What is a RPG?

[TechieBoy]

RPG is a game which is too complicated for me to understand ;-P

 

[Joccaren]

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.

Character customisation is not necessary for roleplaying. It is necessary for creating a role, but not playing it. The First Mass Effect is a pseudo linear RPG with third person shooter elements. You don't have to be able to make your own character with 100% unique playstyles, hell, JRPGs are often more RPG then Mass Effect and in them you'll play a fixed role. For an RPG to be non linear, you need to have the ability to customise your character, but not for it to be an RPG.

Also, for RPGs not being at all related to game mechanics, if you had never heard of CoD and I told you it was an RPG, what would you expect? Certainly not first person fast paced shooting. No, you would expect stat based combat with an inventory and levelling system.

Defining a game by the fact that you play a role labels every game an RPG. You play a role in every game. You can go the 'No True Scotsman' route if you want and try to keep creating clauses that define that they must have a certain type of roleplay designated by you to be an RPG, but that provides no insight at all and has you running around in circles.

RPGs are defined by:
a) The capacity to effectively play a role. This includes the world reacting to you appropriately, but not 100% customization of your character. Look at Skyrim. You can customise your character, but the world does not react to you. The world is instead apathetic towards you, cutting off any opportunity for role play unless you want to play the role of everyone in the world.
b) Stat based systems instead of skill based systems. In a skill based system, you are not playing a role - that role is playing you. If you have an archery skill level of 1 in Skyrim, you can easily take down a giant with a bow. In a True RPG, 95% of your shots would be misses. Well, probably less due to the size of a giant making it a good target, but with level 1 archery you would have a 25% chance or so of hitting on of those spiders in a cave at 50 paces. In Skyrim, that don't matter. You have skill, therefore your character has skill. You can aim, therefore your character can aim. You character is playing you - inheriting your skills and attributes - instead of you playing them - inheriting their skills and attributes.
c) A progression system. I have covered good and bad progression systems earlier in this thread, but your character needs a way to progress through the world. Without a progression system, your character will be the exact same entering the world as they are exiting it.
d) Some form of inventory system, whether it be the Dragon Age: Origins style, or the Mass Effect 2 style, a form of inventory is needed. I have also covered this earlier in the thread.
e) Freedom to approach situations different ways. This is an extremely broad term that I have also covered earlier in the thread, and comes down to the same sort of thing as the difference between watching a movie and playing a game.

Hell, I'll link you to my post. It has what I believe an RPG needs, and reasons for such. Simply having the ability to role play isn't enough - as that is in every game. It needs more, and the label needs to describe the game, rather than point out the obvious.
Link: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.337522-What-is-a-RPG#13641505

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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).

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. In Mass Effect, Shepard is not me. Shepard is like a DnD character with a set alignment, Shepard is a good character no matter what. You can decide how nice your Shepard is by doing Paragon options, and the Renegade options are there for doing some cool and badass stuff and doing some dickish stuff. You are setting Shepard's personality to a degree much like playing a lawful good character, you have set limitations as to what you can do, but then you have the freedom to do whatever within those limitations.

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.

Under your rules for role-playing as a character, you role-play in every game that has a controllable character. You role-play as Batman in Batman AC, then you would role-play as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Mario in SMB, etc. Then, Batman AC is an action RPG since player skill is involved. Now, if Batman AC were to have turn-based combat (removing player skill), it would be basically exactly on par with a Final Fantasy game in regards to how much of a RPG it is as Batman has health and armor to level up, and lots of abilities to gain.

A Final Fantasy game is akin to watching a movie but where you are allowed to then control the character between scenes as you can decide where to go and you fight in combat only until you get to the next point that triggers a cut-scene. That is not role-playing in my book.

Playing a role (being Batman or Mario) is different from role-playing a character. Christian Bale plays Batman in the Batman movies. If Christian Bale were to dress up as Batman and act like Batman out in public with no script, he'd be role-playing as Batman. Playing a role and role-playing a character is a big difference to me.

