Wikipedia

Talk:Role-playing game/Archive 7

< Talk:Role-playing game
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Vampyrecat in topic Name for new page
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Naming of role-playing articles

Latest comment: 14 years ago116 comments14 people in discussion

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

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

I would support this change. RPG has certainly grown to stand for more than just table-top gaming and video game based RPGs are just as significant as their table-top cousins if not frequently related by content. Anything to provide a clearer explanation of this class of gaming would seem to be a win in my mind. BcRIPster (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I like your hierarchy, although all the article titles should be singular, right? ("game" not "games") There are some odd side articles floating around as well, such as Japanese role-playing game and even Polish role-playing game. The basic structure of this article seems good, though, as it is able to summarize the contents of all the RPG child articles (varieties, history, character creation, statistics, etc.). --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the titles should be singular (I copied "games" from an article that has them wrong). Have fixed them in my post now. Any side-articles could be cleaned up separately from this main name/subject tidy. The test for whether Japanese role-playing game should have its own article is whether that variety of RPG is notable in their own right, which is a separate question to what we're looking at here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and an article about JRPGs would likely be a subset of the Console role-playing game article, which means it probably would not be covered in this larger Role-playing game umbrella topic article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 02:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Support - I also support this change; I think WP:PT is a key point here. I don't think "All RPGs except video games" meets the criteria for a primary topic, in that it is not "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer."--Trystan (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Rather than saying that the article currently describes "all RPGs except video games", I would say that the article currently specifially describes tabletop RPGs, with just a hat-tip to other varieties of RPG. Look at the first paragraph of the lead and the sections on Gameplay, Purpose, History, Game systems, Campaign settings, and Publishers. If you are familiar with tabletop RPGs, it will quickly become apparent that this entire article is about tabletop RPGS. Only the end of the lead and the Varieties section are about other forms of RPG. The content of the article is quite incoherent in this sense. 90% of the content is specifically about tabletop role-playing games. The remainder of the content implies, bizarrely, that LARP and video RPGs are varieties of tabletop role-playing game! Certainly they have evolved from tabletop role-playing, but in reality they are other mediums that are also referred to as "role-playing game", they are not varieties of tabletop role-playing as the article currently implies. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I should have said, your point about WP:PT is correct. It's similar to what I'm saying about WP:NAME. Many people visit this page and are surprised that it's about tabletop roleplaying games, because the term "role-playing game" has a much broader meaning than that. That shouldn't happen, it's a poor match of page name and content, which is why I'm proposing this change. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The article has a focus on tabletop RPGs and their history because the best historical example of a role-playing game is the tabletop. The genre of video games called RPGs are not "role-playing games" because they do not meet the criteria for what a role-playing game is. If the motivation here is to broaden the meaning of "role-playing game" to include CRPGs and video game RPGs in concert with a perceived view that the "role-playing game means video game RPG is popular" in order to establish WP:PT (for which no evidence has been given), then I would like to see research that describes what attributes make up a "role-playing game" in this sense, and how then one distinguishes all the games now classified as role-playing games from any other interactive game. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm weakly (probably very weakly) opposed to the change. The first RPGs were tabletop RPGs, and the rest are varieties. Kind of like the article on guitars is largely about acoustic guitars and only briefly goes into electric guitars (and also links to that article). But at the same time, I can also see the reasoning for the change. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the first role-playing games were tabletop games. But the remainder are not varieties of tabletop game. They are varieties of role-playing game. And tabletop, even though it happened to have been the first, is also a variety of role-playing game. Wikipedia article naming does not work on what came first. It works on what terms are generally recognised to mean now. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The first role-playing games were tabletop games, since they derived from wargames. The wargame element was ported to video games, and became known as RPGs, while the non-electronic tradition mostly discarded the tabletop element, and also became known as RPGs. The two traditions share a name and part of their history, but almost nothing else, so it makes sense to handle them on separate pages. I agree that users expecting the video-game term RPG will end up on this page, which details the other term, but the disambiguation notice lets them know where the other term is detailed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This argument may seem intuitive to you, but it isn't based in Wikipedia policy. According to WP:NAME, the name of the article should be linked to the subject in an unambiguous and expected manner. Your "oh dear, not this again" reaction to this proposal is a symptom of this not being the case. People visiting this page are frequently befuddled to find that it is about tabletop role-playing games, and describes other forms RPG as a type of tabletop RPG, as demonstrated by the incessant requests to fix this. Your denial that this page is about tabletop RPGs is not defensible. You know that "tabletop RPG" doesn't mean that a table is used, as the topic has been discussed here before. The term is commonly understood to be synonymous with "pen-and-paper RPG", "traditional RPG", or (as described in the article), RPGs that are "conducted like radio drama". The phrase "Most role-playing games are conducted like radio drama" clearly indicates that this article is about tabletop RPGs, a term that includes GURPS, Vampire, etc. The article is clearly not about larp or video RPGs, they are only mentioned in passing. Every single section of the article apart from the end of the lead, the Varieties section, and perhaps the Purpose section is explicitly about tabletop RPGs. You need look no further than the Gameplay section to see this: "The players describe their characters' actions, and the GM responds by describing the outcome of those actions." That's tabletop RPG. Read the History section, it's a history of tabletop RPGs. Tabletop RPGs should have their own article, and the tabletop material from this article should be moved to it. This article should be made to refer to what people expect when they hear "role-playing game", as per WP:NAME. It should describe how the various forms of RPG evolved, starting with tabletop and moving onto LARP and video RPGs. It does not matter that some video RPGs do not include leeway for player creativity in role-playing interaction. They are part of the broad family of role-playing games, and share the common name and history. They are one of the main things that people expect to find when they search for role-playing game, and therefore to follow WP:NAME this page should be changed to describe them in the context of role-playing games in general. The fact that the various responders have different opinions about what this page is currently about clearly indicates that something is quite wrong with it. My proposal would make its content unambiguous, and the content of the new Tabletop role-playing game page unambiguous. The name of the tabletop page can be debated later, it's not the question I'm raising here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you've conflated two of my objections here. One concerns the scope of this page, the other concerns the name "tabletop RPG".
When I've argued that this page doesn't solely cover tabletop RPGs, I'm using the term in your sense. This page - as it says in the dab notice and lead section - covers the tradition of games in which one plays the role of a character though characterisation. That tradition includes LARP, PBP, and the games which you are calling "tabletop RPG".
When I've argued against using "tabletop" in an article name, it's not because I'm unaware that people use the term. However, the term is only ever used to make a distinction that is already sufficiently made by the dab notice; we don't need to go on using an incorrect term and we certainly don't need to force users to use an incorrect term every time they want to link to the page.
You speak of a "broad family" of role-playing games, but there is no such "broad family", any more than there is a "broad family" of conurbations called Washington. Yes, the start of the two traditions' history is linked; and yes, the most recent edition of D&D does import some concepts from the world of video games; but aside from that, they're entirely separate: they do different things in different media, and any attempt to describe a "broad family" will just end up switching between the two as it describes their separate development.
Lastly, we know from experience that it's impossible to comingle the two separate traditions into a single page without almost completely destroying coverage of RPGs in favour of CRPGs. The latter are vastly more popular, and so more and more CRPG content gets added until there is no room for RPG content. It's happened before, and your proposal - although made in unquestionable good faith - would take us back to the situation we had in the bad old days when RPGs couldn't get a word in.
I hope I've addressed your points - it's difficult not to reply point-by-point :-) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

It has nothing to do with whether they "deserve" the name RPG; for better or worse, that is their name, just as that is the name of the non-electronic tradition of games. But the fact that they have the same name as the non-electronic tradition doesn't make them the same thing. They are distinct traditions of game, and what they "deserve" is separate coverage. What Ryan is proposing is to remove coverage of the tradition of characterisation-based game, in favour of a hierarchy that excludes most non-electronic non-LARP games. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The test for a primary topic is whether the subject has significantly more coverage than any other topic that could share that name. Regardless of the ultimate name and scope of this article, the current issue is whether it has the overwhelming dominance required to occupy Role-playing game. Given the comparable traffic to several RPG articles, I think it is fairly clear-cut that it doesn't.-Trystan (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Primary topic" here, but I'd argue that common sense is where we should start. There are two types of game called RPG: games of player characterisation, and a genre of video games. While I agree that the video game genre is more popular, it makes more sense to have "Role-playing game" and "Role-playing game (video games)" than it does to have "Role-playing game (role-playing games)" and "Role-playing game". Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that Trystan is referring to WP:PT, which states that the article for a name should be about the thing most commonly associated with that name. In this instance, video RPGs may in fact be the thing most commonly referred to as "role-playing games", and therefore this page should not be about something else according to WP:PT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that page. I still think the argument holds - since there is no sensible parenthesis for a page on RPGs (in the characterisation sense) we end up in a situation where common sense has to come before WP:PT. If a sensible parenthesis could be found, then I'd argue for a disambiguation page at Role-playing game, since the two traditions are largely separate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Let us grant that WP:PT dictates how a page must be named. Where then is the evidence that "video RPGs may in fact be the thing most commonly referred to as 'role-playing games'"? How do we know the term "role-playing" is used more often to mean video game RPGs than the retronym tabletop RPGs? If there is no evidence for a consensus, then one must either make the umbrella topic a disambiguation page, or go with history, which pairs "role-playing" with games of collaborative storytelling and characterization, (the "tabletop" and the LARP, among others). DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The Computer role-playing game and Console role-playing game pages already exist. Apart from the re-purposing of the Role-playing game and Tabletop role-playing game pages, my proposal doesn't involve changing other pages in the structure - I was just documenting the rest of the structure that is already in place. Percy, I'm not proposing to remove coverage of the "characterisation-based game", that distinction could still be described on this page insofar as it is supported by reliable sources. Further, my proposed structure will not "exclude most non-electronic non-LARP games"! All role-playing games will be described on an equal basis on the role-playing game article, rather than the current situation where tabletop role-playing games is the main subject of the article and LARP and video RPGs are shunted into a "varieties" section. My proposal also involves creating a new Tabletop role-playing game article that is solely about tabletop RPGs, just as the LARP article is solely about live action RPGs. Tabletop is just one of many types of role-playing game. It should be handled the same as the others, and the name role-playing game should bring visitors to to an article about the broadest understanding of its meaning, because any other approach is going to cause the type of confusion we already see. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are proposing to remove coverage of the "characterisation-based game", since your hierarchy doesn't include a page for it. Where is the parent article of LARP, PBP, and non-larp non-electronic RPGs (tabletop and non-tabletop)?
Assuming that we were to have such a page, it might be possible to address your other concern, which seems to be that non-electronic non-LARP games are treated at a higher level than LARP and PBP. That's a reasonable concern; while I don't see a pressing need for it myself, I'm not opposed in principle to having an article that deals with non-electronic non-LARP games as a child of the main "characterisation-based" RPG article, so long as we can find a name for it that doesn't enforce the POV that they are necessarily tabletop or P&P games (consider e.g. Amber DRPG, which requires nothing beyond the players) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I do wonder whether presenting them as something other than varieties of the same thing gives the impression that (characterisation-based) role-playing is split more strictly than it really is; there's a continuum of games from genuinely tabletop games through more storytelling-oriented games to live-action ones, and from rule-bound to freeform; and the same can be said of playing styles within individual gaming groups. I know in our group there are some who're more inclined to "act out" simple actions than others. This isn't necessarily an objection, but it's something to keep in mind. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
My proposal will remove "characterisation" (in the limited sense you're using it) as a factor in the structure of the articles. However, the characterisation argument can still be made in the role-playing game article. Which is how it should be, because the characterisation argument is a point of view, and the structure of Wikipedia pages should not be forked by point of view. The weakness of the characterisation argument as a means of structuring the articles becomes apparent when examining MUDs, MMORPGs, and other video RPGs where players interact like Neverwinter Nights. In such games players frequently base their play on characterisation. So your approach would actually require a huge portion of electronic RPGs to be included in the RPGs-of-characterisation page, while others such as single-player electronic RPGs would be excluded. That's a very incoherent structure, and still a POV fork. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You say 'My proposal will remove "characterisation" [...] as a factor in the structure of the articles.' - this is exactly my problem with your suggestion. You're excluding the possibility of discussing that thing which makes RPGs different to every other game - effectively ending coverage of RPGs on wikipedia at all.
You also argue that it's incoherent to include characterisation games which occur over electronic media - MUDS, MMORPGs, etc... - but not to include other similarly-named games which do not (as part of the game) include characterisation-based play. The distinction seems fairly concrete - could you elaborate on why you think it's "incoherent"?
You close by asserting that making the concrete distinction between games of characterisation and other games is a POV fork. I'd counter by saying that lumping all similarly-named games together is a much stronger POV push, downplaying the importance of characterisation as a defining element of RPGs when that's exactly their defining element. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the crux of the matter. What Ryan is proposing to do is excise "characterization" (which we shall take to mean assuming the role of a character and playing it out in a collaborative storytelling environment through improv) from the basis of an umbrella article for "role-playing." If we excise this as a means to fork the different varieties of role-playing game, what is a role-playing game then? Is it whatever an industry decides it means in any given era? Is a role-playing game anything that has RPG attached to its name? If that is the case, the overall "role-playing game" article would have to begin with the history that describes where the term "role-playing game" originated in order to provide any sort of context as to what it means. It would have to explain the meaning of the original term (as described above). Naturally, this will involve wargames and characterization, which is what was added to them in order to create the first "role-playing game"--the tabletop. Such an article would have to go on to list ongoing permutations of the game (the LARP, the MUD, the MMORPG) in the way Ryan has laid out, and explain that the video game industry adopted the term RPG to mean something entirely different than its original sense, so that readers could reference the video game RPG article to get a sense of what those sort of games are like. Omitting the history and the original sense of the term does an injustice to someone who is trying to learn about "role-playing," what it meant at its inception, and how it has multiple meanings now. Characterization and the tabletop gain precedence in the discussion of role-playing because that is where role-playing began, and if the articles are divided up as proposed, a visitor who lands on role-playing game will be left without that important knowledge. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The word "Characterization" when used to refer to a subset of games...I am still confused by this term. Where does it come from? Is that a term you have come up with to label the groups? Just confused is all. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I'm using it to refer to the games described by this page, since the term RPG describes both traditions of game. It's not a label I've seen elsewhere, so I'm not proposing to use it in an article or article title. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Although tabletop etc. RPGs begat video game RPGs, when looking at what role-playing games are, as opposed to their evolution, the order of play is fairly irrelevant, they're all separate entities under the RPG umbrella rather than a hierarchy. For instance, Japanese console RPGs were heavily influenced by western computer games like Wizardry, but when explaining Japanese/console RPGs as they are now is The Bard's Tale (1985) relevant? Hardly. Likewise, is it necessary to talk about TSR when trying to explain Final Fantasy? I think this is a fair proposal, make the article about role-playing games in general, and leave the in-depth history/hierarchy/evolution to the relevant sections in each sub-article. Someoneanother 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This change will make the content of this page far more intuitively linked to the title, because it will be about all role-playing games, and will make for a new Tabletop role-playing game article that also does exactly what it says on the tin. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • So what happens to non-tabletop games such as Amber DRPG? Where do you think we should discuss the common features of all the player-characterisation games? Percy Snoodle (talk)
  • Amber would be covered under the Tabletop role-playing game page, or whatever it might be called. "Tabletop RPG" is a term commonly used to describe all traditional, pen-and-paper RPGs regardless of whether a table is required. Because it is commonly used as such, it's irrelevant whether you personally find it suitable. However, if we analyse the best literature we can find on the subject, and find that "Pen-and-paper RPG" is the more commonly used term, we can use that. What we can't do is call it "role-playing game", because that's very ambiguous, or "non-LARP, non-electronic RPG", because that's ridiculous. What you need to bear in mind is that "tabletop RPG" and "pen-and-paper RPG" are terms, not descriptions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • How about we change Tabletop role-playing game to Traditional role-playing game - this links all these games to the historical process by which people sat down with books and wrote out their character stats, then played the game with people in a room. Still probably not the best term, but it avoids the whole "table issue", the "dice issue", and the "miniatures and map issue". This makes it very easy to put games like Amber in this section along with all the rest. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If a consensus emerges here to call the new page "Traditional role-playing game" I don't have a problem with that. The question of what to call that new page is rather tangental to this discussion. The proposal is that the subject of the Role-playing game article should be all role-playing games, and that "traditional" or "tabletop" games should be described on their own page (just as all other varieties of RPG are). What that new page is called is really another question. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if "traditional role-playing game" is a suitable name for an article on non-electronic non-larp characterisation-based games - and I'm not convinced it's a term with sufficiently wide use to justify its game - that doesn't address the problem of what to call the article on characterisation-based games in general; they are still just called "role-playing games" and as such they clash with the video game genre. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know the name is not the paramount issue here, just hoping a small consensus could start snowballing the deep divide here. - IanCheesman (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now that I see the problem for what it is, it's suddenly a lot more simple. This is a decent article which does what it says on the tin, deals with role-playing games in the original sense (which is still ongoing). The problem is people looking for the video game genre, which this specifically is not. That doesn't require anything much, let alone tampering with a perfectly good article - the only thing needed is a big obvious hatlink pointing directly to the video game genre article. Problem solved, phone soon. The only reason it's an issue now is because readers have to get to the bottom of the lead before it's explained that this article isn't about what a lot of readers are looking for. Someoneanother 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Percy Snoodle has made his point multiple times in a very articulate manner. I, unfortunately, cannot claim that I could be as persistently polite as he has been, but I certainly agree with him and will lend him my support. As long as video games limit creativity and characterisation beyond the imagination of the authors, they are interactive novels rather than Role-playing games. From (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Following Wikipedia policy, it doesn't matter whether we think video RPGs are really "role-playing games" or not. It only matters that this is the name used for them. They are both equally well-known as "role-playing game". So they should share this page, along with other role-playing game forms such as LARP. The argument that one sort is a "real" role-playing game and the other is not is an emotional, idiological point, and however well argued it may be it has no bearing here according to Wikipedia policy on this subject. It only matters how the terms are usually used. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue of whether they are really "role-playing games" is a red herring; the fact that they are equally well-known as "role-playing game" isn't disputed. But they aren't types of the same thing, so it makes no more sense to have a single page for them than it does to have one that covers both Washington and Washington, D.C.. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Unlike your example, the varieties of role-playing game are closely related by a common heritage and common attributes. An article that describes the class of role-playing games and all the varieties on an equal footing would illuminate the similarities and differences between them, and their shared heritage. Your analogy is very poor. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, the two traditions diverge at their very beginnings, so their shared heritage is tiny. If you think they share common attributes, I'd be fascinated to know what they are. The only constant in characterisation-based games is the basis in characterisation; for any other attribute, there is an RPG without it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support While tabletop RPGs are the original RPGs, they are no longer the only thing called that. When multiple things share a name, we're supposed to have either a disambiguation page or, if the subjects are related, a main page on the general topic. CRPGs are known as RPGs to pretty much everyone but tabletop enthusiasts. As such, there will be many people looking for CRPGs that will type "RPG" or "Roleplaying Game" into the search. And as much as they may have evolved differently, CRPGs are still decended from traditional ones. Also, I don't totally agree with author vs player characterization, as a lot of one's choices is constrained no matter what you play. Depending on the game, you'll choose a race, appearance, class, gender, and background. While your choices are certainly more constrained in CRPGs, choices are still limited in traditional RPGs as well, through the setting and GM fiat. Granted, the term RPG in the videogame sense has been diluted to the point of uselessness nowadays, but the term still exists. I personally think that this page should only touch on the different types of RPGs, with the above recommended sub-pages describing them in more detail, as per the proposal. -Tainted Conformity Chat 01:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment "When multiple things share a name, we're supposed to have either a disambiguation page or, if the subjects are related, a main page on the general topic." - I agree, but there is no "general topic" in this case; none of the defining features of non-electronic RPGs are present in CRPGs, and most modern RPGs lack the defining features of CRPGs. So all that's appropriate is a dab page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
So, even when everything shares a history, and flavor, a name, and people generally refer to them as connected, because the mechanics are different, they share nothing in common. If we were to look at this biologically, for comparison sake, the current proposal is to make Carnivora about all Carnivores, not just cats and associated animals, with a separate page for Felidae. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a brief shared history, but the two traditions diverge almost immediately, with RPGs developing the player-characterisation aspect while CRPGs develop in other ways. The name, yes - no-one is denying that - though the "tabletop" crowd might like to. I'm not convinced people refer to them as connected - at least, not beyond acknowledging their shared beginnings; people do get confused by the shared name, though. As for flavour - the experience of the two couldn't be more different. One is shared by a group of people; the other, between a person and a team of game developers. In one, the environment is imagined; in the other, it is presented. In many ways they are opposites. Taxonomy is full of instances of things being lumped together because they are superficially similar. The current proposal is to make Plants all about Mushrooms. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The starting conditions in a role-playing game are never constrained to the extent that they are constrained in a video game RPG or an MMORPG. Players oblige to GM fiat, and the rules can be adjusted to serve the needs of the players. In a video game RPG, there is no arguing with the console or the computer, nor is there a possibility of collaborating to create a story or outcome that is not already predefined (or a permutation of predefined parameters within the game). Someone suggested above "The problem is people looking for the video game genre, which this specifically is not. That doesn't require anything much, let alone tampering with a perfectly good article - the only thing needed is a big obvious hatlink pointing directly to the video game genre article." I definitely agree with this fix. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

