Role-Playing Games | 

A Taxonomy of Game Systems

This is an attempt to classify various types of role-playing games and similar divertiments. While possibly not complete, I've found it useful.

First, a background point: I don't think Gary Gygax invented role-playing. I think role-playing was first invented about 10M years ago, when two primates barely up a step from lemurs played "Leopard and monkey". But Gary did invent something radically new - the idea that you can have rules for role-playing, to prevent the "I shot you!" "Did not!" "Mom!" syndrome.

Second, a warning/disclaimer/caveat: Don't be offended if your favorite system is not in the category you though it was. Any of these categories can be done well or done badly, and there are players who enjoy each or multiple categories.

R+RRPG: (Rules+Randomizer Role-Playing Game)

Rules- and randomizer-based RPGs, where there is a clear set of rules for describing the capabilities of characters and resolving the results of their actions, and chance plays (or CAN play, in the case of Heaven & Earth) a part. The randomizer doesn't have to be dice - there are plenty of card-based games, and a few other systems.

DRPG: (Diceless RPG/Nonrandom RPG)

Rules-only RPGs, like Amber and Theatrix. Admittedly, I find these personally abhorrent, but they still qualify as RPGs. As I've put it before, "I don't like randomizer-less games because they take away the illusion that the GM isn't just screwing with the PCs' lives..."

MRPG: (Minimal RPG)

Randomizer-only RPGs, like SLUG - games with elements of RPGs, but no rules for resolving even the most common situations, and no common framework for representing characters. These are silly and probably not the most productive way to play an RPG, but are still essentially the same as R+RRPGs.

STG: (Story-Telling Game)

Totally storytelling RP. There is no system for representing a character or resolving the effects of a character's actions - whatever the player says happens, happens. There may be competitive elements between the players and/or the GM (if there even is one), but it's out-of-character.

These are role-playing, and they may be games (if there's an element of competition), or may not (if they don't), but they are not what most people call "role-playing games". Many people engage in these and enjoy them (this is especially common online), and I've done so myself. The term "storytelling game" is a good one, despite WW's misuse of it for their R+RRPG.

LARP: (Live-Action Role-Playing)

Some of these are just translations of R+RRPGs, and still maintain enough distinction between the player and the character, and use enough of a framework of rules to be R+RRPGs with unusually mobile players.

Others, however, focus entirely on the social interactions of the players with incredibly thin veneers of aliases and fictional powers on top, and are very much just a "grown-up" version of Cops & Robbers, Cowboys & Indians, or Monkeys & Leopards for that matter, and suffer from much the same problems.

CRPG: (Computer Role-Playing Game)

CRPGs usually have character representations (some kind of hit point pool that can be increased, if nothing else) and randomized events (wandering monsters and minute variations in player control). There are two strains from here: those that allow the player to choose a character's personality and behaviors, and the NPCs react accordingly; or those where the characters, personalities, behaviors, and events are pre-planned. The first strain would be true role-playing games - but they are exceedingly rare (Wasteland and Alternate Reality are the only two I know of). All other "CRPGs" use linear plots, predefined characters, and "steal" control of the game and "your" character from you whenever the game designers felt like it (Final Fantasy being the most blatant offender here). A sort of third strain exists in between, where you're free to do whatever you like, and no plot railroad will drag you off, but your actions are essentially irrelevant to the NPCs - Ultima, Zelda, most Roguelike games, and the vast numbers of "go into a dungeon, kill things, and take their stuff" games.

Examples

Most published RPGs are R+RRPGs. Some are very good---Unknown Armies or Rolemaster, for instance (yeah, tastes may vary). Some are mind-blowingly bad--like AD&D.

Amber and Theatrix, Puppetland, and occasional diceless variants of FUDGE, are almost the only DRPGs of any note at all. Either DRPG players never use published rules, or there aren't many people who actually use them - whichever, the market is vanishingly small. Puppetland is a good example - it's a scenario for roleplaying, and has a system for describing the capabilities of characters, but it's a GM fiat decision-making system. It's very freeform, but it still has some rules (though only just barely - with less character definition, it would be an STG).

Baron Munchausen and Pantheon both present problems, in that they let you describe a character, but they don't have any mechanics to define that character's capabilities. They have mechanics for determining the results of conflicts between the PLAYERS, but do not have any mechanics for dealing with the actions of the CHARACTERS. Thus, they are STGs.

Last modified: 2000July14
Created