From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_play]:
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

When you role-play, your choices affect the direction and outcome of the game. In Batman AC, the only thing that I am in control of is if Batman lives or dies, I have no way of changing the direction of the game or the outcome either. Just like any Final Fantasy game, which is why they aren't RPGs. In Mass Effect 2, I am able to affect the direction and outcome of all the loyalty missions. You have much less ability to alter the path of the main storyline, but you get some choice like do you blow up or keep the Collector ship, that will definitely alter things even if the ending is still the same result.

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.

LARPing is a GAME because LARP is an acronym for Live Action Role-Playing Game, it's just that they took out the "G" to make the acronym. Here's the Wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larp] stating that LARPing is a game as LARPing is definitely different from say being in a Ren fair as there are winners and losers when you LARP because it's a game.

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.

I'm not saying a video game has to have skill, there's lots of games without skill like Sim City. I'm just saying player skill is almost always part of a video game as probably well over 90% of video games involve player skill. It would just be natural to add in player skill to a video game version of something (a RPG) that was originally non-skilled based because the other medium's limitations (table-top gaming). Even games like Heavy Rain that are basically video game movies add in some player skill into the game.

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.

In your Pokemon example, I would say you are role-playing outside of the game itself. Your dialog has no affect on the game in any way. Dialog choices in Mass Effect have in-game effects.

I haven't played Catherine yet, I played the demo though. And, it does seem to have at least a pretty decent role-playing aspect to it. I'm very interested in playing it (in my backlog) because the role-playing aspect in being able to affect 2 relationships and I'm assuming choosing one of the women at some point in the game. So, I would say it has a good chance at being a RPG in my book.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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.

Thing is. What is Role-Playing then. Because I see a lot of people think it means "I get to choose responses and mold the story".
But it can well be "I am going to play the role of one or more existing characters and watch a story unfold"

It became Role Playing games as soon as the player moved from playing big armies and started playing one single person.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

Actually, from my understanding, when DnD came out it was basically a dungeon simulator. The plot was a device to set up your next series of fights. RPGs have always been about combat and character progression.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Thing is. What is Role-Playing then. Because I see a lot of people think it means "I get to choose responses and mold the story".
But it can well be "I am going to play the role of one or more existing characters and watch a story unfold"

It became Role Playing games as soon as the player moved from playing big armies and started playing one single person.

Actually, from my understanding, when DnD came out it was basically a dungeon simulator. The plot was a device to set up your next series of fights. RPGs have always been about combat and character progression.

According to Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_role-playing_games], the 1st RPG was Braunstein [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wesely] which had a good amount of role-playing.

There wasn't much on Wikipedia about DnD's first edition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_%281974%29] about how much fighting and role-playing was in the game. I'd assume it was more focused on the dungeon crawling than it is now. However, I'd assume you still you had to communicate with your party and NPCs as well as make decisions.

 

[Joccaren]

Under your rules for role-playing as a character, you role-play in every game that has a controllable character. You role-play as Batman in Batman AC, then you would role-play as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Mario in SMB, etc. Then, Batman AC is an action RPG since player skill is involved. Now, if Batman AC were to have turn-based combat (removing player skill), it would be basically exactly on par with a Final Fantasy game in regards to how much of a RPG it is as Batman has health and armor to level up, and lots of abilities to gain.

Batman is either an Action Adventure game with RPG elements, or an Action Adventure-RPG Hybrid game, dependent on how much you think the emphasis was put on its RPG elements. In Arkham City, the emphasis is on the combat and exploration of the city. Levelling is treated pretty much as a side thing, and as a reward for doing more within the game. That is the way it should be for a levelling system honestly, but that also leaves it with only a thin thread holding it to RPG.

A Final Fantasy game is akin to watching a movie but where you are allowed to then control the character between scenes as you can decide where to go and you fight in combat only until you get to the next point that triggers a cut-scene. That is not role-playing in my book.

I guess this would depend which JRPGs you play. The main thing with things like the Final Fantasy games, at least the earlier ones, is where is the emphasis? Is it on the cutscenes, or is it on managing your items, your levels, your stats, and the other RPG elements in the game. This puts them as not only more of an RPG than Arkham City, but I'd say more so than Skyrim too.

