What is a Role-Playing Game?

Wormking

https://youtu.be/1JhlHm02-JU
So based on what the guy in the video said RPG is not about stats, exp, quest, inventory system, etc. The essence of RPG is playing a character and making choice as that character, the choice that affecting the story and the world.

That guy may sounds rude but I kinda agree with his statement and I want to know your opinion about this topic. What is a role-playing game?

LadyRhian

I do agree with that. You play a role. In Western RPGs, you play a character you create yourself. In Eastern RPGs, you are playing a character the makers of the game created. But you make choices about what your character, based on your conception of them, would do. The essence of RPGs is not just the role you are playing, but the ability to make choices for that character. If there is no choice, it's not strictly an RPG, it may have "RPG Elements", but unless you get some choices about how the story turns out, it's not an RPG to me.

ThacoBell

Name one game where you don't play a role. You can't. So if that is your only distinction, then every game is an RPG. If we go by the definition of choices, then most games that are currently considered RPGs cannot be. As choice often isn't implemented at all, and even if it is, its entirely superficial. Wizardry and Ultima are often considered granddaddies of RPGs, but they offer either little or no choice. Those stories all go the same way every time, and no choice you make can influence the end point.

I personally don't think there is any single codified RPG tell. For me, as long as the game is driven by a narrative and your character grows in some way by the end of the game (either by leveling up or character development, preferably both), then the game qualifies as an RPG.

DrHappyAngry

ThacoBell said:

Name one game where you don't play a role. You can't.

Tetris.

In all seriousness, ya, it's true you play a role in the vast majority of games. It's only in abstract games where you don't.

LadyRhian

"I am the man, who arranges the blocks..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8

JuliusBorisov

Check out our previous discussion on this topic: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/56413/what-is-an-rpg/p1

I'll summon @Vallmyr to hear your thoughts on it, considering you created that thread and maybe now can reflect on your ideas about the subject, nearly 3 years later.

Ardanis

RPG = character building.
Narrative and choices = adventure.

deltago

Choose a ROLE and PLAY the GAME.

If you do not choose a role, it is not an RPG.

The different roles (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, etc) allows the player to tackle challenges in different ways allowing different experiences for different play throughs.

Choices is generally a new phenomenon in gaming and really doesn’t constitute a RPG.

FinneousPJ

Ardanis said:

RPG = character building.
Narrative and choices = adventure.

Character building is also my #1 thing. It can be mechanical or narrative. You can play a role in lots of games I wouldn't call RPGs.

Grond0

I think it's fair to call a game in which you can establish a personality and try to role play what that would mean for decision-making an RPG.  However, just because a game is an RPG that doesn't mean that you have to role play in it.  I've played BG many hundreds of times, but only actually used role play to any significant extent in a handful of those.

Dorcus

a miserable little pile of secrets

Ammar

I think cRPG in the Western tradition is surprisingly hard to define, because it is more of a loose confederation of subgenres. Maybe it helps to break it down to sort of a lowest common denominator? For me, a cRPG is a game that allows you to develop your character(s) in terms of game mechanics, i.e. by acquiring new powers and/or equipment and allows you to identify with your character, either using a blank slate model for the characters (e.g. Wizardry, M&M, Elders Scrolls) or by giving you a fully pre-defined character who can make impactful choices.

Using this definition, the Witcher is required to give you meaningful choices to qualify as an RPG given that you play a character with lots of history and personality, but M&M 3 is an RPG because you can project whatever you wish into your characters, even though you barely making decisions in terms of how the story unfolds.

Some more examples:

Jedi Outcast is not an RPG because you are playing a pre-existing and well-defined character, without being able to affect the story significantly. Deus Ex is an RPG, because while you are stuck playing JC Denton you are can affect the story in many minor ways and to make a major decision at the end.

Still, there are border-cases, e.g. is XCOM 2 an RPG?

BelgarathMTH

JuliusBorisov said:

Check out our previous discussion on this topic: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/56413/what-is-an-rpg/p1 I'll summon @Vallmyr to hear your thoughts on it, considering you created that thread and maybe now can reflect on your ideas about the subject, nearly 3 years later.

