "Pen-and-paper" excludes some of the more near-freeform games, although it's perhaps less misleading since there is often some substitute - I'm thinking in particular of the "plot stones" in a storytelling game whose name escapes me, which could be represented on paper, but just happen not to be. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, carrying on. This time I'm going to skip the sources that just use "role-playing game" to refer to tabletop, computer, or educational RPGs because I think we already have consensus that the term is ambiguous. I'll focus on the sources that use a more specific term for tabletop RPGs.

Mackay (2001) The fantasy role-playing game: a new performing art

The drama, script, theater and performance spheres are equally represented in the tabletop role-playing game. ... Such game play is a textual form of role-playing due to the lack of face-to-face communication and the oral/gestural performance common in tabletop ... ... emerging online virtual-reality role-playing games) other than tabletop role-playing games, that may make this model useable to others who engage these ... ... game in this book because it, along with the computer and online role-playing game,is ontologically different from the tabletop role-playing game. ... form not yet born: the immersive imaginary-entertainment environment of an online virtual-reality system. My subject here is the tabletop role-playing ... It is distinguished by players performing their characters in a social, face-to-face setting, yet refraining from acting-out their character's actions to ... Online gaming is not face-to-face like tabletop role- playing is, so the online role-player can get away with much more in terms of identity ... etc.

Hallford & Hallford (2001) Swords & circuitry: a designer's guide to computer role playing games

You now play with other humans and get your reward for playing from other humans, just as we used to do back in the days of paper role-playing games. ... Mainstream audiences often fail to connect with many traditional RPGs because they can't relate to fantasy settings. ... (NOTE: this souce contains a number of quotes where interviewees refer to tabletop RPGs as pen-and-paper, but quotes in a source are usually not considered as definitive as the author's narrative. ALSO NOTE: in this source "traditional RPGs" is being used to mean fantasy-genre tabletop RPGs, not all tabletop RPGs. This is one of the many ambiguities of "traditional" as a descriptor).

Copier (2005) Connecting Worlds. Fantasy Role-Playing Games, Ritual Acts and the Magic Circle

The Elf Fantasy Fair shows how players are at the same time involved in various digital but also analog (table-top and live action) roleplaying games. ... Table-top or pen and paper role-play does not involve any form of physical acting. Nevertheless, in the United States and England, influenced by re-enactment, players started to enact their characters, thus beginning what came to be known as Live Action Role-Play (LARP). ... In 2003 and 2004, digital (online) role-playing games like Neverwinter Nights (Bioware, 2002) and Final Fantasy (Square Enix, 1987 onwards) had the most interest (40%). In 2005, many respondents added the MMORPG World of Warcraft (Blizzard, 2004). Next up in popularity are table-top role-playing games, mainly Dungeons and Dragons (30%). ... From a commercial perspective, digital offline games like Baldur’s Gate (Bioware, 1998 onwards) are also considered RPGs. I would argue that these games don’t necessarily encourage role-play because players cannot add their own information or discussion over the rules as in table-top, live-action and online role-playing. Therefore I would consider offline RPGs being adventure games (always having fixed rules and quantifiable outcomes) rather than role-playing games.

Tychsen et al. (2006) Communication in Multi-player Role Playing Games – The Effect of Medium

The Pen-and-Paper role-playing game is a successful example of collaborative interactive narrative. Meanwhile, computer-based role-playing games, while structurally similar, offer quite different narrative experiences.

Tychsen et al. (2007) Cross-format analysis of the gaming experience in multi-player role-playing games

The tabletop format emerges as the consistently most enjoyable experience across a range of formats, even compared to a computer-based RPG directed by a human game master. ... The Role-Playing Game (RPG) is one of the major genres of games, and has proven an extremely portable concept - from the physically embodied live action and tabletop formats to the various digital, mobile and even enhanced and augmented reality formats. ... Other games that cross formats include the Vampire the Masquerade and StarCraft, as well as the Forgotten Realms world originally developed for the Dungeons & Dragons Pen-and-Paper (PnP) RPG. ... Pen-and-Paper RPGs provided a template for early developers of digital games outside the arcade arena who wanted to port their experiences from the tabletop to the digital medium. Since those early days an ongoing debate has continued as to how successful this format transfer has been. Computer-based RPGs (CRPGs) lack the flexible storytelling of PnP-based stories due to technical challenges. It can be argued that CRPGs reduce the need for players to exercise their imaginations with creative construction of mental representations of the game characters and environment, since the systems’ graphics provides this. This reduced use of imagination and reduced flexibility in storytelling seem to be key factors in the debate on format transfer. ... PnPs consistently emerged as the most enjoyable and immersive of the three RPG formats, even in randomly assembled groups of players, and across age, gender and experience categories. (NOTE: this source describes RPG as a broad class of game that includes various formats such as computer RPGs and tabletop RPGs)

