Talk:Role-playing game/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:
--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:
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)
  • 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.
  • 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]
  • 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."
  • 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.
  • 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.

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Role-playing_game/Archive_6&oldid=391063043"