cont 1.

  • Oppose CRPGs (and their varieties) are not role-playing games, they are a genre of video game. "Tabletop" and "pen and paper" are (inappropriate) retronyms. This is akin to making "video game tennis" subordinate to "Tennis," the actual sport. What's at stake here isn't a contention between "elitist" tabletop gamers and video gamers, it's really a matter of classifying things correctly. Let's put all "political" arguments aside, because as someone who loves both video games and role-playing games, I don't feel that the two genre of games are competing with each other. I believe Ryan Paddy is wrong about this because he believes role-playing video games are a type of role-playing game, when they are not. What we have here are two types of games, really, each with its own hierarchy of genres. The video game industry uses the term "role-playing game" to mean a certain genre of video game in their catalogs with attributes that are distinct from other genres of video games in their catalog. The arm of the publishing industry that publishes "role-playing games" (primary WotC and White Wolf) uses the term to mean that genre of books as distinguished from other genres of gaming books. As a member of the publishing industry, I can even attest to the distinction within the industry. Both senses of the term are "valid" in the sense that they are contemporary--that is, used in common parlance by consumers of either industry. So the argument that one has subverted the other is false. But "role-playing game" as "a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization" is the top of the hierarchy when it comes to that type of "game," in the same way that "video game" is at the top of the hierarchy as "an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device." What follows, then, is that "role playing video game" is a subset of the video game: it "form[s] a loosely defined genre of computer and video games with origins in role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons." Right? Makes sense, and that's how we have it right now. By creating an umbrella article for "role-playing game" that includes "role-playing video game" alongside the other varieties of "role-playing game" (as defined above) is confusing, because video games are not varieties of role-playing games. Many articles besides just this one would have to change if that kind of revision were made. It would be much more helpful to include a section in the existing article about this naming controversy, because I do agree it's a prevalent issue that people do discuss, especially since the advent of the role-playing video game. I'm fairly young, but I remember growing up around 1999 when WotC ultimately bought out TSR, and learning about this distinction as I learned that console/computer RPGs and role-playing games are two distinct types of games. The problem will be finding sources that discuss the issue to cite. Percy Snoodle is right and has argued this very clearly several times before. DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Nice ad hominem attack in your blog, been a while since someone has suggested I've got rabies. ;) I'm not particularly a video gamer, by the way, I'm more of a tabletop role-player and especially a larper. As you note, the category "video RPGs" include MUDs, MUSHes, MMORPGS, and whatever you call GM-arbitrated computer RPGs like Neverwinter Nights, not just games like Dragon Age: Origins. Percy admits that some video RPGs meet his unsourced personal definition of RPGs with "characterisation", and you seem to agree too, and yet they're not described on this page. So it's pretty clear that this page, in its current form, is not actually about RPGs with "characterisation". It's about tabletop RPGs. Percy is saying the article is about one thing, but if you read the article, it's clearly about something else. So, imagine if we made this article to be actually about RPGs of characterisation. It would talk about role-playing games of characterisation, the various types, and the evolution of them - which would have a big hole in the middle, because things like MMORPGS that have characterisation evolved out of things like Ultima that arguably don't, which evolved out of tabletop RPGs. And then do you know what the article on RPGs of characterisation would not do? It would not go on to describe the history, rules, settings, and publishers of tabletop role-playing games. And yet, that is what it currently does. The ugly truth is that this is not currently an article about RPGs of characterisation. That's just an incredibly flimsy excuse to make the role-playing game article about the one true and original meaning of the term "role-playing game": tabletop role-playing. Because right now, that's what this article is about. To make a coherent argument that this article should be about RPGs with "characterisation", you would have to admit that tabletop role-playing should also have a separate article of its own, rather than only being described as part of a category of game. But the reality is that many editors have ideological reasons for wanting to visit role-playing game and find the description of tabletop role-playing games there, because they see that as the true meaning of the term. But ultimately, Wikipedia policy doesn't call for the "meaning of the term" to decide what article should have what content. It calls for articles to be about what the title is usually used for. I'm not a rabid video gamer, or an epistemologist (although I am occasionally irascible). I'm a Wikipedia editor who puts my personal feelings aside to follow the rules of Wikipedia. And this article doesn't follow the rules, which is why I'm proposing to change it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply Hi Ryan, no "ad hominem attack" intended; it's really a satirical blog post, intended to make us all look somewhat ridiculous (as we are). I actually admire all this discussion of the nature of RPGs, which is why I called attention to it. But anyway, my contention is that "tabletop" rpgs are one form of "RPGs proper," which are games of characterization (as well as, in my reading about RPGs and in my own humble opinion, games of collaborative storytelling) for the reasons I outlined in my article, so I see no contradiction on that point. RPGs of "characterization," if we want to call them that, are (mostly) the types of games this article describes. As we've both noted, however, some MMORPGs are capable of facilitating role-playing, and yes, categorically they are video games. So I would actually support some discussion of MMORPGs in the current Role-playing game article, if appropriate articles can be sourced. When you say, Wikipedia policy "calls for articles to be about what the title is usually used for," how do we know what the term role-playing game is "usually used for"? Our debate here demonstrates that there are at least two senses of this term, and as Percy suggested below, if consensus held that we should create an umbrella page for Role-playing games, you would have to make that primary page a disambiguation page, according to WP:PT, which you cited earlier. I personally disagree with that assessment, but I'd settle for it, because it is the least egregious thing to do. DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Addendum Looking back on the proposed hierarchy, I guess the problem I'm seeing (and the basis of my article) is that "Role-playing game (video game)" is not a child of "Role-playing games," specifically because these types of games do not allow characterization or improvisation within the assumption of a role (and the other reasons I outlined in my article). So a hierarchy something like this: Role-playing games (a disambiguation page) -> Role-playing game (pen and paper) (resembling this article and including a history of the tabletop), Role-playing game (live-action or LARP), and Role-playing games (computer-assisted) might make sense to me, because it allows us to classify certain video games within the scope of role-playing games, such as MMORPGs and MUDs. DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems a common feature we're agreeing on is that the tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG variety should have its own page (the name of which we can worry about separately). Which leaves the question of what this role-playing game page should be. In my opinion, it should be a page that describes the various related media that share the name "role-playing game". It can still distinguish between those that involve characterisation, and those that don't, without excluding either. Percy says that this article should (and supposedly already does) describe RPGs of characterisation, as he calls it. Personally I would need to see some solid reliable sources such as academic journal articles and books from mainstream publishers that make this distinction before accepting that this is not a POV fork. A POV fork is when topics get split into articles based on one of several conflicting opinions rather than a strongly accepted practice, and it's contrary to Wikipedia policy. I've yet to see such sources, and in any case the point is void because of the Wikipedia policy WP:NAME, which requires us to write articles to match what the title is best recognised to mean. Which leads us to the third option to turn role-playing game into a disambiguation page. Insofar as tabletop and video RPGs are both equally well known as "role-playing games" (which I think could easily be established via reliable sources, which is how these things are done, and which nobody here is particularly debating anyway), that's option would be consistent with policy. However, I still think that having this article describe all subjects known as role-playing games would be preferable. It's not like we're talking about describing unrelated topics like Orange and Orange County in the same article. All the activities described as role-playing games share a common heritage, and there has been plenty of back-and-forth of content between them over the decades, so there would be a lot of value in describing the relationship between the various activities described as role-playing games. If we're going to follow policy, our choice is between having this article be a disambiguation page and having it describe the history and relationship of the activities known as role-playing games. I think it would be sad to go for the disambiguation page option, because the discussion of the interesting subject of the pool of activities known as role-playing games would be lost and in its place we'd have a dull list of links. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if we were taking about Oranges and Orange Counties, Orange is a disambiguation page.--Trystan (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a dab page is a poor compromise - but it's better than having a page whose topic is "things that happen to be called role-playing games", for two reasons: firstly, there isn't anything that all such games have in common; and secondly, wikipedia's known systemic biases mean that the video RPG content will always crowd out the characterisation RPG content.
Also, I'm not convinced that the point has been made that a page is necessary for non-larp non-electronic characterisation-based role-playing games - although I'm interested to see further discussion on that point. The unqualified term "role-playing game" does, in the context of characterisation-based games, usually refer to such games. There's a definite sense when reading RPG material that they are in some way the "default" RPG, and LARP and PBP are variations on that central sort of game. What would the argumnent be in favour of splitting the traditional games off from the page on the tradition that they began? Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I personally agree with that assessment (I get the sense from reading RPG material too that "role-playing game" as used by RPGs is the default sense of the term), but it looks like there's no way around the WP:PT issue ("If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "[disambiguation].") except to turn Role-playing games into a DAB page and thereby prevent RPG video games from inappropriately creeping back into the article about role-playing proper... I did pose the Goth (Germanic tribe) vs. Goth (subculture) argument--that page points to the oldest sense of the term rather than a DAB--but there doesn't seem to be any interest in that line of reasoning, unfortunately. --Alkah3st (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth raising that point at the WP:PT talk page - if the de facto policy is that the original sense of the word "wins ties" like that, then the page ought to be updated.
Good point, I will do so. --Alkah3st (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Ryan - have you considered that it is possible for something to be two sorts of thing at once? That an apple, say, can be "plant" and "food"? The games you describe are RPGs in both senses - but that doesn't mean that there is only one type of thing with the name RPG. You say also that "they're not described on this page" - but they're right there, in the "Electronic media" section.
If you feel the page gives too much weight to non-larp, non-electronic games within the tradition of RPGs, then that's a fair concern and one that we can try to address. It would be great to get your input as a larper to help balance the page out. But it's demonstrably not the case that this page is solely about what you would call a "tabletop" game. The varieties of RPG are right there.
I hope you don't mind me quoting part of your comment; if you feel I've taken it out of context, sorry. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to echo you on this point, but I feel I need to further comment on that remark. MMORPGs are different than video game RPGs for one important reason (which I described in my blog post): "the virtual environment of the MMORPG enables human players to characterize avatars [i.e., improvise] and tell stories in the same way that traditional role-playing games do, even though the limitations of the software pose limitations on the execution of the players’ imagination in the storytelling process." In a single player video game RPG, you can't do these things. So MMORPGs and certain multiplayer games, while being online video games, can also serve as a platform for role-playing. This is why I suggested replacing the inclusion of video game RPGs with something like "computer-assisted" role-playing in Ryan's proposed hierarchy. Further, I disagree with Ryan that the category "video RPGs" includes "MUDs, MUSHes, MMORPGS, and whatever you call GM-arbitrated computer RPGs like Neverwinter Nights." When I say "video game RPG" I mean exactly the opposite of these things--what in (console) video game parlance means Final Fantasy and the like. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Calling a MMORPG a type of video RPG is not my invention, it's a part of the existing article structure that I didn't propose to change at this time. See Role-playing game (video game). Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're defining terms so that single player RPGs aren't RPGs and MMORPGs aren't video games, how are readers ever going to makes sense of anything?
There is an important distinction between interactive narrative RPGs (in which I include some video games, particularly MMORPGs) and RPGs that don't involve characterization, like the recent Dragon's Age: Origins. But that distinction is not communicated to either users or editors (hence the endless debate) simply by arbitrarily saying "these roleplaying games are roleplaying games, because the involve roleplaying, but these other roleplaying games don't involve roleplaying, so they aren't roleplaying games." It's immaterial whether we like it or not that the term role-playing is used to cover a broad swath of games, with varying degrees of narrative freedom and emphasis on characterization, and coming in a wild array of formats. It's also immaterial that once-upon-a-time the meaning of "Role-playing game" was unified and clear. The term is simply used in a broader way now, so if we want to distinguish (though preferably not drawing absolute, easy dichotomies) between collaborative narrative games and single player computer games with a set plot tree, we need to do so using other language. Finding a name for the present content of this article that conveys its scope would go a long way towards that goal.--Trystan (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As I noted below in response to Ryan's revised proposal, I think if the main article Role-playing games pointed to a disambiguation page where the two senses of "role-playing game" led to two different taxonomies Role-playing game (traditional) and Role-playing game (video games), and potentially others as the need arose, users who have no concept of the word "role-playing game" could investigate each sense. If they read Role-playing game (video games) first, they would learn that this genre of video game has its roots in Role-playing game (traditional), and if they read Role-playing game (traditional) first, they would learn that some video games are vehicles for the kind of characterization and improv we see in tabletop and pen and paper RPGs. They would also learn that Role-playing game (traditional) originated the term. Hopefully that makes more sense? DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a very clear structure. The one suggestion I would have is that some of that could be explained briefly right at Role-playing game, making it a brief article rather than a bare disambiguation.--Trystan (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing that too. A few sentences after each, or perhaps an opening paragraph might be helpful before the taxonomies. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

