What defines the genre of RPG?

[Kolby Jack]

WARNING: LONG POST.

Obviously "playing a role" doesn't cut it as a definition anymore because you do that in EVERY GAME. My reason for asking is that I regularly spend time on the Gamefaqs Skyrim board and I swear to God, at least once a day some half-serious, half-clown ass-hat makes a topic asking if Skyrim will be "as good as Ocarina of Time, which is teh best RPG ever!" This strikes me as a stupid question, because I don't consider any Zelda game an RPG. Yea, you can name Link, but the game plays more like an action/puzzle game than an RPG. But as I thought that, I began to wonder what really makes a game an RPG anyway. And thus, here we are.

After thinking it over, I've narrowed it it down to three main things that in my opinion make a game an RPG. Note: There are a small number of exceptions to each of these; I've just deemed these to be the most common traits among RPGs.

1. The Party system. Most every RPG I've played uses some sort of party or companion system, from Final Fantasy to Pokemon to Fallout. While the level of commitment to the party varies from game to game (for example, Fallout companions are entirely optional), pretty much every RPG I've seen has it except for really really old ones from back in the day. The biggest exception would be The Elder Scrolls, and even then Skyrim may change that.

2. An experience and leveling system. This is becoming more diluted as other genres use it to enhance their own gameplay experiences, but I still consider it to be a core element of the RPG. I can't honestly think of a single RPG that didn't have one, so let's move on.

3. Heavy story/quest emphasis. Again, this is hard to define as most games today tell some kind of story, but for RPGs I would say that the story is of equal or greater importance to the other elements, even gameplay. In fact in many cases an RPG can have fairly good gameplay and still bomb for having crappy writing. The other part is that RPG stories tend to be very quest-based. "go here, kill this" or "find macguffin to defeat boss" are things we see all the time in RPGs.

So those are my main points, and as you can see, OoT may be story-strong but it lacks in the other two areas which is why I don't see it as an RPG. What are your thoughts on my thoughts, theoretical responders?

 

[The3rdEye]

I'm not sure I'd say that having a party would necessarily be a requirement for me to consider a game to be an RPG. It certainly appears IN a lot of RPGs but I think it's entirely possible to have characters that are not always with the player. The Elderscrolls series is a good example of this as you've said, but a party is an element that carries across genres. It's just typically more interesting when you're not flying solo and it allows players to suppliment their abilities with those that they cannot or do not wish to obtain. That being said, there is a lot of potential for character development around the player when you have constant companions, and it allows the player to interact with a different part of the game world.

I absolutely agree with you on the leveling system, although I've always been partial to the "You use skill X enough, you gain proficiency in skill X" rather than "Kill 20 orcs to increase your alchemy ability".

I think quests should come as a by-product of a good story. The developers should create a world that functions and moves, and sooner or later a piece is missing or broken and the player should be made to care enough through the writing that they want to step in and resolve the issue. Someone telling me to go get 10 wolf skins does not have the same impact as the farmer begging me to cull the local wolf population so that his herd doesn't dwindle to nothing, forcing his family into poverty.

I like the three point format so:

- The character changes in a measurable way in accordance to the player's choices, changes both in terms of mechanics and/or through the writing of the game. (example: The player can become much stronger, or much faster, or a little faster and a little stronger. The character can adopt and develop a benevolent or malevolent personality)

- The story (and there really must be one, the stronger the better) and game world changes to reflect and/or is dependent on the choices made by the player or the player's character. (This includes how other characters react to you as well as the general progression of events)

- The player's choices in regards to the development of their character changes the ways that they may interact with the game world. (example: A speed+stealth-based character and a strength+stamina character can both engage in battle, but each will do so in different ways. The stealth based character may have access to lockpicking/hacking, whereas the combat character will need other methods to obtain the same tasks)

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I really don't think I'd consider any of those trademarks of an RPG. I'd say that the defining feature of an RPG is that the player is choosing the role they play. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, games of that nature you choose what you will or won't do to make your character play the way you want them to play. In other games you might have a party system, where instead of picking how to level one specific character, you're picking the characters that you want to devote time to leveling because they suit your playstyle. Granted, in any game you can choose to play, but in those games which we consider RPGs this kind of choice is one of the core mechanics (that's why I would say that Mass Effect or Dragon Age would be RPG's, while something like Crysis 2 (which did allow you to specialize your character based on your play style) isn't. In Mass Effect or Dragon Age (or any of the other games I've mentioned) the ability to specialize is much more broad, and is one of the core mechanics, while in Crysis it's just a mechanic added to give some spice to the other mechanics.

