THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF

ROLE-PLAYING GAME STUDIES

This Handbook provides a comprehensive guide to the latest research on role-playing

games (RPGs) across disciplines, cultures, and media in one single, accessible volume.
Collaboratively authored by more than 40 key scholars, it traces the history of RPGs,
from wargaming precursors to tabletop RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons to the rise of
live-action role-play and contemporary computer RPG and massively multiplayer online
RPG franchises, like Baldur’s Gate, Genshin Impact, and World of Warcraft. Individual
chapters survey the perspectives, concepts, and findings on RPGs from key disciplines, like
performance studies, sociology, psychology, education, economics, game design, literary
studies, and more. Other chapters integrate insights from RPG studies around broadly
significant topics, like worldbuilding, immersion, and player-character relations, as well as
explore Actual Play and streaming, diversity, equity, inclusion, jubensha, therapeutic uses
of RPGs, and storygames, journaling games, and other forms of text-based RPGs. Each
chapter includes definitions of key terms and recommended readings to help students and
scholars new to RPG studies find their way into this interdisciplinary field.
A comprehensive reference volume ideal for students and scholars of game studies
and immersive experiences and those looking to learn more about the ever-growing,
interdisciplinary field of RPG studies.

José P. Zagal is Professor at the University of Utah’s Division of Games. He has edited and
authored numerous books and articles on game ethics, games education, game design, and
more. He most recently co-edited Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons and co-authored
Seeing Red: Nintendo’s Virtual Boy. He was honored as a Distinguished Scholar by the
Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) and named a Fellow of the Higher Education
Video Game Alliance (HEVGA) for his contributions to games research. He also serves as
the Editor-in-Chief of DiGRA’s flagship journal Transactions of the Digital Games Research
Association (ToDiGRA).

Sebastian Deterding is Chair at the Dyson School of Design Engineering at Imperial College
London, UK. He serves as founding Editor-in-Chief of ACM Games: Research and Practice
and co-editor of The Gameful World. He has been an RPG player and designer for more
than 30 years and has published ethnographic portraits of the German pen-and-paper RPG
subculture.
 THE ROUTLEDGE
HANDBOOK OF
ROLE-PLAYING
GAME STUDIES

Edited by José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

 Designed cover image: bortonia/Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2024 selection and editorial matter, José P. Zagal and Sebastian
Deterding; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.

ISBN: 978-1-032-27778-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-28694-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-29804-5 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003298045
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 CONTENTS

List of Contributors viii

Foreword to The Routledge Handbook of Role-Playing Game Studiesxvi
Foreword From Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundationsxviii
Acknowledgmentsxx

1 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies 1

Sebastian Deteding and José P. Zagal

SECTION I
Definitions19

2 Definitions of “Role-Playing Games” 21

José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

SECTION II
Forms57

3 Precursors 59
Jon Peterson

4 Tabletop Role-Playing Games 68

William J. White, Jonne Arjoranta, Michael Hitchens,
Jon Peterson, Evan Torner and Jonathan Walton

v
 Contents

5 Live-Action Role-Playing Games 92

J. Tuomas Harviainen, Rafael Bienia, Sarah Lynne Bowman,
Simon Brind, Michael Hitchens, Yaraslau I. Kot,
Esther MacCallum-Stewart, David W. Simkins, Jaakko Stenros,
Ian Sturrock, and Shuo Xiong

6 Single-Player Computer Role-Playing Games 115

Douglas Schules, Jon Peterson, and Martin Picard

7 Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games 141

Mark Chen, Jon Peterson, and David W. Simkins

8 Text-Based Role-Playing Games 171

Jessica Hammer and Paul Czege

SECTION III
Disciplinary Perspectives 185

9 RPG Theorizing by Designers and Players 187

Evan Torner

10 Game Design and Role-Playing Games 211

Staffan Björk and José P. Zagal

11 Theater and Performance Studies and Role-Playing Games 227

Sarah Hoover, David W. Simkins, Sebastian Deterding,
David F. Meldman, and Amanda Brown

12 Sociology and Role-Playing Games 243

J. Patrick Williams, David Kirschner, and Sebastian Deterding

13 Psychology and Role-Playing Games 261

Sarah Lynne Bowman and Andreas Lieberoth

14 Literary Studies and Role-Playing Games 280

David Jara and Evan Torner

15 Learning and Role-Playing Games 299

Jessica Hammer, Alexandra To, Karen Schrier, Sarah Lynne
Bowman, and Geoff Kaufman

16 Economics and Role-Playing Games 317

Isaac Knowles and Edward Castronova

vi
 Contents

SECTION IV
Interdisciplinary Issues 331

17 The Impact of Role-Playing Games on Culture 333

Esther MacCallum-Stewart, Jaakko Stenros, Staffan Björk,
and William J. White

18 Documented and Actual Play in Role-Playing Games 352

Shelly Jones

19 Worldbuilding in Role-Playing Games 365

Karen Schrier, Evan Torner, and Jessica Hammer

20 Role-Playing Games as Subculture and Fandom 381

Esther MacCallum-Stewart and Aaron Trammell

21 Immersion and Shared Imagination in Role-Playing Games 393

Sarah Lynne Bowman

22 Players and Their Characters in Role-Playing Games 409

Sarah Lynne Bowman and Karen Schrier

23 Transgressive Role-Play 425

Jaakko Stenros and Sarah Lynne Bowman

24 Sexuality and the Erotic in Role-Play 441

Ashley ML Guajardo and Jaakko Stenros

25 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Role-Playing Games 456

Adrianna Burton, Aaron Trammell, and Katherine Castiello Jones

26 Power and Control in Role-Playing Games 470

Jessica Hammer, Whitney Beltrán, Jonathan Walton,
and Moyra Turkington

Glossary of Key Role-Playing Game Terms 490

Index494

vii
 CONTRIBUTORS

Jonne Arjoranta, PhD, is a lecturer at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, where he

researches and teaches games. His main research interests are Internet culture, playful poli-
tics, and the structures of meaning found in games. He has published on play, meaning in
games, and game definitions.

Whitney Beltrán is a video game studio head and narrative designer for analogue and video
games. She has worked on games like Bluebeard’s Bride, Dungeons & Dragons, HoloVista,
State of Decay 2, and Raccoon Lagoon. She is an expert in worldbuilding and narrative
design and holds a master’s in mythological studies. She has published peer-reviewed aca-
demic papers on the intersectionality between mythology, psychology, and narrative play
and has conducted research through Carnegie Mellon’s Human Computer Interaction Insti-
tute on technology and live-action role-playing.

Rafael Bienia is an independent scholar and fantasy author. His research focuses on role-
playing and actor-network cooperation, currently with AI. He wrote Role Playing Materials
(2016), an epistemological study of game scholars to show alternative ways how to think and
study role-playing games. Rafael is co-editor of the annual essay collection MittelPunkt from
the German speaking larp studies collective since 2012. He received his PhD in 2016 from
Maastricht University, Netherlands. More about his books and work at: www.rafaelbienia.de

Staffan Björk is full professor at the Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Gothenburg University, Sweden, and has researched gameplay design since 2000. Together
with Jussi Holopainen, he published the book Patterns in Game Design, which helped
establish design patterns methodology within game research. Besides publishing research
based on this approach, he has been part of several international research projects explor-
ing ubiquitous games and computer-augmented traditional games. He is one of the found-
ing members of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA).

Sarah Lynne Bowman is a scholar, game designer, and event organizer. She received her PhD
from the University of Texas at Dallas, US. She is an associate professor for the Department

viii
 Contributors

of Game Design at Uppsala University Campus Gotland, Sweden, where she is a founding
member of the Transformative Play Initiative. She also teaches in the humanities depart-
ment as well as in peace and conflict studies and global studies for the interdisciplinary
studies department at Austin Community College. McFarland Press published her disser-
tation in 2010 as The Functions of Role-Playing Games: How Participants Create Com-
munity, Solve Problems, and Explore Identity. She regularly serves as an editor, including
The Wyrd Con Companion Book (2012–2015), the International Journal of Role-Playing
(2015–), and Nordiclarp.org (2015–). Sarah has co-organized the Role-Playing and Simula-
tion in Education (2016, 2018) and Living Games (2014, 2016, 2018) conferences, as well
as the Transformative Play Initiative Seminar (2022).

Simon Brind holds a PhD from University of the West of England, UK, and is a writer and
larp designer. His research focuses on moments of narrative crisis in participatory fiction
and, specifically, the role of the author in live-action role-playing games.

Amanda Brown is Research Director with the Ahlquist Center for Policy, Practice, and
Innovation at Brightpoint, a family services organization in Illinois. Amanda’s work exam-
ines policies and practices that support connection, healing, and family well-being. In her
dissertation, she examines the development of pretend play using a longitudinal sample
of children and caregivers engaged in naturalistic interactions at home. As part of a pro-
ject titled “The Body’s Role in Thinking, Performing and Referencing,” at the University
of Chicago’s Center for Gesture, Sign and Language, Amanda conducted research with
motion capture technology to examine how individuals use the body to describe their expe-
riences. Amanda earned her BS in theater from Northwestern University and directed The
Mime Company Theater, an ensemble creating original plays without words and conduct-
ing educational outreach in the Chicago area. She earned a PhD from the University of
Chicago, Illinois, US.

Adrianna Burton is a doctoral student at the University of California, Irvine, US. Her
research interests focus on the intersection of representation and identity-making in role-
playing games. Their work has been published across venues such as Game Studies, Analog
Game Studies, and Gamers With Glasses. Adrianna is a founding member of the Tabletop
Research in Practice Collective and a copyeditor at the Journal of Games Criticism.

Edward Castronova is Game Designer and Professor of Media at Indiana University, US.
His scholarly work specializes in games, technology, and society. Books include Life Is a
Game (2020), Virtual Economies: Analysis and Design (with Vili Lehdonvirta, 2014), and
Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games (2005). He has published
several board games on historical themes. Castronova was born as Edward Bird in 1962,
converted to Roman Catholicism in 1995, and took his wife’s name on marrying in 2000.
He has two sons, two god-children, and a beagle named Tilly. Castronova thinks God is a
game designer: get to Heaven for the win.​

Mark Chen is a part-time games scholar and professor of UX design, qualitative research,
and internet and games studies. He is also a part-time bum who practices serious leisure
and a part-time activist attempting to slow the world’s descent into oblivion. He sometimes
runs esotericgaming.com, an alternative publication outlet that celebrates gaming diversity

ix
 Contributors

through detailed accounts of arcane and marginal gaming. Mark wrote Leet Noobs: The
Life and Death of an Expert Player Group in “World of Warcraft,” an ethnographic
account of how a new team of players learned to excel through the use of game mods and
then died in a fiery meltdown catalyzed by the same mods. He hates people and loves people
at the same time.

Paul Czege is an artful and expressive creator of role-playing, storytelling, and journaling
games. His game My Life With Master won the Diana Jones Award for Excellence in Gam-
ing and is profiled in Hobby Games: The 100 Best. He is an occasional invited guest and
panelist at game gatherings internationally. He recently published The Ink That Bleeds:
How to Play Immersive Journaling Games.

Sebastian Deterding is Chair at the Dyson School of Design Engineering at Imperial College
London, UK. He serves as founding Editor-in-Chief of ACM Games: Research and Practice
and co-editor of The Gameful World. He has been an RPG player and designer for more
than 30 years and has published ethnographic portraits of the German pen-and-paper RPG
subculture.

Ashley ML Guajardo is an associate professor at the University of Utah, US, where she runs
a games user research lab and teaches game design. She is the author of the book Sexual-
ity in Role-Playing Games and has published widely on the topics of sexuality and games,
fan communities, and research methods. She Twitch-streams gameplay analysis and user
research methods in her spare time.

Jessica Hammer is Director of the Center for Transformational Play at Carnegie Mellon
University, with a joint appointment in the Human-Computer Interaction Institute and the
Entertainment Technology Center. She brings together game research, psychology, learning
theory, and computer science to understand how games change the way players think, feel,
and behave. In addition to studying games and teaching game design, she is also an award-
winning role-playing game designer.

J. Tuomas Harviainen is Professor of Information Studies and Interactive Media at Tam-

pere University, Finland and holds an MTh, PhD, and MBA. His research mostly deals
with information-sharing between business competitors and the information practices of
marginalized communities, but he keeps returning to role-playing studies every year as well.

Michael Hitchens is an associate professor in the Department of Computing and an asso-

ciate dean in the Faculty of Science and Engineering, at Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia. His research interests include player experience, story and narrative in games,
the relationship between player and player character, and role-playing game theory. He
has designed over 20 role-playing modules for Australian hobby conventions. He led the
development of the Bachelor of Information Technology—Games Design and Development
at Macquarie University. He teaches game design and implementation. He has a bachelor
of mathematics (Hons) and a PhD in computer science.

