Escapist Podcast: 035: What Defines An RPG & More Mass Effect

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Ok, Jachwe, for the sake of the readers, let's shelve the "art" discussion. That wasn't the point of that sentence, and we can start a new topic to further that, but let's stay on track...

What about when one's character doesn't advance, but gameplay success is highly dependent on the abilities of the character within a system that determines the values of actions based on formulas?

A prime example of this is Trapped Dead, in that game characters have different stats and only receive one weapon type or there are no pistol+1, pistol+2...pistol+8. There's a limit to the amount of damage a character can do with a weapon type and one must divvy the weapons according to the characters' strengths in order to gain greater effects.

I would say no then. If those stats (and therefore the formulas) changed throughout gameplay or you could continue those characters after a game with the stats changing between, I would. Might be it has the elements of an RPG (which is a slippery slope, so I'm treading lightly now), but by MY definition it wouldn't be an RPG.

"Rpg elements" is such a non-committal phrase, that people seem to use when describing something that's typically seen in rpgs. What I'm asking, does the D20 system and character stats not make D&D? Or any tabletop rpg? Given that the world of Dungeons and Dragons is just the context on top of the formulas and stats. The context allows the dungeon master or game designer to create a start and stop point as well as design the events that occur between the two points. If a group decided to play a short D&D scenario where their characters didn't level, would D&D for that session stop being an rpg? Is leveling so essential that the system and stats mean nothing despite their ability to function without levels and experience points.

If your definition can deny D&D when it can run just well without leveling, it's time to reconsider. RPGs ,without the core of formulas and values to plug into those functions, can't exist as a genre nor a game. Leveling depends on the existence of the core, not the other way around. That's what Trapped Dead is, the core mechanics without levels.

Fable 3. I beat it in 10 hours on the day I got it. I was mad and felt slighted. I played it a second time just to get my money's worth out of the game then I traded it in without looking back.
On RPGs, I don't consider ME to be an RPG and I don't care about "player agency" too much. Even D&D is just a glorified dungeon simulator most of the time.

Could you explain that further, as Dungeon Keeper (and maybe one psp game I can't remember the name of) is the only game I'd consider a dungeon simulator, as in you're running a dungeon. Are you saying the dungeon master is the only important component and that player characters and the mechanics of the game are just there.

The word simulator covers various sub-genres such as sports, non-arcade racing, managerial games and such.

I just meant that you spend the majority of a D&D campaign in a dungeon fighting a series of battles.

 

[Henriot]

"Rpg elements" is such a non-committal phrase, that people seem to use when describing something that's typically seen in rpgs. What I'm asking, does the D20 system and character stats not make D&D? Or any tabletop rpg? Given that the world of Dungeons and Dragons is just the context on top of the formulas and stats. The context allows the dungeon master or game designer to create a start and stop point as well as design the events that occur between the two points. If a group decided to play a short D&D scenario where their characters didn't level, would D&D for that session stop being an rpg? Is leveling so essential that the system and stats mean nothing despite their ability to function without levels and experience points.

If your definition can deny D&D when it can run just well without leveling, it's time to reconsider. RPGs ,without the core of formulas and values to plug into those functions, can't exist as a genre nor a game. Leveling depends on the existence of the core, not the other way around. That's what Trapped Dead is, the core mechanics without levels.

I may get some flak for saying this, but I don't think comparing tabletop roleplaying games to RPG videogames should be used in these arguments because while one grew from the other, it is not the same experience.

I've found your definition very interesting, and it might change my mind, who knows? However, my original definition had two parts... if A doesn't apply, see B, which was the choice. The inclusion of problems that have moral, ethical or "cost vs benefit" attached with the choice of how to go about completing that task. Would you consider that to factor into your own defintion somehow? Or a varitation of that definition?

 

[Melondrupe]

I may get some flak for saying this, but I don't think comparing tabletop roleplaying games to RPG videogames should be used in these arguments because while one grew from the other, it is not the same experience.

I've found your definition very interesting, and it might change my mind, who knows? However, my original definition had two parts... if A doesn't apply, see B, which was the choice. The inclusion of problems that have moral, ethical or "cost vs benefit" attached with the choice of how to go about completing that task. Would you consider that to factor into your own defintion somehow? Or a varitation of that definition?