 

[80Maxwell08]

Honestly I think at this point the genre needs a renaming since the name (if my guess is accurate) comes from the original RPGs using formulas and styles from D&D. Since most of them no longer use this style of gameplay at all while I can't come up with a better name I think calling them all RPGs and trying to figure out what makes one is no longer valid especially since so many games add character progression and such in their games.

 

[War Penguin]

You know, the genre is changing quite a bit, what with all of the "streamlining" and such, so it is getting kind of hard to define. But what you described seems to be a good synopsis of what a traditional RPG holds. Though, a party system isn't particularly necessary. In Fallout, for example, you could have beaten the games with no party or companions what so ever. Other than that, pretty good summation.

Though, I must say, I really do get annoyed when people say that Zelda is an RPG. I have no idea why people say or think that.

 

[Kolby Jack]

You know, the genre is changing quite a bit, what with all of the "streamlining" and such, so it is getting kind of hard to define. But what you described seems to be a good synopsis of what a traditional RPG holds. Though, a party system isn't particularly necessary. In Fallout, for example, you could have beaten the games with no party or companions what so ever. Other than that, pretty good summation.

Though, I must say, I really do get annoyed when people say that Zelda is an RPG. I have no idea why people say or think that.

Glad to see I'm not alone on the Zelda thing. And yea, I know a party system isn't a must for an RPG, it just seems to be incredibly common in the genre, no matter if it's a JRPG or a western one (and both of those are usually VERY different).

 

[War Penguin]

You know, the genre is changing quite a bit, what with all of the "streamlining" and such, so it is getting kind of hard to define. But what you described seems to be a good synopsis of what a traditional RPG holds. Though, a party system isn't particularly necessary. In Fallout, for example, you could have beaten the games with no party or companions what so ever. Other than that, pretty good summation.

Though, I must say, I really do get annoyed when people say that Zelda is an RPG. I have no idea why people say or think that.

Glad to see I'm not alone on the Zelda thing. And yea, I know a party system isn't a must for an RPG, it just seems to be incredibly common in the genre, no matter if it's a JRPG or a western one (and both of those are usually VERY different).

I might be trudging a bit off topic but I need think that this is a good time to discuss this: Are they really? Think about it: Both are set in a fantasy/scifi setting, you usually have your diverse little party, you level up while exploring the land, collect a certain amount of MacGuffins, and then you defeat bad guy. I don't really see a difference, here.

 

[The3rdEye]

You know, the genre is changing quite a bit, what with all of the "streamlining" and such, so it is getting kind of hard to define. But what you described seems to be a good synopsis of what a traditional RPG holds. Though, a party system isn't particularly necessary. In Fallout, for example, you could have beaten the games with no party or companions what so ever. Other than that, pretty good summation.

Though, I must say, I really do get annoyed when people say that Zelda is an RPG. I have no idea why people say or think that.

Glad to see I'm not alone on the Zelda thing. And yea, I know a party system isn't a must for an RPG, it just seems to be incredibly common in the genre, no matter if it's a JRPG or a western one (and both of those are usually VERY different).

I might be trudging a bit off topic but I need think that this is a good time to discuss this: Are they really? Think about it: Both are set in a fantasy/scifi setting, you usually have your diverse little party, you level up while exploring the land, collect a certain amount of MacGuffins, and then you defeat bad guy. I don't really see a difference, here.

Just to add my 2 coppers on this:

JRPGS from my perspective typically have an emphasis or story that revolves around "What does it mean to be _______?", or other philosophical slant at the base of everything, particularly "Me vs Myself", where the main (player) character has obvious shortcomings that they need to resolve, from Tidus' need to ̶s̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶n̶y̶ ̶b̶i̶t̶c̶h̶ reconcile with his father to Link's rise from peasant to hero. Their writing usually suggests that there is a larger more powerful mechanism at work that you are fighting against in order to progress and/or "win". Until recently with the Bioware series, character development and interaction between the player and their friends was a JRPG staple, where learning about the PC's friends was as important to the progression of the story as the next battle.