cont 2.

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

  • What the "branch" of articles on RPGs covered by the current content of this article will ultimately look like.
  • What article name the content currently located here should ultimately be located at.
  • Whether RPGs (video or otherwise) with little to no characterization are "real" RPGs.
  • Whether some computer RPGs involve characterization.
  • Or even whether there is enough commonality between video RPGs and other RPGs to justify a common article. If there is, it would be the primary topic and therefore located here, but even if there isn't, Role-playing game would simply be a disambiguation page.--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we do need to decide what article name the content currently located here should ultimately be moved to, because every article in Cat:Role-playing games would need to be updated to point to it, and the category itself would need to be renamed.
We don't just need to work out whether this is the "primary topic" - we need to apply common sense. Yes, it may be that in an ideal world we'd have CRPGs or (more likely) a dab page here, but if there's nowhere to put this page, it isn't sensible to move it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with common sense is that it is rarely common. Mine tells me that it is not a sensible practce to give one article squatter's rights to a certain name based on an unwillingness to settle on an alternative distinguisher (with the unwillingness itself based on a prescriptive approach to how the term properly ought to be used). If characterization is the defining element, why not role-playing game (characterization)?-Trystan (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Moving role-playing game (disambiguation) here, and moving this page to role-playing game (characterisation) might be an acceptable compromise, though I'm dubious. It would be necessary to move Cat:Role-playing games and its children as well, and to put something in place to prevent its recreation, or else we'd end up making a lot of work for ourselves keeping things correctly categorised. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the content of the current article is the primary topic associated with the term, so I disagree that it makes sense to move it. This is not a prescriptive approach, it's logical. For my reasoning, visit: http://www.dquinn.net/wikipedians-debate-the-nature-of-the-role-playing-game/ DJ Quinn --209.113.134.186 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Other things that most RPGs (including electronic, LARP, tabletop, etc.) have in common - character development (including story, physical and mental stats, equipment, etc.), community (including online communities, background information, PBP, etc.), and flavor (RPGs are almost defined by the rich flavor that comes dripping from them, and are often in a fantasy or sci-fi form).
Every game and game system that has ever come out changed some things while holding true to others. RPGs themselves were a change to miniatures wargaming, a new set of options (leveling the individual, fantasy flavor, etc.), while losing some of the original (historical, large groups, etc.).
Yes, when video games started trying to break into the RPG format, they often fell short, especially on the community and character building aspects. That is largely a hardware and software issue. The systems just couldn't handle it. Just like early systems could not create 3D graphics. As the technology has advanced, some of the games have been making major strides back towards the character and community aspects of RPGs.
This is what really should be on the main RPG page. Creation. Expansion into non-Tolkein fantasy. Expansion into classless systems. Expansion into systems where you actually act out your character's actions instead of just rolling a die. Expansion into the electronic market and the problems associated (and some of the solutions later found). It doesn't have to be long, and many sections would like to main articles.
The current RPG article, with only a few changes, is almost perfect for Role-playing game (traditional) (reordered my earlier suggestion to match other titles). And with a title of "traditional", we can mold that to what we want. Let's include info on all the characterization driven forms of RPGs. I would certainly include PBP and other freeform RPing as a form of "traditional". Doesn't mean it can't also be mentioned on Computer RPGs. Yes, some links will have to be changed, but I bet many of them will do fine to still link to the new RPG article.
Yes, there is a massive difference between a Final Fantasy game and a D&D game. But the local campus organization holds a game night once a week, and people show up to try role playing, video, larp, and tabletop (as well as other games (board games, card games, trivia, etc.).
It's not a perfect solution, but lets explain to the world out there the history of why they both use the same term, what the similarities and differences are. Isn't that the reason for Wikipedia? To share the information we have, instead of hiding it away? - IanCheesman (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Your list of common features highlights my point that these aren't common features. Character development in the sense of story is part of characterisation; character development in the sense of statistics isn't found in all RPGs; there are a great many one-off games and freeform games without it. Plenty of gaming groups exist in isolation, so community isn't a part of it. And flavour? Yes, they all have flavour, but the experience of each game is different - as I've said earlier, a dungeon crawl has a very different flavour to a political game. So really the only constant in RPGs is the characterisation - the thing which the tradition is already named for. It's also the one thing which video games cannot possibly reproduce - at least until we have AI capable of telling whether or not a player is acting "in character".
Your list of what ought to be here seems to be precisely what is here, in the history section. It charts the expansion into other settings and other playing styles. So I don't see the problem there.
Your final part - that we shouldn't hide information - is a very good argument for keeping the traditions separate. Look how much information there is on CRPGs and their various combat systems, and try to imagine finding content about RPGs if it was hidden among that. In fact, you don't need to imagine - find an archive of wikipedia from the early noughties, and see how bad it was. We don't want a return to those dark ages. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

cont 3.

  • Revised proposal The term "role-playing game" refers equally to tabletop and video RPGs. Therefore, following WP:NAME and WP:PT, this article should either be a disambiguation page or about both of those activities (and the other activities like larp that are also known as role-playing games). The discussion of which activities known as role-playing games involve characterisation can be had on the role-playing game page. In summary, I think that there's actually a lot of commonality in the positions expressed by all parties here and the remaining distinction is extremely minor. Tabletop games should have their own page, it doesn't make sense to piggyback them on this page. This page already includes a discussion of video role-playing games, which Percy seems to be happy with, so it already describes the uses of the term "role-playing games" in general. So really, we're no longer disagreeing over the structure. We're only disagreeing over whether this page should say that video role-playing games are really role-playing games (i.e. defined by Percy as games of characterisation) or not. Which is the sort of daily editing discussion that can take place separately to this discussion. So I propose that we create a page that specifically describes tabletop/pen-and-paper role-playing games, move the content from this article that is about tabletop role-playing games to that article, and summarise the nature of tabletop RPGs in this article (much as larp is summarised here). If this proposal is accepted, we can then decide what the name of the new tabletop RPG page should be before moving ahead with the split. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment whether video RPGs are "really" role-playing games isn't at all an issue. They're "really" role-playing games, in the video-game sense of the phrase. Also, this article isn't supposed to be "about" tabletop games, it's "about" role-playing games in the characterisation sense of the phrase. Don't confuse the article's content for its subject: if you think the article is biased in favour of tabletop games, let's work together to improve it and reduce the bias. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Question Could you lay out the proposed structure like you did in the initial proposal (for the Wikipedia-handicapped like myself?) I think a visual would be helpful. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment All I'm proposing here is that tabletop/pen-and-paper RPGs have their own dedicated page, separate to this one. This seems to be something that both Percy and yourself agree is appropriate, regardless of whether the Role-playing game article becomes a disambiguation page, continues to cover "characterisation" RPGs as it presently does, or anything else . Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Musings I think that would make sense if this article became the disambiguation page Role-playing game (disambiguation) that exists now. The only difference would be that the content of this article would have to be contained in something like Role-playing games (traditional) since obviously the main Role-playing games page would point to the disambiguation page. To help show the types of role-playing games within Role-playing games (traditional) one could have a TOC of some sort at the top of the article that lists Live-action role-playing games, Computer-assisted role-playing (to allow for an extended article on MMORPGs and MUDs as they pertain to characterization-based role-playing in the virtual world, similar to what is summarized in the current article), Freeform role-playing, etc. This way, people who have in mind video game RPGs when they type "role-playing games" into Wikipedia land on this disambiguation page, and can click through to that subsection of video games, and people who have in mind the original form of role-playing games can continue on to this article. I think this kind of partitioning in a disambiguation page allows the two senses of the term to be quarantined, if you will, into their own separate taxonomies that is obvious to either gamer. And in the future, if some other sense of role-playing game comes into common use (say, Role-playing game (holodeck) ??), one could simply add it to the Role-playing game disambiguation if it didn't fit into Role-playing game (traditional) or Role-playing game (video game)? The thing I am adamantly opposed to is classifying video game RPGs inside of an article about role-playing in the traditional sense, because they are such different things, and I think this sort of separation would solve the problem, because the main disambiguation page Role-playing game would not show that video game RPGs are children of Role-playing games (traditional), instead it would list it as an alternative use of the term. DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to say this, but I think we are getting very close to an agreement to change Role-playing game to Role-playing game (traditional), and have something a little larger than a DAB in Role-playing game. Is that something we can tentatively agree upon, and start working on how the two pages will look? Or if someone trys to do so, will it reverted back instantly? - IanCheesman (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Support - I, for one, am most definitely in agreement.--Trystan (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, though we ought to hear Percy's response as well, since he has spent a lot of time working on these articles, and I really just sort of stumbled upon your debate! DJ Quinn --70.109.131.205 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that we're "changing" this page into another one. Rather that we're moving some of the content (the stuff that is totally tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG specific) into a new article specifically about that subject. But it's a semantic point, because the end result is the same. Having said that, I think once that new page is agreed and created there's a separate discussion to be had about whether role-playing game should become a disambiguation page, continue as a "characterisation" RPG that also happens to describe computer RPGs (which it currently does), or become a general article about all things known as "role-playing game". This new proposal does not address that, it is solely about whether to create a new page specifically on tabletop/pnp/traditional RPGs. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm skeptical about what exactly from this article could be moved into Role-playing game (traditional). Above, I imagined that the entire article would be moved. As I said above, moving this article (in its entirety) into Role-playing game (traditional) and then creating a disambiguation page at Role-playing game that lists the two major senses of the term: Role-playing game (traditional) and Role-playing game (video game) makes sense to me - and I'd even think it would be helpful to see a lead explaining the reason why we have these two on that page as Trystan notes, but if you have in mind to create a new article at Role-playing game that attempts to define the role-playing game as something that is a bridge between video game RPGs and traditional role-playing games like the tabletop, LARP, free-form, MUD etc, then I think you'll run into all the problems that we have addressed above, because the video game RPG does not contain characterization and improvisation like the "traditional" role-playing game (with the exception of MMORPGs and certain multiplayer games), which is the "traditional" role-playing game's defining feature (as Percy Snoodle notes below). (Aside Consider Gothic on Wikipedia. This is just a disambiguation page that points to all the possible uses of "Gothic," in both a modern and in an historical context. I bet a lot of people think of the 20th century Goth subculture when they type "Gothic" into Wikipedia, in the same way a lot of people think video game RPG when they type "Role-playing game" into Wikipedia. But while the historical meaning of "Gothic" art has a variety of superficial similarities to the modern Gothic art/fashion subculture, the two are not the same thing, and are not well-served by being described in the same article. And what's more interesting is that if you type "Goth" into Wikipedia, you get an article on the Eastern Germanic tribe, rather than an article that talks about what Goths were in relation to what Goths are at the moment as a subculture.) --Alkah3st (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (formerly DJ Quinn)
Having this page become a disambiguation page is one of the options. But regardless of which option for this page is taken, tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG should have its own page. Which is why this revised proposal is limited to creating a new page for tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG. In terms of the content of that page, it would no longer need to discuss video RPGs or larp, so those parts (essentially just the end of the lead and the "Varieties" section) would not be moved there. If you prefer to think of it as moving this entire article to the new tabletop/pnp/traditional page and then removing the parts about video RPGs and larp, that's fine with me. The end result is the same. As I note below, I'm happy for this page to become a disambiguation page when that content move takes place, and then we can continue to discuss whether that's the ideal content for this page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that in order to have a discussion about what should be in Role-playing games we must first move this article into Role-playing games (traditional) or something similar. We can do that right now, if some of us have in mind to create an article that merges the two senses of the term, because that is the real subject of this entire debate. If we do move the article as you propose, don't our actions suggest that we agree Role-playing games (traditional) and Role-playing games (video games) do not share enough in common to be joined as one article? What more would there be to discuss, except to continue developing these articles independently? --Alkah3st (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG should have its own article, per WP:N. It can't be under the name Role-playing game, because that name is too ambiguous, per WP:NAME and WP:PT. So the decision to create a new article about tabletop/pnp games with content from the current article does not relate to the question of whether the various activities known as "role-playing game" are too diverse to discuss together, it's just following policy. In the previous proposal, we had six editors in favour of making Role-playing game about all games that use that name, and four editors against (one of which was very weakly). Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but that does indicate that there is a majority of support for having Role-playing game cover all activities that use that name, if not a consensus. My current proposal that we make a separate article on tabletop/pnp RPGs doesn't presuppose anything about the current article, except that it should not be solely about tabletop/pnp RPGs, which we all agree. My suggestion is that we create the new page (with a lot of content from this page), make the current article a disambiguation page (because everyone has agreed that's a reasonable option), and then continue discussion on whether that's the most appropriate form for it until we reach consensus. Nothing is ever settled in any final manner on Wikipedia, so no one can predict what form role-playing game will take in the long term. Let's make it a disambiguation page for now, and then let the usual process of discussion over that continue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
As a compromise, I agree to making Role-playing games a DAB (as Role-playing game (disambiguation) is right now and moving the entire article that is here now into Role-playing game (traditional). However, your proposal also includes the intent "to move the content from this article that is about tabletop role-playing games to that article, and summarise the nature of tabletop RPGs in this article (much as larp is summarised here)." Are you amending that proposal now such that we are agreeing to make Role-playing games a bare DAB like Role-playing game (disambiguation), and move its current content into Role-playing game (traditional)? --Alkah3st (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind this question, you answered in detail in the bottom thread. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think this is not the right question. You assert this article is about RPGs of characterisation in general. Therefore, I would say that it's clear that the various sorts of RPGs of characterisation that are notable, including OTBRPG, larp, pen-and-paper, and MMORPG, should all have independent articles because they are independently notable of this subject. All of those topics are independently very notable in that they all have extensive coverage in the literature, so they should all have their own articles, and they all do have their own articles except for tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG. Tabletop/pnp is independently notable, so it should not be lumped into an article on "RPGs of characterisation" of which it and larp are both types. As for what aspects of this article are currently suitable to be moved to an article specifically about pen-and-paper games, I can only repeat what I've written before: the entire article except for some of the lead and the Varieties section is specifically about pen-and-paper, and uses examples from pnp RPGs. Most of it could be moved, leaving us with either a page with somewhat more detail about "RPGs" (which could either be defined your way as games of characterisation, or my way as games that bear that name), or a disambiguation page. We could make it a disambiguation page to start with (because that's very simple to implement) until a decision is reached. In any case, this revised proposal is solely to move pnp/tabletop RPGs to their own article, because there seems to be widespread agreement on that change among the editors here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that there are conditions that some of us have for going forward with the proposal - for me, moving this article into Role-playing games (traditional) or something like it is acceptable only if Role-playing games becomes a disambiguation page (with a lead at most, which should be a subject of discussion before we go ahead with slicing and dicing). --Alkah3st (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
While I can't possibly give a guarantee that Role-playing game will never become longer than a certain length, I can say that I would support making sure any such article clearly elucidates the distinct meanings and largely separate traditions, and is limited to neutral, well-sourced, and notable material that doesn't duplicate either Role-playing game (traditional) or Role-playing game (video games).--Trystan (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Holding that position is like hitching an amendment to a law it doesn't relate to. The subject of tabletop/pnp/traditional RPGs is notable and therefore should have its own page, regardless of what this page is for. The only exception would be if this page is solely about tabletop RPGs, which is not an option per WP:NAME and WP:PT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ryan, I really would like to know which bits of this article you think need fixing. Whatever we do, we should work to improve all the articles, and if the main RPG article has a bias, we should address it.
Remember also, notability is not a sufficient test for a topic, it's a necessary one - just because non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games may have enough coverage to pass a deletion debate, doesn't mean that then need to be treated separately. It's important to remember that one good page is better than four bad ones. One of the requirements for a featured article is that it must hav "breadth" - it should cover all the aspects of its topic. Our first responsibility is to address the issues in this article, bringing it up to standard in all the areas it covers. Once that is done, we should see whether an article specifically on non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games would be justified; if it would only repeat points made in the main article, then there's no reason to spin out a more specific article - it would only end up being merged back. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


