What is a RPG?

[Kyrian007]

I do kind of agree that RPG can be a little loosely defined, and is not defined by any specific gameplay mechanic. BUT, games that are clearly of another genre with tacked-on unnecessary leveling systems (Borderlands, I'm looking right at you. You're just an FPS, deal with it) do not get to use the tag RPG or RPG "elements." Gameplay mechanics do define several game genres and attempts to make a game seem like a cross genre standard breaker are just false advertising that have always fallen flat in one way or another.

 

[Dastardly]

Alright, I see where you're coming from, but there are a few points I would raise in response.

First off, lets look at ports. FIFA is the computer port of real life football. Were FIFA to use different rules to real football rules people would not consider it a football game, just a game. Since RPGs are the computer port of tabletop RPGs, surely then they can only be considered RPGs if they follow the rules of the games they are intended to portray? A bit of a weak argument I know, but it's a slow day at the office.

I really think that, even with different rules, people would consider it a football game. Look at Super Mario Strikers -- clearly, you're playing football (soccer)... but there are twists and turns on the rules (up to and including giants stomping the field).

Also, not all tabletop RPGs have the same kind of stat-juggling system we associate with Dungeons & Dragons. There are a lot of more narrative-styled games, where dice are simply there to randomize events, but stats aren't really a "thing." The idea of "levels" in these games are more just about giving the player new equipment or resources to use, but there's not a numerical value attached.

Secondly - what you say about the sole requirement of a role playing game is that the player plays a role. This is all well and good, and on any other day is a definition I would consider a winning one, but look at games like Doom...

...In it's purest sense yes a roleplaying game is one in which the player plays a role. The clue is in the name. But does this clash with the FPS genre's convention of placing players directly into the action?

First-Person is a viewpoint, as opposed to third-person (not many second-person games). Many different types of games can use this viewpoint, just as many use third-person. It's just another game mechanic, like any other.

I should clarify what I mean about "playing a role" being the defining feature. I'm talking about games in which "playing a role" is the point of the game. In Doom, the point isn't to play the role of a stranded space marine. That's just the context. The point is to gun down monsters until you reach the next elevator. You're not putting your own personality or choices into the space marine. You're not playing the character, you're playing the game.

By that logic, yes, there are a lot of games classically considered RPGs that are bad RPGs (despite being good games). There are some that are excellent tactical combat simulators, but they don't really put you in the role of the characters (Quite a few Final Fantasy games included).

Here are a few ways to think about whether a game is encouraging you to play role or not:

- Choice is a key element in RPGs, but a particular kind of choice. Choosing which gun to use to defeat the bad guy is not an example of this, because that's a "player choice" (You're deciding based on what's best for you as a player outside the game). But choosing whether you'll fight the bad guy, try to talk him down, or try to sneak through him? If done well, that represents a character choice. (You're deciding based on what you feel the character would do in that situation.) Decisions like this serve to put you in the mind of your character, which encourages the playing of the role. Do some people still think of it mathematically? Sure! Personal taste still factors in. But the game isn't built around that.

- There's a difference in reading a news article and reading a story. News articles are to give you information about your world. A story is designed to pull you into another. Mechanically, there's no difference in how you read -- still left-to-right, top-to-bottom, this letter makes that sound, etc. -- but the purpose is vastly different from one to the other.

Beyond reading a story, you might find yourself acting out a story (a play). Now, the lines are scripted for you, but you still have control over how you read them -- tone, inflection, accent, costume, staging... And one step further would be writing a story or play, in which you have even more creative control over what's happening. So, if you arranged these in a line:

1: Reading Information ---> 2: Reading a Story ---> 3: Acting out a Story ---> 4: Writing a Story

Transferring this to games:

1: Playing Mechanics ---> 2: Playing in a story ---> 3: Participating in a Story ---> 4: Creating a Story

Roleplaying games would be those that fall somewhere in levels 3 and 4. Games that fall between levels 2 and 3 might be called "games with roleplaying elements." Level 1 contains "pure games" like Tetris and Bejeweled, while Level 2 contains games like Ocarina of Time (with side quests pushing toward Level 3). Super Mario Bros. would be between 1 and 2.

Note Well: Just because a game encourages Level 3 or 4 roleplay doesn't mean the player always does it. There are plenty of people who play Mass Effect only thinking about stats and "right" endings, but that game's design is still clearly in the high 3 category (you're acting out an existing story, but making decisions about its direction). World of Darkness may be a Level 4 roleplaying system, but plenty of folks play it at Level 1 by focusing entirely on the stats.

 

[JesterRaiin]

You're mistaking RPG with cRPG. Those "genres" share a lot, but are different things.
Case dismissed.

 

[AbstractStream]

I don't mean to complain or anything but I have seen this topic get made and discussed so many times already.

That being said, I have no idea how to go about answering that. Whenever someone asks me that question, I just explain what it stands for [role-playing game] and that's it.