Playing a role (being Batman or Mario) is different from role-playing a character. Christian Bale plays Batman in the Batman movies. If Christian Bale were to dress up as Batman and act like Batman out in public with no script, he'd be role-playing as Batman. Playing a role and role-playing a character is a big difference to me.

Really, dressing up as Batman and acting like him in the streets in precisely what you do in Arkham City when not inside one of the mission specific areas. You glide around taking down thugs you want to, solving Riddler's puzzles, accepting distress calls - the only thing missing is those real life people staring at you with an odd expression on their face because you're running around town in a pair of tights acting like someone in dire need of psychological treatment.

From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_play]:
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

When you role-play, your choices affect the direction and outcome of the game. In Batman AC, the only thing that I am in control of is if Batman lives or dies, I have no way of changing the direction of the game or the outcome either. Just like any Final Fantasy game, which is why they aren't RPGs. In Mass Effect 2, I am able to affect the direction and outcome of all the loyalty missions. You have much less ability to alter the path of the main storyline, but you get some choice like do you blow up or keep the Collector ship, that will definitely alter things even if the ending is still the same result.

What this means is that we must have a quantifiable line of 'Affects the direction and outcome of the game' that playing a role must meat in order to qualify as role playing. You quantify this line as being in control of more than just whether [character] lives or dies. By deciding whether the character lives or dies however, you have already achieved a greater level of control than any other medium - and gained the capacity to change the outcome of the game. In a movie, you cannot change how it will end. When playing any game, you can change how it ends. You die, it ends differently to if you survive and finish the game.
Granted, in games like Batman there is not a lot of ability to change the direction of the game, other than a sudden turn to death, but there isn't a ton of that in Mass Effect 2 either. The direction of the game is always towards attacking the collector base. Now, add in Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, and there may be some more of that if you include the series as one big RP (Which I would argue it should be: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), but as of yet we have no idea whether it will or won't.
I ask you, why do you quantify the line as being able to change more than whether the character lives or dies? Other than you just don't feel like its role playing, I would like to hear your perspective on the matter.

LARPing is a GAME because LARP is an acronym for Live Action Role-Playing Game, it's just that they took out the "G" to make the acronym. Here's the Wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larp] stating that LARPing is a game as LARPing is definitely different from say being in a Ren fair as there are winners and losers when you LARP because it's a game.

LARP is a hybrid of RPG and Action Adventure.
Fests tend to fall closer to action adventure, and there are even small linear LARPs where the PC will undergo challenges from NPCs, and are tightly planned. In events like these, there is little outcome your character will have on the outcome of the story, nor the direction of it. The outcome you'll have in a fest is going to be similar to the outcome you'd have in a match of BF3 online with voice chat over teamspeak.
Freeform LARP is basically RPG, but LARP encompasses more than just freeform; fests and linear LARPs are a part of it too. Check your same link if you don't believe me.
I will, however, admit that it may be fairer to judge each LARP individually as too how close it is to pure RPG than as a whole genre, as really it depends which style of LARP is being referred to as to what the answer will be.

I'm not saying a video game has to have skill, there's lots of games without skill like Sim City. I'm just saying player skill is almost always part of a video game as probably well over 90% of video games involve player skill. It would just be natural to add in player skill to a video game version of something (a RPG) that was originally non-skilled based because the other medium's limitations (table-top gaming). Even games like Heavy Rain that are basically video game movies add in some player skill into the game.

Natural, but not necessary. This is where it falls to the not-yet-quantified RPG with X elements or X with RPG elements line [I really got to quantify that some time]. Some games with player skill I would accept to be RPGs. Take Fallout: New Vegas. Your skill determines success in actions like combat, but the rest of it is pretty much RPG. Take Skyrim, and your skill enables everything. NV at least limited skill in some cases - such as lockpicking. There is little role playing, and none outside the guild quests and one or two Daedric quests. In NV, your discussions with your companions provided such an opportunity. Both included an inventory, and both included levelling.
Pure RPGs will not have player skill. Hybrid RPGs may have some. How far that hybrid goes along the 'RPG with X elements, RPG-X Hyrbrid or X with RPG elements' bar will depend on how well it sticks to not only that RPG element, but also to the others.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What this means is that we must have a quantifiable line of 'Affects the direction and outcome of the game' that playing a role must meat in order to qualify as role playing. You quantify this line as being in control of more than just whether [character] lives or dies. By deciding whether the character lives or dies however, you have already achieved a greater level of control than any other medium - and gained the capacity to change the outcome of the game. In a movie, you cannot change how it will end. When playing any game, you can change how it ends. You die, it ends differently to if you survive and finish the game.