'Tychsen et al. (2006) Live Action Role-Playing Games: Control, Communication, Storytelling, and MMORPG Similarities

pen-and-paper (or tabletop) role-playing games (PnP RPGs) are directly reflected in their computerized counterparts such as Neverwinter Nights (2002 Atari/Bioware), Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption (2000 Activision), and Dungeon Siege (2001 Microsoft). ... Much of the attention given to PnP RPGs in the literature has focused on the style where a small number of players (typically four to six) sit around a table and the game is under the direction of a single GM. Many other forms of RPG styles exist. In this article, only those typically labeled—within the role-playing community—as live action role-playing games (LARPs) are examined. (NOTE: this article also loosely defines all computer RPGs as a type of role-playing game, in which "the role of the GM is taken on (with varying degrees of success) by software." ALSO NOTE: if you're ever looking for the defining academic article on larp, this is probably it.)

Tychsen (2006) Role Playing Games – Comparative Analysis Across Two Media Platforms

Role Playing Games (RPGs) is a popular game form. RPGs have been translated into all media formats, and are also a rare example of functioning interactive narratives. ... In this paper, the results of a comparative analysis of pen and paper RPGs and computer RPGs... is presented. ... Being of a somewhat similar age as computer games, Pen and Paper Role Playing Games (PnP RPGs) [2,6,13,15,16], a specialized form of table-top games (TTGs) involving multiple participants interacting in a fictional world... Multiplayer PnP RPGs and CRPGs share a number of features and are structurally quite similar. However, the two game forms provide different experiences, notably because of the use of a virtual representation of the fictional game world employed in CRPGs. In PnP RPGs, the participants must work together to uphold a shared understanding of events taking place in a shared, imagined fictional game world, while in CRPGs the fictional game world is visually presented by a virtual reality engine, as observed in e.g. Neverwinter Nights or Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption. The rules systems, themes and fictional settings of RPGs have been applied across every media format. Perhaps due to the high degree of flexibility in these games, RPGs appear to form a prime source for the development of new game forms. The core element of PnP RPGs, that of actually role playing, can however be lost in the translation from the TTG format of PnP RPGs to other media formats. PnP RPGs are an example of interactive narratives. The rules and fictional worlds that form the basis for these games function as a vessel for collaborative, interactive storytelling. This is possibly the most important feature of PnP RPGs, and one that CRPGs have yet to reproduce. Role playing games is a rare example of a game form that has been translated between several medias of expression, from CRPGs, PnP RPGs, Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) to Live Action Role Playing Games (LARPs). The variety of role playing games makes it inherently challenging to provide a common definition. However, all forms of role playing games - be they PnP RPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs or LARPS - share a group of characteristics, which makes them identifiable from other types of games...

There are a lot more, but I think some conclusions are becoming pretty clear. 1) Either "tabletop" or "pen-and-paper" are the most used, least ambiguous, and most recognisable terms used for tabletop RPG, and 2) there are academic sources that support "role-playing game" as a broad class of games that includes tabletop, computer RPGs, and larp.

Regarding the first conclusion, I think it's clear that we should chose between Tabletop role-playing game and Pen-and-paper role-playing game for the name of the article that the present content of Role-playing game will be moved to. Personally I favour "tabletop", it's more concise which is an important consideration when appending a descriptor to an already-long-and-hyphenated name like "role-playing game". But I think it's an open question, especially as the more recent articles published in more reputable sources tend to favour "pen-and-paper".