One errs in not comparing the two, as the mechanics of tabletop rpgs are the most important part emulated in video rpgs; its the part that continues on when the context switches genres from high fantasy to historical era to post-apocalypse to space. The core mechanics are the essence that utterly consumes the mechanics of other genres in games such as Alpha Protocol, Dead Island and Borderlands which would have to have their gameplay significantly altered in order to be considered fun for fans of FPSes.


Choice exists as a way to increase replayability and it's not something unique to rpgs. Take Mount&Blade(Action-RPG) for example, one has several factions to join and several claimants to the thrones of those factions that one could side and assist. Not being forced to join any one possibility gives one the opportunity to play the game again and again, experiencing different outcomes in those games' setting. However, no matter the choice, the core mechanics of the game never change. One may not travel safely into the territories of one's enemies, but one still fights them in a similar way that you would fight your ally for that playthrough.


The most choice ever does is limit or open one's options. If a game is designed to have only one path or somebody decides never to bother with one side of a conflict, the game won't stop being an rpg as the gameplay will remain largely the same.

 

[Henriot]

One errs in not comparing the two, as the mechanics of tabletop rpgs are the most important part emulated in video rpgs; its the part that continues on when the context switches genres from high fantasy to historical era to post-apocalypse to space. The core mechanics are the essence that utterly consumes the mechanics of other genres in games such as Alpha Protocol, Dead Island and Borderlands which would have to have their gameplay significantly altered in order to be considered fun for fans of FPSes.

Tablerop RPGs don't stand up with just the core mechanics there to support them. They're not solely about the use of stats and formulas, it's about using those formulas within the context of the world they characters inhabit. I understand you CAN play a tabletop RPG with one roleplayer and the DM, but for the majority of games played it's a group that are the roleplayers and the game was designed with that dynamic in mind. Video RPGs are for the most part designed for the singleplayer, with some co-op exceptions. I have yet to partake in co-op video RPGs (apart from Diablo 2 back in the day), so I have a limited view in that regard. So to answer your question earlier about the small DnD scenario; if it was one person playing it, they were just fighting monsters and evading traps, that's not an RPG to me. If it was a fleshed out scenario with say NPCs, the presence of them means CHOICES can be made with ETHICAL or MORAL implications (peasant asks for help, you chop him in two). If you are playing with other people, there are those choices also added, but revolving around how you interact with your fellow "adventurers".

Choice exists as a way to increase replayability and it's not something unique to rpgs. Take Mount&Blade(Action-RPG) for example, one has several factions to join and several claimants to the thrones of those factions that one could side and assist. Not being forced to join any one possibility gives one the opportunity to play the game again and again, experiencing different outcomes in those games' setting. However, no matter the choice, the core mechanics of the game never change. One may not travel safely into the territories of one's enemies, but one still fights them in a similar way that you would fight your ally for that playthrough.

The most choice ever does is limit or open one's options. If a game is designed to have only one path or somebody decides never to bother with one side of a conflict, the game won't stop being an rpg as the gameplay will remain largely the same.

Ah, my favourite game!

Game mechanics shouldn't change depending on player choice, but aspects of gameplay should. M&B I feel captures alot of what I'm talking about when it comes to moral or "cost vs benefit" choices in the gameworld. You are given the choice to be a freerider and create relationships with all the lords in the world, or become someone's lackey very early into the game; you'll receive land/rewards quicker, but only from your kingdom and at the loss of relation to those foreign lords.

I'm only using the "choice" section of my definition in response to your "stats with no advancement" theory. Apart from Trapped Dead, what others do you consider RPGs that don't have the advancement but have the formulas attached to stats?

 

[Eleima]

Hmm... You guys talked about Skyrim, about Baldur's Gate, and Star Wars, but not about food?? I call counterfeit!!

Undoubtedly one of the best podcasts in these past few weeks (yay, no "pee theory" nonsense! ). The RPG discussion was deep and tackled one of the most important questions in gaming (at least, in my book). The "what is the nature of an RPG" question is a complicated one, and I really think there is no such thing as an answer set in stone, at least not when it comes to this issue. I'm of a mind to agree with Justin, but the rest of you gave valid arguments. Defining what makes a game an RPG and what doesn't is hard, and ultimately, we'll all have different views on the matter.