Granted, in games like Batman there is not a lot of ability to change the direction of the game, other than a sudden turn to death, but there isn't a ton of that in Mass Effect 2 either. The direction of the game is always towards attacking the collector base. Now, add in Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, and there may be some more of that if you include the series as one big RP (Which I would argue it should be: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), but as of yet we have no idea whether it will or won't.

I ask you, why do you quantify the line as being able to change more than whether the character lives or dies? Other than you just don't feel like its role playing, I would like to hear your perspective on the matter.

If you consider having say over the main character living or dying role-playing, then 99+% of games are RPGs then. And, dying doesn't change the outcome of a game unless you literally stop playing the game after you die. Batman AC still ends the same way regardless of whether you die 100 times or never die. You can't alter Batman's fate or any other character's fate at any point in the game. You actually have more role-playing to do as Catwoman than Batman because there is a different ending depending on what you do as Catwoman (although it's more of an Easter egg than anything). If there was a game that played out exactly like Die Hard, the game would still end exactly like the movie; John McClane would forget his shoes, Hans Gruber will be looking for his detonators, etc. Even with the control and interactivity given to the player, almost every game plays out just as a movie does. You don't really have a say in anything. Giving you control and interactivity does not unequivocally result in role-playing. In Heavy Rain, death actually changes things and has consequences because if a character dies, the game continues on. Heavy Rain is actually kind of close to being a role-playing game, it would need much more dialog choice as it already has pretty good story choice for a video game.

Even though in Mass Effect 2 you have to go to the Collector ship, having the decision to destroy it or keep it is a big choice. And, you decide how all the loyalty missions end. Also, you can actually make your own Shepard character arc in Mass Effect. If you are being too nice and get screwed over one time too many, that becomes a turning point for your Shepard to stop taking crap and being more of a Malcolm Reynolds type character via the Renegade options. That character development was all you and it wasn't scripted by the game. Same thing goes for the love interests as well, there will be that moment where you feel a certain character and Shepard just click and you decide that romance. You decide how Shepard interacts with all the NPCs as well. You shape Shepard into who he/she is and not the script. In Batman AC, you are Batman, there's no shaping of the character to be done for you. There is even a point in Batman AC where there's a pretty big decision to be made, but you have no choice in the matter. Hell, Batman himself doesn't even get to make the choice.

Pure RPGs will not have player skill. Hybrid RPGs may have some. How far that hybrid goes along the 'RPG with X elements, RPG-X Hyrbrid or X with RPG elements' bar will depend on how well it sticks to not only that RPG element, but also to the others.

I don't understand your obsession with the term pure RPGs. Everything changes as time goes on. To only call a RPG that is exactly what the very 1st RPG was a pure RPG is dumb. Everything evolves over time, football is a much different game than how it started out, the point is to keep the core components. And, that's like saying every Metal Gear Solid after the 1st game is not pure MGS but hybrid MGS. The 1st MGS was limited by the hardware at the time, and now MGS controls like a full-on 3rd-person shooter. MGS4 is not hybrid MGS, it's just plain MGS. The core of a RPG is the role-playing, emphasis on role-playing is all a RPG needs to be a RPG. A 1st-person shooter just needs a 1st-person perspective and an emphasis on shooting, it doesn't matter if it's exactly like the very 1st FPS.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

"the point is to keep the core components"

OK. What's the most important component in games ? GAMEPLAY.

They failed on the most important element.

No need to over analyze. It ain't brain surgery.