 

[newdarkcloud]

I define an RPG as a story-focused game where the gameplay is just as much, if not more, dependent on numbers as it is player skill/reflex

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Here are a few ways to think about whether a game is encouraging you to play role or not:

- Choice is a key element in RPGs, but a particular kind of choice. Choosing which gun to use to defeat the bad guy is not an example of this, because that's a "player choice" (You're deciding based on what's best for you as a player outside the game). But choosing whether you'll fight the bad guy, try to talk him down, or try to sneak through him? If done well, that represents a character choice. (You're deciding based on what you feel the character would do in that situation.) Decisions like this serve to put you in the mind of your character, which encourages the playing of the role. Do some people still think of it mathematically? Sure! Personal taste still factors in. But the game isn't built around that.

- There's a difference in reading a news article and reading a story. News articles are to give you information about your world. A story is designed to pull you into another. Mechanically, there's no difference in how you read -- still left-to-right, top-to-bottom, this letter makes that sound, etc. -- but the purpose is vastly different from one to the other.

Beyond reading a story, you might find yourself acting out a story (a play). Now, the lines are scripted for you, but you still have control over how you read them -- tone, inflection, accent, costume, staging... And one step further would be writing a story or play, in which you have even more creative control over what's happening. So, if you arranged these in a line:

1: Reading Information ---> 2: Reading a Story ---> 3: Acting out a Story ---> 4: Writing a Story

Transferring this to games:

1: Playing Mechanics ---> 2: Playing in a story ---> 3: Participating in a Story ---> 4: Creating a Story

Roleplaying games would be those that fall somewhere in levels 3 and 4. Games that fall between levels 2 and 3 might be called "games with roleplaying elements." Level 1 contains "pure games" like Tetris and Bejeweled, while Level 2 contains games like Ocarina of Time (with side quests pushing toward Level 3). Super Mario Bros. would be between 1 and 2.

Note Well: Just because a game encourages Level 3 or 4 roleplay doesn't mean the player always does it. There are plenty of people who play Mass Effect only thinking about stats and "right" endings, but that game's design is still clearly in the high 3 category (you're acting out an existing story, but making decisions about its direction). World of Darkness may be a Level 4 roleplaying system, but plenty of folks play it at Level 1 by focusing entirely on the stats.

And I think that definition of 'RPG' can be taken to the bank.

Well played, sir, well played.

 

[ElPatron]

ITT: people arguing that the role they play in a RPG is comparable to the role they play in an online FPS match

 

[Fishyash]

What defined the RPG genre (in pen-and-paper) was the rules and regulations of how the game works. If it was purely about playing the role of something you're not, playing pirates would be just as much an RPG as dungeons and dragons is.

And for some people it very well may be so, which is the problem of the term RPG anways IMO. The genre of the game should be based around the general way the game is played. For video games, these rules and regulations are translated into gameplay mechanics.

Weren't the origional video game RPGs basically dungeon crawling simulators based on DnD? They tried to make these games based off the rules of the game, rather than the concept of roleplaying itself.

I think there are two main factors (and these are very broad) that need to me a very big part of the game's design for it to be considered an video "RPG".

The first is the dominance of statistics over your ability to handle a situation. I think that pretty much speaks for itself. It means you need to consider what your "character" is capable of in terms of how well he will defeat someone. It can't be subtle like say street fighter frame data, or CoD perks, but a strong influence over the success rate of your choices.

The second is the freedom to do whatever you want, and be rewarded for the success of it. As someone earlier in the thread said:

You are out in a forest, and you try an awareness check. There is a forest troll 100 meters further into the forest that has not noticed you. That is the conflict. The resolution can be almost anything. You could just walk in the opposite direction, you could try to sneak past, you could play an assassin and shoot it with your bow from afar, confuse it with magics, fight it, or you could go to town, hire a thug and get them to hunt it. Tell the guards and have them deal with it. Whilst combat is an option, it is not the only option. This is one of the main defining factors of RPGs from War games in the Systems department. Not everything has to end with a dead opponent. You are given a lot of options as to how to deal with it, and your goal isn't to win the battle, merely to solve the conflict. With a good ruleset, you should get experience for however you solve it. Speech for getting the guards, or a thug, or a hunter, sneak for sneaking past it, assorted combat/magic skills based on how you fought it. The only thing you wouldn't get experience for is just walking away, as that is avoidance of the conflict rather than dealing with it.

This is a good example I think. I know a lot of video games (especially now) aren't capable of doing such a thing, but I think that if a game has at least one of the two things I mentioned, it's worth considering an RPG. If either/both are in a game, I think those would be considered "RPG elements".

EDIT: I forgot to mention. RPGs follow a story of sorts, usually a coming of age tale. This is probably the main reason for the level up mechanic. Even if it isn't a coming of age story, normally the narrative involves you becoming stronger in order to defeat your foes. Yeah that's pretty important too.