Western RPGs are usually scripted mainly around "What makes a hero?" mentality with impersonal obstacles or a central antithesis blocking your progression. Mass Effect for example, while it does have the side story of trying to convince the council and galaxy of the Reaper's eminent arrival and Saren's betrayal, has a lot to do with the timeframe in which things must occur before they arrive. The same can be said for Fable (The encroaching darkness) and Dragons Age (The Blight). The "Me vs The Other" (be it time, resources, your enemy, w/e) has been central, with character interaction and development more as a sideline or filler.

 

[War Penguin]

You know, the genre is changing quite a bit, what with all of the "streamlining" and such, so it is getting kind of hard to define. But what you described seems to be a good synopsis of what a traditional RPG holds. Though, a party system isn't particularly necessary. In Fallout, for example, you could have beaten the games with no party or companions what so ever. Other than that, pretty good summation.

Though, I must say, I really do get annoyed when people say that Zelda is an RPG. I have no idea why people say or think that.

Glad to see I'm not alone on the Zelda thing. And yea, I know a party system isn't a must for an RPG, it just seems to be incredibly common in the genre, no matter if it's a JRPG or a western one (and both of those are usually VERY different).

I might be trudging a bit off topic but I need think that this is a good time to discuss this: Are they really? Think about it: Both are set in a fantasy/scifi setting, you usually have your diverse little party, you level up while exploring the land, collect a certain amount of MacGuffins, and then you defeat bad guy. I don't really see a difference, here.

Just to add my 2 coppers on this:

JRPGS from my perspective typically have an emphasis or story that revolves around "What does it mean to be _______?", or other philosophical slant at the base of everything. Their writing usually suggests that there is a larger more powerful mechanism at work that you are fighting against in order to progress and/or "win". Until recently with the Bioware series, character development and interaction between the player and their friends was a JRPG staple, where learning about the PC's friends was as important to the progression of the story as the next battle.

Western RPGs are usually scripted mainly around "What makes a hero?" mentality with impersonal obstacles blocking your progression. Mass Effect for example, while it does have the side story of trying to convince the council and galaxy of the Reaper's eminent arrival, has a lot to do with the timeframe in which things must occur before they arrive. The same can be said for Fable (The encroaching darkness) and Dragons Age (The Blight). The "Me vs My Enemy (be it time, resources, w/e) has been central, with character interaction and development more as a sideline or filler.

Hm. I never saw it like that. Thank you for sharing your insight, it really does give a satisfactory difference between the two.

 

[starwarsgeek]

I think the key element is the characters and their interaction with the world being represented mathematically. This is what connects everything from Paper Mario to Knights of the Old Republic; your actions are, basically, math problems.

While parties and heavy story focus are common elements in RPGs, it's not true for all of them.

 

[Tretara]

I will have to ditto the three points setup

1. As evryone befor said Storyline plays an integral part but it isn't everything too little storyline and you get an action game or a grinder, too much storyline and you get an interactive movie like Final Fantasy Hallway.

B) Gameplay. It has to have a certain style of gameplay you can't toss a guy a gun set him in first person and tell him have fun. Parameters have to be set. This is who you are (chosen by you or the game), this is what needs to be done (in a linear or open way), and why it is such (whether revealed initially or over time). To play a role there has to be depth either in the world around you or in yourself depending on the type of RPG.

- The third point is the most important yet it is also where it truly gets confusing, simply because in the general sense of the term RPG nearly all genre's fall into enacting a role in a game. From Farmville to Frogger you take a place in the world and become a piece of it. To truly call a game an RPG you have to look past the character, look past the storyline, and look past the upgrades. They mean nothing in the long run an RPG is truly acknowledged by its world. From the first Final Fantasy to WoW the games are designedby placing you in a new type of environment. An RPG takes surreal thought and puts you face to face with difficult decisions or gives you a purpose in that life not a point a to point b you have a decided goal that is surrounded and exemplified by the storyling by the numbers and gameplay. An RPG cut and dried is the world you play in.

I think that came out a bit too wordy

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Sounds like Mass Effect 1 (and 2) to me.
Now where are those pricks who were trying to tell me Mass Effect is not an RPG?

 

[darth.pixie]

I wouldn't go with either of those choices. It's the options of doing whatever you want that makes an RPG, RPG-ish. Not just: "Evil" "Good" "Neutral (Bi-polar/Greedy)" but have a wide range of choices in fixing a problem, not having quests and solutions shoved under your nose and having the opportunity of doing what you think your character would do. Character Creation would count but good RPGs can be with a pre-rendered character (Planescape).