Walking around talking to people is gameplay, I guess adventure games don't have gameplay then according to you. Making decisions is also gameplay. A RPG where there is gun combat is going to be different in gameplay from a RPG where the combat is using swords and shields, especially if neither game uses turn-based combat. One of the best parts of a RPG is learning its unique systems.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG. It's a Third-Person Action Adventure game. Developers just want to call their games "RPG's" because they don't want the kiddy stigma of being thrown into the "adventure" genre.

Mass Effect 2 had Shooter Elements, and then it had Adventure game dialog & explore elements. It didn't have all the required elements for it to be an RPG, but it did have what was required of an adventure game. Adventure is also a much broader classification, and always has been.

Just cause RPG means Role Playing Game doesn't give every game the right to classify itself as part of the genre. By that definition, pac man was a roleplaying game.

Mass Effect 2 has more role-playing than the entire Final Fantasy series. Adventure games are you just going up to people and talking to them, everything is scripted, you don't choose what to say. In Mass Effect 2, you are allowed to steer conversations, punch people even. You can't do that in adventure games. Role-playing is the only requirement for a game to be a RPG. And, if you read through my initial post, very few video games would be considered RPGs under my criteria because there's actually very few video games that focus on the role-playing; Mass Effect is one of them.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Ok, i should say combat then. They changed it from being about tactics, dice rolls and characters skills, to a players twitch skills, which every other damn game is about. (besides your strategy games and things like that)

Obviously to try and get FPS and action fans to buy the games. Look at Skyrim, it sells like crazy because it's really a FPS action game with a RPG 'coat of paint'

True RPGs aren't about the players skills and reflexes.

RPGs don't need combat, you can gain experience and not kill things you know. RPGs were created in the table-top gaming medium, that medium has a physical skill limitation. Whereas in the video game medium, physical skill is a natural part of it. RPGs moving from a medium where physical skill is absent to a medium where physical skill is a natural component are naturally going to change and adopt the new medium's characteristics. If there is a football table-top game (and there probably is), that game is not going to require any physical skill.

 

[veloper]

I've simply stopped labeling games as RPG or WRPG. It's not descriptive anymore.

Use sub-genres instead: RPShooter, tactical RPG, SRPG, JRPG, FPL(diablo-clone), roguelike, action-RPG.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

This thread is full of so much fail in the OP I want to smash my fist threw my laptop, reach through the internet slap them and then direct them to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game] page. You went through all that for a definition and came up with the wrong wiki page(lol wiki for research) what kinda research is that?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG. It's a Third-Person Action Adventure game. Developers just want to call their games "RPG's" because they don't want the kiddy stigma of being thrown into the "adventure" genre.

Mass Effect 2 had Shooter Elements, and then it had Adventure game dialog & explore elements. It didn't have all the required elements for it to be an RPG, but it did have what was required of an adventure game. Adventure is also a much broader classification, and always has been.

Just cause RPG means Role Playing Game doesn't give every game the right to classify itself as part of the genre. By that definition, pac man was a roleplaying game.

Mass Effect 2 has more role-playing than the entire Final Fantasy series. Adventure games are you just going up to people and talking to them, everything is scripted, you don't choose what to say. In Mass Effect 2, you are allowed to steer conversations, punch people even. You can't do that in adventure games. Role-playing is the only requirement for a game to be a RPG. And, if you read through my initial post, very few video games would be considered RPGs under my criteria because there's actually very few video games that focus on the role-playing; Mass Effect is one of them.

And I happen to disagree with your criteria. I still haven't heard why your interpretation of what a RPG is is different from everyone else's.

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

A Rocket Propelled Grenade Of Course!

Wait the OTHER RPG oh I would call that any game with Role Play in general

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And I happen to disagree with your criteria. I still haven't heard why your interpretation of what a RPG is is different from everyone else's.

My criteria just requires a focus on role-playing. Obviously my interpretation has to be different from others since I don't consider games like Dark Souls or Final Fantasy to be RPGs.

RPGs without ANY combat are adventure games.

That's not true, adventure games have no role-playing and there's table-top RPGs with no combat, just role-playing.