Sarah Hoover is a postdoctoral researcher with the EU Horizon project CLS INFRA, work-
ing in the Moore Institute of the University of Galway, Ireland. Sarah is also a dramaturg

x
 Contributors

specializing in interactive and immersive performance. Her research interests include

reflective/affective dramaturgical strategies in both theater and larp, artistic research meth-
odologies in participatory performance, and intersectional feminist theory. Her monograph
“Gaming Audiences Into Theatre” will be published in 2024. Her RPG journey started with
D&D 2nd Edition in junior high school. She has served as executive director, director, and
dramaturg for theater makers in the US, Ireland, and Belgium for over 15 years.

David Jara is the coordinator of the academic writing program for doctoral students at
Heidelberg University’s Graduate Academy. He also holds a PhD from Heidelberg Univer-
sity, Germany. He is an independent researcher, educator, and musician. His research has
focused on the creation, interpretation, and negotiation of narratives and fictional worlds
in tabletop role-playing games.

Katherine Castiello Jones is an associate professor educator in sociology and the Digital
Media Collaborative (DMC) at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, US. They write exten-
sively on topics related to games and game design including sexuality in games, inclusive
design, and integrating feminist theories of play into game design scholarship. Katherine has
been writing tabletop and live-action role-playing games (larps) for over a decade. She was
one of the designers profiled in The Queer Games Avant-Garde: How LGBTQ Game Mak-
ers Are Reimagining the Medium of Video Games.

Shelly Jones is a professor of English at SUNY Delhi, New York, US, where they teach
classes in mythology, literature, and writing. They received their PhD in comparative lit-
erature from SUNY Binghamton. Their research examines analog, digital, and role-playing
games through the lenses of intersectional feminism and disability studies.

Geoff Kaufman is an assistant professor in the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at

Carnegie Mellon University. He holds a PhD in social psychology from Ohio State Univer-
sity, US, and completed his postdoctoral work at the Tiltfactor game design and research
laboratory at Dartmouth College. His primary research focuses on how experience-taking—
the mental simulation of characters’ experiences in fictional narratives, virtual worlds, or
games—can change individuals’ attitudes and behaviors. This work has led to the genera-
tion of a host of empirically validated design techniques and best practices for the creation
of playful interventions for social change.

David Kirschner is an associate professor of sociology at Georgia Gwinnett College, US. His
work integrates human-computer interaction, game-based learning, and digital humanities. His
scholarship has explored topics such as meaning-making in video games, coordinated action
in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), gamification and health
activism, and both self-directed and social-emotional learning (SEL) in video games. Current
research examines communities of practice among artificial intelligences in single-player video
games and representations of leadership in narrative video games. In class, David enjoys experi-
menting with new ways to teach sociology using video games, analog games, and game design.

Isaac Knowles is an analytics consultant in the video games industry. He has previously
worked with such companies as WB Games, Epic Games, Electronic Arts, and SAP, as well
as multiple startups in the game analytics space. Isaac holds an MS in economics from

xi
 Contributors

Louisiana State University, US, and he was a PhD candidate in The Media School at Indiana
University–Bloomington. He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Yaraslau I. Kot is a game designer and researcher and author of over 100 academic pub-
lications. He holds a PhD, LLM, and MPsy and is an invited professor at Tallinn Univer-
sity, Estonia. Yaraslau is also the Head of LARP, Social Mission at Business School IPM.
He applies games methodology for education, therapy, rehabilitation, corporate training,
crime investigation, research, and entertainment.

Andreas Lieberoth is an associate professor of education and media psychology at the Dan-
ish School of Education (DPU), Aarhus University, Denmark. Andreas holds a PhD in psy-
chology and employs combinations of experimental and mixed methods research in the
study of games and technology effects. His writings on theory, methods, and design have
appeared in multiple textbooks, and his empirical research has been published in journals
like Nature, Simulation and Gaming and Games and Culture. Even though his dice are
growing cold, Shadowrun and World of Darkness are still the gold standard against which
he holds all new game experiences.

Esther MacCallum-Stewart is Professor of Games Studies at Staffordshire University, UK.

Her work investigates the ways that players understand and reproduce the gaming narratives
that surround them, and she has written widely on role-playing, webcasting, sexuality, gen-
der, and deviant play in games. She is currently writing about Actual Play and the upcoming
anniversary of Dungeons & Dragons. Esther is also Chair of the 2024 Worldcon—Glasgow
2024, a Worldcon for our Futures.

David F. Meldman is a professional actor, director, and teacher based in Chicago, Illinois,
USA. He holds a BA in theater studies from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, US,
and an MFA in theater performance from Florida Atlantic University, US, and a Master of
Letters in Shakespeare and performance from Mary Baldwin University, Virginia, US. His
2020 M.Litt thesis, Shylock Meets the Feral Jew, examined historical and contemporary
antisemitism in Shakespeare and the effects on audience implicit bias. It won the 2020
Andrew Gurr Award for Outstanding Thesis. He dedicates all his work to the memory of
his father, Larry, who taught him how to aspire to be a mensch. David enjoys pretending to
be other people, with or without dice involved.

Jon Peterson studies the history of wargames and role-playing games. He is the author of
Playing at the World (2012), The Elusive Shift (2020), and Game Wizards (2021). He also
co-authored the Hugo Award finalist Dungeons & Dragons: Art & Arcana (2018), the New
York Times bestseller Heroes’ Feast: The Official Dungeons & Dragons Cookbook (2020), as
well as Heroes’ Feast: Flavors of the Multiverse (2023) and Lore & Legends (2023). He fur-
thermore contributes to academic anthologies on games and a variety of online periodicals.

Martin Picard is a lecturer at the Université de Montréal, Canada. His teaching and research
interests cover video game culture and history, Japanese popular culture, film, and digital
media. His publications consist of articles and chapters in anthologies such as The Rout-
ledge Companion to Video Game Studies (2023), Horror Video Games: Essays on the
Fusion of Fear and Play (2009), and The Video Game Theory Reader 2 (2009).

xii
 Contributors

Karen (Kat) Schrier is Professor of Games and Director of the Games and Emerging Media
program at Marist College, New York, US. She also directs the Play Innovation Lab,
which focuses on creating games for education and social change. In addition, she has
also designed and produced media at places like Scholastic, BrainPOP, Nickelodeon, and
the World Health Organization (WHO). The author/editor of over 100 published works,
including We the Gamers (2021) and Knowledge Games (2016). She holds degrees from
Columbia University, MIT, and Amherst College, US. Find her at www.karenschrier.com
and platyplay.com.

Douglas Schules is an associate professor at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Japan. He holds

a PhD from the University of Iowa, US. His research explores how digital technologies
impact the creative industries, with a focus on the production, distribution, and consump-
tion of creative media cross-culturally. Recently his work has centered on the Japanese
game industry, especially indie-developed and fan-produced games.

David W. Simkins is an associate professor of game design and development at the School
of Interactive Games and Media at the Rochester Institute of Technology, US. His research
focuses on role-playing as a tool for learning, most often in informal contexts and with
games that were written and are played primarily for entertainment. Though he does work
broadly in role-play and learning, he is particularly interested in practices involving role-
play, learning, and ethics. He is a lifelong role-player and hopes to role-play until he dies.

Jaakko Stenros is a university lecturer in game studies working at Game Research Lab, Tam-
pere University, Finland. He has published ten books and a hundred articles and reports,
and he has taught game studies for fifteen years. Jaakko studies play and games, and his
research interests include norm-defying play, game rules, queer play, role-playing games,
pervasive games, and playfulness. Jaakko has also collaborated with artists and designers to
create ludic experiences and has curated many exhibitions at the Finnish Museum of Games.

Ian Sturrock is a game designer and games lecturer. He wrote the award-winning Slaine
and Conan tabletop RPGs for Mongoose Publishing, among many other things. He teaches
game design at Teesside University, UK. In what passes for his spare time, he manages Ser-
pent King Games, a small press tabletop RPG publisher. He has been playing and running
larp games and tabletop RPGs for over 40 years. He has a PhD in motivation for play.

Alexandra To is an assistant professor jointly appointed in the Art+Design department in

the College of Arts, Media, and Design and the Khoury College of Computer Science at
Northeastern University, US. She uses human-computer interaction research methods, sto-
rytelling, and critical design to illuminate patterns of oppression and design for empower-
ment in games and other social technologies. She holds a BS and MS in symbolic systems
with a minor in Asian American studies from Stanford University, California, US, and a
PhD in human-computer interaction from Carnegie Mellon University, US. More informa-
tion on her work can be found at www.alexandrato.com.

Evan Torner is an associate professor of German studies and film and media studies at
the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, US, where he also serves as Undergraduate Director
of German Studies and the Director of the UC Game Lab. Besides role-playing games, his

xiii
 Contributors

other fields of expertise include East German genre cinema, German film history, critical
race theory, and science fiction. He co-founded the Analog Game Studies (AGS) journal
and the Golden Cobra Challenge, and he edits both AGS and the International Journal of
Role-Playing.

Aaron Trammell is an associate professor of informatics at University of California–Irvine,

US. He is interested in how tabletop games further values of White privilege and hegemonic
masculinity in geek culture. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Analog Game Studies
and the Co-Editor for the Tabletop Gaming series at University of Michigan Press. He has
two books: Repairing Play (2023) is a theory of play that centers BIPOC people and The
Privilege of Play (2023) is a history of games and race in the 20th century.

Moyra Turkington is an award-winning Canadian larpwright, game designer, and theorist

with a background in cultural studies and theater. She is the founder of the Unruly Designs
publishing house and the leader of the War Birds Collective, which designs and publishes
games which highlight, explore, and reclaim the contributions and experiences of the for-
gotten women of history. She is interested in immersive, transformative, educational, and
political games and, particularly, in creating a multiplicity of media, design, representation,
and play.

Jonathan Walton is an assistant teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Entertainment

Technology Center, focusing on game design and science and technology studies. Prior to
starting a PhD in Communication at University of California–San Diego, US, Jonathan
spent seven years analyzing Chinese politics for US foreign policy think-tanks and ten years
studying Chinese language and society. He has been active in indie and experimental RPG
communities since 2002.

William J. (Bill) White is Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State
Altoona in Pennsylvania, US, where he teaches courses on gaming, mass media, and public
speaking. His research interests include rhetorical and communication theory, gaming as
participatory culture, and rhetoric of science. He is the author of Tabletop RPG Design
in Theory and Practice at The Forge, 2001–2012: Designs and Discussions (2020), and
co-editor of Immersive Gameplay: Essays on Participatory Media and Role-Playing (2012)
with Evan Torner, with whom he also serves as part of the editorial team for the Interna-
tional Journal of Role-Playing along with Sarah Lynne Bowman. He is also a game designer
and the Director of Education for the TRPG support software company Bringing Fire.

J. Patrick Williams is an associate professor of sociology at Nanyang Technological Univer-

sity in Singapore, where his research and teaching interests focus on micro-sociology, cul-
ture, self and identity, and digital technologies. He is a symbolic interactionist by training
and is particularly interested in the interactional and experiential dimensions of gameplay.
Patrick has published dozens of peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, many of which
deal with games or play. Long ago, he edited Gaming as Culture: Essays in Social Real-
ity, Identity and Experience in Fantasy Games (2006) and The Players’ Realm: Studies in
Video Games and Gaming (2007). Currently, he is studying esports in Singapore and is the
Chair of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities’ Games and Esports Research Working
Group.

xiv
 Contributors

Shuo Xiong is an assistant professor at the Huazhong University of Science and Technol-
ogy, China. He holds an MS and PhD in information science from Japan Advanced Institute
of Science and Technology and has researched game design, game informatics, and serious
game since 2013. He translated and published the book Computer Game Worlds, The
Video Game Explosion A History from PONG to PlayStation and Beyond (from English
to Chinese). Also he is the author of the book Introduction of Ludology (Chinese version).
He is currently trying to establish a game studies environment in China and translating rel-
evant classics books. His game course on the Chinese Internet has 120,000 views.