In terms of the second conclusion, I'm still happy to make Role-playing game a DAB for now, but after the dust has settled from the move I will continue to argue that "Role-playing game" is a term used in reliable sources for a broad class of games that includes tabletop RPG, digital RPG, larp, and certain educational, academic, training, and military simulations. And psychodrama, for that matter. Basically, I think we have plenty of sources to write a truely broad and rich article about what role-playing games are, one that doesn't reflect the systemic bias of Wikipedia editors, who are more often gamers than educators or psychotherapists. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I await others thoughts about option #1, but as for #2, I still think anything more than a DAB about "role-playing games" will end up being a vague conglomeration of every possible sense of the term, offering little more depth than a DAB would offer. It's the same situation as we see in an article like "Goth." Goth is not an article discussing every sense of the word Goth, even though there are now several senses of the term (Goth subculture, the original Germanic tribe, the Gothic art movement, the novel Goth etc); instead, it is an article about the original meaning of the term, and has a DAB link pointing to others. I would also like to note that Role-playing games focused on a discussion of P&P/tabletop RPGs before the conclusions we've drawn recently not because of the systemic bias of Wikipedia editors, but because "role-playing games" meant, historically, tabletop and P&P games, in the same way that, historically, Goth meant the Germanic tribe. And while it can be argued that prior to the introduction of Gygax + Arneson's type of game, "role-playing game" referred to an indistinct kind of activity that is now described in the article Role-playing, and so it was only a logical starting point for an article about three decades of games called "Roleplaying games" by an entire industry to assume the Wiki space Role-playing game. --Alkah3st (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There's consensus that we should make role-playing game a DAB, and it will remain a DAB unless a discussion leads to a new consensus. I disagree with your points, but let's raincheck that discussion until we reach a decision on the name for the tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting "tabletop"

I think there's a strong argument to be made that the name should be Tabletop role-playing game. The term is used in some RPG texts, and in books and academic articles on role-playing games. It's concise, and unambiguous. While it implies the use of a table, most roleplayers look past that as can be seen from its widespread use in those sources and by role-players. The most important consideration is which term is the most recognised, and that is usually somewhat a matter of the opinion of editors when there is more than one strong contender (and we have two in this case). Personally, I get the impression that the usage of "pen-and-paper" might be rising, but that "tabletop" remains the most widely recognised term for now. For example RPGnet, which has the busiest independent role-playing forums, calls its tabletop role-playing discussion forum "Tabletop Roleplaying Open". Also, it's a very rough gauge but Google returns 1.5 million hits for "tabletop role-playing" versus 0.9 million hits for "pen-and-paper role-playing" (and the difference grows much larger if you search the terms in quotes). These indicators suggest to me that tabletop role-playing game would be the most recognisable and least ambiguous name. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that, while "tabletop" is the more widely used, that's because it's used by people who see the miniature-based combat system of D&D and assume that the game is a tabletop wargame. It's possible that that, with D&D emphasising that style of play more and more, and importing more and more from MMOs, and with other games moving further and further from it, that we may be seeing a split, and that "tabletop role-playing" may come to simply mean "fantasy skirmish wargame" while "pen and paper role-playing" may refer to the non-electronic non-larp genre.

Annoyingly, the policy on misleading common names seems to have disappeared since the last time this argument game up - does anyone have the link? - but anyway I'd suggest that it was a sensible policy and we should follow it nonetheless :-) On the grounds that an article title shouldn't be just plain wrong, I strongly oppose "tabletop" and weakly oppose "pen and paper", so if we absolutely must have a separate page, then in my view the latter is the lesser of the two evils, and even with it we'd still need a disclaimer explaining that we know the title is wrong.

All that is probably an aside, though, since it hasn't been shown that a separate article is warranted. Until we get a decent idea of how to address the issues in this, the top-level article, we won't know whether there's enough content for a viable spin-out article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Tabletop isn't "just plain wrong". How could it be, given that it appears to be the term most commonly used. Do you really think the thousands of tabletop RPGers on RPGnet who use a forum called "Tabletop Roleplaying Open" all believe that it refers to RPGs that require a table? With all respect, that's nonsense. "Tabletop" RPGs don't require a table, and roleplayers know this. It's a "term of art", a technical term, not a description. It refers to all verbal RPGs, those that require a table and those that don't, and that's how it is used in the literature and in common use. The new article can make it clear that a table is not required, just as the current article does. I don't know what text you're talking about in regards to misleading common names, perhaps it's an essay that's been removed, but WP:NAME is the relevant policy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You ask how tabletop could be "just plain wrong", and then go on to say that '"Tabletop" RPGs don't require a table'. You answered your own question. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I've found the new location of the advice regarding misleading names, at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Descriptive names:

"Titles which are considered inaccurate descriptions of the article subject, as implied by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be the most common name".