To be honest, I don't think it should be named "RPG" because to be honest, I don't think any game with no interactive experience with other people will really have roleplaying unless the computer can successfully pretend to be a DM and the supporting characters/NPCs can successfully pretend to be the rest of your party (or a strongly interactable NPC).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Pretty much every JRPG is not a RPG because those games have no role-playing in them.

No you are just given a role or play instead of creating your own.

RPGs are just a badly named genre. A jellyfish isn't a fish because it has fish in the name. Role-playing games aren't games you play a role (you play a role in every game). Role-playing games were originally based off of D&D and include some sort of leveling system along with stats. RPGs are all about the numbers.

Completely disagree, you are "role-playing" as Lightning in FFXIII or Cloud in FFVII as much as you are "role-playing" as Bayonetta or Mario. You are controlling completely set characters in the Final Fantasy series, you can't just choose what they say or what they do. Tidus will fall in love with Yuna (the most uninteresting woman ever) and you can't do nothing about that.

I have a few friends that play DnD and MnM (Mutants and Masterminds) for all the wacky stuff they can do and say outside of battle. They don't care about numbers and leveling or min/maxing characters and all that stuff. I believe we have actually have had a session or two over the years where there was no battling whatsoever.

In true RPGs...Characters skills/dice rolls/tactics > players twitch skills

Games should be judged first on their GAMEPLAY, because they're GAMES.

The only reason why table-top RPGs don't have physical player skill involved is because the limitation of table-top games, there is no physical skill involved with board games, chess, cards, etc. It's the nature of the medium. LARPing can involve the physical skill of players. Role-playing itself I would say is gameplay just as walking around talking to people is gameplay in adventure games.

Let me also tell you something about playing a role, that discludes all FPS ever, all 3PS, all action adventure games - any game which requires the players skill and not strategy...

I only feel that is due to the inherent limitations of table-top gaming, you really can't allow physical skill in table-top games like board games, chess, cards, etc. You are not going to bring a replica sword to a DnD campaign and physically swing it to show the DM you good at swinging a sword, it's just totally unpractical. LARPing can involve the physical skill of players into the game while the system still has rules and limits players to what they can do. Whereas video games are inherently about a player's hand-eye coordination skills even way back to pong.

-The capacity to role play. This includes the world reacting to you. Unless you're doing a massive single-person-plays-the-whole-world sort of thing, the world must react to you for it to allow role playing, as if you don't want to act out everyone else there is no capacity for them to act out themselves.

-No skill based system. This prevents you from not playing your character, but having them play you. Now, you are only able to play your character. Your characters skill determines things, and you are playing a role, 'nough said.

-Multiple ways to approach many situations, with little railroading. This is another part of role playing. You often don't have a choice of whether or not to do something monumentally stupid. Let me take the Deus Ex boss fights as an example.

- Agree. Video games do have limitations to how much the world can react to you, you can't expect this aspect to be perfect.

- I see what you are saying but I disagree, I explained why earlier in my replay. The game system can set plenty of rules and limitations while giving you abilities that you don't normally have. Plus, the aspect of role-playing the character through dialog and decisions (that have nothing to do with physical skills) is more important than physicality of the character. A sports player would say it is the person that he is that defines him, not that he's a football or baseball player.

- Agree. Deus Ex HR failed at the boss battles but the rest of the game succeeded at letting you approaching situations differently, for the most part.

-A progression system. I'll cover good and bad progression systems, but such things are not needed, only as points towards how good of an RPG it is, not whether it is an RPG or not.
A progression system is needed to show character growth. It does not need levels, or new ability unlocks and perks. It can be similar to Skyrim's, without its levels and perks, and still be a good progression system - just a different style of one. If your character gets better at things by some means, then it works. Be it using magic makes your spells more powerful, or you level up and add points to your intelligence stat and pick a magic ability to give yourself more magic power.

I disagree that you have to level up skills/abilities/whatever as character development is also a big part of character progression. What if you are role-playing as just a father, what skills and abilities would you even have to level up/improve?

-An inventory system of some description. Why? Well, you could RP a character with no belongings, but that's not true. It provides an opportunity for role playing. It doesn't matter if its a Dragon Age: Origins style inventory system, or a *Shudders* Mass Effect 2 Inventory System, but there needs to be one. You will notice this is a very broad span of inventory systems, and it is meant that way.

A bad inventory system is Mass Effect 2's inventory system. It gave the player little choice. Yes, you had the choice of which weapon you wanted to use, which armour you wanted to wear, but no choice on whether you searched dead enemies or not.