José P. Zagal is Professor at the University of Utah’s Division of Games. He has edited and
authored numerous books and articles on game ethics, games education, game design, and
more. He most recently co-edited Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons and co-authored See-
ing Red: Nintendo’s Virtual Boy. He was honored as a Distinguished Scholar by the Digital
Games Research Association (DiGRA) and named a Fellow of the Higher Education Video
Game Alliance (HEVGA) for his contributions to games research. He also serves as the
Editor-in-Chief of DiGRA’s flagship journal Transactions of the Digital Games Research
Association (ToDiGRA).

xv
 FOREWORD TO THE
ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK
OF ROLE-PLAYING
GAME STUDIES

It was encouraging, flattering, and daunting to get an email from your publisher asking if
you would be interested in doing a second edition of this book. Has it been that long since
the original came out?1 It was encouraging and flattering because we took it as a sign that
the book had met (at least some) of our goals for it. It was daunting because, well, the first
edition took a huge amount of work. This would be like “getting the band back together,”
where the band is more like an orchestra (lots of people), all of whom worked really hard
to collaborate, communicate, edit, expand upon, and develop the ideas that went into the
book. It was worth it, but—it was a huge amount of work. It goes without saying that we
said “yes,” hoping that everyone else would also agree. We are thankful, and lucky, that
our “orchestra” wanted to give it another go.
The hard part was not figuring out what we wanted to do for a new edition. First,
thanks to some anonymous reviewers, we had insights on the kinds of things they had
found valuable and useful (and less so). This helped us collectively figure out what to
trim, what to cut, and what to expand upon. Second, role-playing game studies (RPG
studies) has grown and evolved—so we wanted to include new scholars and their work.
While our list of authors is mostly the same, there are some new people we are happy
have agreed to come onboard. Third, the scope of RPG studies was now broader. So, we
have broadened and diversified our use of examples and references such that the book
better matches the realities of the field: RPG studies (and RPG play) is truly global.
Fourth, there were new RPG-related phenomena we need to address. While most of
these phenomena were incorporated into existing chapters, we have also added a new
chapter solely dedicated to now so-called “Actual Play”—the documentation, recording,
performance, and livestreaming of role-playing games (Chapter 18, Documented and
Actual Play in Role-Playing Games). Similarly, the proto-form we covered called “online
freeform” has since morphed and, perhaps, coalesced into what we are now calling “text-
based role-playing.”
As we write this, we realize that it has been ten years since this project began (2013, at
a workshop at the international DiGRA conference), and it has been quite the ride. The

xvi
 Foreword to The Routledge Handbook of Role-Playing Game Studies

band did come back together, and wow do they still have it! We are grateful to each and
every one of our 43 authors, our editors at Routledge, our reviewers, and, of course, our
colleagues, families, and loved ones. Your patience and support have made all the differ-
ence. And waffles.
José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding
October 2023

Note
1 It had not, but our partners at Routledge are smart and knew it would take us longer than we imag-
ined to pull this all together. Therefore, they contacted us a bit sooner? We do not know, really.

xvii
 FOREWORD FROM
ROLE-PLAYING GAME STUDIES:
TRANSMEDIA FOUNDATIONS

Like many things in role-playing games (RPGs), this book began as an online discus-
sion thread. In October 2012, sparked by Jon Peterson’s (2012) voluminous history of
the origins of Dungeons & Dragons, members of the Digital Games Research Association
(DiGRA) Role-Playing Studies Special Interest Group mailing list debated why academic
and fan scholars of RPGs often talked past each other unawares rather than building on
each other’s work.1 Like game studies a decade ago, the discussion thread went, the study of
RPGs was a dispersed network without a shared recognized “canon” of texts and concepts.
It needed a textbook that would bind people, texts, and ideas together into an interdisci-
plinary field. More than five years later, you hold this textbook in hand. Its authors include
not just many participants of said academic discussion thread but also Jon Peterson. We are
no longer talking past each other.
From the first moment, we intended a truly integrative textbook: It would cover tabletop
and computer and live-action and multi-player online RPGs and recognize other forms as
well. It would represent Australian tabletop and Nordic larp and Japanese computer RPGs
and other cultural specifics. And it would integrate perspectives from sociology and psy-
chology, economics and education, literary studies and game design, academics and fans
and designers alike.
Achieving this goal required assembling an invisible college across the globe. In Atlanta,
Georgia, in August 2013, we convened a workshop at the international conference of
DiGRA, discussing and proposing topics a textbook of RPG studies should cover and ideas
for organizing them.2 The circle of co-authors expanded and contracted, and although each
individual chapter now carries a list of authors at the top, this book is really co-authored
by all. Over months of collaborative online discussion and drafting and commenting, the
initial jumble of ideas became first a unified list of topics, then a table of contents, then
short, then extended chapter outlines. Many chapters would then be drafted by whole
author teams as no single person would hold an integrative view of the respective topic in
their head. And every chapter went through three or more cycles of peer review and revi-
sion, gathering input and critique from the textbook team and outside experts. Draft by
draft, revision by revision, we created our shared language and canon and map: a field of
RPG studies.

xviii
 Foreword From Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations

Our first and foremost thanks, therefore, go to our team of 39 authors, who bared
with us editors and each other through the better part of 4 years. We also thank our exter-
nal reviewers for graciously donating their time, words, and insights. And we thank our
spouses and families for their patience and support. And pancakes.
Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal
June 2017

Notes
1 http://mail.digra.org/pipermail/roleplaying/2012-October/thread.html, http://mail.digra.org/pipermail/
roleplaying/2012-November/thread.html.
2 http://rpghandbook.tumblr.com/.

Reference
Peterson, Jon. 2012. Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People, and Fantastic
Adventure from Chess to Role-Playing Games. San Diego, CA: Unreason Press.

xix
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was partly conducted in the Digital Creativity Labs (digitalcreativity.ac.uk),
jointly funded by EPSRC/AHRC/InnovateUK under grant no. EP/M023265/1.

xx
 1
THE MANY FACES OF
ROLE-PLAYING GAME STUDIES
Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

We all role-play. As mere toddlers, we imitate the adult world around us, playing pre-
tend by hosting stuffed animal tea parties and grocery visits. As young children, we
become pirates and sorcerers and go on underwater expeditions in the living room,
momentarily transcending the bounds of our bodies, skills, and parents. As adolescents,
we discover the power of being someone else on a stage in drama class. We try on and
shed social roles in quick succession in the desperate desire to become and be recognized
as someone. When we go to the theater, read a book, or watch a movie, we imagine our-
selves in the shoes of the protagonists, and bits of their fictional worlds may linger with
us on the way home—the traffic light changing to green echoing a car chase scene with
us as the super spies bringing the engine to a roar, for a moment transcending the norms
of responsible adulthood. In our private lives, our therapists ask us to reenact traumatic
episodes of our past, and we confide in sexual partners the scenarios that captivate and
stoke our desires. In the working world, we partake in drills, dry runs, team-building,
and “leadership and communication” exercises where we assume the roles of managers
and underperforming employees or emergency patients and doctors. We work hard to
be taken seriously as “doctors,” “managers,” or just “parents” in social roles we are
insecure we will succeed at. And in everyday life, we “put on faces” and “play our parts”
as required by the endless succession of social occasions, gatherings, and rituals until we
reach the last act, our own funerals, where, for once, we only have to show up and can
leave the acting to the others.
Given the universality of role-play, it is little wonder that games, those trusty little
mirrors of social life, have incorporated it into their form: a snow globe version, safely
packed, miniaturized, maybe a bit abstract but strangely compelling. Starting with Dun-
geons & Dragons in the 1970s, role-playing games (RPGs) have turned the human prac-
tice of role-play into a contemporary leisure genre enjoyed by millions across the globe.
RPGs have since spawned subgenres and subcultures of their own: from sitting around a
table narrating the actions of one’s characters to scouting the woods wearing chain mail
and carrying foam swords; from mourning the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII in
front of the television screen to frantically using a headset and text chat to a lead team of
40 players in defeating the Lich King in World of Warcraft. What people call “RPGs”

DOI: 10.4324/9781003298045-1 1
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

today ranges from the gigantic—online RPGs connecting millions of players, live-action
role-plays played in a decommissioned warship refurbished as a spaceship traveling
through space—to the minimalist: two players sitting motionless, improvising the dia-
logue of a chance encounter between two rocks like a theater piece by Samuel Beckett.
RPGs just as readily provide power fantasies as they afford artistic expression, education,
or social activism.

The Intersection of Roles, Play, Games, and Media Culture

RPGs sit at the intersection of four phenomena—roles, play, games, and media culture
(Figure 1.1). They take a fundamental form of play—make-believe—and a fundamen-
tal aspect of social reality and identity—roles—and give them the structured form of a

Figure 1.1 RPGs at the intersection of roles, play, games, and media culture.

2
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

game. They arise from and sit at the heart of much of contemporary fandom, “geek,” and,
increasingly, mainstream media culture. To understand RPGs, their forms, origins, and
social place, it is useful to examine them through the lens of these four phenomena in turn.

RPGs as Play
RPGs involve play. Play is a behavior universally found across all human cultures and in
many animal species (Burghardt 2005; Konner 2010, 507). Play transforms and recom-
bines other, functional behaviors, exaggerating, varying, and rendering them incomplete
so they lack their “serious” consequences and thus their obvious instrumental or survival
value. Instead, play is performed voluntarily, intrinsically motivated, and autotelic, that
is, performed “for its own sake.” Play is facilitated by a “relaxed” field of familiar sur-
roundings and others, with no immediate pressing threats or stressors (Burghardt 2005,
68–82; Pellegrini 2009, 8–20). Notably, transforming other behavior does not mean that
play necessarily represents other behavior: in locomotor or object play, the player often
just relishes exploring repetitive engagement with a movement or thing (Burghardt 2005,
84–86).
Symbolic play may be what sets humans apart from other animals. Humans exhibit
specific forms of play otherwise only rudimentarily found in higher primates, namely,
strong symbolic, as-if, or pretense play; sociodramatic or role-play; and rule play involv-
ing explicit, predefined, and not spontaneously renegotiable rules (Konner 2010, 89–93).
Developmental psychologists note that these forms typically occur in rough succession dur-
ing a child’s development, potentially mirroring their evolutionary emergence: First comes
pretense play, in which players jointly enact a script around a (nonexistent or reinterpreted)
object, like “going to bed,” with a puppet and magazine as child and blanket. This evolves
into role-play, where players stick to the scripts that make up a situational role (the mother,
the child) and finally turns into rule play, where players fluidly reenact and reshuffle exist-
ing scripts and also agree on explicit shared rules governing their actions (Oerter 1999,
93–103; Pellegrini 2009, 18–20).
Similarly, philosopher Roger Caillois (2001) fashioned a fourfold typology of play with
alea (roughly, games of chance), agon (contest, rule-based games), ilinx (vertigo, locomotor-
rotation play), and, finally, mimicry, where “the subject makes believe or makes others
believe that he is someone other than himself” (19). Whereas developmental psychologists
see rule play as a refined, more complex version of role-play, Caillois set the two in oppo-
sition: Games are “ruled or make-believe” (9, emphasis in original), since mimicry lacks
“the continuous submission to imperative and precise rules” (22) that characterizes play
more generally for Caillois. But Caillois’ model, first published in 1961, only considered
the games of his day. Role-playing games proved it outmoded, if not wrong, because they
merged role-play and rule play, “make believe” and “precise rules,” as anyone who has
browsed the hundreds of pages of rule books for a contemporary tabletop RPG can attest.

RPGs as Roles
RPGs involve roles, another universal human phenomenon that has been studied for over
a century (see Biddle 1986; Turner 2001 for reviews). Roles are patterns of behaviors and
attitudes expected from a person occupying a given social position. As such, roles are a

3
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

fundamental part of the power structures and processes of a society. They also provide
resources and strategies to those occupying a position (Lynch 2007). During a “restaurant
visit,” for instance, we expect the person acting as “server” to do certain things like dis-
tribute menus, take orders, and care for our well-being. These expectations also provide a
script for performing “waiting tables” and certain rights (like interrupting our conversa-
tion to ask whether we’d like coffee). And, if we go along with it, the server may turn their
role performance into an informal conversation among friends, a curt and formal affair, or
something else entirely.
Roles are fundamentally involved in people’s identities, selves, and self-concepts (Owens
and Samblanet 2013; Stets and Serpe 2013). In our lives, we typically occupy and move
between multiple—often conflicting—roles. Our identities are partially construed from
the social roles we and others ascribe to us. Similarly, our selves and self-concepts—the
thoughts, emotions, identities, and motives we attribute to ourselves as what constitutes
us, and the thoughts and feelings about these selves—are formed from the experience of
interacting in situational roles with others.
In RPGs, people adopt situational roles of players and are free to play with—temporar-
ily try on, explore, experience, act out, subvert—alternative roles, identities, and selves by
enacting the character of a revered healer, a megalomaniac salesperson, a brooding scien-
tist, etc. In a sense, to inhabit a specific role is to follow the social rules defining that role,
some of which may be quite explicit and specify goals, progress, or failure for that role. Yet
RPGs—like games in general—are played, which, as we saw, entails voluntary participation
and reduced “serious” consequences. This sets RPGs apart from “real” social roles, which
typically cannot be entered and left at will and whose rules are obligatory and can incur
serious social consequences if broken.