If we are close to consensus on anything, I think it's moving this entire article, holus-bolus, to Role-playing game (traditional) (or some variant thereof, and creating a disambiguation page for here. That doesn't doesn't have to be the end of it, but whether Tabletop role-playing game gets split off of Role-playing game (traditional) or the disambiguation page at Role-playing game becomes a short article are separate issues. If we try to decide them all now at once, we'll just get mired down again.--Trystan (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the new article would be solely about tabletop/pnp/traditional RPG, in the sense of role-playing games that are conducted verbally or "like a radio play". So splitting tabletop RPGs away from it wouldn't make sense. Are we actually in agreement that's what the new article would be about? Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the proposal is to move the content of Role-playing game into Role-playing game (traditional) (or something like it) and then "move the content from this article that is about tabletop role-playing games to that article, and summarise the nature of tabletop RPGs in this article (much as larp is summarised here)." It's this part that we're not in agreement on. I support moving the entire article into Role-playing game (traditional) and making Role-playing game a DAB, nothing more. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with making Role-playing game a DAB, and then continuing discussion of it. As for moving the all of the current article to the new page on tabletop/pnp RPG, I have to ask why? Why would we want to discuss larp in the new page on tabletop/pnp RPG, except perhaps to note in passing that larp sprung off from tabeltop/pnp? And the same for video RPGs? That's the only content I'm saying we shouldn't move to the new page, because the new page will be specifically about tabletop/pnp RPGs. That's the difference between the scope of the current page (which I think is incoherent) and this new page. Are we agreeing that the new page will be solely about tabletop/pnp RPGs, the sort that are conducted verbally "like a radio play", or not? I thought it was clear that was what my proposal entailed, but please be explicit if you think the new page should be about something else. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I'm understanding: Role-playing games would be a DAB (a list like Role-playing game (disambiguation). Role-playing game (traditional) would be this article, minus the graphs on LARP, etc (they would just link out to the corresponding full length articles). Am I misunderstanding? This I support. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like we're on the same page. The new article on tabletop/pnp RPGs would be just like the existing article, except that it would treat larp/video RPGs more briefly, and as descendants of the tabletop/pnp form (not as "varieties" of it). This would probably involve some tweaking of the lead, and replacing the "Varieties" section with a different section about the influence of tabletop/pnp RPGs, probably ranging from larp and video to movies. (Edited to add my sig, wasn't logged in. And I would add again: this stuff can be sorted out through the normal editing of the new page, it's not something that has to be decided here). Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Crystal clear to me now. Thanks for explaining at length. --Alkah3st (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Consensus?

It sounds like we are approaching a consensus to:

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

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

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

Ok, I may have people mad at me for this, but I attempted to be Bold, and have moved most of the content around. See Role-playing game (traditional) and Role-playing game. Now we can start working on the best ways to make these pages work, and can start working on link changes. Unless someone decideds I was too bold, in which case you can revert it all back, I guess. - IanCheesman (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks nice actually. I am putting together a document to make available to everyone that includes excerpts from the "What is role-playing" sections of various published tabletop RPGs. I'm sure this will be useful in the continued editing of that article and for future reference too. --Alkah3st (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your edits, but I think we should have a discussion on the name of Role-playing game (traditional) on that article's talk page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, you may want to have a look at all the pages that link to "role-playing game", many of which will need to be edited. It may have been sensible to agree on a new name first, so that we don't have to repeat the work of linking everything to the new name if it changes. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki question for you all. Would it be against Wiki policy if I listed these excepts I'm collecting in a subpage of my User talk page, so that we can reference/modify it? Or would it be better to just link to the document on my own server from my User page? These are like 1 paragraph bits that are somewhat revealing as to how the tabletop/p&p RPGs refer to themselves so it would qualify as fair use (arguably, as is the nature of fair use, of course). --Alkah3st (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just post the excerpts on the relevant article talk page, it's fair use. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I think roleplay simulation is useful for disambiguation, because some users will visit role-playing game looking for information on roleplay training for firefighters, police, bank tellers, etc. Those industries sometimes use "role-playing game" to describe their roleplay simulation training. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, we have to remember that "role-playing games" at the disambiguation page now refers to anything that can be called a role-playing game, so as Ryan notes, it would make sense for roleplay simulation training to be listed here if indeed these industries use the term in their own way. --Alkah3st (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

It may be best for us to reach a consensus on the name of the new page, before doing the move via the correct procedure. The name role-playing game (traditional) is one that had been mooted but not yet researched or agreed on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Partly support, partly oppose - moving the dab page to the unqualified title is only sensible if we can find an appropriate qualifier for this page - "traditional" isn't going to cut it for a type of game that's only been around since 1974 - and we need to be certain that this isn't going to cause administrative nightmares with the categories, or that it's just being done as a first stage towards putting CRPGs as the root and making traditional RPGs an adjunct to them, as they were back in the bad old days.
Spinning out an article about non-larp non-electronic non-freeform games is also only sensible if we can find an appropriate name for them. "Tabletop" is absolutely unsuitable - misleading common names are one of the titles that policy tells us to avoid. Further, we have to be sure that there is sufficient content to justify a spin-out; simply repeating ourselves isn't a solution to the problems that people have identified.
Finally, I oppose moving this article to become the new non-larp non-electronic non-freeform page. We need to make our top-level page good, and the best way to do that is to improve the article we have, rather than starting from scratch with good intent but no clear idea of what to put there. Perhaps the best way to do this is by putting some drafts as subpages?
If these concerns can be addressed, I'd support the proposal. Otherwise, no. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Name for new page

Latest comment: 14 years ago43 comments7 people in discussion

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

Below is my splurge of sources for reference. Not many name themselves or the genre, though White Wolf products tend to use "storytelling game" and D&D derivatives use "fantasy roleplaying game." Some refer to tabletop and pen and paper, as well. Hopefully with more references from outside the games themselves, we can find a common name. --Alkah3st (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. Doesn't look like there's any strong direction coming out of those, but that's good to know. I'll go through academic sources tomorrow. They're often more concerned with differentiating between pnp, live, and computer RPGs because they compare the varieties. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks - that's going to be an excellent resource both for naming and for determining what content to put where. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources

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

Barreteau, Bousquet & Attonaty (2001) Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems
Multi-agent systems and role playing games have both been developed separately and offer promising potential for synergetic joint use in the field of renewable resource management, for research, training and negotiation support. ... Players take the roles of farmers, each cultivating a plot in the same irrigated scheme in the Senegal River Valley. They are situated in a first room which represents the space of villages. This room contains two sets of tables, representing named villages in the game and equivalent to friendship groups in the model. In this same room, two other single tables represent the two groups in the game, who implement the collective rules.
Fine (1983) Shared Fantasy: role-playing games as social worlds
I shall examine one particular form of gaming: fantasy role-play gaming. A "[fantasy] role-playing game" has been defined as "any game which allows a number of players to assume the roles of imaginary characters and operate with some degree of freedom in an imagainary environment" (Lortz 1979:36). ... This role-playing is oral, and does not involve physical acting. ... "The regular Saturday crowd was all playing this strange and incomprehensible pen and paper game called Dungeons & Dragons, and would not deign to involve themselves in anything quite so mundane as a miniatures battle" (Shapero 1979:11).
Iljashenko (2007) Role-Playing Game: Role-Playing Game as Effective Method of Learning a Foreign Language at School
However, there is no unity of opinions concerning the term “role-playing game” in the theoretical publications. Some authors see role game as playing short scene, discussions on a free topic, reading by roles, staging of one-act plays, etc. (Livingstone, 1988). ... On the basis of the concept analysis of “role-playing game”, the following definition can be formulated: Role-playing game - the game form of the educational activity organization, carried out according to the developed plot, the distributed roles and the planned communicative problem by a teacher.
Morris & Hartus (2004) Role-playing games
The game that Gygax and Arneson created was of course Dungeons & Dragons... almost thirty years later, virtually every element of computer role-playing can be traced back to that humble mimeographed rulebook. ... In the field of face-to-face role-playing, the decades since Dungeons & Dragons have seen great diversity. ... In a paper and pencil RPG the Dungeon Master says...
Barreteau (2003) The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: characterization of associations
Role-playing games and models are increasingly being associated for educational purposes as well as for dealing with negotiation topics. ... In-between games and theater, RPG are group settings that determine the roles or behavioral patterns of players as well as an imaginary context. A RPG is the performance of a roughly defined situation that involves people with given roles (Mucchielli 1983). ... RPG encountered in science or development processes can be categorized into three types of uses: training, research or policy making (Peters, Vissers et al. 1998; Barreteau, Bousquet et al. 2001). The first one is however predominant. They aim at placing players in real life situations in order to train them to react to specific conditions or to foster interactions among them according to a specific question. These types of training tools, often used with professionals in training sessions, are the most common RPG. ... Another kind of RPG, considered as a learning tool for the player, constitutes thought support: players are put into a situation that is comparable to one they might encounter and from which they learn the consequences of the reactions they might have. They are used, for example, to prepare government establishments for a terrorist attack, or with army leaders to simulate war in war games.
Yee (2006) The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games: Motivations, Emotional Investment, Relationships and Problematic Usage
MMORPGs are a new class of Multi-User Domains (MUDs) – online environments where multiple users can interact with each other and achieve structured goals. ... While it is commonly thought that MUDs descended from table-top role-playing games (RPGs) such as Dungeons and Dragons, the two genres emerged around the same time and co-evolved beginning in the early 1970s and became popular during the 1980s. ... 68% of respondents (n 3415) have experience with table-top role-playing games.