@JuliusBorisov , I remembered that thread and wondered if somebody would link it here. Of course, it turned out to be you, the archmage of forum archives.

BelgarathMTH

My two cents is that "RPG" is a very broad category that includes many sub-categories. Analyzing the various sub-categories is where the topic gets interesting. 

The "parent directory", so to speak, called "RPG" includes any game where you play an avatar on the gaming screen, control that avatar, and make it do stuff, because you're automatically "playing a role" when you do that. 

Of course, defined that broadly, even "Pac-Man" is an RPG. I think "Donkey Kong" or "Mario Brothers" certainly qualify. 

The value of terms in language is in their utility - communicating your meaning to the other person. For that purpose, the more specific you can be in communicating your meaning, the better. If I say "Action rpg loot-based Diablo clones", you probably can think of exactly which games I am thinking of. If I just say "Action RPG's", we can easily misunderstand each other and get into a semantics-based argument about what exactly that term means. 

If I say "Dungeons and Dragons style party-based RPG's", you probably know exactly which kinds of games I am thinking of, whereas if I just say "RPG's", or "western RPG's", we might be thinking of very different things, and again get into a semantic argument with lots of misunderstanding and miscommunication on both sides. 

So, the more specific your terms the better, when the goal is communicating an interesting or worthwhile idea or set of ideas.

ThacoBell

@Ammar "Jedi Outcast is not an RPG because you are playing a pre-existing and well-defined character, without being able to affect the story significantly."

So Ultimas 4-7 aren't RPGs by this definition. What constitutes "affect the story significantly"? Most games only have one ending, two if lucky. Since Resident evil 2 or Dino crisis have three separate endings, would that make them RPGs? Since you can affect not only the outcomes of the games, but also the flow and individual events.

Ammar

ThacoBell said:

@Ammar "Jedi Outcast is not an RPG because you are playing a pre-existing and well-defined character, without being able to affect the story significantly."

So Ultimas 4-7 aren't RPGs by this definition. What constitutes "affect the story significantly"? Most games only have one ending, two if lucky. Since Resident evil 2 or Dino crisis have three separate endings, would that make them RPGs? Since you can affect not only the outcomes of the games, but also the flow and individual events.

You clearly did not write what I said. It was EITHER well-defined character and affect the story significantly OR blank slate. Ultima 4-7 are in the blank slate category - your character is not defined except for what he did in the previous games. You can choose starting class, gender and name, and the intro of Ultima 4 is written specifically so that the player can imagine himself in the role. If you were forced to play Iolo in U7 you might have a point.

Point being is that you need to bring something to the character, either in the form of decisions if the character is already defined or in the definition of the character itself. In Ultima it is the background of your character, in the Witcher it is how the character reacts to the present.

Kyle Katarn on the other hand already had a very specific background at the time, he was defined as male, we know things about his father, and he has a well-defined personality as expressed in the cutscenes.

Affect the story significantly is harder to define, but I would say it is about also influencing about how it unfolds not only how it ends. E.g. Jedi Knight also had two endings, but I would not say that it qualifies.

ThacoBell

@Ammar Those distinctions are entirely arbitrary. For example, Resident Evil 2 fits your criteria. The characters are well defined and you can influence the story to a relatively large degree. Its not just a few branching decisions, but you can completely change what events happen and even if or what the main characters accomplish. A lot of games that are generally accepted as RPGs don't give the play that kind of modular choice.

Vallmyr

So my conclusion 3 years later is: RPG is a nonsense title and is absurdly vague as it doesn't describe enough.

For example in a shooter, you shoot. In a platformer, you platform. It describes the action taking place. Roleplaying though is really vague because every game is a roleplaying game. You play a role and all that. However, for the sake of categorizing RPGs are things that have an emphasis on statistics. Levels, HP, attributes, and so on.

LadyRhian

Ammar

I agreed in my first post that RPG is not a well-defined genre (even though I did some attempts at definition regardless), but that does not make it being considered a separate genre nonsense... Many boundary lines are blurred and arbitrary but still useful, e.g. consider drinking and voting age.

@ThacoBell I never played Resident Evil 2, so I can only speculate about how to classify it.