RPGs as Playing With Roles

This also puts RPGs in the long cultural tradition of rituals, celebrations, theater, and
other forms of performance where role-play (and rule play) is institutionalized to serve
social functions in the adult world (Schechner 2006; Stephenson 2015) (→ Chapter 11).
Consider rites of passage, weddings, funerals, and other events that transform the social
world and its actors: parades, religious processions, or other official proceedings that
present an ideal order of things or happenings, sit-ins, protests, or modern theater
pieces that re-present and question the actual current social order. All performances
help reproduce the social and moral bonds of a group by creating strong experiences
of shared emotions, moral sentiments, and belonging. Compared with them, RPGs pre-
sent the interesting case in which “child’s play” is institutionalized and prolonged into
adulthood but not for the “respectable” purposes of rituals or celebrations. Instead,
RPGs emerged as a form of leisure and entertainment in affluent modern nation-states
(Fine 1983).

RPGs as Games
Beyond play and roles, RPGs involve rule play or games. The systematic scholarly study of
games is relatively recent. It flourished with the use of simulations and serious games in the
early 1970s (Abt 1970; Crookall 2012) and intensified with the rise of digital games in the

4
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

early 2000s (Aarseth 2001). Although debates about the definition of “games” are ongoing
(→ Chapter 2), games are commonly seen as involving goals and rules that turn the attain-
ment of those goals into a non-trivial challenge—that is, overcoming a human opponent or
material obstacle (Juul 2005).
This game aspect is what distinguishes RPGs from children’s spontaneous role-play or
activities like improvisational theater. In RPGs, a player typically enacts a single continuous
character in one stable continuous world where actions and their outcomes are structured
and decided by explicit rules. Also, by merging the enactment of roles with rule systems
originating in wargaming, RPGs allow players to measurably “win,” “lose,” or advance,
thanks to design innovations like progress mechanics (Zagal and Altizer 2014). Through the
migration of designers and players, RPGs deeply influenced the tropes and game mechanics
of many other game genres (→ Chapter 10).

RPGs as Media Culture

RPGs grew from and sit at the heart of contemporary media culture. Beyond deep sociolog-
ical ties (play, games, performance), RPGs can be traced to several immediate cultural pre-
cursors (→ Chapter 3) among “hobby” wargaming and fantastic literature. Examples that
influenced early RPGs include J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth, R.E. Howard’s Hyborian Age
of Conan, Fritz Leiber’s Nehwon, or the Cthulhu Mythos created by H.P. Lovecraft and
his literary friends. Early RPGs not only created their settings from the liberal pastiches of
Tolkien, Howard, and similar “sword and sorcery” authors: They catered to and attracted
players from wargaming and science fiction and fantasy fandom and, through their popu-
larity, helped solidify the tropes and market of the fantasy genre. This puts RPGs at the
center of the modern phenomenon of “disenchanted enchantment” (Saler 2012, 12). As
secularization, rationalization, and bureaucratization rid our modern lifeworld of deeper
experiences of spiritual, magical, or sublime meaning and awe, fiction authors reinstated
imaginary worlds full of such enchantment albeit with an ironic consciousness of their “as
if” status (→ Chapter 12).
Role-play, wargaming, and fantasy literature all came together in 1974 in the shape of
Dungeons & Dragons, the first tabletop RPG (TRPG), which quickly proliferated into
myriad forms across cultures and media (Figure 1.2). TRPGs were played as a group
sitting around a table, with players controlling and verbally describing the actions of
their characters in a game world managed and described by a referee, using rule systems
imported from war games and dice to decide the outcomes of actions (→ Chapter 4).
Computer RPGs (CRPGs, → Chapter 6) translated this setup into something that could
be experienced individually sitting at a computer, where the player controlled one or more
characters, and the game world was rendered and controlled by the computer. As the
first instantiation of massively multiplayer online RPGs (MMORPGs, → Chapter 7), so-
called multiuser dungeons (MUDs) turned CRPGs back into a group experience: Players
used computer networks—then mostly university networks and the Internet predecessor
ARPANET—to play in and create a shared virtual world. In live-action RPGs (larp, →
Chapter 5), players embody their characters, often dressing up and physically performing
(when possible) their character’s actions. TRPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs, and larp are the
four most prominent of a plethora of forms, each with many subforms, cultural variations,
and innovations.

5
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

Figure 1.2 Forms of RPGs.

Box 1.1 LARP, Larp, or larp?

While LARP as an acronym stands for live-action role-play, in recent years, “larp” has been
used as a noun (and verb) by some player communities. For example, players might say
“I designed this great larp” or “Let’s go larping tomorrow.” Like laser, radar, and scuba in the
past, larp is in the process of turning from an acronym into its own meaningful lexical unit: a
new word. We have decided to use it as such, not in all caps, throughout this book. We recog-
nize that this may be a bit confusing when seen side by side with the other acronyms (TRPG,
CRPG), but we hope you will bear with us.

6
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

Despite or because of their popularity, RPGs quickly became the subject of moral pan-
ics (→ Chapter 9). In the United States in the 1980s, TRPGs were accused of recruiting
adolescent players into satanic cults and practices. Rumors spread of players who confused
fiction and reality and died getting lost in underground tunnels playing larp. The 2000s saw
a second panic around MMORPG “addiction,” with news stories of players dying from
extended play or committing crimes over virtual game items. RPGs present an example of
adult pretend play that lacks the legitimacy of tradition (like carnival) or recognized cul-
tural function (like theater). Although this is rapidly changing, playing RPGs as an adult
still carries stigma in some social circles (Deterding 2018).
However, RPGs are also part of the throbbing heart of fandom—a passage rite and secret
language, a stigma to the outer world that signifies “true” belonging and commitment to
the inner group. A core aspect of fandom is participating in a fictional world by consuming
and discussing media while also extending and co-creating it. RPGs make the shared crea-
tion and inhabiting of fictional worlds their focal practice. Large parts of the global popula-
tion today immerse themselves in transmedia worlds like those of Star Wars, The Lord of
the Rings, Harry Potter, or Game of Thrones. A significant subset of people also engage
with these worlds in participatory ways: fan fiction, costume play, and more. In the age of
convergence culture, fandom and its transmedia practices have gone mainstream (Jenkins
2006). Alternate and augmented reality games that layer game rules and game world over
everyday life are becoming the digital hope of media and advertising industries (Rose 2011).
Many of the involved practices and forms were first developed in RPGs: Long before the
Atlas of Middle-Earth, Discworld Companion, or Pop-Up Guide to Westeros, RPG authors
and referees had to flesh out guides and maps to fictional worlds, learn to write scenarios
rich with potential starting points and conflicts for emergent player action, and manage a
fictional world in response to multiple players’ actions to give each a satisfying experience.
This puts them at the cutting edge of contemporary transmedia authorship of franchises or
alternate reality games. RPGs popularized the practice of genre-mixing, like science fantasy
(Gamma World, Shadowrun) or Weird West (Deadlands). They spawned successful noveli-
zations, comics, board and video games, and movies (→ Chapters 9 and 20).

Box 1.2 MUD, MMOG, MMO, or MMORPG?

The term MMOG, or massively multiplayer online game, is broadly used to refer to online
games that allow hundreds, thousands, or more players simultaneously in a virtual world or
environment. The term is commonly abbreviated to MMO and then extended to MMORPG
for those MMOs that are also role-playing games. For the purposes of this book, the commonly
used terms MMO and MMOG are too broad, since these games are not necessarily RPGs.
In this book, we are using the term and abbreviation massively multiplayer online role-
playing game (MMORPG) to refer to all online multiplayer RPGs. We note that this explicitly
includes and acknowledges online multiplayer RPGs that are not “massive” in population size.
As discussed in (→ Chapter 7), this includes multiplayer online dungeons (MUDs) that served
as precursors to current MMORPGs.

7
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

Why Study RPGs?

Examining RPGs through the lenses of their four constituent aspects (roles, play, games,
and media culture) helps us understand and put into perspective their origins and forms. It
also highlights why scholars are (and should be) interested in studying them (Figure 1.3).
In terms of play, RPGs provide insight into adult pretense and role-play, which occur in
many places besides RPGs: many board, card, and video games have moments of emergent
micro-role-play. Contemporary cultural practices, like cosplay; attending Renaissance fairs,
steampunk events, and theme parties; or increasingly high-profile, mainstream immersive
theater productions by groups like Punchdrunk (→ Chapter 11), all entail role-play. Even
in day-to-day life, we often engage in daydreaming “barely games” (Davies 2009), little
bouts of private role-play. Besides answering fundamental psychological and sociological
questions regarding how adult pretense play works—how people create shared immersion
(→ Chapter 21)—the RPG literature provides great insight into designing for it.

Figure 1.3 Issues in RPG studies.

8
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

Moving on to roles, RPG scholarship has developed a deep understanding of the many
ways players, their identities, and selves relate to their in-game characters and avatars.
This work is relevant to any game researcher and designer interested in these dimensions
of gameplay as well as to sociologists and psychologists working on identity, self, and
role-taking (→ Chapters 12, 13, and 22). Intimately connected to that is the rich work on
framing in RPGs. RPG scholars have empirically and conceptually disentangled how the
“magic circle” or “separateness” of gameplay comes about—the special norms and under-
standings governing a gaming encounter (→ Chapter 12). This has also led them to study
deviant “dark play”: how actions considered deviant become acceptable within the frame
of play and how certain actions test and break the norms of play itself (→ Chapter 23). This
is valuable knowledge for any study of deviance and social norms in and beyond gameplay.
Speaking of games, RPGs are an important transmedia genre of games, which has
explored and refined many aspects of game design and play that designers and scholars
coming from other genres can draw rich inspiration from: worldbuilding (→ Chapter 19),
and the myriad ways of organizing and sharing control over game events between referees,
players, and game systems (→ Chapter 26). Many video game genres are deeply informed
by RPG game mechanics, like progression systems (→ Chapter 10). Studying RPGs is essen-
tial to understanding the history of video games and informing the future of game design
across genres and media.
RPG tropes not only deeply influenced games but also media culture writ large, yet this
historical legacy is still underexplored (→ Chapter 17). RPGs have thriving fan subcul-
tures of their own while also connecting and pervading science fiction and fantasy fandom
more generally (→ Chapter 20). As such, RPGs are an exemplary site for studying and
understanding stereotyping and discrimination in fan cultures (→ Chapter 25) or the way
subcultural and adult play practices are cast as deviant in public discourse (→ Chapter 23).
The virtual-real economies of MMORPGs are an essential site of experimentation with new
forms of labor, intellectual property, business models, and governance (→ Chapter 16).
All this makes RPG research vital to understanding contemporary media culture and its
economies.
Last but not least, RPGs are a popular cultural form, practice, and industry of their own.
They are increasingly used as a medium of artistic expression, forming and informing the
vanguard of contemporary theater, media, and performance art as well as experience design
(→ Chapter 11). And for more than four decades, RPGs have been used for all kinds of
serious purposes, including therapy (→ Chapter 13), education (→ Chapter 15), business
planning and simulation (→ Chapter 16), or activism.