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

Interesting. At least the small samples we have here show that terms like fantasy role-playing game, pen and paper role-playing game, and table-top are not isolated cases. "Face-to-face" is interesting too, as it specifically rules out MUD and MMORPG while allowing for other tableless + paperless variations. --Alkah3st (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Fantasy role-playing game is too ambiguous, it could refer to the genre. I actually have the same problem with "traditional" as a description, it's too ambiguous. You could have traditional computer RPGs, or traditional educational RPGs. "Tabletop" and "pen-and-paper" don't have this problem. "Face-to-face" is ambiguous because it could mean larp. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed about "traditional" and "face-to-face". "Tabletop" and "pen-and-paper" have the same problem as "fantasy" - they're too specific; "tabletop" excludes all but the oldest games, and "fantasy" excludes a great many games in other genres. "Pen-and-paper" excludes some of the more near-freeform games, although it's perhaps less misleading since there is often some substitute - I'm thinking in particular of the "plot stones" in a storytelling game whose name escapes me, which could be represented on paper, but just happen not to be. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Mackay (2001) The fantasy role-playing game: a new performing art
The drama, script, theater and performance spheres are equally represented in the tabletop role-playing game. ... Such game play is a textual form of role-playing due to the lack of face-to-face communication and the oral/gestural performance common in tabletop ... ... emerging online virtual-reality role-playing games) other than tabletop role-playing games, that may make this model useable to others who engage these ... ... game in this book because it, along with the computer and online role-playing game,is ontologically different from the tabletop role-playing game. ... form not yet born: the immersive imaginary-entertainment environment of an online virtual-reality system. My subject here is the tabletop role-playing ... It is distinguished by players performing their characters in a social, face-to-face setting, yet refraining from acting-out their character's actions to ... Online gaming is not face-to-face like tabletop role- playing is, so the online role-player can get away with much more in terms of identity ... etc.
Hallford & Hallford (2001) Swords & circuitry: a designer's guide to computer role playing games
You now play with other humans and get your reward for playing from other humans, just as we used to do back in the days of paper role-playing games. ... Mainstream audiences often fail to connect with many traditional RPGs because they can't relate to fantasy settings. ... (NOTE: this souce contains a number of quotes where interviewees refer to tabletop RPGs as pen-and-paper, but quotes in a source are usually not considered as definitive as the author's narrative. ALSO NOTE: in this source "traditional RPGs" is being used to mean fantasy-genre tabletop RPGs, not all tabletop RPGs. This is one of the many ambiguities of "traditional" as a descriptor).
Copier (2005) Connecting Worlds. Fantasy Role-Playing Games, Ritual Acts and the Magic Circle
The Elf Fantasy Fair shows how players are at the same time involved in various digital but also analog (table-top and live action) roleplaying games. ... Table-top or pen and paper role-play does not involve any form of physical acting. Nevertheless, in the United States and England, influenced by re-enactment, players started to enact their characters, thus beginning what came to be known as Live Action Role-Play (LARP). ... In 2003 and 2004, digital (online) role-playing games like Neverwinter Nights (Bioware, 2002) and Final Fantasy (Square Enix, 1987 onwards) had the most interest (40%). In 2005, many respondents added the MMORPG World of Warcraft (Blizzard, 2004). Next up in popularity are table-top role-playing games, mainly Dungeons and Dragons (30%). ... From a commercial perspective, digital offline games like Baldur’s Gate (Bioware, 1998 onwards) are also considered RPGs. I would argue that these games don’t necessarily encourage role-play because players cannot add their own information or discussion over the rules as in table-top, live-action and online role-playing. Therefore I would consider offline RPGs being adventure games (always having fixed rules and quantifiable outcomes) rather than role-playing games.
Tychsen et al. (2006) Communication in Multi-player Role Playing Games – The Effect of Medium
The Pen-and-Paper role-playing game is a successful example of collaborative interactive narrative. Meanwhile, computer-based role-playing games, while structurally similar, offer quite different narrative experiences.
Tychsen et al. (2007) Cross-format analysis of the gaming experience in multi-player role-playing games
The tabletop format emerges as the consistently most enjoyable experience across a range of formats, even compared to a computer-based RPG directed by a human game master. ... The Role-Playing Game (RPG) is one of the major genres of games, and has proven an extremely portable concept - from the physically embodied live action and tabletop formats to the various digital, mobile and even enhanced and augmented reality formats. ... Other games that cross formats include the Vampire the Masquerade and StarCraft, as well as the Forgotten Realms world originally developed for the Dungeons & Dragons Pen-and-Paper (PnP) RPG. ... Pen-and-Paper RPGs provided a template for early developers of digital games outside the arcade arena who wanted to port their experiences from the tabletop to the digital medium. Since those early days an ongoing debate has continued as to how successful this format transfer has been. Computer-based RPGs (CRPGs) lack the flexible storytelling of PnP-based stories due to technical challenges. It can be argued that CRPGs reduce the need for players to exercise their imaginations with creative construction of mental representations of the game characters and environment, since the systems’ graphics provides this. This reduced use of imagination and reduced flexibility in storytelling seem to be key factors in the debate on format transfer. ... PnPs consistently emerged as the most enjoyable and immersive of the three RPG formats, even in randomly assembled groups of players, and across age, gender and experience categories. (NOTE: this source describes RPG as a broad class of game that includes various formats such as computer RPGs and tabletop RPGs)
'Tychsen et al. (2006) Live Action Role-Playing Games: Control, Communication, Storytelling, and MMORPG Similarities
pen-and-paper (or tabletop) role-playing games (PnP RPGs) are directly reflected in their computerized counterparts such as Neverwinter Nights (2002 Atari/Bioware), Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption (2000 Activision), and Dungeon Siege (2001 Microsoft). ... Much of the attention given to PnP RPGs in the literature has focused on the style where a small number of players (typically four to six) sit around a table and the game is under the direction of a single GM. Many other forms of RPG styles exist. In this article, only those typically labeled—within the role-playing community—as live action role-playing games (LARPs) are examined. (NOTE: this article also loosely defines all computer RPGs as a type of role-playing game, in which "the role of the GM is taken on (with varying degrees of success) by software." ALSO NOTE: if you're ever looking for the defining academic article on larp, this is probably it.)
Tychsen (2006) Role Playing Games – Comparative Analysis Across Two Media Platforms
Role Playing Games (RPGs) is a popular game form. RPGs have been translated into all media formats, and are also a rare example of functioning interactive narratives. ... In this paper, the results of a comparative analysis of pen and paper RPGs and computer RPGs... is presented. ... Being of a somewhat similar age as computer games, Pen and Paper Role Playing Games (PnP RPGs) [2,6,13,15,16], a specialized form of table-top games (TTGs) involving multiple participants interacting in a fictional world... Multiplayer PnP RPGs and CRPGs share a number of features and are structurally quite similar. However, the two game forms provide different experiences, notably because of the use of a virtual representation of the fictional game world employed in CRPGs. In PnP RPGs, the participants must work together to uphold a shared understanding of events taking place in a shared, imagined fictional game world, while in CRPGs the fictional game world is visually presented by a virtual reality engine, as observed in e.g. Neverwinter Nights or Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption. The rules systems, themes and fictional settings of RPGs have been applied across every media format. Perhaps due to the high degree of flexibility in these games, RPGs appear to form a prime source for the development of new game forms. The core element of PnP RPGs, that of actually role playing, can however be lost in the translation from the TTG format of PnP RPGs to other media formats. PnP RPGs are an example of interactive narratives. The rules and fictional worlds that form the basis for these games function as a vessel for collaborative, interactive storytelling. This is possibly the most important feature of PnP RPGs, and one that CRPGs have yet to reproduce. Role playing games is a rare example of a game form that has been translated between several medias of expression, from CRPGs, PnP RPGs, Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) to Live Action Role Playing Games (LARPs). The variety of role playing games makes it inherently challenging to provide a common definition. However, all forms of role playing games - be they PnP RPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs or LARPS - share a group of characteristics, which makes them identifiable from other types of games...

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

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

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

I await others thoughts about option #1, but as for #2, I still think anything more than a DAB about "role-playing games" will end up being a vague conglomeration of every possible sense of the term, offering little more depth than a DAB would offer. It's the same situation as we see in an article like "Goth." Goth is not an article discussing every sense of the word Goth, even though there are now several senses of the term (Goth subculture, the original Germanic tribe, the Gothic art movement, the novel Goth etc); instead, it is an article about the original meaning of the term, and has a DAB link pointing to others. I would also like to note that Role-playing games focused on a discussion of P&P/tabletop RPGs before the conclusions we've drawn recently not because of the systemic bias of Wikipedia editors, but because "role-playing games" meant, historically, tabletop and P&P games, in the same way that, historically, Goth meant the Germanic tribe. And while it can be argued that prior to the introduction of Gygax + Arneson's type of game, "role-playing game" referred to an indistinct kind of activity that is now described in the article Role-playing, and so it was only a logical starting point for an article about three decades of games called "Roleplaying games" by an entire industry to assume the Wiki space Role-playing game. --Alkah3st (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There's consensus that we should make role-playing game a DAB, and it will remain a DAB unless a discussion leads to a new consensus. I disagree with your points, but let's raincheck that discussion until we reach a decision on the name for the tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting "tabletop"

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

I suspect that, while "tabletop" is the more widely used, that's because it's used by people who see the miniature-based combat system of D&D and assume that the game is a tabletop wargame. It's possible that that, with D&D emphasising that style of play more and more, and importing more and more from MMOs, and with other games moving further and further from it, that we may be seeing a split, and that "tabletop role-playing" may come to simply mean "fantasy skirmish wargame" while "pen and paper role-playing" may refer to the non-electronic non-larp genre.
Annoyingly, the policy on misleading common names seems to have disappeared since the last time this argument game up - does anyone have the link? - but anyway I'd suggest that it was a sensible policy and we should follow it nonetheless :-) On the grounds that an article title shouldn't be just plain wrong, I strongly oppose "tabletop" and weakly oppose "pen and paper", so if we absolutely must have a separate page, then in my view the latter is the lesser of the two evils, and even with it we'd still need a disclaimer explaining that we know the title is wrong.
All that is probably an aside, though, since it hasn't been shown that a separate article is warranted. Until we get a decent idea of how to address the issues in this, the top-level article, we won't know whether there's enough content for a viable spin-out article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Tabletop isn't "just plain wrong". How could it be, given that it appears to be the term most commonly used. Do you really think the thousands of tabletop RPGers on RPGnet who use a forum called "Tabletop Roleplaying Open" all believe that it refers to RPGs that require a table? With all respect, that's nonsense. "Tabletop" RPGs don't require a table, and roleplayers know this. It's a "term of art", a technical term, not a description. It refers to all verbal RPGs, those that require a table and those that don't, and that's how it is used in the literature and in common use. The new article can make it clear that a table is not required, just as the current article does. I don't know what text you're talking about in regards to misleading common names, perhaps it's an essay that's been removed, but WP:NAME is the relevant policy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You ask how tabletop could be "just plain wrong", and then go on to say that '"Tabletop" RPGs don't require a table'. You answered your own question. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree that if there is consensus that the article is warranted, then the title should be in the form "Role-playing game (specifier)" as Percy notes, rather than Tabletop role-playing game in the same way Role-playing game (video game) points to that article. --Alkah3st (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Monopoly is a tabletop game, but it doesn't require a table to play. "Tabletop" is a very old term that's understood to mean indoor games that commonly, but not always, use a table. You can play card games without a table too, but they are still "tabletop games". Tabletop RPGs often, but not always, use a table, which is why "tabletop role-playing game" is the most common term after "role-playing game", and is commonly used specifically in situations where tabletop RPGs need to be differentiated from other forms. In terms of whether to use a parenthethical tag, the WP:PRECISION section leaves it up to editors as to which approach we take, saying that "[disambiguation] may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness", which is what I'm proposing with Tabletop role-playing game. I think it's preferable to use the natural name that disambiguates the term here, specifically because "tabletop role-playing game" is a commonly-used term that unambiguously connotes the type of game we're discussing. It is the term usually used in the literature and among RPG players to do so, so it's natural for us to follow their lead. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the comparison to "tidal wave": a tsunami is not tidal as it's usually caused by earthquakes, not by gravity from a body like the moon. So tidal wave is inaccurate. Whereas tabletop RPGs are commonly played at a table, even though they don't require one. So it's not inaccurate. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ryan, it hasn't been demonstrated by either of our sets of sources that "tabletop" is the most commonly used term after "role-playing games," so I do not agree that it is the most commonly used term "in the literature." Nor have you sourced the statement "'tabletop role-playing game' is a commonly-used term that unambiguously connotes the type of game we're discussing." That is currently your opinion. If anything, our very brief list of published sources demonstrate that no term really sticks out over any other. You dismiss "pen-and-paper" and "traditional" as legitimate appellations on grounds not very different than the grounds from which we dismiss "tabletop" as being an appropriate. Moreover, let's not forget that role-players (and the texts of the published games themselves) refer to role-playing games as just that: role-playing games or RPGs, not "tabletop role-playing games," in just the same way that video game RPGers refer to video game RPGs as "RPGs" and "role-playing games." The article for video game RPGs is not called "Video game role-playing games," it's called Role-playing game (video games). --Alkah3st (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
While it's only a rough gauge, the number of hits on Google strongly suggests that "tabletop" is used far more frequently than "pen-and-paper", at least in online discussions. My personal opinion is merely that the rough Google guage also fits my own experience. I didn't state that "tabletop" is the most commonly used term, rather that it appears to be the term usually used to differentiate tabletop RPGs from the other forms of RPG, as suggested by the Google results, the use on RPGnet, and its presence in the literature that both you and I found (along with "pen-and-paper", which is at least equally represented). I dismiss "traditional" on the grounds that there's no evidence whatsoever that it is in common use, and on the grounds that it is 100% ambiguous and could equally connote (just to give one example) a traditional form of digital RPG. That's presumbly a completely different reason than your objection to tabletop, given that "tabletop RPG" is in common use and that it only connotes one form of game: the tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG. Your objection is in fact that "tabletop" is over-specific, applying only to RPGs that use a table, which is the opposite to my objection to "traditional RPG" which is that it is under-specific and could mean practically anything in the broad class of role-playing. As for "pen-and-paper", I haven't dismissed it at all. Rather I've said that I think tabletop is more concise (conciseness is important per WP:NAME) and that it is more commonly used (per the Google results, which are only a rough guage but also about the only guage we have). You're quite correct that tabletop role-playing games usually refer to themselves as a "role-playing game" without any disambiguation. However, because we have to disambiguate, we have two choices: use the form "X role-playing game" or the form "Role-playing game (X)". Given that "tabletop role-playing game" and "pen-and-paper roleplaying game" are terms that commonly used when authors which to disambiguate the type of RPG they are discussing (i.e. they are not terms we are inventing for the purpose of disambiguation), I think that form is preferable to "role-playing game (tabletop)" or role-playing game (pen-and-paper)". It doesn't matter what the video RPG page is called, or what the larp page is called for that matter, the best name for each page is decided based on the specific considerations that are relevant to it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My first point was merely to reiterate that our reasons for rejecting "tabletop" (yes, for "over-precision," another caution of WP:PRECISION) were just as reasonable as your objections/hesitations against pen-and-paper (you had said earlier, "'Pen-and-paper' excludes some of the more near-freeform games") and "traditional" (though I agree with you on "traditional" 100%, as it's unsourced and Wiki policy strictly rules that out as an option). My second point is that the naming of Role-playing (video games) is actually relevant to the naming of the other role-playing game articles, because Role-playing (video games) by its naming convention implies the way the subject is referred to in common parlance is "Role-playing games," of a type video game. I'm no LARPer, so I don't know if LARPers refer to LARPs as "Role-playing games" as well, but role-playing gamers of the original kind definitely do refer to their game as a "Role-playing game," (hence this entire debate) and so I feel it's misleading to entitle it Tabletop role-playing game rather than Role-playing game (tabletop) or whatever ultimately makes sense in parens. (A tiny quibble, I know, but I think it's an important distinction to make.) --Alkah3st (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It was me who said that 'Pen-and-paper' excludes some of the more near-freeform games; I'm curious to know Ryan's opinion of the term. I think we all agree that "traditional", while a useful term in this debate, isn't one we can use in an article title. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Apart from tabletop being more concise and quite probably more common, I don't have any issue with pen-and-paper. It has the same advantage as tabletop in that it's unambiguous, and the same minor disadvantage of arguably being mildly over-specific if taken over-literally. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My mistake on misciting there, this thread's exceptionally long... --Alkah3st (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a question of degree. The "over-precision" issue with "tabletop" is very mild, whereas the "over-generalisation" issue with "traditional" is rather extreme. Personally I think the over-precision of "tabletop" is negligible. I think that view is supported by the term "tabletop RPG" being so widespread. In terms of Role-playing game (video games), it has it's own special problems. Probably the best name for it would be Computer role-playing game, which is widely used in the literature to denote all digital video games. However, this hits a snag with editors who insist on referring to "computer RPGs" solely as RPGs on a personal computer, not including console RPGs which they see as a different form. Possibly Digital role-playing game would be an alternative to get around this problem, but unlike "tabletop RPG" it may not be possible to demonstrate that "digital RPG" is widely used. So, in summary, just because Role-playing game (video games) has a poor name because of a dumb argument that's specific to digital media, doesn't mean we should give Tabletop role-playing game a poor name to match it. Ryan Paddy (talk)