Agree, there has to be some kind of inventory system. Even if you are say a father looking for your son, you would need to have an inventory system for handling money and clues and stuff like that. I agree to a point about Mass Effect 2, it breaks some immersion when you can't search fallen enemies (or they don't drop stuff). I didn't mind it in Mass Effect 2 as I was an Infiltrator so sniping was my game and it's not like enemies were snipers, then I got a sniper rifle that didn't even make sense that Shepard would be able to carry so no enemies would've been carrying a better sniper rifle anyways. Or the RPG could be about upgrading weapons instead of getting better weapons like Dark Souls, which is all about upgrading your weapons into greatness instead of getting new and better weapons for the most part. Also, not letting you pick up literally everything enemies have on them could be done for the sake of game balance like shotguns in shooters have a much shorter range than real shotguns for the purpose of weapon balance.

To me defining the term Role Playing Game you have to look towards the origins of Paper and Pencil role playing.
Which, if I am not mistaken, derives from table top wargaming. The first games were very much all about the stats and fighting fights, the "playing your character" aspect came later.

So when I hear people say that unless you are given chance to create the personality of your character you are not playing an RPG, I get a bit miffed. Because to me that is a modern part of it, but all in all most RPGs are called this because of the stats and leveling mechanics.

Some times you can say games have "RPG elements" meaning that you get the leveling elements of an RPG, but with less emphasis on them.

I'm not going to do some RPG historical research and I'll just assume you're right. The games were not called RPGs until role-playing became a part of them, that's why they were just called just wargaming.

 

[Olivia Faraday]

To me there's only two thing that defines an RPG:

1. Progression. Your character will start out weak and grow in power as the game goes on. Sometimes you'll have a role in deciding which direction they will gain power in, and sometimes you won't. But if you don't quantitatively get better in a progressive manner, it is not an RPG.

And it's cousin ...

2. Numbers. Outcome of encounters are decided primarily by numbers rather than accuracy or reaction time. The skill to defeat encounters in an RPG is based on your ability to slant the numbers in the right direction.

Progression and numbers are heavily linked, as your progression is directly related to the size of your numbers.



There are a looooot of subgenres of RPG and when you start getting into those, you start looking at different elements and such. But the only thing that makes an RPG an RPG in the widest definition is those two factors.

 

[TehCookie]

Pretty much every JRPG is not a RPG because those games have no role-playing in them.

No you are just given a role or play instead of creating your own.

RPGs are just a badly named genre. A jellyfish isn't a fish because it has fish in the name. Role-playing games aren't games you play a role (you play a role in every game). Role-playing games were originally based off of D&D and include some sort of leveling system along with stats. RPGs are all about the numbers.

Completely disagree, you are "role-playing" as Lightning in FFXIII or Cloud in FFVII as much as you are "role-playing" as Bayonetta or Mario. You are controlling completely set characters in the Final Fantasy series, you can't just choose what they say or what they do. Tidus will fall in love with Yuna (the most uninteresting woman ever) and you can't do nothing about that.

I have a few friends that play DnD and MnM (Mutants and Masterminds) for all the wacky stuff they can do and say outside of battle. They don't care about numbers and leveling or min/maxing characters and all that stuff. I believe we have actually have had a session or two over the years where there was no battling whatsoever.

The characters are not suppose to become you, you become the characters. When playing Bayonetta she isn't suppose to act like you because she's not you. You are her, you are suppose to be a strong sexy witch. If I tell you to act like a kid, even if it's against the character you wanted to be you are still role-playing, it's just a role you don't like. I don't give a shit about Peach, but when I play Mario I pretend to since I'm suppose to be the Italian plumber that saves the queen.

I can also play Skyrim without doing a majority dungeons, doesn't mean that's the way it's suppose to be played it's just gives me the freedom to play it how I want. Besides if you don't want to fight while playing DnD, why don't you just role-play? The Escapist has a complete subforum for it or you can do it with your friends.

Back to the main point though even if we do have different perspective on what constitutes as role-playing I did say it was a badly named genre. RPGs aren't about role-playing, it's about a game play mechanic just like how all the other genres are sorted. You visited the wrong Wikipedia page for the definition of RPG A role-playing game is different than a role-playing video game.

"Role-playing video games are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences."

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The only reason why table-top RPGs don't have physical player skill involved is because the limitation of table-top games, there is no physical skill involved with board games, chess, cards, etc. It's the nature of the medium.

And that's how it should be. I don't get it. Are you saying every game ever created should have physical skill involved ? If i want to play something where physical skill is involved, I'll play sports or something of that nature.

LARPers just crack me up, btw.

I'm just saying if RPGs first started in another medium, then physical skill would probably be apart of a RPG. It only makes sense to add player skill into the mix when transitioning to medium where player skill is a natural part of the medium.

I only things I know about LARPing come from the movie Role Models. LARPing seems to be for the people more involved in acting and theater type stuff.

The characters are not suppose to become you, you become the characters. When playing Bayonetta she isn't suppose to act like you because she's not you. You are her, you are suppose to be a strong sexy witch. If I tell you to act like a kid, even if it's against the character you wanted to be you are still role-playing, it's just a role you don't like. I don't give a shit about Peach, but when I play Mario I pretend to since I'm suppose to be the Italian plumber that saves the queen.