A History of RPG Research

The first academic studies of adult role-play arose around the first wave of educational
simulation and gaming, beginning in the late 1960s and presented at venues like the Inter-
national Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA) conference or in the journal Simula-
tion & Gaming (Abt 1970; Crookall 2012). A significant milestone of role-playing game
research was sociologist Gary Alan Fine’s Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social
Worlds (1983). His ethnography of RPG player groups, published when Dungeons &
Dragons first gained mainstream attention, delivered an influential analysis of RPGs as
“an urban leisure subculture”; the cultural context of RPGs, like fantasy literature; and
the interplay of players’ selves and identities, their everyday lifeworlds, and the fictional

9
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

characters and worlds they create. Fine’s work has been deeply influential for RPG scholars
in performance studies (→ Chapter 11) and sociology (→ Chapter 12).
As noted, the 1980s were also witness to a moral panic (→ Chapters 12, 17). Journal-
ists, religious spokespersons, and other moral entrepreneurs warned of the harmful effects
of RPG play on youth, which triggered a counter-response of researchers, who, over the
course of the 1980s and early 1990s, questioned the negative effects of RPGs and, in turn,
highlighted a number of potential positive therapeutic, educational, prosocial, and cogni-
tive effects of playing them.1 A firebrand in this debate was Patricia Pulling’s (1989) book
The Devil’s Web: Who Is Stalking Your Children for Satan?, linking D&D to satanic ritu-
als, insanity, and perversion, and author and game designer Michael A. Stackpole’s Pulling
Report (Stackpole 1990), a meticulous deconstruction of Pulling’s book and its argument.
Most other general audience books from this time period consist of introductions to the
hobby of role-playing (e.g., Albrecht and Stafford 1984; Butterfield, Parker, and Honig-
mann 1982; Livingstone 1982), guides for improving RPG play (e.g., Plamondon 1982;
Gygax 1987), or bibliographies (Schick 1991).
Like much fandom research, RPG scholarship is characterized by intense para-academic
scholarship and aca-fandom: Early on, RPG designers and fans developed thoughtful and
theoretical discourse of their own, and many university academics studying RPGs either
started out as fan-scholars “professionalizing” their work or are self-identifying RPG fans
who turned their leisure time activity into their research subject (see Hills 2002; Mason
2004) (→ Chapter 9). Already in the 1980s, designers and players began reflecting on
the design and play of RPGs at conventions as well as in magazines and fanzines like
Dragon, Different Worlds, Alarums & Excursions, or the short-lived Interactive Fantasy.
This fan discourse flourished with the rise of the Internet and online communication tools
in the 1990s on Usenet discussion groups like rec.games.frp.advocacy or the online discus-
sion board The Forge. Another focal point of fan theorizing and aca-fandom has been the
Knutepunkt conventions, an annual gathering of the Nordic larp community. Knutepunkt
has published proceedings and companion books since 2001 and is a source of much con-
temporary larp scholarship and design literature as well as a culture of manifestos advanc-
ing larp as an artistic medium by articulating particular aesthetic visions (→ Chapter 5).
Today, RPG scholars, designers, and players actively promote the exchange between fan-
dom and academia through panels and publications at events like Wyrd Con, Intercon, Big
Bad Con, and others. Beyond general theories and models of RPGs and their design, this
fan scholarship has shaped debates about play and design styles and the cultural role of
RPGs (→ Chapter 9).
The rise of the Internet in the 1990s also spurred research that brought CRPGs and
MMORPGs to greater attention: Sherry Turkle’s Life on the Screen (Turkle 1995) proposed
that the multiple “windows” and worlds of the Internet, such as MUDs, fostered new, fluid
multiple forms of identity. Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck (Murray 1997) exam-
ined networked computing, including MMORPGs, to analyze the forms, authorship, and
aesthetic experience of digital interactive environments as a new medium of storytelling.
And MUD pioneer Richard Bartle (1997) published “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades:
Players Who Suit MUDs” in the inaugural issue of the now-defunct Journal of Virtual
Environments, then named Journal of MUD. Bartle’s paper spearheaded research around
player personalities and motives in RPGs (→ Chapter 9).
The 2000s saw game studies flourish as an interdisciplinary field, initially focused on
digital games, with important waymarks like the founding of the journal Game Studies in

10
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

2001 and the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) in 2003. RPG research thrived
with the rise of game studies in general, and RPG scholars have chiefly gathered within this
community. Worthy of note are Pat Harrigan and Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s book trilogy First
Person (Wardrip-Fruin and Harrigan 2004), Second Person (Harrigan and Wardrip-Fruin
2007), and Third Person (Harrigan and Wardrip-Fruin 2009). These collections of essays,
responses, case studies, design reflections, and games bridged new media and game scholar-
ship, circling around role-play, performance, storytelling, and the authorship of fictional
worlds and “vast narratives” found in RPGs.
In the 2000s, scholars in fields such as sociology (→ Chapter 12), communication
research and media studies, and human-computer interaction followed Fine with ethnog-
raphies of RPG communities and their community dynamics, framing processes, or nego-
tiations of the boundaries of work and play. They were joined by scholars who explored
the psychology of player motives, immersion, player-avatar relations, and gaming addic-
tion (→ Chapter 13). These strands coalesced in the mid- to late 2000s when the success
of MMORPGs, particularly World of Warcraft (WoW), put MMORPGs on the center
stage of game studies for several years (e.g., Corneliussen and Rettberg 2008). Economists
studied MMORPGs (→ Chapter 16), interested in their virtual economies and interac-
tions with real-world economics. Simultaneously, education researchers in communities
like the Games+Learning+Society conference began exploring the use and design of edu-
larps, “massively multiplayer classrooms” fashioned in the style of an MMORPG, and the
educational potential of RPGs more generally (→ Chapter 15). Literary and media scholars
studied the forms of textuality, authorship, and narrative in RPGs (→ Chapter 14). Start-
ing with Daniel Mackay (2001), researchers have begun to use theater and performance
studies as a lens for RPG aesthetics, design, and play (→ Chapter 11). Design research-
ers became interested in describing the particular design patterns and practices of RPGs
(→ Chapter 10). And true to the intertwining of RPG fandom and scholarship, independ-
ent authors like Jon Peterson (2012, 2020) and Shannon Appelcline (2015) have produced
substantial historiographies of the emergence and evolution of TRPGs and RPGs more
generally.
Today, RPG studies is a small but established and lively scholarly community with a
diverse and growing body of organizations, conferences, journals, and monographs, includ-
ing a DiGRA special interest group on role-playing (formed in 2008); the International
Journal of Role-Playing, inaugurated in 2009 (Drachen 2009); the Japanese Journal of
Analog Role-Playing Game Studies, and associated symposia; and, starting in 2014, the
semi-regular summit of RPG studies, hosted as part of the general DiGRA conference. RPG
studies also benefits from earlier work by fans and researchers in other fields (Figure 1.4).
More broadly, starting in the 2010s, there has been a surge of interest in scholarly are-
nas for studying non-digital games. This increased attention has brought with it an interest
in TRPGS and larp, in venues such as the online journal Analog Games Studies and the
Generation Analog conference. Similarly, interest in RPGs and related practices has risen
sharply in wider media studies and social research, as practices like Actual Play (→ Chap-
ter 18)—recorded or livestreamed sessions of RPG play—and TV fantasy franchises like
Stranger Things, The Witcher, or The Legend of Vox Machina lifted RPG into the media
mainstream (→ Chapter 17). Much of this mainstream attention has been directed toward
D&D, which is why some have called the 2020s a golden age of Dungeons & Dragons
thanks to its staggering growth in players, commercial success, and positive representations
in popular media (Sidhu, Marcus, and Zagal 2024).

11
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

Figure 1.4 Disciplines of RPG studies.

This growth has been paralleled by a similar interest in histories, collections, and numer-
ous non-academic publications. Dungeons & Dragons Art & Arcana (Witwer et al 2018);
Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground (Horvath 2023); The CRPG Book: A Guide
to Computer Role-Playing Games (Pepe 2018), with multiple and expanded editions; and
A Guide to Japanese Role-Playing Games (Kalata 2021) are all notable examples due to
the thoroughness of their coverage and their sizable list of contributors. They arguably
lean into both the general rise of RPG popularity and the nostalgia of early generations of
players.

Purpose and Plan of This Book

Despite this lively community and a rich body of knowledge created over the past four
decades, RPG studies today face three challenges.

12
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

First, while fans, designers, aca-fans, and scholars have developed theories, concepts,
and tools around phenomena that hold great potential beyond RPGs, little of this work is
known outside RPG circles. It is also often scattered across fan and academic venues, mak-
ing it hard to find and access.
Second, following the diversity of RPG forms and local cultures, RPG research itself
has remained somewhat siloed. MMORPG research doesn’t necessarily build upon TRPG
research (and vice versa). CRPG scholars examine different questions and make different
assumptions about RPGs than larp scholars. What is true for US-American CRPGs and
MMORPGs might not be true for Korean ones. The list goes on. Collecting, comparing,
and contrasting findings across forms, cultures, and disciplines not only enriches our under-
standing of each individual phenomenon, but it is essential for constructing a holistic study
of RPGs as an interdiscipline. Yet RPG scholars currently have no easy way of reviewing
the state of research on other RPG forms, cultures, or disciplines.
Third, the disciplines that have engaged with RPGs still have much to offer: Researchers
have barely scratched the surface when it comes to topics such as applying sociological role
theory to RPGs, exploring the experience of playing RPGs through the lens of performance
studies, or unpacking the design process of RPGs with the concepts and methods of design
research. Yet again, there are currently no easy entry points to relevant literature across
disciplines for interested scholars.
The purpose of this book is, thus, to serve as an interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and
transmedia synthesis of the state of the art of RPG research. Its goals are to support the
transmedia foundations for RPG studies as a field while also making RPG research concepts
and findings easily accessible to other interested parties. We wrote the book with three main
audiences in mind: advanced students in game studies and other fields who want to study
RPGs; scholars in game studies and other fields who want to research RPGs and need a
quick reference book to get up to speed or look up key terms; and fans and professionals
using RPGs for serious purposes, who want to deepen their understanding of their pastime
or make the case for RPGs.
As such, this book is designed as a hybrid textbook and handbook: Each chapter pro-
vides a synthesis of the current state of research on a core perspective or aspect of RPG
studies. That said, each chapter is written without expectations of prior knowledge and
includes definitions of key terms and recommended further readings: each chapter stands
alone. A handy glossary at the end of the book points to definitions of key RPG terms.
The book is organized in four sections, which can be seen as concentric rings (Figure 1.5):
at the center—Chapter 2—sits the introduction to and definition of RPGs. For novices
unfamiliar with one or several RPG forms, it offers grounding narrative descriptions and
exemplary vignettes of each. It then presents philosophical and linguistic considerations
regarding what kind of definition is appropriate for RPGs. Rather than searching for one
“true” definition of the “essence” of RPGs, the chapter advocates a pluralism of disciplinary
perspectives and empirical attention to the variety of things we call “role-playing games.”
Following this advice, the chapters in Section II empirically describe the historical emer-
gence, evolution, and cultural variety and impact of the main contemporary forms of RPGs:
from their precursors and parallels (Chapter 3) to TRPGs (Chapter 4), larp (Chapter 5),
CRPGs (Chapter 6), MMORPGs (Chapter 7), and emergent text-based RPGs (Chapter 8).
Although there are other forms of RPGs, we focus on those that have been significantly
influential due to their popularity, their historical influence, and/or the research attention
they received.

13
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

Figure 1.5 A conceptual map of the book.

Section III includes disciplinary perspectives on RPGs and constitutes the outer ring of
our conceptual map: game design (Chapter 10), performance studies (Chapter 11), sociology
(Chapter 12), psychology (Chapter 13), literary studies (Chapter 14), education (Chapter 15),
and economics (Chapter 16). Given its prominent role in the formation of RPG studies, fan
theorizing receives its own extended treatment (Chapter 9). Each of these chapters gives a
short introduction to the field, explains how RPGs are seen in that field (as performances,
markets, texts, etc.), describes what makes them interesting to that field, and surveys existing
disciplinary work on RPGs. Any additional number of disciplines could have been brought
to bear upon RPGs—art history or moral philosophy come readily to mind. But we highlight
those disciplines that have already produced significant work on RPGs.
Sitting at the intersection of forms and disciplinary perspectives are interdisciplinary
issues, collected in Section IV. These chapters address fundamental aspects of RPGs that
have been studied across multiple disciplines and are of relevance to scholars in and beyond

14
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

game research: how RPGs have influenced media culture (Chapter 17); how analog and
digital platforms have converged in recorded performance and play of RPGs (Chapter 18);
how people author collective fictional worlds (Chapter 19); RPGs as a subculture and
its place within media fandom (Chapter 20); how immersion in role-play works (Chap-
ter 21); how players relate to their characters and avatars (Chapter 22); transgression in
and through RPGs (Chapter 23); erotic and sexual role-play (Chapter 24); diversity, equity,
and inclusion in RPGs (Chapter 25); and, finally, how power over the fictional world and
its events is distributed between players, referees, and artifacts (Chapter 26).
These last chapters reflect the emerging body of knowledge of RPG studies as an inter-
discipline. If RPGs are characterized by a multitude of forms and cultures at the intersection
of roles, play, games, and media culture, the future of RPG studies is likewise thousand-
faced—and an exciting call to adventure.