Of course, in this case, "tabletop" isn't the most common name - that would be the unqualified term "role-playing game", which indicates that if the article is warranted (and it hasn't been shown that it is) then its title should be of the form "Role-playing game (specifier)". Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if there is consensus that the article is warranted, then the title should be in the form "Role-playing game (specifier)" as Percy notes, rather than Tabletop role-playing game in the same way Role-playing game (video game) points to that article.

Excerpts from "Traditional" Roleplaying Games on "What is roleplaying?"

I think this page will ultimately be moved to the right place (and these excerpts moved along with it), but if not, please feel free to move these excerpts where they belong after the move to Role-playing game (traditional) (or whatever it ends up being called) is sorted out.

Below are excerpts from published RPGs that attempt to define roleplaying. I've tried to select headnotes from different publishers, and I think a more helpful reference would be a list of headnotes from only the most important RPG from each publisher for comparison. I invite others to contribute headnotes from other published RPGs, as they tend to be fairly revealing.

If we feel this isn't the place for something like this, please let me know and I can move this elsewhere and link out to it. I just imagined this might be useful for developing RPG articles since Wiki lets contributors edit very easily.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook (TSR Games, 1978)

Even if you are not familiar with fantasy role-playing games in general, and Dungeons and Dragons in particular, you will find this work (with its companion volumes, MONSTER MANUAL, and DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE) is a complete game system in itself. [...] If, on the other hand, you are a veteran adventurer of many swords & sorcery campaign games, ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS will prove to be superior to any past offerings in the fantasy role-playing game field. [....] ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS is a fantasy game of role-playing which relies upon the imagination of participants, for it is certainly make-believe, yet it is so interesting, so challenging, so mind-unleashing that it comes near reality.

AD&D Section Edition Player’s Handbook (TSR CD-ROM, 1995)

This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of a character and then guides that character through an adventure. The player makes decisions, interacts with other characters and players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game. That doesn't mean that the player must jump up and down, dash around, and act like his character. It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action [….] Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to role-playing because no one "wins" in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.

Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition (WotC 2008)

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is a roleplaying game. In fact, D&D invented the roleplaying game and started an industry. A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children. However, a roleplaying game such as D&D provides form and structure, with robust gameplay and endless possibilities. D&D is a fantasy-adventure game. You create a character, team up with other characters (your friends), explore a world, and battle monsters. While the D&D game uses dice and miniatures, the action takes place in your imagination. There, you have the freedom to create anything you can imagine, with an unlimited special effects budget and the technology to make anything happen. What makes the D&D game unique is the Dungeon Master. The DM is a person who takes on the role of lead storyteller and game referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters and narrates the action for the players. The DM makes D&D infinitely flexible—he or she can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected. The adventure is the heart of the D&D game. It’s like a fantasy movie or novel, except the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the story. The DM sets the scene, but no one knows what’s going to happen until the characters do something—and then anything can happen! You might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. You solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle all kinds of fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and treasure. D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun. It’s a storytelling game where the only limit is your imagination. It’s a fantasy-adventure game, building on the traditions of the greatest fantasy stories of all time. In an adventure, you can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. Your actions might work or they might fail spectacularly, but either way you’ve contributed to the unfolding story of the adventure and probably had fun along the way. You “win” the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game by participating in an exciting story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils. The game has no real end; when you finish one story or quest, you can start another one. Many people who play the D&D game keep their games going for months or years, meeting with their friends every week to pick up the story where they left off. Your character grows as the game continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to your continuing story, but also earns your character new abilities. This increase in power is reflected by your character’s level; as you continue to play, your character gains more experience, rising in level and mastering new and more powerful abilities. From time to time, your character might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. But even when your character is defeated, you don’t “lose.” Your companions can employ powerful magic to revive your character, or you might choose to create a new character to carry on from where the previous character fell. You might fail to complete the adventure, but if you had a good time and you created a story that everyone remembers for a long time, the whole group wins.