The other part of the podcast that really interested me was the question on introducing our own children to gaming. I have similar fears (even though my own little one can't even sit up without assistance yet), since I'm an avid gamer, but I do keep in mind that the important thing is balance. Balance between gaming and outdoor activities. We firmly intend to encourage activities such as sports, and especially team sports, but I'm really going to try and "pass the torch", as it is. I have fond memories of playing Duke Nukem 3D, Doom II and Wacky Wheels with my father and sister as a child, and will hopefully share similar moments with my own son.
The bonus question, however, is what do you do with the disapproving grandparent? I'm almost 30, and my mother still gives me this disappointed look when gaming comes up, as if I'm some kind of asocial psychopath. *sigh*

 

[Melondrupe]

Tablerop RPGs don't stand up with just the core mechanics there to support them. They're not solely about the use of stats and formulas, it's about using those formulas within the context of the world they characters inhabit. I understand you CAN play a tabletop RPG with one roleplayer and the DM, but for the majority of games played it's a group that are the roleplayers and the game was designed with that dynamic in mind. Video RPGs are for the most part designed for the singleplayer, with some co-op exceptions. I have yet to partake in co-op video RPGs (apart from Diablo 2 back in the day), so I have a limited view in that regard. So to answer your question earlier about the small DnD scenario; if it was one person playing it, they were just fighting monsters and evading traps, that's not an RPG to me. If it was a fleshed out scenario with say NPCs, the presence of them means CHOICES can be made with ETHICAL or MORAL implications (peasant asks for help, you chop him in two). If you are playing with other people, there are those choices also added, but revolving around how you interact with your fellow "adventurers".

The touting of mechanics over context is meant to imply that removing context reveals the essence of gameplay. If one were to remove the mechanics, one has scraps of information that could be cobbled together into a story, but no game. Choices with ethical or moral implications are just the road not taken. Would a certain kingdom not have fallen into disarray if two siblings had kept their organs apart? Maybe. One person playing against a dungeon master versus several people adding onto a story with another person providing plot points and twists are two different things. The first instance is someone playing a game, while the other could be a creative writing exercise. Tabletop and video rpgs rely on the first for gameplay.

I can't deny that I probably went too far in suggesting that there will be a game where context isn't needed. Which is false given that no game would have structure if not for the framework of beginnings and endings. What I wish to state is that rpgs need context just as much as racers need tracks, beat'em ups need stages and puzzle games such as Tetris and Angry Birds need levels. Story in rpgs aren't there just to tell a tale with the hope to trigger an emotional reaction from the player. Story is there to guide the player to a goal. Whether its to the deepest reaches of a dungeon or to the table of the sky, context provides that final realm, battle, or conversation for the player.

Ah, my favourite game!

Game mechanics shouldn't change depending on player choice, but aspects of gameplay should. M&B I feel captures alot of what I'm talking about when it comes to moral or "cost vs benefit" choices in the gameworld. You are given the choice to be a freerider and create relationships with all the lords in the world, or become someone's lackey very early into the game; you'll receive land/rewards quicker, but only from your kingdom and at the loss of relation to those foreign lords.

I'm only using the "choice" section of my definition in response to your "stats with no advancement" theory. Apart from Trapped Dead, what others do you consider RPGs that don't have the advancement but have the formulas attached to stats?

Trapped Dead is the anomaly that showed me rpgs aren't dependent on statistical growth and levels. Their high prevalence just reflects a need to limit the possible actions of a character or characters in order to create challenge and allow a player to become familiar with the few skills available and new ones arriving. It works the same as a driving (read: not racing) game introducing a player to new cars as they progress towards the last unlock. In Smugglers Run, one starts with a buggy and gains new vehicles of varying speed and durability. The gradual introduction of each allows one to become familiarized with each vehicles strengths and weaknesses for given mission types.