Ryan - any thoughts on my two questions? Which parts of the existing article do you think display a bias, and why do you object to the term "variety"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we've gone over these subjects a lot in previous sections, and I want to focus here on what name an article dedicated to tabletop larp should have. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I must have missed that; it's been a long conversation. Could you point me at your answers, or repost them here? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's another example of "tabletop" as a common disambiguator on the Green Ronin site where they're advertising their new Dragon Age tabletop RPG, ported from the original computer RPG: "The Dragon Age RPG is the perfect portal to tabletop roleplaying". Escapist Magazine goes one step further and calls it "the Dragon Age Tabletop RPG", and the game's designer is quoted as saying "BioWare came to us and said, “How'd you like to do a tabletop RPG based on our upcoming Dragon Age: Origins game?”". Similarly a news item about the Everquest tabletop RPG calls it a tabletop or pen-and-paper RPG, interchangably. When a Diablo tabletop RPG was released, it said "Tabletop RPG" on the cover. Continueing the theme of searching news sources, I find Escapist Magazine (again) describing D&D as "the world's first tabletop roleplaying game" here, Wired magazine saying describing Steve Jackson Games, West End Games, and White Wolf as "tabletop companies" here, Fox News (forgive me, Lord, for implying that Fox News is a reliable source) describing Toon as "a tabletop role-playing game featuring cartoon characters" here... plus a bunch of other pay-per-view news articles differentiating tabletop from larp by calling it "tabletop role-playing". This is the kind of thing I mean - when people are wanting to differentiate the type of role-playing game they're talking about, they often call it a tabletop role-playing game. That's what we want to do, differentiate it, so I think we should follow the sources in this. It's pretty clear from the widespread use in various sources that tabletop RPG is considered unambiguous. Where are the reliable sources saying "it shouldn't be called tabletop because it doesn't always use a table"? The perceived ambiguity claimed by some editors here is not backed up by sources. It's a non-issue. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we just do something like this, except sourced? http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Role-playing_game? It's a slightly beefy DAB laying it all out quite nicely. It uses P&P over tabletop (which I personally prefer, since that's what it really comes down to--we could list sources all day citing either usage, but until we have some kind of absurd scientific analysis of how many sources use X over Y, we'll never know which is the most prevalent usage...). There's even stuff in the pen-and-paper RPG article that we could source and port into the existing article. --Alkah3st (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That article doesn't make the characterisation-based distinction that separates the two senses of "role-playing game". Might come in handy for sourcable content, though. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's true, it really just describes the typical setup for a table-based RP. But we could modify the P&P paragraph to include that, using the games themselves as sources (I think there are enough games from the major publishers among my sources below to craft a few sentences that get the gist of role-characterization) and mention that other setups may substitute with cards like Marvel & Castle Frankenstein. --Alkah3st (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be better, if we're to have a multi-paragraph dab page, to have a single paragraph describing the common features of (characterisation-based) RPGs, pointing readers to the subpages for descriptions of the different playing styles; that way the two senses of the word are given equal weighting. We may end up with something similar to the page which is already at roleplaying. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
A Wikipedia DAB has specific formatting requirements that don't allow for paragraphs about each subject being disambiguated. A DAB page is just a navigation aid, a list of links with a sentence attached to each link, . Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What about "pen-and-paper"

So, I still think that "tabletop" is the best disambiguator because it's more concise than "pen-and-paper" and seems to be more widely used. However, I'd be interested to hear how other editors view "pen-and-paper", given that the review of literature suggests it's the only option for a disambiguator. I guess if I had to identify advantages for "pen-and-paper" an argument could be made that it's less over-specific than tabletop and it seems like its use may be becoming increasingly popular. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I mildly dislike it, but would accept it for the sake of reaching a consensus, if it can be shown that we need it at all. Once we've got an idea of which specific parts of this article have a - let's say P&P - bias, then we'll know whether that's something that can be addressed by making one good article, or whether we need several. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
So, you could live with Pen-and-paper role-playing game as a name if we were to create a new page for the P&P content? Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's demonstrated that such a page were warranted, I'd put up with it. I'd probably prefer Role-playing game (pen and paper) since the term is usually used unqualified. However, without knowing which bits of the existing article need improvement, I don't think we can say whether such a page is warranted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, long-time gamer here (in the list of games below, I've played about 2/3 of them). I'd say as someone who has read literature and participated in RPGs for more than 20 years that "pen and paper" does seem to be more commonly-used than "tabletop" when people need to disambiguate what kind of RPG they are talking about. Personally, I think "classic" or "traditional" would also work, although in common parlance they aren't used much (and it is weird to call a newly-published pen-and-paper game a "classic" RPG). There certainly should be a separate article for P&P RPGs because almost all role-playing games have common features that define them as RPGs, and that similarity would work for an article on its own. I think that people have certain expectations when a computer game is called an RPG, or a LARP, which include similarities to P&P RPGs. -- Atama頭 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the bulk of the article should still be about traditional games with fork articles for other versions that have been created based on these in new media. Manticore55 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. If Ryan would point out the parts of the existing article which have too much of a P&P bias, we could address that, and then see whether the content justifies a spin-out. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

An Expert Weighs In

I contacted Marcy Ganow, the Executive Director of the Game Publisher's Association. This is what she said:


Now, while this is not usable in an article, it should give you more of an idea as to what the industry trend is. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


I'm coming to this discussion late and it's been a while since I participated here. I want to say that I favor disambiguation over an all-inclusive article. Mainly I take this position because tabletop / pen and paper RPGs are so vastly different than computer/video/console game RPGs and from tabletop miniature RPGs that it doesn't make sense to me to have them in the same article. I think the terms tabletop rps and pen and paper rpg are both acceptable ways of distinguishing the "original" sense of the word, so I agree with Ms. Ganow in her role as Executive Director of the Game Publisher's Association in identifying those terms. I admit I find it annoying to have had my favorite avocation's name appropriated by other activities, but I've had over 20 years to get used to it. Vampyrecat (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook (TSR Games, 1978)
Even if you are not familiar with fantasy role-playing games in general, and Dungeons and Dragons in particular, you will find this work (with its companion volumes, MONSTER MANUAL, and DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE) is a complete game system in itself. [...] If, on the other hand, you are a veteran adventurer of many swords & sorcery campaign games, ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS will prove to be superior to any past offerings in the fantasy role-playing game field. [....] ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS is a fantasy game of role-playing which relies upon the imagination of participants, for it is certainly make-believe, yet it is so interesting, so challenging, so mind-unleashing that it comes near reality.
AD&D Section Edition Player’s Handbook (TSR CD-ROM, 1995)
This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of a character and then guides that character through an adventure. The player makes decisions, interacts with other characters and players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game. That doesn't mean that the player must jump up and down, dash around, and act like his character. It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action [….] Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to role-playing because no one "wins" in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.
Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition (WotC 2008)
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is a roleplaying game. In fact, D&D invented the roleplaying game and started an industry. A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children. However, a roleplaying game such as D&D provides form and structure, with robust gameplay and endless possibilities. D&D is a fantasy-adventure game. You create a character, team up with other characters (your friends), explore a world, and battle monsters. While the D&D game uses dice and miniatures, the action takes place in your imagination. There, you have the freedom to create anything you can imagine, with an unlimited special effects budget and the technology to make anything happen. What makes the D&D game unique is the Dungeon Master. The DM is a person who takes on the role of lead storyteller and game referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters and narrates the action for the players. The DM makes D&D infinitely flexible—he or she can react to any situation, any twist or turn suggested by the players, to make a D&D adventure vibrant, exciting, and unexpected. The adventure is the heart of the D&D game. It’s like a fantasy movie or novel, except the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the story. The DM sets the scene, but no one knows what’s going to happen until the characters do something—and then anything can happen! You might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. You solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle all kinds of fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and treasure. D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun. It’s a storytelling game where the only limit is your imagination. It’s a fantasy-adventure game, building on the traditions of the greatest fantasy stories of all time. In an adventure, you can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. Your actions might work or they might fail spectacularly, but either way you’ve contributed to the unfolding story of the adventure and probably had fun along the way. You “win” the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game by participating in an exciting story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils. The game has no real end; when you finish one story or quest, you can start another one. Many people who play the D&D game keep their games going for months or years, meeting with their friends every week to pick up the story where they left off. Your character grows as the game continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to your continuing story, but also earns your character new abilities. This increase in power is reflected by your character’s level; as you continue to play, your character gains more experience, rising in level and mastering new and more powerful abilities. From time to time, your character might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. But even when your character is defeated, you don’t “lose.” Your companions can employ powerful magic to revive your character, or you might choose to create a new character to carry on from where the previous character fell. You might fail to complete the adventure, but if you had a good time and you created a story that everyone remembers for a long time, the whole group wins.
D&D Third Edition Player’s Handbook 3.5 (WotC, 2003)
This is the Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game, the game that defines the genre and has set the standard for fantasy role-playing for more than 30 years. D&D is a game of your imagination in which you participate in thrilling adventures and dangerous quests by taking on the role of a hero--a character you create. Your character might be a strong fighter or a clever rogue, a devout cleric or a powerful wizard. With a few trusted allies at your side, you explore ruins and monster-filled dungeons in search of treasure. The game offers endless possibilities and a multitude of choices--more choices than even the most sophisticated computer game, because you can do whatever you can imagine. [...] The D&D Game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, part dice rolling. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventures. Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game come alive.
Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies (Wiley 2005) (okay this one isn't an RPG, but I had it lying around)
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game has been around for more than 30 years, and it stands as the pinnacle of fantasy-adventure games (also known as roleplaying games). The concepts and play patterns of D&D (as it is affectionately called) harken back to the games of make-believe that almost everyone played as a little kid. However, D&D provides form and structure, making game play more satisfying and robust for kids and adults alike. This book makes the mysterious and often arcane world of fantasy roleplaying, specifically the DUNGEON & DRAGONS game, easier to understand and faster to get into. Get ready to open your imagination, roll some dice, and battle dragons and other magical monsters.
Werewolf: the Wild West (White Wolf, 1997)
Werewolf: The Wild West is a game of storytelling; a game about mystique and wonder, visceral action and intense spirituality. It's a game that allows you to spin great tales of glory, loss, horror and triumph. [...] [Storytelling's] what this game is about. Werewolf: The Wild West takes a long look at old legends and gives us all a chance to define them to suit our own tastes, to tell our own stories with these ancient archetypes. With this game, you can look at your own culture and yourself in a new context--or you can, as the saying goes, walk a mile in another man's moccasins. [...] Even so, this game isn't precisely 100% storytelling, at least not buy the usual book definition. In most cases of yarn-spinning, the tale-teller knows how his story's going to end. However, Werewolf: The Wild West deals in fluid plots and genuine suspense--the final outcome depends on your character's actions, and is usually in doubt. Just like improvisational theater, you have a set to act on and foils to react to--but you don't have a script, and you make up the lines as you go along. [....] This game's just a more sophisticated version [of childhood role-playing games]. There are rules (so you know how many bullets that bullyboy'll take before he falls over, and so the events don't seem completely arbitrary) and a setting (so everybody knows where the story is set, and can guess where it might go). That's about it.
D&D Basic Set (TSR Hobbies, Revised 1983)
The Dungeons & Dragons game is a way for us to imagine together -- like watching the same movie, or reading the same book. But you can write the stories, without putting a word on paper--just by playing the D&D game.
Jovian Chronicles, 2nd Edition (Dreampod 9, 2003)
Unlike other types of games, roleplaying games don't have set victory conditions. The closest to it would be a) complete the assigned mission or b) survive the mission. As play progresses and subplots emerge, winning becomes a matter of resolving problems and making one's character grow and evolve.
Shadowrun 3rd Edition (FanPro LLC, 2005)
Shadowrun is a roleplaying game that provides all the excitement of an adventure story. Roleplaying games require one or more players and a gamemaster. The players control the main characters of the story, the protagonists of a plot whose outcome is uncertain. The gamemaster directs the action of the story and controls the bad guys, the props, the setting and everything else the players may encounter. The game is not a contest between the good guys (the players) and the bad guys (the gamemaster), however. The gamemaster may control all the bad guys but he or she is actually in sympathy with the heroes. Players and gamemasters must work together to build and experience a tense, exciting adventure.
Silhouette Core (Dreampod 9, 2003)
A roleplaying game (shortened to RPG) consists of a group of people creating an interactive story. Each player, save for one who will be the Gamemaster (explained below), controls the action of one (or more) fictional character(s). These characters are called, not surprisingly, Player Characters or just PCs. A group of player characters working together is generally referred to as a Party. One player, called the Gamemaster or GM, serves in a role that is analogous to a movie’s screenwriter or director. It is the Gamemaster who sets the stage for the game’s events, designs a plot, chooses the locales and outlines a story sequence. In addition to designing the setting of an adventure, the Gamemaster is responsible for populating the setting with an interesting cast of villains, allies and extras. These additional characters are called Non-Player Characters or NPCs; during a game, one of the Gamemaster’s primary tasks is to slip into the role of any NPC that interacts with the player characters. The Gamemaster’s final task is to guide the game’s progress and arbitrate over any actions that occur in the game. Roleplaying games are not divided into matches. Instead, RPGs consist of sessions, scenarios (often called adventures or missions) and campaigns. A session is simply a period of time, often around two to four hours, that is allotted to play. The length of a session is determined by the schedules of a gaming group’s players.A scenario is analogous to an episode of a television show. During a scenario, the primary plot of a story unfolds. There may be numerous subplots, but they are not the main focus. Some character development usually occurs, but really major changes are unlikely. A scenario will be played over as many sessions as are required to resolve its plotline — usually one to three. A campaign is a series of scenarios that generally features the same cast of player characters or that are linked together to shape a larger story. As the campaign progresses, the main characters may develop and form strong relationships between each other and with non-player characters. Subplots and actions from previous scenarios sometimes return to haunt the players. Roleplaying uses a number of specialized terms. Most are defined at the start of the relevant rule sections. Further terms are defined in the Glossary, at the end of the book.
Call of Cthulhu, Edition 5.6 (Chaosium, 1999)
The game is an evolving interaction between players (in the guise of characters unraveling a mystery) and the keeper, who presents the world in which the mystery occurs. Play is mostly talking: some situation or encounter is outlined, and then the players tell the keeper what they, in the guise of investigators, intend to do. Using the rules to keep matters consistent and fair, the keeper than tells them if they can do what they proposed, and the steps they must follow. If the proposal is impossible, the keeper narrates what happens instead. [....] A player has a duty to roleplay an investigator within the limits of the investigator's personality and abilities. That is the point of roleplaying. Try to know as little or as much as the investigator would in life... [...] Gaming is social. Roleplaying brings together a number of people in order to form a communal fantasy often more verdant and imaginative than one person could ever create.
Mage: The Ascension (White Wolf, 2000)
As an ancient art, telling stories is a community endeavor. People come together to tell legends and tales, and to learn. A storytelling game like this one lets you and your friends make your own stories. Mage: The Ascension is White Wolf’s game of belief, heroism, hubris and enlightenment. With these rules, you can make stories about your own mages and their destinies. The rules of this book show you how to build a character — an alter-ego in the game — and then tell a story with that character. Each player takes on a role, much like an actor in a play. However, this story isn 't pre-scripted; each player describes what his or her mage says and does. In the world of the game, each mage has his share of triumphs and tragedies. The telling of that tale is the fun of the game. Of course, the outcome of the story is no more set than the courses of our own lives. In some cases, then, the rules in this book offer guidance for resolving situations where chance sways the tale. The important thing is to develop the character's personality and capabilities through the course of events. Remember: The name of the game is storytelling. Rules are just convenient constructions for adjudicating chance occurrences with some consistency and fairness. The rules aren't the point of the game, so they should always give way to a mystical, rousing story.
Paranoia XP (Mongoose Publishing, 2004)
Nearly every published roleplaying game (RPG) starts with an explanation of how an RPG works. We Famous Game Designers used to skip reading these, until we realized they tell a lot about the designers’ philosophy. Many RPGs describe roleplaying as ‘It’s “let’s pretend,” but with rules.’ Others call it a deeply emotional collaboration in storytelling. Some offer scholarly and arcane discussions of Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist RPG philosophy. Some indie games even compare roleplaying to laying down tracks in a hot jazz band. We like all these descriptions. PARANOIA is somewhat like all of them, in a non-jazz-band sort of way, but it’s also different. PARANOIA is also something of a psychological exercise. Because of this, we won’t tell you how to play, unless you’re cleared for it. We won’t even show you an example of play for this game. Instead, here’s an example from some other game. PARANOIA is set in a high-tech future underground city of lasers, robots, cloned citizens and an insane Computer. This game has no character classes—no warriors, wizards, priests or rogues—no magic and, aside from the occasional giant radioactive mutant cockroach, no monsters. Yet, that said, a good way to dramatize the unique nature of PARANOIA is to imagine another RPG’s familiar dungeon crawl filtered through the paranoid mindset.
7th Sea (Alderac Entertainment Group, 2000)
A roleplaying game is a unique kind of game. It's kind of like playing cops and robbers, except with more sophisticated rules. When players get together to play 7th Sea, they tell tales about the adventures of a group of characters in Theah, using their collective talents to make the stories come alive for everyone involved.
Ars Magica 5th Edition (Trident/Atlas Games 2004)
In many ways, Ars Magica is very similar to most other pen-and-paper roleplaying games. Players have characters, who are defined by a set of numbers, and control their characters' actions by telling the other players what they do. One player, called the "storyguide" in Ars Magica, handles most of the world, deciding what antagonists and extras do. Conflicts, or tasks that might be beyond a character's capabilities, are resolved according to the rules described in this book, and a dice roll.
Exalted Player's Handbook (2001 White Wolf)
Storytelling is a sophisticated way for adults to play make-believe. Rather than playing soldier or house and running around in your backyard or the alley behind your apartment, you and your friends sit around a comfortable room and describe the heroic feats your characters accomplish. To help make sure you all share the same vision of what's going on, there's a mediator and narrator (the "Storyteller") who describes events and keeps the story moving along. In order to prevent arguments of who did what first and if an action is possible, there are rules that describe what your character can and can't do. In order to prevent bitterness over someone beating someone else in a fight, the characters are usually allies against imaginary opposition that the Storyteller tries to portray as even-handedly as possible. In order to prevent jaded adult imaginations from being bored quickly, the setting is much more intricate and complex than most people's childhood fantasies.
Talislanta, Fourth Edition Fantasy Role-playing Game (Shootingiron Design, 2001)
Role playing games are like simulations of your favorite movie or television series. The Gamemaster helps establish the setting and the basic premise of each adventure, while the Players take on the roles of the series' main characters. Together, the participants will create an ongoing series of adventures called a campaign. A Talislanta campaign is open-ended, and can last as long as the Gamemaster and Players like. The only object of the game is to have fun.
Feng Shui (Robin D. Laws via Trident/Atlas, 1999)
In a roleplaying game, you direct the actions of a fictional character of your own devising through a series of adventures run by a player who takes on the role of Game Moderator or GM. The game sessions you participate in are like episodes in a series of action movie prequels or an adventure TV show. Your GM starts each session with an idea of the plot line he wants to follow, but the actions taken by your cgaracter and those of your fellow players will no doubt lead to surprises for everyone.
Castle and Crusades (Troll Lord Games, 2007)
A roleplaying game, or RPG, is a game in which the participants assume the role of a character such as a knight or a wizard or the Castle Keeper, and create a story based upon the actions the character takes. Castles and Crusades is a classic-style RPG in which all the action and conflict occurs through verbal description. Roleplaying games were originally extrapolated from the wargaming hobby, and have been described by some as mature versions of children’s games like “Cops and Robbers.” More recently, some have described RPGs as impromptu theater. However one describes it, the players of an RPG develop fantastic stories and adventures through interaction with one another and the person running the game. The story’s content and nature is only limited by the flow of the participants’ collective imaginations. Thus, an RPG is a game in which players assume the roles of characters and undertake fantastic adventures, the outcomes of which are partially determined by chance. Unlike traditional games, there is no clearly defined winner. Even if a character dies, or an adventure meets with disaster, there will always be more characters and more adventures. The goal of the game, for all participants, is to have fun developing characters, telling stories, and pursuing adventure. The true treasure is a well-played character and well-crafted adventure. Roleplaying games are a unique form of storytelling entertainment…
Serenity the Role Playing Game (Margaret Weis Productions, 2005)
A tabletop role playing game … is pretty much the same [as Cowboys and Indians], only it happens to have a few rules to help you figure out things like what happens when a bullet hits you and just how bad it’ll hurt. After all, every game has to have some rules to keep things fair Games also need a bit of unpredictability. In card games, that means shuffling the deck. In our role playing game, we use funny looking dice. Above all, remember the most important rule: it’s all about the fun.
The Dying Earth Roleplaying Game (Pelgrane Press, 2001)
You vaguely know that a roleplaying game is a hybrid of strategy game and interactive storytelling, but aren’t clear on the details. You’ll soon learn more. […] If you have played other fantasy roleplaying games, be aware that Dying Earth characters and adventures differ in important ways from your past experience...