Summary
RPGs sit at the intersection of four phenomena—play, roles, games, and media culture.
They foreground a particular form and constitutive aspect of play, shared pretense or
make-believe. Through pretense play, they allow players to temporarily step out of their
existing social roles and try on and explore alternative roles. This makes RPGs relevant to
others such as sociologists or psychologists interested in adult pretense or basic processes
of situational sensemaking and role-taking. As rule play or games, they are structured by
formal rules and goals and are a rich source of influential and inspiring game design. As
media culture, they sit at the heart of modern disenchanted enchantment and contempo-
rary media fandom and prefigure increasingly mainstream media phenomena like trans-
media storytelling or virtual-real economics. Finally, RPGs are a popular cultural form,
practice, industry, and artistic medium, forming and informing the vanguard of contempo-
rary theater, media, and performance art as well as experience design. And for more than
four decades, they have been used for purposes other than entertainment, like therapy,
training, or activism.
However, RPG studies as a field faces three challenges. First, while RPG fans, designers,
and scholars have created knowledge with great potential beyond RPGs, little of this work
is known outside RPG circles. Second, due to the diversity of RPG forms and local cultures,
RPG research itself has remained dispersed. Third, a lot of existing RPG research hasn’t
fully tapped or connected with the basic knowledge of relevant disciplines. To address these
challenges, this book provides an interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and transmedia synthesis
of the state of the art of RPG research. This book provides the transmedia foundations for
RPG studies as a field while also making RPG studies concepts and findings easily accessible
to other interested scholars.

Note
1 The website rpgstudies.net provides an excellent bibliography of the moral panic.

References
Aarseth, Espen. 2001. “Computer Game Studies, Year One.” Game Studies 1 (1). www.gamestudies.
org/0101/editorial.html.
Abt, Clark C. 1970. Serious Games. New York: The Viking Press.

15
 Sebastian Deterding and José P. Zagal

Albrecht, Bob, and Greg Stafford. 1984. The Adventurer’s Handbook: A Guide to Role-Playing
Games. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Appelcline, Shannon. 2015. Designers & Dragons [4 Volume Series]. 2nd ed. Silver Spring, MD: Evil
Hat Productions.
Bartle, Richard. 1997. “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs.” The Journal
of Virtual Environments 1 (1). https://web.archive.org/web/20060906080759/www.brandeis.edu/
pubs/jove/HTML/v1/bartle.html.
Biddle, B. J. 1986. “Recent Developments in Role Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1):
67–92.
Burghardt, Gordon M. 2005. The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Butterfield, John, Philip Parker, and David Honigmann. 1982. What Is Dungeons & Dragons? New
York: Warner Books.
Caillois, Roger. 2001. Man, Play, and Games. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Corneliussen, Hilde G., and Jill Walker Rettberg, ed. 2008. Digital Culture, Play, and Identity:
A World of Warcraft® Reader. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Crookall, David. 2012. “The Founding of Modern Simulation/Gaming: S&G and ISAGA for Decades
on.” Simulation & Gaming 43 (1): 5–14.
Davies, Russell. 2009. “Playful.” In This Is Playful 2009. London. http://russelldavies.typepad.com/
planning/2009/11/playful.html.
Deterding, Sebastian. 2018. “Alibis of Adult Play. A Goffmanian Account of Escaping Embarrassment
in Adult Play.” Games and Culture 13 (3): 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017721086.
Drachen, Anders. 2009. “Editorial.” International Journal of Role-Playing 1: 2. www.ijrp.subcultures.
nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/editorial.pdf.
Fine, Gary Alan. 1983. Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
Gygax, Gary. 1987. Role-Playing Mastery. New York: The Putnam Publishing Group.
Harrigan, Pat, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin, ed. 2007. Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in Games
and Playable Media. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Harrigan, Pat, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin, ed. 2009. Third Person: Authoring and Exploring Vast Nar-
ratives. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Hills, Matt. 2002. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge.
Horvath, Stu. 2023. Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT
Press.
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York and
London: New York University Press.
Juul, Jesper. 2005. Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Kalata, Kurt, ed. 2021. A Guide to Japanese Role-Playing Games. Bath: Bitmap Books.
Konner, Melvin. 2010. The Evolution of Childhood: Relationships, Emotion, and Mind. Cambridge,
MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Livingstone, Ian. 1982. Dicing with Dragons: An Introduction to Role-Playing Games. New York:
Plume.
Lynch, Karen Danna. 2007. “Modeling Role Enactment: Linking Role Theory and Social Cognition.”
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37 (4): 379–399.
Mackay, Daniel. 2001. The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performance Art. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Company.
Mason, P. 2004. “In Search of the Self: A Survey of the First 25 Years of Anglo-American Role-Playing
Game Theory.” In Beyond Role and Play. Tools, Toys and Theory for Harnessing the Imagination,
edited by Markus Montola and Jaako Stenros, 1–14. Helsinki: Ropecon ry.
Murray, Janet H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York:
The Free Press.
Oerter, Rolf. 1999. Psychologie des Spiels. Ein handlungstheoretischer Ansatz. Weinheim and Basel:
Beltz.
Owens, Timothy J., and Sarah Samblanet. 2013. “Self and Self-Concept.” In Handbook of Social
Psychology, edited by John DeLamater and Amanda Ward, 225–250. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer.

16
 The Many Faces of Role-Playing Game Studies

Pellegrini, Anthony D. 2009. The Role of Play in Human Development. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Pepe, Felipe, ed. 2018. The CRPG Book: A Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games. Bath: Bitmap
Books.
Peterson, Jon. 2012. Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People, and Fantastic
Adventure from Chess to Role-Playing Games. San Diego, CA: Unreason Press.
Peterson, Jon. 2020. The Elusive Shift: How Role-Playing Games Forger their Identity. Boston, MA:
MIT Press.
Plamondon, Robert. 1982. Through Dungeons Deep: A Fantasy Gamer’s Handbook. Reston, VA:
Reston Publishing.
Pulling, Patricia. 1989. Devil’s Web: Who Is Stalking Your Children for Satan? Lafayette, LA: Hun-
tington House.
Rose, F. 2011. The Art of Immersion: How the Digital Generation Is Remaking Hollywood, Madison
Avenue, and the Way We Tell Stories. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Saler, Michael. 2012. As If: Modern Enchantment and the Literary Prehistory of Virtual Reality.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schechner, Richard. 2006. Performance Studies: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York and London:
Routledge.
Schick, Lawrence. 1991. Heroic Worlds. A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games. New York:
Prometheus Books.
Sidhu, Premeet, Marcus Carter, and José P. Zagal. 2024. “Is This the Golden Age of Dungeons &
Dragons?” In Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons, edited by Sidhu Premeet, Carter Marcus, and
Zagal José P., 1–12. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Stackpole, Michael A. 1990. “The Pulling Report.” www.rpgstudies.net/stackpole/pulling_report.
html.
Stephenson, Barry. 2015. Ritual: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stets, Jan E., and Richard T. Serpe. 2013. “Identity Theory.” In Handbook of Social Psychology,
edited by John DeLamater and Amanda Ward, 31–60. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer.
Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Turner, Ralph H. 2001. “Role Theory.” In Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H.
Turner, 233–254. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wardrip-Fruin, Noah, and Pat Harrigan, ed. 2004. First Person: New Media as Story, Performance,
and Game. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Witwer, Michael, Kyle Newman, Jon Peterson, and Sam Witwer. 2018. Dungeons & Dragons Art and
Arcana: A Virtual History. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Zagal, José P., and Roger Altizer. 2014. “Examining ‘RPG Elements’: Systems of Character Progres-
sion.” In Foundations of Digital Games 2014. www.fdg2014.org/papers/fdg2014_paper_38.pdf.

17
 SECTION I

Definitions
 2
DEFINITIONS OF
“ROLE-PLAYING GAMES”
José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

For some, defining “game” is a hopeless task (Parlett 1999). For others, the very idea that
one could capture the meaning of a word in a list of defining features is flawed because
language and meaning-making do not work that way (Wittgenstein 1963). Still, we use the
word “game” every day and, generally, understand each other when we do so. Game schol-
ars and professionals debate “game” definitions with fervor and sophistication. And yet, we
never seem to quite agree. At most, we agree on what we disagree about—that is, what disa-
greements we consider important for understanding and defining “games” (Stenros 2014).
What is true for “games” holds doubly for “role-playing games.” In fact, role-playing
games (RPGs) are maybe the most contentious game phenomenon: the exception, the out-
lier, the not-quite-a-game game. In their foundational game studies text Rules of Play, Salen
and Zimmerman (2004, 80) acknowledge that their definition of a game (“a system in
which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable
outcome”) considers RPGs a borderline case. While RPGs are widely recognized for their
influence on many other games (e.g., Tychsen 2006), they are apparently not game enough
because they lack a quantifiable outcome (Salen and Zimmerman 2004, 81). Jesper Juul,
author of another influential game definition, likewise, considers tabletop RPGs a border-
line case: they are “not normal games because with a human game master, their rules are
not fixed beyond discussion” (Juul 2003).
To make matters worse, “role-playing games” refers to a plurality of forms across
media—there are tabletop RPGs, computer RPGs, massively multiplayer online RPGs, live-
action RPGs, and more. Do these different forms have “enough” in common to all be
called “role-playing games”? Furthermore, many different communities use the word “role-
playing games” with different practical ends: game designers and publishers use it in game
manuals, sales venues, trade publications, and conference talks to set consumer expecta-
tions and discuss design issues; fans discuss RPGs in fan media; scholars discuss RPGs in the
contexts of research and teaching. In addition, RPG fans and designers have long observed
the existence of quite different styles and ends of playing RPGs—focusing, for example, on
storytelling, playing a role, simulating a world, or achieving goals and progress according
to rules (→ Chapter 9). This openness to divergent enactment seems characteristic of RPGs.
For instance, different cultural regions have developed distinct flavors like “Nordic larp”

DOI: 10.4324/9781003298045-3 21
 José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

(Stenros and Montola 2010). Existing forms are constantly remade and redefined by avant-
garde movements like “indie” tabletop RPGs. What’s more, game research is itself notori-
ously multidisciplinary, looking at games—and RPGs—through many different theoretical
and disciplinary lenses (Deterding 2017).

Box 2.1 Sample Definitions of Role-Play

A role-playing situation is here defined as a situation in which an individual is explicitly

asked to take a role not normally his own, or if his own in a setting not normal for the
enactment of the role.
(Mann 1956, 227)

Role-play is “not a single well-defined activity but a whole species of activities grouped
under a convenient name. At one end of the spectrum is the intensive ‘acting out’ of
personal emotions. . .. At the other . . . is the situation where ‘taking the part’ is closer
to the concept of advocacy.”
(van Mentz 1981, 27–28)

[It is] a media, where a person, through immersion into a role and the world of this role,
is given the opportunity to participate in and interact with the contents of this world.
(Henriksen 2002, 44)

Roleplaying is the art of experience, and making a roleplaying game means creating
experiences.
(Pettersson 2006, 101)

1) Role-playing is an interactive process of defining and re-defining the state, properties

and contents of an imaginary game world.
2) The power to define the game world is allocated to participants of the game. The
participants recognize the existence of this power hierarchy.
3) Player-participants define the game world through personified character constructs,
conforming to the state, properties and contents of the game world. . . .

I also present four optional, additional rules that often complement the first three
rules . . .

iv) Typically the decisive power to define the decisions made by a free-willed character
construct is given to the player of the character.
ii) The decisive defining power that is not restricted by character constructs is often
given to people participating in referee roles.
iii) The defining process is often governed by a quantitative game ruleset.
iv) The information regarding the state of the game world is often disseminated hierar-
chically, in a fashion corresponding with the power structure of the game. . . .

Additionally, these three endogenous rules . . . differentiate certain forms of role-

playing from each other:

22
 Definitions of “Role-Playing Games”

t1) In tabletop role-playing the game world is defined predominantly in verbal

communication.
l1) In larp the game is superimposed on physical world, which is used as a founda-
tion in defining the game world.
v1) In virtual role-playing the game is superimposed on a computational virtual real-
ity, which is used as a foundation in defining the game world.
(Montola 2009, 23–24)

Role-playing is immersion to an outside consciousness (“a character”) and interacting

with its surroundings.
(Pohjola 2003, 34)

Role-playing is immediated character immersion.