D&D Third Edition Player’s Handbook 3.5 (WotC, 2003)

This is the Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game, the game that defines the genre and has set the standard for fantasy role-playing for more than 30 years. D&D is a game of your imagination in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero--a character you create. Your character might be a strong fighter or a clever rogue, a devout cleric or a powerful wizard. With a few trusted allies at your side, you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure. The game offers endless possibilities and a multitude of choices--more choices than even the most sophisticated computer game, because you can do whatever you can imagine. [...] The D&D Game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, part dice rolling. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventures. Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game come alive.

Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies (Wiley 2005) (okay this one isn't an RPG, but I had it lying around)

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game has been around for more than 30 years, and it stands as the pinnacle of fantasy-adventure games (also known as roleplaying games). The concepts and play patterns of D&D (as it is affectionately called) harken back to the games of make-believe that almost everyone played as a little kid. However, D&D provides form and structure, making game play more satisfying and robust for kids and adults alike. This book makes the mysterious and often arcane world of fantasy roleplaying, specifically the DUNGEON & DRAGONS game, easier to understand and faster to get into. Get ready to open your imagination, roll some dice, and battle dragons and other magical monsters.

Werewolf: the Wild West (White Wolf, 1997)

Werewolf: The Wild West is a game of storytelling; a game about mystique and wonder, visceral action and intense spirituality. It's a game that allows you to spin great tales of glory, loss, horror and triumph. [...] [Storytelling's] what this game is about. Werewolf: The Wild West takes a long look at old legends and gives us all a chance to define them to suit our own tastes, to tell our own stories with these ancient archetypes. With this game, you can look at your own culture and yourself in a new context--or you can, as the saying goes, walk a mile in another man's moccasins. [...] Even so, this game isn't precisely 100% storytelling, at least not buy the usual book definition. In most cases of yarn-spinning, the tale-teller knows how his story's going to end. However, Werewolf: The Wild West deals in fluid plots and genuine suspense--the final outcome depends on your character's actions, and is usually in doubt. Just like improvisational theater, you have a set to act on and foils to react to--but you don't have a script, and you make up the lines as you go along. [....] This game's just a more sophisticated version [of childhood role-playing games]. There are rules (so you know how many bullets that bullyboy'll take before he falls over, and so the events don't seem completely arbitrary) and a setting (so everybody knows where the story is set, and can guess where it might go). That's about it.

D&D Basic Set (TSR Hobbies, Revised 1983)

The Dungeons & Dragons game is a way for us to imagine together -- like watching the same movie, or reading the same book. But you can write the stories, without putting a word on paper--just by playing the D&D game.

Jovian Chronicles, 2nd Edition (Dreampod 9, 2003)

Unlike other types of games, roleplaying games don't have set victory conditions. The closest to it would be a) complete the assigned mission or b) survive the mission. As play progresses and subplots emerge, winning becomes a matter of resolving problems and making one's character grow and evolve.

Shadowrun 3rd Edition (FanPro LLC, 2005)

Shadowrun is a roleplaying game that provides all the excitement of an adventure story. Roleplaying games require one or more players and a gamemaster. The players control the main characters of the story, the protagonists of a plot whose outcome is uncertain. The gamemaster directs the action of the story and controls the bad guys, the props, the setting and everything else the players may encounter. The game is not a contest between the good guys (the players) and the bad guys (the gamemaster), however. The gamemaster may control all the bad guys but he or she is actually in sympathy with the heroes. Players and gamemasters must work together to build and experience a tense, exciting adventure.

Silhouette Core (Dreampod 9, 2003)