I don't think of it as D&D and math problems although I play it and like them because I don't see it as necessary to one. It's easier on pen and paper games to play that way but it can be changed in games.

 

[electronicgoat]

While I guess you can define a RPG by a game with RPG mechanics, I'd much rather define it as a game where you play a role in the same way that I'd define a first-person shooter as a game where you shoot things in first person.
Since RPG came from D&D, it's taken a ton of mechanics from D&D and brought that over to videogames and since then, roleplaying games have been defined by numbers and focus on your own character and plot more than action.
But now that pretty much every game is a) more story intensive than the era of the first RPG, b) has some kind of RPG element (leveling up, getting heart containers, weapon upgrades) it's very difficult to define anything as a game where you play a role, but I'd still like to stick to what the words mean as the definition, even if that means you have to define every single game as some kind of RPG.

Also, even though (the first) Legend of Zelda was never specifically designed as an RPG, you travel on a grid, you are the character, you make choices as the character, you can purchase new weapons once you collect enough money from killing monsters, and you level up (heart piece).

 

[Archangel768]

I think the RPG term has changed in meaning. As in from it's transition from its table top origins to video games the meaning has been altered. This is of course why we see WRPG and JRPG SRPG etc. The requirements to be considered an RPG became less restrictive allowing different types of video games to be under the RPG category and technically a sub genre of the RPG.

To me, no video game fits the true definition of what RPG originally stood for back in the pen and paper days and instead fall into the sub genres that were defined when video games came about, WRPG, JRPG, SRPG. etc.

I see this as similar to what words like 'gay' and '******' where gay originally meant happy and ****** originally meant a branch/twig. Todays society has taken those words and changed them to mean homosexual instead. If you were to tell someone that you just meant a branch when you said ****** they would most likely not be believe you meant that and instead intended to insult someone or otherwise.

In my opinion the term RPG has been altered to suit the video game industry and in that sense I can consider both, WRPG, JRPG and SRPG etc. to all be considered RPGs but not by the traditonal meaning.

I think that arguing over which games are a 'true' RPGs is pretty pointless as the meaning has changed so that games such as WRPG and JRPG both legitimately (in my mind) fall into the RPG category.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I think the difference bewteen an RPG and a non-RPG is that in an RPG you play the role, you are the character in that you make choices regarding things like story, skill specialisation, battle tactics, conversation options, morality, etc. In a non-RPG, you play the game through a role, the role already exists, the story is already set, you are living the story through the eyes/actions of a preset character.

The problem with trying to define a genre is that a lot of games have multiple genres. So you pick out your criteria and then point to a game that has them and say "But this is an FPS"; yes, it is, but it is also an RPG. So by this definition, LoZ probably wouldn't be considered an RPG because you don't change the story, though Twilight Princess could be said to have RPG elements due to the fact that you can choose whether to build up your skills through those wolf-things, but even then you could argue that you don't choose what skills you get, it is more a matter of how deeply you play the character, not about you being the character.

 

[undeadwraith]

I think the biggest thing everyone is missing here is UI. RPGs are all about the menu systems, and in a lot of cases, but not all, about stats and numbers. These days it hard to really define an RPG since most games are using 'RPG Elements', and when you really think about what these 'RPG Elements' are I think you can find your answer.

 

[ChupathingyX]

1. Choices for main quests and imporatnt decisions for side quests.

2. Choices should have consequences presented both by chaarcters and the world.

3. Problems can be approached in various ways (guns, persuade, sneak etc)

4. Defining the character for yourself (writing your character's history), usually having a clean slate is the best way to go but sometimes having a particular character is good as long as it is done right.

5. Then there's all the extra stuff like stats, xp, die rolls, companion parties et cetera.

 

[kingcom]

Until recently with the Bioware series, character development and interaction between the player and their friends was a JRPG staple, where learning about the PC's friends was as important to the progression of the story as the next battle.

Wait, 1996 is recently? Baldur's Gate had a fairly stron inter-party narrative and it extended even more so in its sequel.

Seems like your not entirely on the spot about j and w rpgs. Many western rpgs follow the what is the blank. Planescape Torment's examination of "What can change the nature of a man?" Not to mention everything the Ultima series did, as both a party interaction and the player trying to uncover what it means to be virtuous and how concepts that are good can very easily be twisted into evil.

I think the real difference between the two genres are a little more simpler though again not perfect. In western rpgs they tend to focus on the main character being the player, while in jrpgs, the player only observes what the main character is doing.