But that then makes every game a RPG. Bayonetta and Mario are 100% set-in-stone characters, everything they do and say is scripted by the writer. If I'm playing as a sexy witch in Pathfinder (basically DnD 3.75 because 4.0 sucks), I still have to role-play as a sexy witch but I am still free to say and do things. It's not like I have a script in front of me and I have to say the lines in the script and do what the script says.

I can also play Skyrim without doing a majority dungeons, doesn't mean that's the way it's suppose to be played it's just gives me the freedom to play it how I want. Besides if you don't want to fight while playing DnD, why don't you just role-play? The Escapist has a complete subforum for it or you can do it with your friends.

I never said I just want to role-play, I was just defining what I think a video game RPG should be is all. I enjoy fighting in DnD and building characters.

Back to the main point though even if we do have different perspective on what constitutes as role-playing I did say it was a badly named genre. RPGs aren't about role-playing, it's about a game play mechanic just like how all the other genres are sorted. You visited the wrong Wikipedia page for the definition of RPG A role-playing game is different than a role-playing video game.

"Role-playing video games are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences."

Player character development is the vague term in that definition. To me, player character development would mainly be the equivalent to the dialog choices and narrative decisions you get to make as Shepard in Mass Effect. I'm guessing you and many others would say that is leveling up.

 

[Joccaren]

From this whole thing you seem to be throwing the idea that the character becomes you instead of you becoming the character (See my skills vs stats thing).

In Linear RPGs, you're not supposed to pick every little thing that happens in the story, that's why its linear. In JRPGs, you take the role of that character, and whilst you may not like Whatsherface, the character you are in the role of might, and thus it is perfectly fine for them to fall in love with. They have their predefined personality that determines how they interact with other characters. That is one of the main differences between linear and non-linear RPGs - you have the character's psych made for you as opposed to you making it yourself.
Take Arkham City. Not a role playing game, but you role play Batman in it. Why do you not get the choice to kill Res Al Gul (Or however its spelt), why no option to let him kill Talia? Simple. Its not his character. He wouldn't do such a thing. He is a predefined character that you turn yourself into to play the game. That is the whole point of it being a Batman game.
Take then, a non-linear RPG, you are given no psych for your character, and asked to make one the have it define how you deal with things. This, for example in Skyrim, may determine how you deal with the Civil war more than your own personal opinions. If you play a Redguard, odds are your more than a little annoyed at the Imperials for selling off half your nation to the Thalmor. As such, even if you think the Imperials are the better option, your character might not and thus would side with the Stormcloaks. You become your character, not your character becomes you.

It is also the reason I said that the ME2 style Inventory system was more OK for linear RPGs - You know the character, and whether or not he'd search the enemies. Its not really up to you there, its up to what your character would do.
In freeform RPGs, as many options as possible should be provided to the player by the systems in place. Those systems will remain in place in all RPGs, but how they are implemented will change.
In a Linear RPG:
-The world will still react to you, but you play a pre-determined role. The world reacting to you is often better done than in non-linear RPGs as it is known what storyline things you will do.
-The non-skill-based-system remains the same. No skill is used, only tactical decision making.
-You will still have multiple ways to approach situations, though some options (Such as talking to guards to get them to kill the enemy for you) will not be available. See Deus Ex or Batman Arkham City. In Deus Ex, you can sneak past, fight out, hack turrets ect. when you approach conflict, but it is still a linear RPG with the majority of your choice in the story coming at that final moment.
Arkham City is very linear, but you are still given some options on how to approach battle. You can glide in and start punching, you can use gadgets and tools to disrupt the enemy and 'get em while their down', you can hang in the rafters and assassinate them one by one. You have choice on how to deal with the conflict - to an extent.
-You will still level up and progress
-You will still have an inventory system of some description.

There are of course 'Pseudo Linear' RPGs, which contain a mix of the characteristics of linear and non-linear RPGs. These are the most common CRPG, and allow the player an extent of choice, whilst still blocking them from doing certain things. I.E: In Dragon Age: Origins, you have to pick one of two sides in each thing, and there is only sometimes a 'let them sort things out themselves' option.

Let me also take this time to address something you said about the progression system. "But what if you are role playing a father, what are you going to level up then?" Or something along those lines. The answer? Nothing. You are a side character if you are only a father, and likely won't do much. Now, if you were a father whose son was kidnapped and you had to go find him - you have any number of things that could now level up. Speech as you talk to people to get info out of them. Sneak as you try to infiltrate bases to see if your son is there. Combat based skills as you engage the kidnapper's minions - there is now potential for growth. As a simple father, not much will change. I guess you could level strength by chopping wood for the winter, making it easier to do so in the future. You may level speech by talking to your family, and persuading your son to go to bed. Unless that role does something though, there isn't a lot to level, or a lot of room for growth.