(Pohjola 2004, 89)

Role-playing is defined as any act in which an imaginary reality is concurrently created,

added to and observed.
(Mäkelä et al. 2005, 207)

Different forms, language communities, design and play styles, cultures, historical
moments, disciplines—all these aspects contribute to the difficulty of defining “role-playing
games.” Yet we believe that a crucial reason why people haven’t been able to settle on a
shared definition is the—largely unreflected—way in which they have tried to do so. For as
linguistics and philosophy tell us, there are many ways of defining things, some outmoded,
many only appropriate for specific purposes, and all laden with consequential assumptions,
decisions, and implicit values.
To clarify the definitions of “role-playing games,” we, therefore, first survey different
forms of definitions. We argue that how scholars have traditionally tried to define “role-
playing games”—as a presumed unchanging essence consisting of a set of shared features—is
at odds with what we know about language, meaning-making, and the kind of phenomena
“role-playing games” refer to. We present an alternative pragmatist position that allows for
a plurality of definitions as explicit (disciplinary) perspectives and tools. We then proceed
with what we identify as a useful task for disciplinary-spanning work: clarifying discourse
by empirically describing who is using the word “role-playing games” and how. We do so
by discussing four commonly distinguished forms of RPGs: tabletop, live-action, single-
player computer, and multiplayer online RPGs. For each, we tease out

• how they have been defined by scholars, designers, and fans, as these are the three main
social groups producing and circulating definitions;
• what empirical phenomena these groups have pointed at with the word “role-playing
games”;
• which characteristics reoccur across these phenomena and where they historically origi-
nated; and
• how they evolved over time and what kind of variation we see.

23
 José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

Finally, we tease out common characteristics across forms of RPGs as well as characteristics
of the discourse about them. We argue that joint cultural ancestry in early tabletop RPGs
can explain at least part of the shared characteristics of the things people call “role-playing
games.” The divergence of multiple forms of RPGs, in turn, stems from their sociomaterial
affordances: what kinds of play they make easy or hard to accomplish. Because RPGs are
social not natural entities and relatively underdetermined, they show such a wide and grow-
ing diversity of forms and play styles.

Box 2.2 Sample Definitions of Role-Playing Games

any game which allows a number of players to assume the roles of imaginary characters
and operate with some degree of freedom in an imaginary environment.
(Lortz 1979, 36, as cited in Fine 1983, 6)

role-playing has a lot more common with novels that it does with games. . . . A role-
playing game is, in fact, an improvised novel in which all the participants serve as authors.
(Swan 1990, 3)

A role-playing game must consist of quantified interactive storytelling: [character abilities

and action resolution are] defined by numbers or quantities . . . manipulated following
certain rules; . . . player decision-making drives the story forward; . . . with a group for
an author, a story that grows organically and is acted out, is experienced by its creators.
(Schick 1991, 10–11)

Allows people to become simultaneously both the artists who create a story and the audi-
ence who watches the story unfold. This story has the potential to become a personal
myth, shaped to meet the needs of its creators.
(Padol 1996)

an episodic and participatory story-creation system that includes a set of quantified

rules that assist a group of players and a gamemaster in determining how their fictional
characters’ spontaneous interactions are resolved. These performed interactions between
the players’ and the gamemaster’s characters take place during individual sessions that,
together, form episodes or adventures in the lives of the fictional characters.
(Mackay 2001, 4–5)

what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s)
within a specified diegetic framework. . . . [A] roleplaying game requires four things, a
gamemaster, a player, interaction, and a diegetic framework.
(Stenros and Hakkarainen 2003, 61)

1. Game World: A role-playing game is a game set in an imaginary world. Players are
free to choose how to explore the game world, in terms of the path through the world
they take, and may revisit areas previously explored. The amount of the game world
potentially available for exploration is typically large.

24
 Definitions of “Role-Playing Games”

2. Participants: The participants in the games are divided between players, who control
individual characters, and referees (who may be represented in software for digital
examples) who control the remainder of the game world beyond the player characters.
Players affect the evolution of the game world through the actions of their characters.
3. Characters: The characters controlled by players may be defined in quantitative and/or
qualitative terms and are defined individuals in the game world, not identified only as
roles or functions. These characters can potentially develop, for example in terms [of]
skills, abilities or personality, the form of this development is at least partially under
player control and the game is capable of reacting to the changes.
4. Game master: At least one, but not all, of the participants has control over the game
world beyond a single character. A term commonly used for this function is “game
master”, although many others exist. The balance of power between players and
game masters, and the assignment of these roles, can vary, even within the playing of
a single game session. Part of the game master function is typically to adjudicate on
the rules of the game, although these rules need not be quantitative in any way or rely
on any form of random resolution.
5. Interaction: Players have a wide range of configurative options for interacting with
the game world through their characters, usually including at least combat, dialogue
and object interaction. While the range of options is wide, many are handled in a
very abstract fashion. The mode of engagement between player and game can shift
relatively freely between configurative and interperative.
6. Narrative: Role-playing games portray some sequence of events within the game
world, which gives the game a narrative element. However, given the configurative
nature of the players’ involvement, these elements cannot be termed narrative accord-
ing to traditional narrative theory.
(Hitchens and Drachen 2009, 16)

1. Game World: There is a game world, which is defined at least partially in the act of
role-playing. This game world is at least partially separate from the players ordinary
life, and exists within a magic circle of play.
2. Participants: There are more than one participant, which may include computers.
3. Shared Narrative Power: More than one player can alter the narrative, or it is not
role-playing, but storytelling. Shared narrative power implies narrative.
4. Interaction: There are varying modes of interaction with the game world. Conventions
of play influence these forms of interaction, limiting the scope (What can I change in
the game world?) and modes (How can I change it?) of interaction.
(Arjoranta 2011, 14)

An RPG is a game, not a game system or product, but a game experience that that a player
plays, in which the player portrays a character in a setting. Each player’s portrayal of their
character must include three components: immersion, experiencing the character; acting,
performing in character; and gaming, obeying and manipulating rules and goals in character.
(Simkins 2015, 56)

25
 José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

Defining “Definitions”
Definitions are usually seen to state the reference and meaning of a word or concept, to
specify its extension and intension (Baumann 2002). Extension is the set of phenomena a
word refers to, for example, “game” refers to all the actual games that exist. Intension is
the meaning of the word, commonly stated as a set of properties all and only instances of
the named entity share—for example, what is the “heart of gameness” (Juul 2003) that
makes all games games? What list of properties allows us to tell whether something counts
as a game?
Definitions in game studies usually align with this tradition, taking the form “X is a Y
with the properties Z1, Z2, . . . , Zn,” (e.g., “a game [X] is a system [Y] in which players
[Z1] engage in an artificial conflict [Z2], defined by rules [Z3], that results in a quantifiable
outcome [Z4].” (Salen and Zimmerman 2004) This classical conception of definitions—
dating to Aristotle and Plato—is sometimes called a genus-differentia definition because it
defines X as a specific kind of a larger category or genus (here: a system) that is distinct from
other kinds in this category by some differentiating properties or differentia (here: players,
artificial conflict, etc.) (Margolis and Laurence 2014; Gupta 2015). Although intuitive,
there is significant evidence in psychology and linguistics that concepts and words do not
work as the classical conception suggests (Baumann 2002; Margolis and Laurence 2014).
Scholars have proposed numerous alternatives (see Margolis and Laurence 1999 for
a collection). Wittgenstein (1963), for instance, held that there is no set of necessary and
sufficient properties shared by all and only those phenomena people call “games.” His was
not a statement specific to games. Rather, Wittgenstein used games as an example for a
general argument about language and meaning. Wittgenstein’s family resemblance model
argues that each thing a word refers to shares many properties with other things that word
refers to, but no such properties are shared by all and only those things. Given this plural-
ity of theories of concepts and their meanings, each with varying support, any scholarly
definition should, with reason, be able to state which theory it subscribes to and why. Yet
most current definitions of RPGs don’t.
Which brings us to a second usually unspoken assumption: What kind of definition are
we making? To mention common kinds (Gupta 2015): there are stipulative definitions, used
to introduce a new concept (e.g., “zlorch is a unit of X”) or clarify the use of an existing
one (e.g., “I here use ‘game’ to mean any conflict between two or more parties”). Nominal
definitions try to capture the meaning and use of a word (as done in a dictionary), while
real definitions try to capture the properties of the phenomena the word refers to. Closely
linked to that is the anthropological distinction between emic and etic accounts (Headland,
Pike, and Harris 1990). Emic accounts state the views, concepts, understandings of a given
culture: “These people call these things RPGs.” Etic accounts present views and concepts
of the observing researcher: “They call these ‘RPGs,’ but I call them ‘socially-focused play
experiences.’” Much disagreement can arguably be dissolved just by clarifying what differ-
ent kinds of definitions are being proposed.
A third assumption is of what “stuff” are concepts, words, and the things they refer to
made. The two most relevant considerations for our purposes are whether role-playing
games are natural or social entities, and connected to that, whether they are natural kinds.
Natural entities are things described by the natural sciences, like bees, quasars, or mag-
netism, and are seen to exist independent of human action and meaning-making. Natu-
ral kinds are groupings of natural entities that reflect the structure of the natural world

26
 Definitions of “Role-Playing Games”

rather than the structure of human interests, actions, and understandings (Bird and Tobin
2015). In contrast, social entities like divorce, crime, or money are brought into existence
by human action and meaning-making (e.g., Searle 1995). For instance, chemical elements
like gold and silver are natural kinds that show the same observable properties in every
context, whereas what counts as a “precious metal” and what can be done with it depends
on local social contexts of human action and meaning.
This doesn’t mean that social entities are “less real” or “less sturdy” than natural enti-
ties. Just like chemistry describes the chemical processes through which hydrogen and
oxygen combine to produce water, the social sciences describe the social processes—how
people act, talk, and shape their material environment—that produce the sturdy entities
we call “government,” “money,” or “crime” (Hacking 1999). But because these entities
are made of such social processes, scientific description as another social process can affect
the entities described: a psychologist defining a behavior as “mental illness” and classifying
someone as “having” that illness affects how we understand and treat that person. With
natural kinds, whether something belongs to that kind can be settled empirically. With
social categories, whether something belongs to it is determined by the agreement of that
society’s members: a social category is its practical use (Bowker and Star 2000). As a result,
social entities exhibit historical change and cultural variation: Swedes and Japanese may
consider what is “embarrassing” different from each other as well as their ancestors from
100 years ago.
The point is that some game definitions imply that “games” are a natural kind while
a number of game scholars have recently made good arguments that games are social (or
sociomaterial) entities (Montola 2012; Deterding 2013; Stenros 2015). Arguably, RPGs
foreground this social constitution of games. In TRPGs and larp, it is readily apparent that
people talk and act a given game and game world into being—when people stop enacting it,
the game ceases to exist. In contrast, board games continue to exist as physical objects we
can point to and call a “game” even when said game is not being played. Defining games
as social entities implies that they are subject to historical change and cultural difference.
Thus, when one defines games as social entities, such definitions can only tease out “what
games are” for a given social group at a given point in time. It also means that one has to
specify what social entity they are. The word “role-playing games,” like “games,” is used to
denote both objects and activities (Hitchens and Drachen 2009). There has been an analo-
gous split between definitions of role-play and definitions of role-playing games (ibid.).
Any definition is an abstraction: the map, not the territory. As such, it foregrounds cer-
tain aspects as relevant and ignores or de-emphasizes others. What is considered as relevant
is always informed by some human concern. As Bateman (2015) pointed out with regard
to game definitions, “every definition marks out some subset of phenomena as being of
specific interest to its topic and thus involves some kind of value judgment.” This leads to
another unspoken assumption of most definitions: From what (disciplinary) perspective are
we looking?
To some extent, academic disciplines are constituted by what they consider worthy of
concern. This often informs what ends up being the starting term or genus of their defini-
tions. An economist is concerned with how goods and services are produced, distributed,
and consumed. So, when asked to define “role-playing games,” they might state: “It is a
good, specifically, an entertainment/hedonic/experiential good with the properties x, y, z,”
or “It is an economy, specifically a virtual economy” (→ Chapter 16). To an educational
researcher—concerned with human learning—role-playing games would be defined as a

27
 José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

specific site or form of learning (→ Chapter 15). The fact that current popular game defini-
tions (e.g., Juul 2003; Salen and Zimmerman 2004) present “games” as systems reflects
the concerns and disciplinary backgrounds of their authors, namely design, systems the-
ory, and formal literary studies. Similarly, Malaby’s suggestion (2007) that we understand
“games” as processes, practices, or cultural domains reflects his anthropological concerns
and preconceptions.
Such concerns also color designers’ and players’ everyday language definitions of RPGs in
rule books or fan discourse, which often cast RPGs as a specific variant on an existing cul-
tural form: RPGs are a particular form of play, or game, or storytelling, or drama, or simu-
lation, etc. (see Simkins 2015 for an instructive example). This provides an immediate, rich
mental model to work from: “It’s like improv theater, only you sit at a table and describe
what your character does” immediately conjures a mental image with rich inferences. How-
ever, it also necessarily reduces the complexity of the phenomenon in some way and embod-
ies what Bateman (2015) called “implicit game aesthetics.” To define RPGs as “an act of
shared story-creation,” for instance, implies a normative aesthetic judgment that “good” or
“real” RPGs should emphasize storytelling over, for example, gaming to win or simulating
a world. This may be one reason why definitional debates quickly become contentious.
To summarize, defining “role-playing games” entails often implied:

• types of definition: what our definition does (e.g., a stipulative clarification of how a
given text uses a word);
• semiotics: a theory of how concepts and meaning-making work (e.g., as family resem-
blance or genus-specifica);
• ontologies: what kind of thing role-playing games are: social or natural;
• (disciplinary) perspectives: which aspects we consider as important and worthy of
concern.