The best example I can think of that comes close to the system and stats existing without the need for leveling and choice is the custom battle mode of Mount&Blade Warband (Can't remember if it was in the first) that does away with the travel, politics and economy. Whether its siege or field combat, its the pure gameplay. Each of the characters have a little backstory, but that means nothing compared to how each character wields their weapons. The steadiness and force behind the archers' aim and pull varies from each character, being dependent on their general stats; skills in power draw and horse archery; proficiency in bows. In action and action adventure games, none of those variables matter. Link's use of arms is the player's ability to aim. Various stats go into swinging a weapon in Mount&Blade, determining its speed and force.

 

[Henriot]

Trapped Dead is the anomaly that showed me rpgs aren't dependent on statistical growth and levels. Their high prevalence just reflects a need to limit the possible actions of a character or characters in order to create challenge and allow a player to become familiar with the few skills available and new ones arriving. It works the same as a driving (read: not racing) game introducing a player to new cars as they progress towards the last unlock. In Smugglers Run, one starts with a buggy and gains new vehicles of varying speed and durability. The gradual introduction of each allows one to become familiarized with each vehicles strengths and weaknesses for given mission types.

The best example I can think of that comes close to the system and stats existing without the need for leveling and choice is the custom battle mode of Mount&Blade Warband (Can't remember if it was in the first) that does away with the travel, politics and economy. Whether its siege or field combat, its the pure gameplay. Each of the characters have a little backstory, but that means nothing compared to how each character wields their weapons. The steadiness and force behind the archers' aim and pull varies from each character, being dependent on their general stats; skills in power draw and horse archery; proficiency in bows. In action and action adventure games, none of those variables matter. Link's use of arms is the player's ability to aim. Various stats go into swinging a weapon in Mount&Blade, determining its speed and force.

The B part of my definition also includes what I am naively referring to as a "cost vs benefit" choice. As you've elaborated on Trapped Dead, I am starting to come around to the idea of it being an RPG... However, are you given a choice when it comes to the character you control in a round/mission of the game? Do you control the one avatar or many?
In your Mount and Blade comparison (I believe you were right about the multiplayer starting in Warband), the first choice you're given when you enter a battle is the choice of faction. That choice, depending on the factions set against one another, can divide some players pretty quickly, as the Sarranids play alot differently to say the Rhodoks. When you've got your faction, you then choose your troop type. The choice between horseman, archer or footman is also a cost vs benefit (in regards to your gameplay), as an archer unit can shoot... but might have limited armour. Footmen has a wider range of armour and weapons, but little ranged capability. Horsemen almost always has to invest the majority of their gold into a quality horse, leaving little to armour and sometime limiting weapon choice. So I can still see the RPG in regards to the multiplayer game, even if it doesn't follow the singleplayer mechanics of levelling, because it has my backup definition. Depending on how you answer those Trapped Dead questions, I might have to change my feelings towards it... Or check to see if there is a demo and see for myself.

 

[Melondrupe]

The B part of my definition also includes what I am naively referring to as a "cost vs benefit" choice. As you've elaborated on Trapped Dead, I am starting to come around to the idea of it being an RPG... However, are you given a choice when it comes to the character you control in a round/mission of the game? Do you control the one avatar or many?

Yeah, you're given the choice of which characters you'll bring. You can only bring four at a time, but you can control all of them.

As for cost vs benefit choices, not quite sure how to answer that. I want to say it seems to be something that's self-evident whenever one designs or chooses a character based on their stats. Maybe in the most basic rogue-like where you only ever have the choice of a fighter and buying stronger melee weapons and armor, then I guess that type of choice is not there.

 

[Henriot]

Yeah, you're given the choice of which characters you'll bring. You can only bring four at a time, but you can control all of them.

As for cost vs benefit choices, not quite sure how to answer that. I want to say it seems to be something that's self-evident whenever one designs or chooses a character based on their stats. Maybe in the most basic rogue-like where you only ever have the choice of a fighter and buying stronger melee weapons and armor, then I guess that type of choice is not there.

Sounds like an RPG to me then! But I think we're approaching it from two different angles... regardless, we get the same result. That is some of the trouble with some of these arguments; people can try and play every game under the sun but we don't have time for all of them, and people might bring out a game you've never played as evidence for their argument. Having not played Trapped Dead your initial description didn't work for my theory. Thanks for sticking it out.