To me defining the term Role Playing Game you have to look towards the origins of Paper and Pencil role playing.
Which, if I am not mistaken, derives from table top wargaming. The first games were very much all about the stats and fighting fights, the "playing your character" aspect came later.

So when I hear people say that unless you are given chance to create the personality of your character you are not playing an RPG, I get a bit miffed. Because to me that is a modern part of it, but all in all most RPGs are called this because of the stats and leveling mechanics.

Some times you can say games have "RPG elements" meaning that you get the leveling elements of an RPG, but with less emphasis on them.

I'm not going to do some RPG historical research and I'll just assume you're right. The games were not called RPGs until role-playing became a part of them, that's why they were just called just wargaming.

This I definitely agree with. There is a reason that RPGs are not called War Games, and this is one of them. The capacity to play a role rather than just deal with a battle in a war. Take Chess. It is a sort of war game. You have your pieces, your goal is to destroy the enemy's army or take their general. Yes, you could role play that you are the good king of Wonderland and they are the devil's army invading, but at its core it is about that battle, and how to win and who does win. If it were an RPG, there would need to be a reason to roleplay to do with the game, other than just 'I want to think that I'm being the good/bad guy here'.

Pretty much every JRPG is not a RPG because those games have no role-playing in them.

No you are just given a role or play instead of creating your own.

RPGs are just a badly named genre. A jellyfish isn't a fish because it has fish in the name. Role-playing games aren't games you play a role (you play a role in every game). Role-playing games were originally based off of D&D and include some sort of leveling system along with stats. RPGs are all about the numbers.

Completely disagree, you are "role-playing" as Lightning in FFXIII or Cloud in FFVII as much as you are "role-playing" as Bayonetta or Mario. You are controlling completely set characters in the Final Fantasy series, you can't just choose what they say or what they do. Tidus will fall in love with Yuna (the most uninteresting woman ever) and you can't do nothing about that.

I have a few friends that play DnD and MnM (Mutants and Masterminds) for all the wacky stuff they can do and say outside of battle. They don't care about numbers and leveling or min/maxing characters and all that stuff. I believe we have actually have had a session or two over the years where there was no battling whatsoever.

I already covered this in the linear v non-linear RPG thing further up.
Let me also point out that though your friends don't care about the numbers or levelling, the capacity for them is still there. Take CoD or BF3 here as an example. In them, you are given the option of picking multiple weapons, many better than others. What your friends are doing is saying that they don't care about the weapons. They don't care if they're stuck with the worst gun, they only care about running around shooting things. The capacity is still there for those who like picking their gun for the best stats ect., but you can play without that.
Though that is also a perfect example for what I've said about RPGs: You have had entire sessions with no battling. You can focus on doing things other than simply fighting your way to the finish, and finding other ways around it.

In true RPGs...Characters skills/dice rolls/tactics > players twitch skills

Games should be judged first on their GAMEPLAY, because they're GAMES.

The only reason why table-top RPGs don't have physical player skill involved is because the limitation of table-top games, there is no physical skill involved with board games, chess, cards, etc. It's the nature of the medium. LARPing can involve the physical skill of players. Role-playing itself I would say is gameplay just as walking around talking to people is gameplay in adventure games.

There is more reason than physical skill not coming into it.
Note though that LARPing is LARPing, not an RPG. Live Action Role Playing, as opposed to a Role Playing Game. The skill required is something that defines a LARP as opposed to an RPG.
In table top games, there is a capacity for skill to be involved. For throwing weapons, get a target and have them throw a stick at it. For shooting bows, have a target and have them shoot a bow at it. For sword fighting, have someone else take up a weapon and see if their attack hits. RPGs don't focus on your skill, they focus on the characters skill. That characters skill is determined by their statistics instead of their players personal skill.

Let me also tell you something about playing a role, that discludes all FPS ever, all 3PS, all action adventure games - any game which requires the players skill and not strategy...

I only feel that is due to the inherent limitations of table-top gaming, you really can't allow physical skill in table-top games like board games, chess, cards, etc. You are not going to bring a replica sword to a DnD campaign and physically swing it to show the DM you good at swinging a sword, it's just totally unpractical. LARPing can involve the physical skill of players into the game while the system still has rules and limits players to what they can do. Whereas video games are inherently about a player's hand-eye coordination skills even way back to pong.

Whilst it may be impractical, it is possible. Hell, look at LARP. They bring swords and that and swing them to show their skill. As said above, the main difference between a LARP and an RPG is the skill involved.
Videogames are inherently about a players skill in some games. Are we saying Dragon Age Origins is not a video game because it follows the classic RPG formula of stats>skill?
The aim of CRPGs is to recreate the RPG experience on a computer. This means stats>skill is an inherent part of a CRPG, as much as it is an RPG.