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

Proposal to disambiguate pen-and-paper RPGs

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

It appears that a consensus has formed in the discussions above that "pen-and-paper" is the best disambiguator for this form of role-playing game, so I'm going to put aside my suggestion that "tabletop" is preferable. There also seems to be a consensus that a parenthetical disambiguator is preferable, therefore the name would be Role-playing game (pen-and-paper), and again I'll put aside my preference for the form "Pen-and-paper role-playing game".

From here on I'll just say "P&P" to indicate pen-and-paper role-playing game, to keep it concise.

I feel that a consensus (with some dissent, but still a consensus) was reached in previous sections that P&P needs an article dedicated to it, and that the article can't be at the name role-playing game. However, I don't want to bulldoze anyone who continues to have genuine doubts about whether this action is required by policy. So I'm going to lay out again, as clearly as possible, what the proposed action is and the policy-based reasons why this action should be taken.

The proposal is to create an article at Role-playing game (pen-and-paper) that solely describes the P&P form of role-playing game. Much of the content for that article already exists at Role-playing game, and therefore the best technical approach is to move Role-playing game to Role-playing game (pen-and-paper) in order to retain the discussion and edit history attached to the content. Moving the page is just a technical solution related to how Wikipedia's software works, the use of that technical approach (rather than cut-and-paste) does not reflect on the meaning of the terms.

The second part of the proposal is that Role-playing game (disambiguation) will be moved to Role-playing game. That way the edit history and discussion of the DAB page will also be retained.

Here are the reasons for this action:

  1. P&P is a highly notable form of game, and therefore there should be a Wikipedia page dedicated solely to that topic.
  2. P&P is not the primary topic of the term "role-playing game". The term "role-playing game" is used equally for P&P, video/computer RPGs, and arguably also for academic RPGs (that's a very common use of the term in academic sources).
  3. Therefore in accordance with the disambiguation guideline, P&P cannot use the name Role-playing game, because it is not the primary topic for that term. P&P must be described on a separate page with a name that clearly identifies it.
  4. The term "pen-and-paper" is commonly used to differentiate P&P from other forms of RPG, and a consensus has formed among the editors that the best article name to disambiguate P&P is Role-playing game (pen-and-paper).
  5. There is consensus that the content of the new page should largely resemble the existing page, therefore in order to maintain the discussion and edit history the best approach is to move Role-playing game to Role-playing game (pen-and-paper). CLARIFICATION: and then edit the content to be solely about P&P.
  6. There is consensus that when the new page is created, Role-playing game should become a disambiguation page. In order to maintain the discussion and edit history of the existing disambiguation page the best approach is to move Role-playing game (disambiguation) to Role-playing game.

Here's where we put our opinions in a straw poll:

  • Support - The decision to disambiguate is easy in light of the relevant policy. While "Role-playing game (pen-and-paper)" isn't the name that I think is best, I defer to the consensus in regard to the name because the evidence regarding "tabletop" versus "pen-and-paper" is arguable. Also, while I think it will be possible to demonstrate from reliable sources that "Role-playing game" is a term used to describe a broad class of game that includes all the activities being disambiguated, and therefore should have an article rather than a DAB, again I defer to the existing consensus to make it a DAB as part of this action. I will attempt to provide compelling sources to change people's minds on this subject later. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this isn't the consensus we've been working towards. To address your points in turn,
    1. It hasn't been established that there is enough content to justify a separate article specifically about p&P games. If we can make one good article that covers characterisation-based games and describes their original form, then that's better than having two poor articles that will ultimately be merged anyway.
    2. You're using P&P here to include LARP and PBP, which it doesn't. We have to have a parent article for characterisation-based games; and unless there's a sensible title for that article other than Role-playing games, it doesn't make sense to put that article anywhere else.
    3. See (2).
    4. Possibly true, but only relevant if there is sufficient content to justify a spin-out, which we can't know until the issues with the parent article are addressed.
    5. The article for all characterisation-based games should be based on the existing article. A spin-out on P&P games would be a new article, based on whatever content we decided couldn't fit into the parent article. No consensus exists to repurpose this page, nor to make a spin-out, although I believe we do have a consensus on what to call the spin-out if we do make one.
    6. Yes and no. There's consensus that a dab page is needed to separate RPGs from CRPGs; there's consensus that it would be nice for it to go at Role-playing game but there's no consensus on where to put this page.
  • Looking at that, one thing in particular stands out: before we move forward, we need to address the issues in this page. Rather than obsessing about what goes where, let's look at what we have and what we should do with it. I realise that that it may be harder to deal with the content than the titles, but it's more important. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to assume good faith, but it seems like you're deliberately misinterpreting and misleading what has now been clearly explained in great detail, in order to maintain this "characterisation-based games" concept of yours, when policy is clearly against you. Either that, or you're so focused on the perceived rightness of this strange combination of P&P & "characterisation" in a single article that everything we're writing is misperceived through that weird filter 1) It's blindingly obvious that there's enough content about P&P for it to have its own article, it's been around for 36 years and is covered in detail in hundreds, or more likely thousands of reliable sources. What I think you're really worried about is that this "characterisation-based role-playing" idea isn't covered in enough sources to be notable, so you have to piggy-back it off an article that is largely about P&P (apart from the Varieties section) 2) No, I am absolutely not using P&P to include LARP or anything else, I'm very clearly using it solely to mean pen & paper (because that's what it stands for), which we've previously agreed means the same thing as tabletop RPG. And no, we don't have to have a parent article for characterisation-based games, you have no in any way demonstrated that the sources require that. 3) What the hell are you talking about? The Disambiguation policy requires that this page not be about P&P or about RPGs of characterisation, because those are not the primary topics. Whether there is enough content for a split has no bearing 4) While you may disagree with it, there was a consensus among other editors that this article should serve as the basis of the new article on P&P. Most likely because other editors can see that this article is largely already about P&P. 6) You say "yes and no", but your comment agrees precisely with my point six. In summary, I'm now having a great deal of difficulty crediting you with good faith in this discussion. I have no problem with you having a personal opinion that "RPGs of characterisation" is an important distinction, and pushing for that to be distinguished by article structure, although I don't think the sources have been shown to support that perspective at all. But when you continuously refuse to acknowledge that this article is currently largely about P&P roleplaying and demand more evidence of the obvious, when you misinterpret my suggestions so woefully when I know you're a smart cookie, I can't help but feel you're not being very up-front. It seems to me that your goal is ignore the glaring policy issues with this page and to maintain the status quo on this page that you WP:OWN. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If you think I'm acting in bad faith, then I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm flattered that you think I've invented the distinction between games where people play "in-character" and other games; but I'm afraid I have to yield that honour to Gygax and Arneson. You say I "continuously refuse to acknowledge that this article is currently largely about P&P roleplaying" - but whenever I ask you to point out the parts that display that bias, you seem to ignore me; perhaps you're picking up on my frustration with that. I completely accept that the content of this article may not match its intended topic, but please - I'm not pushing a POV, I'm trying to work with you to eliminate the bias. But moving the article out of the way to push the opposite POV isn't going to help at all. So, I ask again, in the hope that I'll finally get an answer: which parts of the current article have a specifically P&P bias, rather than representing RPGs (in the characterisation sense) as a whole? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This is about the fourth time I've said this: apart from the end of the lead, the Varieties section, and arguably the Purpose section, the entire article is about P&P. It's not a bias, it's all of the content. Have you read it? I mean seriously, read the History section. It's the history of P&P, there is no mention of larp, MUD, MMORPG, or any of the other contenders for this "RPG of characterisation" title. Read the Game Systems, same story. Read Statistics - the content could arguable apply to most games that bear the name "role-playing game (including single-player computer RPGs), but the examples are 100% P&P. Character Creation, and Campaign Setting, same story. Publishers is 100% about P&P in its every detail and sub-section, it's not about larp, and absolutely not about MUD, MMORPG, etc. There we are, at the end of an article that's entirely about P&P role-playing, apart from a mild case of Frankenstein patchwork at the beginning where it purports to be about something else. And you know what ? This is an excellent thing. It's excellent, because when we move this article to Role-playing game (pen-and-paper) the amount of editing required will be minimal. Which means that very little content will be "lost", possibly none. The new article can still contain a section about the derivatives of P&P, and that section can still mention the contention over whether some of those derivatives (well, just single-player CRPGS really) actually contain "role-playing". So I really don't foresee much or any content loss, just an article in which the content is precisely coherent with the title, and which isn't squatting on a name that it isn't the primary topic for. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Only by design. With some tweaks it wouldn't be have to be about P&P. Statistics, character creation, campaign settings, publishers, these concepts are shared by all RPGs. If I went to the apple article, and put the word "red" in front of each instance of the word "apple" in the article, it would now be about red apples, not all apples. But that wouldn't justify moving the article to red apple and turning the apple article into a disambiguation page for different varieties of apples. I think that it's better to fix this article to apply more universally to RPGs in general, and spin off the P&P article, than to move this to a P&P article and turn RPG into a disambiguation. -- Atama頭 02:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well said, Atama. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I find this a very poor, if not just plain wrong analogy. The article name is Fruit Baskets, yet 80% of the article is about Apples. There is a small section about why Grapes aren't always thought of as a fruit basket item, but that is it. If the article is about Apples in Fruit Baskets, then that is what it should be called, and something else should be the article about Fruit Baskets, even if it is just a dab. - IanCheesman (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we're going to get much further by arguing about what analogy to use. The article's purpose is to describe RPGs, in the original sense of games played in-character, but its content has become biased towards the original form of those games. We should address the bias by fixing the content, merging in content about the other forms of such games. Ryan has identified some sections that need work; I'd sugges that we start by looking at the history section, since there are two strong articles to draw content from to improve it. Once we've got a decent article here at the top, then we can worry about the organisation of the articles below it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