Given all that, how can we construct an interdisciplinary definition of “role-playing games”?
One could devise a transdisciplinary grand unified theory that can articulate the concerns
of any individual discipline (Deterding 2017). Yet no such grand theory has been forthcom-
ing. Our strategy is to allow a pluralist dialogue of concerns and perspectives. Instead of
defining “what is ‘role-playing games,’” we ask: “What useful insights can we gain when
we see role-playing games as <insert disciplinary perspective X here>?” This move from
“is” to “as” allows for multiple perspectives without forsaking rigor. It demands that every
perspective explicitly articulate the (semiotic, definitional, ontological, disciplinary) stance
from where it speaks, that it argues effectively why this stance is productive for answering
its concerns, and that it maintains rigor within its own stance. To enable this pluralist dia-
logue, the chapters in Section III (→ Chapters 9–16), each articulate a perspective on RPGs
from a discipline that has concerned itself with them in some way.
Within such pluralist dialogue, we see value in clarifying, empirically, how people ordi-
narily use the word “role-playing games.” True to our own demands, we note that this
approach comes from a perspective of pragmatist philosophy: it views scientific concepts
and definitions as tools for solving human problems and measures their validity by their
practical consequences (Haack 2004). Semiotically, we subscribe to the pragmatist notion
of meaning as use settled by a language community within a shared life world. Ontologi-
cally, we assume that the phenomena called “role-playing games” (like words or science)
are human creations and, therefore, at least partially constituted by joint action, talk, and

28
 Definitions of “Role-Playing Games”

shaping of material artifacts: “Role-playing games” is a social not natural entity, and thus
not a natural kind.1
In short, our goal here is to provide an empirical explication of how different language
communities have used the word “role-playing games” and what phenomena they have
referred to with it. In doing so, we will tease out properties frequently reoccurring across
definitions and phenomena people have called “role-playing games” to reconstruct our
own, nominal definitions.

Forms of Role-Playing Games

When scholars, designers, and fans use the word “role-playing games,” they typically don’t
speak about all phenomena called “role-playing games” but usually refer to one of several
clusters of phenomena, which we here call forms (Dormans 2006; Hitchens and Drachen
2009). In this book, we focus on four prominent forms: tabletop, live-action, single-player
computer, and massively multiplayer online RPGs.
Tabletop RPGs (TRPGs), usually played by a group sitting around a table, are arguably
the common ancestor. Players typically each create and then control a fictional character
within a shared fictional game world, maintaining character information (e.g., possessions,
specific abilities) on a piece of paper—commonly called a character sheet.2 Player charac-
ters’ abilities are usually quantified (e.g., strength is 15, driving skill is 12). One special
player, called the referee, game master, judge, dungeon master, or similar, enforces the rules
of the game and enacts the fictional world by telling the players what their characters per-
ceive and what the non-player characters (NPCs) do. Players verbally describe what they
want their characters to do, and the referee tells them the results of those actions—typically
using a combination of improvisation and the game’s rules where dice are often used to
determine the outcome of certain actions.

Box 2.3 Essential Terminology

Campaign: In TRPGs, this refers to a series of adventures with a cast of recurring characters
(player and non-player) played over multiple game sessions. Campaigns can be open-ended,
continuing for as long as the players are interested in participating. In the context of CRPGs,
a campaign can refer to the entire storyline of the game (e.g., “campaign mode”).
Character Sheet: A piece of paper commonly used in TRPGs that serves as a written record of
the status and state of a character in the game. This would normally include their statistics
and attributes, skills, inventory of equipment, current state of health, name, and so on.
DX: One X-sided die: D8 means an 8-sided die; D6, six-sided; D20, 20-sided, etc. If preceded
by a number, it specifies how many dice need to be rolled: 3D6 would mean roll three six-
sided dice.
Game Master (GM): In tabletop RPGs, the person who organizes and manages the game,
plays the role of all non-player characters (NPCs), and is responsible for everything except
the actions taken by the player characters. This includes describing everything the player
characters experience (see, hear, etc.). Common synonyms include dungeon master (DM),
referee, director, and storyteller.

29
 José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

In-Character (IC): Communications by a player that are understood as being said/communi-

cated by the character rather than the player.
Non-Player Character (NPC): All characters in the game world that are not directly controlled
by a player. They may be controlled by a game master (TRPGs), an actor (larp), or by com-
puter software (CRPGs and MMORPGs).
Out-of-Character (OOC): Things a player says or does that are not being said or done by their
character. Players sometimes explicitly signal which actions or utterances are OOC although
it is also common for them to be understood as such based on their context.
Party: Refers to a team or group of characters, generally PCs, who collaborate or work together
(e.g., “The Fellowship of the Ring” in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings). In the context of CRPGs,
it is common for a single player to control all of the characters in the party. In MMORPGs,
there are sometimes in-game benefits from player characters forming a party.
Player Character (PC): A character in a game that is directly controlled by a player. This term
is usually applied across all forms of RPGs.

Box 2.4 Paper-and-Pencil Session

Jasmine, Sam, Rosa, and Dennis have gathered around the table. They are in the middle of an
ongoing campaign adventure where they play characters who are prehistoric humans trying to
survive in a savage and slightly magical world.

Jasmine:  K, let’s get started. Last week you were getting ready to sneak into the Valley of
O
the Bears. You had decided to hide behind some bushes on a hill overlooking the
valley until nightfall.
Sam: [speaking out of character] Yeah, that’s right. We were worried about unexpected
inhabitants. <laughs> Hey Dennis, do you still have the sacred animal whistle?
Dennis: [checking his character sheet] Yeah, but I think the effect wore off. Rosa, does Toha-
na’s mystical ability work with items or is it just for animals?
Rosa: [looking at Dennis and speaking in character] I shall see if the mother of trees will
assist us this night. May I have the whistle?
Jasmine: OK, Rosa, roll for your mystical sight ability. Don’t forget the +2 bonus you get
from your willpower stat.
[Rosa picks up a pair of D10s and rolls them. She gets a 5 and a 3.]
Rosa: [Checking her character sheet]. I got an 8 plus . . . uhm, hang on. OK, total is 15!
Does that work?
Jasmine: Tohana cradles the whistle in her hands and whispers while bowing in the direction
of a tree. [Addressing Rosa] The whistle trembles slightly in your hands and gets
noticeably warm.
Rosa: Here ya go Sharpspear, be careful with it.
Dennis: [Looking at Jasmine] I blow the whistle. I also want to have a good look around.

30
 Definitions of “Role-Playing Games”

Jasmine: [Rolling some dice but keeping the results hidden from the players] As you blow into
the whistle you get sensations of danger and excitement coming from some tall trees
to the left of you, perfect timing as well! You see four large humanoid shapes moving
toward you very quickly across the ridge. OK, everyone, roll for initiative!
[The whole group groans except for Sam]
Sam: Oh yeah, I’m ready for this!
[Everyone picks up a D12 and rolls it in front of them]
Dennis: 12!
Sam: I only got a 4 . . .
Rosa: Do I need to add my reflexes modifier or not? I always forget.
Jasmine: Yup, reflex modifiers get added.
Rosa: OK, I got an 8 then.
Jasmine: As you turn to face your attackers, you notice they are hunters from the Rockslide
tribe. They’ve probably been stalking you for a while. Three charge forward while
the fourth hangs back. Dennis, you go first . . .
Dennis: I’m going to attack the one that’s closest to me with my spear, and I’ll use my second
action to increase my dodge ability. [rolls a pair of D10s] Double 1s? Are you kid-
ding me?
Jasmine: As you lunge with your spear, your foot slips on a loose rock. Your lunge goes wide,
and you also let go of the spear. You’ve lost your weapon, but fortunately you didn’t
fall to the ground.
Jasmine: OK, now one of them attacks [secretly rolls a pair of D10s]. Sam, what’s your
defense score?
Sam: 12
Jasmine: OK, you get pummeled with a rock for . . . [rolls a D6], 4 points of damage.
[Sam makes a note of this on his character sheet]
Jasmine: Rosa, you’re next. What are you going to do . . . ?

One way to describe live-action role-playing (larp) is to imagine a TRPG where players
embody and act out their character’s actions rather than verbally describing them. As in
TRPGs, not all participants are players; some might be referees while others may play the
parts of NPCs—“supporting roles” who receive instructions and information from the ref-
erees to guide the flow of events. Rules are still used to govern the success of in-game actions
though they are often simpler and more embodied than those of TRPGs. For example, they
might use versions of rock-paper-scissors or rules of thumb like “your character can do
what you can do” to decide the outcome of uncertain actions.
Computer role-playing games (CRPGs) can be described as tabletop RPGs that are
played alone on a computer: one player controls all player characters, and the computer
enacts the referee, displaying the game world through monitor and speakers. Their rules
are often similar to those in tabletop games though several CRPGs involve real-time play
which additionally tests the player’s reflexes. CRPGs are arguably distinguishable from
tabletop games in that they enable easy single-player play, enable storylines and rules that

31
 José P. Zagal and Sebastian Deterding

can become much more complex and involved as they are maintained by the computer, and
usually don’t afford role-playing in the sense of dramatically empathizing, embodying, and
acting out a character (Hitchens and Drachen 2009).
Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) can be considered multi-
player CRPGs where players play together in a shared world online, each controlling only
one character. In MMORPGs, the fictional game world is often persistent: it continues to
exist and change even when (individual) players are not logged in. They also often allow for
very large numbers of players, up to millions—hence the “massively multiplayer” in their
name. As with CRPGs, there is usually an emphasis on rules and systems, often borrowed
from TRPGs, rather than on the role-playing.
Again, with “forms,” we don’t mean natural kinds: they are distinctions people make
in and through talk, action, and shaping of material artifacts. Consequently, different
people distinguish and list different forms. Hitchens and Drachen (2009), for instance,
list freeform, systemless, and pervasive as additional forms. Chapter 8 discusses various
forms of “textual RPGs” (such as journaling games) that have recently emerged but, we
think, not stabilized to the same extent as the other four forms to date. We highlight
these four because their distinct reality is widely acknowledged by scholars, designers,
and fans; they have had a significant cultural impact through their historical role and
size of player audience; each has sparked its own definitional debates; and formal etic
analyses suggest that the phenomena subsumed under each of these labels, indeed, share
characteristics that differ from those bunched under the other labels (e.g., Dormans
2006; Hitchens and Drachen 2009). Obviously, there are variations, exceptions, and
debates within each form: Is a tabletop RPG with no rules “still a tabletop RPG”? If a
computer role-playing game has a human referee, is it “not actually a tabletop RPG”?
And so on.
We will now (1) briefly sketch the historical provenance of each form, (2) provide influ-
ential definitional attempts, (3) list characteristic features of that form, and (4) highlight
common deviations and innovations from that list. Our historical sketch is consciously
reductive and partial: we have chosen TRPGs as the ancestor and will trace the other forms
through the lens of how they evolved and differentiated themselves from TRPGs.

Tabletop Role-Playing Games

In 1974, a small company called Tactical Studies Rules, later known as TSR, published
Dungeons & Dragons (D&D, Gygax, and Arneson 1974a). It was an unassuming box
containing three slim booklets whose cover described its contents as “Rules for Fantastical
Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures”
(Gygax and Arneson 1974b). The game was not only closely modeled on its ancestor—
miniature wargaming (Peterson 2012, 2020)—but also labeled itself as such.
And yet, Gygax and Arneson’s introduction to D&D already highlighted characteristics
that, while not individually innovative, when taken together, led to it being considered as a
new type of game (Peterson 2012, 2020). It was an open-ended game for which “your time
and imagination are about the only limiting factors” (Gygax and Arneson 1974b). Its rules
were “guidelines to follow” [emphasis in original]. D&D also required a referee who had
to prepare “dungeons”—a scenario set in a fictional game world, typically a cave or castle
in a fantasy world filled with adversarial monsters and traps as well as treasures. Players

32