-The capacity to role play. This includes the world reacting to you. Unless you're doing a massive single-person-plays-the-whole-world sort of thing, the world must react to you for it to allow role playing, as if you don't want to act out everyone else there is no capacity for them to act out themselves.

-No skill based system. This prevents you from not playing your character, but having them play you. Now, you are only able to play your character. Your characters skill determines things, and you are playing a role, 'nough said.

-Multiple ways to approach many situations, with little railroading. This is another part of role playing. You often don't have a choice of whether or not to do something monumentally stupid. Let me take the Deus Ex boss fights as an example.

- Agree. Video games do have limitations to how much the world can react to you, you can't expect this aspect to be perfect.

- I see what you are saying but I disagree, I explained why earlier in my replay. The game system can set plenty of rules and limitations while giving you abilities that you don't normally have. Plus, the aspect of role-playing the character through dialog and decisions (that have nothing to do with physical skills) is more important than physicality of the character. A sports player would say it is the person that he is that defines him, not that he's a football or baseball player.

- Agree. Deus Ex HR failed at the boss battles but the rest of the game succeeded at letting you approaching situations differently, for the most part.

-A progression system. I'll cover good and bad progression systems, but such things are not needed, only as points towards how good of an RPG it is, not whether it is an RPG or not.
A progression system is needed to show character growth. It does not need levels, or new ability unlocks and perks. It can be similar to Skyrim's, without its levels and perks, and still be a good progression system - just a different style of one. If your character gets better at things by some means, then it works. Be it using magic makes your spells more powerful, or you level up and add points to your intelligence stat and pick a magic ability to give yourself more magic power.

I disagree that you have to level up skills/abilities/whatever as character development is also a big part of character progression. What if you are role-playing as just a father, what skills and abilities would you even have to level up/improve?

-An inventory system of some description. Why? Well, you could RP a character with no belongings, but that's not true. It provides an opportunity for role playing. It doesn't matter if its a Dragon Age: Origins style inventory system, or a *Shudders* Mass Effect 2 Inventory System, but there needs to be one. You will notice this is a very broad span of inventory systems, and it is meant that way.

A bad inventory system is Mass Effect 2's inventory system. It gave the player little choice. Yes, you had the choice of which weapon you wanted to use, which armour you wanted to wear, but no choice on whether you searched dead enemies or not.

Agree, there has to be some kind of inventory system. Even if you are say a father looking for your son, you would need to have an inventory system for handling money and clues and stuff like that. I agree to a point about Mass Effect 2, it breaks some immersion when you can't search fallen enemies (or they don't drop stuff). I didn't mind it in Mass Effect 2 as I was an Infiltrator so sniping was my game and it's not like enemies were snipers, then I got a sniper rifle that didn't even make sense that Shepard would be able to carry so no enemies would've been carrying a better sniper rifle anyways. Or the RPG could be about upgrading weapons instead of getting better weapons like Dark Souls, which is all about upgrading your weapons into greatness instead of getting new and better weapons for the most part. Also, not letting you pick up literally everything enemies have on them could be done for the sake of game balance like shotguns in shooters have a much shorter range than real shotguns for the purpose of weapon balance.

A lot of this will have been covered further up, and I do get what you are saying, but I must disagree.

The things that I listed there are RPG elements. They get copy pasted into any number of other types of games. What differs between those games and an RPG is that those games merely include RPG elements, whilst an RPG is the RPG elements in their purest form. Pure Blood True RPG. Skyrim is an action adventure game with RPG elements. Dragon Age Origins I call a pseudo linear RPG.
These days, Hybrid RPGs are everywhere in the market, and many are often sold as pure RPGs. It is the problem with incorrect labelling. A pure RPG remains what P&P RPGs were, whilst there are mixes Pure RPGs and Pure Shooters, Pure RPGs and Action Adventure games, Pure RPGs and puzzle games. There is a line that I have yet to properly quantify at which I will accept a game becomes an 'RPG with X elements' rather than an 'X game with RPG elements'. On the RPG side of this line are things Like FO:NV and Mass Effect 1. On the X side of the line are things like Skyrim and Mass Effect 2.

This unfortunately leads to a lot of confusion, and often a lot of 'No True Scotsman' syndrome (Which I have quoted a couple of times previously) to try and make games the individual thinks are RPGs fit under the banner whilst excluding those they don't think are. RPGs have remained the same in their transition to computer. The main thing is that they have become mixed with other genres and advertised incorrectly to try and push a product to a certain crowd.

 

[Joccaren]

But that then makes every game a RPG. Bayonetta and Mario are 100% set-in-stone characters, everything they do and say is scripted by the writer. If I'm playing as a sexy witch in Pathfinder (basically DnD 3.75 because 4.0 sucks), I still have to role-play as a sexy witch but I am still free to say and do things. It's not like I have a script in front of me and I have to say the lines in the script and do what the script says.