A roleplaying game (shortened to RPG) consists of a group of people creating an interactive story. Each player, save for one who will be the Gamemaster (explained below), controls the action of one (or more) fictional character(s). These characters are called, not surprisingly, Player Characters or just PCs. A group of player characters working together is generally referred to as a Party. One player, called the Gamemaster or GM, serves in a role that is analogous to a movie’s screenwriter or director. It is the Gamemaster who sets the stage for the game’s events, designs a plot, chooses the locales and outlines a story sequence. In addition to designing the setting of an adventure, the Gamemaster is responsible for populating the setting with an interesting cast of villains, allies and extras. These additional characters are called Non-Player Characters or NPCs; during a game, one of the Gamemaster’s primary tasks is to slip into the role of any NPC that interacts with the player characters. The Gamemaster’s final task is to guide the game’s progress and arbitrate over any actions that occur in the game. Roleplaying games are not divided into matches. Instead, RPGs consist of sessions, scenarios (often called adventures or missions) and campaigns. A session is simply a period of time, often around two to four hours, that is allotted to play. The length of a session is determined by the schedules of a gaming group’s players.A scenario is analogous to an episode of a television show. During a scenario, the primary plot of a story unfolds. There may be numerous subplots, but they are not the main focus. Some character development usually occurs, but really major changes are unlikely. A scenario will be played over as many sessions as are required to resolve its plotline — usually one to three. A campaign is a series of scenarios that generally features the same cast of player characters or that are linked together to shape a larger story. As the campaign progresses, the main characters may develop and form strong relationships between each other and with non-player characters. Subplots and actions from previous scenarios sometimes return to haunt the players. Roleplaying uses a number of specialized terms. Most are defined at the start of the relevant rule sections. Further terms are defined in the Glossary, at the end of the book.

Call of Cthulhu, Edition 5.6 (Chaosium, 1999)

The game is an evolving interaction between players (in the guise of characters unraveling a mystery) and the keeper, who presents the world in which the mystery occurs. Play is mostly talking: some situation or encounter is outlined, and then the players tell the keeper what they, in the guise of investigators, intend to do. Using the rules to keep matters consistent and fair, the keeper than tells them if they can do what they proposed, and the steps they must follow. If the proposal is impossible, the keeper narrates what happens instead. [....] A player has a duty to roleplay an investigator within the limits of the investigator's personality and abilities. That is the point of roleplaying. Try to know as little or as much as the investigator would in life... [...] Gaming is social. Roleplaying brings together a number of people in order to form a communal fantasy often more verdant and imaginative than one person could ever create.

Mage: The Ascension (White Wolf, 2000)

As an ancient art, telling stories is a community endeavor. People come together to tell legends and tales, and to learn. A storytelling game like this one lets you and your friends make your own stories. Mage: The Ascension is White Wolf’s game of belief, heroism, hubris and enlightenment. With these rules, you can make stories about your own mages and their destinies. The rules of this book show you how to build a character — an alter-ego in the game — and then tell a story with that character. Each player takes on a role, much like an actor in a play. However, this story isn 't pre-scripted; each player describes what his or her mage says and does. In the world of the game, each mage has his share of triumphs and tragedies. The telling of that tale is the fun of the game. Of course, the outcome of the story is no more set than the courses of our own lives. In some cases, then, the rules in this book offer guidance for resolving situations where chance sways the tale. The important thing is to develop the character's personality and capabilities through the course of events. Remember: The name of the game is storytelling. Rules are just convenient constructions for adjudicating chance occurrences with some consistency and fairness. The rules aren't the point of the game, so they should always give way to a mystical, rousing story.

Paranoia XP (Mongoose Publishing, 2004)

Nearly every published roleplaying game (RPG) starts with an explanation of how an RPG works. We Famous Game Designers used to skip reading these, until we realized they tell a lot about the designers’ philosophy. Many RPGs describe roleplaying as ‘It’s “let’s pretend,” but with rules.’ Others call it a deeply emotional collaboration in storytelling. Some offer scholarly and arcane discussions of Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist RPG philosophy. Some indie games even compare roleplaying to laying down tracks in a hot jazz band. We like all these descriptions. PARANOIA is somewhat like all of them, in a non-jazz-band sort of way, but it’s also different. PARANOIA is also something of a psychological exercise. Because of this, we won’t tell you how to play, unless you’re cleared for it. We won’t even show you an example of play for this game. Instead, here’s an example from some other game. PARANOIA is set in a high-tech future underground city of lasers, robots, cloned citizens and an insane Computer. This game has no character classes—no warriors, wizards, priests or rogues—no magic and, aside from the occasional giant radioactive mutant cockroach, no monsters. Yet, that said, a good way to dramatize the unique nature of PARANOIA is to imagine another RPG’s familiar dungeon crawl filtered through the paranoid mindset.