  • Oppose Support - I agree with Percy Snoodle, except that I do believe a separate P&P RPG article could be made. If we have a separate P&P RPG page, it could incorporate some elements from this article but shouldn't just include all of the text from here. And as I'd said before, there are common traits between LARPs, P&P RPGs, and CRPGs that define them as RPGs. This article should discuss such things (players that role-play with characters that have defining traits, traits which are used with the mechanics of whatever game system is run). -- Atama頭 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, that sounds like my original position from two sections back. Make a new P&P page, and make this page about the broad class of game called "RPG" that includes all LARPs, P&P RPGs, and CRPGs. This is where I'm wanting to end up, and this proposal is a step along the way. Under this proposal this page will be moved to a P&P name, it will then be edited to be solely about P&P. The current name with become a DAB, but then I will present sources to demonstrate that it should be about the broad class of game called role-playing game, and if we can get consensus on that it will change. This is the first of two steps towards what you want, so if you do support that end result I suggest you change your !vote to Support and then also support the next step of changing the DAB into an article about role-playing games in general. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply - Yes, I'd support that, that's pretty much what seems right to me. That fits my own experiences (I know, WP:OR) and what has been argued earlier on this page from sources in the industry. I'd certainly like to see other opinions on this too. -- Atama頭 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting to see you provide sources that do support the POV that CRPGs are in some way the same thing as the original sort of RPGs. So far, such sources have always proved to be using the term in a CRPG-specific way; indeed, some of the ones presented were even from a DirectX manual! Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that if there are sufficent sources to suggest it's a notable concept, then an article about the idea of character portrayal in role-playing games could be created in which the idea of players "assuming the persona" of their character in some role-playing games is discussed. That article could discuss the appropriateness of different media/platforms for this type of role assumption, insofar as sources make such distinctions. However, that article shouldn't be the role-playing game (pen-and-paper) article because P&P games warrant their own article. Also, it shouldn't be the role-playing game article because it is not the primary topic association with that term. For my money, I wouldn't use the term "traditional" in an article name because that word is very ambiguous. Such an article might better be called something like Acting by players in role-playing games. In any case, the creation of such an article can be pursued independently of this proposal. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Ian - don't worry, we're meant to be bold! Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - In favor, in general, but requires a /clear/ historical perspective which does not appear to exist at present. From my p.o.v., the generic RPG page might contain a brief outline of the history with short paragraphs and links to more in-depth histories relating to each type of "role-playing game": a mere disambig page might be tempting, but I feel that a proper article is required to retain the overall history context and full scope. Peripheral elements would require to be kept to a minimum in the main article IMHO although a degree of preamble to set the scene/indicate the inspirations might be necessary.
Fwiw, the current broadbrush "RPGing started in 1974" approach is fundamentally wrong since the likes of R.A.N.D. had already utilised approaches which would be /well/ within the current understanding of "role-playing games" (complete with role-playing "scenarios", etc.) in the 1950s, before turning to a more simulationist approach as computer power became more readily available (q.v. http://www.strategypage.com/wargames/articles/wargame_articles_20049715.asp / http://www.sisostds.org/webletter/siso/iss_82/art_469.htm ). Self-identification as a "role playing game" /isn't/ required, otherwise the Original Dungeons & Dragons would be a wargame, not a RPG, as is stated on the cover. Kind regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/Role-playing_game

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, this is to inform all that a Mediation Cabal case has been opened regarding a recent dispute on this article. My name is ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! and I have volunteered to be your mediator. As you may know, the MEDCAB process is informal and strictly voluntary; we have neither the power to compel participation or impose any resolution (i.e. we are not arbitrators). Our goal is to act as a neutral third-party in helping to reach a compromise acceptable to all. To begin the process, I would ask that all interested parties to please visit the case page and signify their acceptance of mediation, and me as mediator, by signing under 2.1.1 Acceptance of Mediator. Thank you, ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 07:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need for mediation now. It looks like the request for mediation was lodged on Dec 14th, when things were still in flux. Since then, in the section above, a consensus has formed that this article needs to be moved, and a destination name chosen, with only one editor dissenting. While I would like to have 100% agreement, that's very rare. Today I looked in on the progress and saw that we have a consensus, so I've asked the admin who locked this page from moves to make the page moves agreed above on their talk page. I very much appreciate the offer of mediation, and would gladly take it up if the issue didn't seem to already be resolved. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll assume that you're not ignoring me again, and point out that at least Atama is also opposed to a page move. Even though you convinced him that changing his !vote to support was the way to get CRPGs included, he's still arguing in favour of fixing the page as it stands. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The above comment leads me to believe that not everything is resolved. My first action after there is a consensus to accept me as mediator will be to get updated on what has been agreed to since filing the case with MEDCAB, and what is still in contention. If there appears to be nothing in contention, then I'm sure everyone will be happy to close the case. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 10:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It is very seldom that everything is resolved in a disambiguation/move discussion, with agreement from every editor. In the section above we have five editors in favour of the disambiguation, and one opposed - Percy Snoodle. It is not unusual to reach consensus but to still have one opposing editor, however vocal. We have had a long, detailed, and relatively harmonious (for Wikipedia) discussion on the subject that has led the editors involved, apart from Percy Snoodle, to agreement on the best course of action after considering many options. A single editor in opposition is not a lack of consensus. As I understand it, informal mediation is "for content disputes that have been attempting consensus-building discussion without success". However, here we have successfully reached consensus, even though it has taken some time, and this mediation case was opened before the consensus was reached. Please review the last section before accepting this mediation. If on review of the last section you feel that consensus has not already been reached, I'm happy to participate in mediation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the materials you've asked me to review. It does seem that consensus has been reached on many of the issues. I have a question, though: If consensus has been reached, and all parties are satisfied, why have two editors agreed to mediation on this page, with two more agreeing to mediation on the case page? I would like all parties to consider whether mediation is necessary at this point. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 04:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for other editors. But I too feel a temptation to sign up. My motivation in doing so would be in order to be a cooperative editor, and perhaps a wistful hope that we can come up with a solution that even Percy Snoodle can agree to. However, those motivations are overridden by a feeling that this mediation was initiated before consensus was reached, and is not needed now that we have a consensus. We've taken an extraordinary amount of effort to reach the consensus that we've reached, and it's been a good process, and we've got a solid solution that follows Wikipedia policy. I'll participate in mediation if that's what the other editors wish, but I don't think we need it given that we have a consensus. It seems backwards to me to reach a consensus and then re-discuss everything, especially as we've already covered much of the ground more than once. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it would be - but although consensus has been reached in some parts of the discussion (e.g. what to call a spin-out) it hasn't been reached in all the areas you claim (e.g. whether to move this page or not). Simply counting !votes may make it look like there's broad agreement, but if you read the comments you'll find that people aren't supporting your proposal, which was itself a sudden turn-around from the previous near-consensus. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we certainly don't need to re-discuss any areas where consensus has already been reached. I am hearing that editors would like mediation in areas where consensus has not been reached. I propose we proceed with mediation in said areas. If this is acceptable, please sign up (if you accept me to mediate) and then I'll begin by inquiring as to what specifically has consensus and what does not. Things that already have consensus will be "off the mediation table" as there is no need to rehash them. If all this is acceptable, let's move discussion on this issue to the case page. I'll begin as soon as I have Ryan Paddy's acceptance. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm signed up. I don't agree with Percy's assessment that there is partial disagreement, I believe we currently have consensus to move the article to Role-playing game (pen and paper), and to move Role-playing game (disambiguation) to here, as the previous section clearly shows. I think it's only Percy who is disagreeing with that, and other editors are happy with it as the lowest common denominator that almost everyone agrees is in keeping with policy. I believe that once the move that we have a consensus for has been made, there will then be a discussion of whether Role-playing game should be an article about a class of activity that includes everything referred to as a "role-playing game". There is currently consensus that after the move, making this article a DAB is the appropriate next step (unlike the existing content, which is completely in violation of policy), but we've yet to see whether a thorough trawl of sources will convince editors that the article could alternatively be about all types of game called role-playing game. Which is why I haven't proposed that in the section above (it was my original proposal, and it had a majority of support but arguably not a consensus), because there really is disagreement among the editors about it. But as you've said, it should become clear what the consensus is during mediation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, if going down this route we'd be doing well to decide on whether "Role-playing game should be an article about a class of activity that includes everything referred to as a "role-playing game"" /beforehand/ and scoping that out /first/, rather than dropping back to a potentially confusing disambiguation page with no further agreed plans. The current base name for the Role-playing video game isn't particularly "ideal", either, and now might be a good opportunity to standardise on "Role-playing game (xxxx)" for all if that's not too much hassle.
At some point, the old chestnut of defining a "role-playing game" needs to be addressed and agreeing on a core page for RPGs (of all ilks) would play an important part in an encyclopedic presentation of this topic. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I originally wanted to make one big change, but after some discussion I concluded that smaller steps that everyone can understand easily would be easier to reach consensus for than a large immediate reform that may be too complex for casual editors to spend the time coming to grips with. So I opted for pragmatism over idealism in my proposal, figuring that there is no time limit and the key thing is to make the article stop violating the disambiguation policy as soon as possible, and leave finer tuning for later. Also, the current content of the article is something like 80% about pen-and-paper RPGs, so it makes sense to move the article, its history, and its discussion page to a name that disambiguates that content regardless of what else we do with the role-playing game article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your time and effort is much appreciated. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As a disclosure, I became interested in the debate because I'm a regular contributor to MEDCAB and originally looked into the mediation case. But as a lifelong gamer, I don't think it would be possible for me to properly mediate the article in an impartial fashion. I have strong opinions on RPGs, and I'd rather participate in mediation as a participant rather than a mediatior. As a MEDCAB volunteer, I'd agree to mediation because I have a lot of faith in the process (otherwise I wouldn't do it myself). -- Atama頭 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the mediation process very constructive and worthwhile. Prior to mediation we had consensus to make this page a DAB, but the mediation uncovered an even stronger consensus to make it a summary article. Nice one. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Academic articles dealing with various RPG formats

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've reviewed several academic articles that deal with the relationship between various types of RPGs (or at least things called RPGs, as the case may be.) I've found a few common themes keep reemerging:

  • "Role-playing games" are treated as a parent topic, with the main "platforms" or "formats" being tabletop (or pen and paper), LARP, and computer role-playing games (with a significant emphasis on MMORPGs).
  • The differences, similarities, and intertwined history between these RPG formats are acknowledged and explored in a significant number of works.
  • Many works explore cross-format topics involving two or all of tabletop, CRPG, and LARP.
  • Various ways of classifying RPGs are proposed and adopted by various works, but other than their format labels (tabletop, LARP, CRPG, MMORPG, MUD, etc.) no such classification is widespread.
  • Distinctions are sometimes drawn between adventure games and CRPGs, but not in a consistent way.

Some highlights:

  • Lindley, Craig A.; Eladhari, Mirjam. "Narrative Structure in Trans-Reality Role-Playing Games: Integrating Story Construction from Live Action, Table Top and Computer-Based Role-Playing Games". DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views – Worlds in Play. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  • Discusses theoretical integration of TT, LARP, and MMORPG into a single trans-reality RPG.
  • Includes a chart comparing TT, LARP, and MMORPG according to apparatus, size of game space, length of game and play sessions, fictive blocks, and other criteria.
  • Adopts a distinction between CRPG and computer adventure games, based on whether the main character has stats that can be improved and can have "conversations".
  • Details specific characteristics inherited by CRPGs and other computer games from tabletop RPGs.
  • Yee, N. (2006). The Demographics, Motivations and Derived Experiences of Users of Massively-Multiuser Online Graphical Environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 309-329.
  • "Given how different MMORPGs are from stand-alone and local network games, perhaps a better comparison is with live-action or table-top role-playing games (RPGs) or Multi-User Domains (MUDs) - the textual predecessors of MMORPGs."
  • A Tychsen, M Hitchens, N Ryde. The Game Master
  • Discusses the role of game master across various RPG "platforms": PnP, LARP, multi-player CRPG, MMORPG.
  • Compares the preferences for and fulfilment of on-line vs. off-line RP for players.
  • "Since the mid-1970s there have been table-top or pen and paper role-playing games that gave birth to the genre itself. These games facilitate role-play among players much like their online descendents, but in the case of these original games interaction among players occurred face-to-face. WoW, on the other hand, provides role-play in a fundamentally different way because the communication is mediated by a computer."
  • Analyzes the success of porting pen and paper RPGs into various formats such as CRPGs.
  • Stresses importance of studying digital RPGs in context of analog RPGs.
  • Discusses the extent to which RPGs fit the "game model" (i.e. have quantifiable outcomes).
  • Distinguishes offline RPGs as "adventure games".

--Trystan (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that legwork. This is much the same conclusion I'd drawn from the literature. I'd read several of the articles you reference before I made my initial proposal to make role-playing game about the class of activities that share that name, and that's why I made that initial proposal. I still think that's the best approach, I only pulled back to proposing a DAB because it's the "lowest common denominator" that almost all editors find acceptable, if not ideal. I thought we could move onto this seemingly more contentious discussion once we'd brokered an initial solution (the DAB) that doesn't glaring violate policy like the current article does, but I can certainly get on board with skipping that step. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the DAB page is definitely the way to go for now.--Trystan (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm already resigned to it being a DAB for now (and potentially long term) while we continue to discuss this. It's interesting that you note that many academic role-playing papers have a focus on MMORPGS, it's something I've noticed too. Even some larp articles are about "what we can learn from larp to improve MMORPGs". I think this is because there's so much money in online RPGs, the cash has generated a lot of interest in research. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New Article

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

A number of editors have recently entered dispute resolution with the Mediation Cabal, and the results of this mediation are to turn Role-playing game into a summary article, which summarizes the different types of RPGs, and links to full articles on each. Differing POVs on what constitutes an RPG can be included in this article. For more details on the discussion that led to this solution, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/Role-playing game. To encourage input and open the discussion up to all interested editors, I have copied the discussion of the summary article here, for continued discussion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 00:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been clear. I'm not asking where we'll make a statement about whether or not CRPGs contain role-playing; in one (rather circular) definition of the term, the do. To maintain a NPOV we have to cover both definitions, and the consensus is moving towards covering them in a single artcile. My question is about where we'll cover the original sort of RPG - the one involving in-character play. Ideally the reader should be able to tell from the link in any given article which sense is being used, which requires that the two meanings of the term each have, at the very least, their own section; and preferably their own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
An overview article can certainly delve into what Barton calls the "role-play" vs. "roll-play" distinction. The difficulty I see in using it to structure the article is that it isn't universally adopted or applied, and therefore doesn't neatly divide role-playing games into two clear camps. Indeed, it's a distinction often used to distinguish behaviour within a single game.
Formats are comparatively easy to sort out: PnP, LARP, MUD, single- and multi-player CRPG, MMORPG. How those formats are classified varies. I would favour an article that presented links to the various formats and discussed varying approaches to classifying RPGs without trying to impose one single taxonomy as universal. That discussion would certainly include, for example, Marinka Copier's view that single-player RPGs aren't true RPGs, or Anders Tychsen's discussion of the "reduced use of imagination and reduced flexibility in storytelling" in CRPGs.--Trystan (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Existing multistub

This is just an observation, but the existing roleplaying article is close to what people are describing as the new form of the RPG article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Roleplaying =/= Role-playing game. Which was one of the points I was making about being wary about using extremely loose "catch all" definitions and redefinitions of "Role-playing game" and then retrofitting those to include historical concepts which were not "role-playing games" in the sense of that phrase as it was brought to world-wide attention.
(Also in that roleplaying article and elsewhere, that role-playing games have a requirement to "collaboratively create stories" is a modern and extremely limited Narrativist interpretation which excludes "solo adventures" from being "role-playing games"). Harami2000 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Be advised that what puts the R in CRPG is that the player is in fact playing a role. He can't undertake whatever action comes to his mind, as he would playing D&D (e.g. "I'm going to intimidate the prisoner by heating up the tip of my sword and waving it in his face."), but he is playing a role. I'd like to quote from an essay on the subject, by a CRPG player:

I think the above quote stands in opposition to the idea that single player RPGs aren't "true" RPGs, and my point in bringing that up is that this POV should be represented as well, in my opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Drafts

I've returned the draft I was working on to Talk:Role-playing game/Draft. Please feel free to add, edit, change, discuss, etc. It also might be beneficial to start a draft of the new pen and paper RPG article, perhaps at Talk:Role-playing game (pen and paper)/Draft?.--Trystan (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Two drafts sounds like a good approach - certainly better than a wholesale move. Thanks for putting these up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to notice a problem with the draft, although this might be a case of something just not yet attended to. When the section called Role-playing video games starts with See main article: Role-playing game (video games), then what exists in that section should be a summary of Role-playing game (video games). It should not contain information that said article does not contain, because it is a summary section representing a full article. Someone needs to put all the academic references in Role-playing game (video games) if they are to be included in that section. Otherwise, they should be moved to another section of the article. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 12:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Role-playing_game/Archive_7&oldid=1137162205"