This is what I, and many others, are saying is the problem with the simple 'Its a game in which you play a role' definition. That definition means NOTHING. There are other things that are expected of RPGs, and the capacity to play that role encompasses only part of it.
See above for the distinction between linear and non linear RPGs.

 

[Duskflamer]

Let me start off by saying that "An RPG is a game where you play a role" is less than useless. In Mario you play the role of Mario saving Princess Peach, does that make Mario an RPG? In Halo you play the role of Master Chief shooting through hordes of aliens, does that make Halo an RPG? In Madden you play the role of a football player, does that make Madden an RPG? I think you get my point.

If we're describing a video game genre, then gameplay has to be what defines the genre.

Originally, one of the defining points of RPGs was that they were exclusively turn based. This was because most early RPGs borrowed from the ideas of Tabletop RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. Computers lacking the ability to play a proper GM role, such games focused on adapting the combat and management aspects of the games in ways that early video games could work with.

As the technology has advanced though, many games that nobody would argue against calling RPGs no longer restricted themselves to turn-based combat. Look at the Tales series, Kingdom Hearts, etc. So defining RPGs by their combat clearly doesn't hold water.

So what else defined an RPG? Certainly Experience Points, and the concept of leveling up right? That's seemingly integral to the concept of an RPG!

Except then you look at games like Final Fantasy 2, still undeniably an RPG but it lacked the level up system, each stat upgrading on their own when you perform proper actions. While that still has the concept of experience, level ups are no longer relevant.

The third and final aspect that tends to define RPGs is an inventory system, but again there have been undeniable RPGs that don't even have that.

Complicating the issue further is that these "RPG elements" have started to worm their way into almost every imaginable genre, both in the form of games like Mass Effect defining themselves as Shooter/RPGs, and even in terms of CoD having you rank up and earn perks to enhance your character.

If you describe something honestly as just "RPG" (that is to say, it couldn't be more honestly described as Shooter/RPG, Action/RPG, etc.) then certain tenants such as leveling up and inventories are still reasonably expected, but there are fewer and fewer games that only fit into the RPG genre. It's not that RPG has no meaning as a genre, it's that the genre itself is dying out as the market demands (or at least, game producer's think the market demands) fast-paced, streamlined experiences that force all but a handful of games to abandon the "traditional" turn-based combat of older RPGs, and make leveling and inventory less important.

Getting back on topic though, what defines an RPG for me personally is character advancement. To me, an RPG is a game where the character, in and of themselves, gets more powerful as the game progresses. When I say in and of themselves, I count things like leveling systems, health upgrades, and learning new abilities, but I don't count things like obtaining new weapons or equipment.

 

[Signa]

I think the best example of a RPG is Morrowind. Not because it's a pure RPG, but it does highlight the key points in what defines a RPG. In Morrowind, you play a character. That character is capable of many things, but can only do a set of those things well. As the player, you can tell your character to do all of those things, and you can tell him to do them quite well, but the character's success is based on HIS skill, not yours. Just because the player can snipe a rat with a bow at 200 ft doesn't mean the character can. If the player is successful at sniping that rat, the game then decides if that shot was within your character's ability to hit. If the character's skill level is too low, it is still counted as a miss despite the arrow meeting its target.

Going with a slightly more modern game, Borderlands offers some RPG elements. There is the obvious character progression and skill selection features, but there is also weapon proficiencies and upgradeable weapons. Just because the player can put two bullets into a foe's head doesn't mean it's enough to kill that enemy. This is different from other shooters where a set number of bullets will kill a target regardless of the character shooting the gun.

 

[TehCookie]

Player character development is the vague term in that definition. To me, player character development would mainly be the equivalent to the dialog choices and narrative decisions you get to make as Shepard in Mass Effect. I'm guessing you and many others would say that is leveling up.

Or progressing through the narrative and having it affect and change the character. Cloud from FFVII has quite a bit of development but it's all scripted. Playing Skyrim my character has no progression, she has the same personality I gave her from the start but I still consider it an RPG. However that is only a part and not the only thing that makes something an RPG.

Just curious, what would you consider Pokemon? You have no in game dialog choices but the character is a blank slate for you to create whoever you want. I give the game my own dialog when I play it. By that I mean I talk to the game like a crazy person.

Or Catherine, since it has dialog options and as much role-playing as Mass Effect but no combat.

 

[isometry]

I agree with you OP, RPGs should be defined by roleplaying and not game mechanics. I've also concluded that most JRPGs are not RPGs, and I would say that this causes unnecessary confusion about the term "RPG."

To be an RPG, roleplaying should be a part of the gameplay, and not just the plot and dialog elements. An RPG should allow meaningful choices that effect the gameplay style of the protagonist(s). In this sense I don't consider Mass Effect to be a full RPG, it's a good game but the character customization is not very pronounced in terms of gameplay styles that really feel distinct.