7th Sea (Alderac Entertainment Group, 2000)

A roleplaying game is a unique kind of game. It's kind of like playing cops and robbers, except with more sophisticated rules. When players get together to play 7th Sea, they tell tales about the adventures of a group of characters in Theah, using their collective talents to make the stories come alive for everyone involved.

Ars Magica 5th Edition (Trident/Atlas Games 2004)

In many ways, Ars Magica is very similar to most other pen-and-paper roleplaying games. Players have characters, who are defined by a set of numbers, and control their characters' actions by telling the other players what they do. One player, called the "storyguide" in Ars Magica, handles most of the world, deciding what antagonists and extras do. Conflicts, or tasks that might be beyond a character's capabilities, are resolved according to the rules described in this book, and a dice roll.

Exalted Player's Handbook (2001 White Wolf)

Storytelling is a sophisticated way for adults to play make-believe. Rather than playing soldier or house and running around in your backyard or the alley behind your apartment, you and your friends sit around a comfortable room and describe the heroic feats your characters accomplish. To help make sure you all share the same vision of what's going on, there's a mediator and narrator (the "Storyteller") who describes events and keeps the story moving along. In order to prevent arguments of who did what first and if an action is possible, there are rules that describe what your character can and can't do. In order to prevent bitterness over someone beating someone else in a fight, the characters are usually allies against imaginary opposition that the Storyteller tries to portray as even-handedly as possible. In order to prevent jaded adult imaginations from being bored quickly, the setting is much more intricate and complex than most people's childhood fantasies.

Talislanta, Fourth Edition Fantasy Role-playing Game (Shootingiron Design, 2001)

Role playing games are like simulations of your favorite movie or television series. The Gamemaster helps establish the setting and the basic premise of each adventure, while the Players take on the roles of the series' main characters. Together, the participants will create an ongoing series of adventures called a campaign. A Talislanta campaign is open-ended, and can last as long as the Gamemaster and Players like. The only object of the game is to have fun.

Feng Shui (Robin D. Laws via Trident/Atlas, 1999)

In a roleplaying game, you direct the actions of a fictional character of your own devising through a series of adventures run by a player who takes on the role of Game Moderator or GM. The game sessions you participate in are like episodes in a series of action movie prequels or an adventure TV show. Your GM starts each session with an idea of the plot line he wants to follow, but the actions taken by your cgaracter and those of your fellow players will no doubt lead to surprises for everyone.

Castle and Crusades (Troll Lord Games, 2007)

A roleplaying game, or RPG, is a game in which the participants assume the role of a character such as a knight or a wizard or the Castle Keeper, and create a story based upon the actions the character takes. Castles and Crusades is a classic-style RPG in which all the action and conflict occurs through verbal description. Roleplaying games were originally extrapolated from the wargaming hobby, and have been described by some as mature versions of children’s games like “Cops and Robbers.” More recently, some have described RPGs as impromptu theater. However one describes it, the players of an RPG develop fantastic stories and adventures through interaction with one another and the person running the game. The story’s content and nature is only limited by the flow of the participants’ collective imaginations. Thus, an RPG is a game in which players assume the roles of characters and undertake fantastic adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance. Unlike traditional games, there is no clearly defined winner. Even if a character dies, or an adventure meets with disaster, there will always be more characters and more adventures. The goal of the game, for all participants, is to have fun developing characters, telling stories, and pursuing adventure. The true treasure is a well-played character and well-crafted adventure. Roleplaying games are a unique form of storytelling entertainment…

Serenity the Role Playing Game (Margaret Weis Productions, 2005)

A tabletop role playing game … is pretty much the same [as Cowboys and Indians], only it happens to have a few rules to help you figure out things like what happens when a bullet hits you and just how bad it’ll hurt. After all, every game has to have some rules to keep things fair Games also need a bit of unpredictability. In card games, that means shuffling the deck. In our role playing game, we use funny looking dice. Above all, remember the most important rule: it’s all about the fun.

The Dying Earth Roleplaying Game (Pelgrane Press, 2001)

You vaguely know that a roleplaying game is a hybrid of strategy game and interactive storytelling, but aren’t clear on the details. You’ll soon learn more. […] If you have played other fantasy roleplaying games, be aware that Dying Earth characters and adventures differ in important ways from your past experience...

--Alkah3st (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)