To put it in my logical terms, my original definition can be written down as:

1 and (2 or 3)

where the or is non-exclusive and

1. character development in terms of personal power and equipment
2. game takes place from perspective of one or multiple blank slate characters,
3. characters controlled by the player make meaningful choices that influence how the story unfolds

For example, Ultima fulfills A and B and the Witcher is B and C. Vampire: Bloodlines has all three: A, B and C. As said, I never played Resident Evil 2, but from the description I suspect that it might not completely fulfill A.

As said above, I do not believe this definition to be perfect, as there is a full continuous spectrum between classical RPGs and other very different genres, e.g:

Action (from Deux Ex to Jedi Knight)

Adventure (from U7 to Shannara)

Strategy (Gold Box to X-COM or HoMM)

This harkens back even to the original P&P roleplaying, which started very close to wargaming (strategy) and later diversified in other directions (LARP or more character/story driven RPGs).

But it seems adequate as a rule of thumb, even if one might quibble about where to draw the exact borders in the same way you might argue about whether 16, 18 or even 21 is a good age for legal drinking while agreeing that toddlers shouldn't.

I suspect you could write something very similar about every other computer game genre.

ThacoBell

@Ammar I'm not saying that RPGs shouldn't be considered a separate genre. I'm saying the guidelines you chose are rather arbitrary, and apply to lots of games that aren't typically considered RPGs, especially since RPG elements are becoming more and more common in other genres.

themazingness

To me, an RPG is a game where you play a role or multiple roles and your decisions have consequences (positive or negative, not just the negative connotation). Those consequences can be as simple as gaining experience, getting gear, etc. Or they can be as complex as being thrown in jail or killed for killing a chicken. But the focus has to be the tropes, mechanics, and plots that RPGs have, especially the mechanics. Otherwise it is another genre that has RPG elements.

Lots of games let you play a role with consequences but the focus is on adventure or puzzles therefore those are Adventure or Puzzle games. They may even have elements of RPGs, such as Bloons Tower Defense which is a strategy game in the tower defense subgenre, which has an experience system.

It's a lot like books. You can have a Fantasy title with Political Thriller, Romance, or Mystery tropes and plots; but if the main plot is about magic or other supernatural themes, and it uses Fantasy tropes predominantly, then it is Fantasy.

SorcererV1ct0r

Only because you can race in GTA, doesn't make GTA an racing game. In order to be an racing game, the focus should be racing. An horror game with very limited weapon/ammo with few shooting parts still an horror game. Same with role playing game. If the focus is anything else than rp, is not an rpg. Can be an shooter with RPG elements, at the same way that FNV is a RPG with shooting mechanics.

I don't think that an RPG needs to have levels. For example, VtMB is one of the best RPG's and ... No character level. There are attribute level, skill level and discipline level measuring your character capabilities.



An RPG game can gradually lose more and more RPG elements until if they don't say that is an RPG game, nobody will consider. To name few, Elder Scrolls and Diablo. TES lost many interesting stuff. From Daggerfall/Morrowind to Oblivion and then from Oblivion to Skyrim. Or in Diablo case, D1/hellfire is very RPG like, D2 until overpowered runewords very rpg like, LOD made D2 focus become much more about loot hunt and D3 is pure loot hunt. No character progression.

In fact, even your attributes is linked towards gear and all damage, including unarmed strikes are linked towards gear. I don't know how it can exist. Is completely immersion breaking. Imagine an dialog in any fantasy movie with an necromancer apprendice and an master

- "how you becomed the most powerful necromancer in the world"?
- "i found this gloves and boots that increases my IQ by 300 points and this big and sharp axe that i use to animate an powerful golem. First you dismaterialize the axe. Then cast the spell, then rematerialize the axe, remember. More big and sharp the axe, more powerful artificial unlife you will create(and yes, your weapon disappear during animations)"
- "But master, where we should go to study/practice"
- "Study/practice? This will not make your spells stronger. Everyone from the weakest to strongest necromancer in the world can animate 7 skeletons, everyone is equally intelligent and tough, now stop with this nonsense and go search an glove that can make you 50x stronger!!!! And remember, never drop your axe, otherwise your golem will become useless"


I wonder if people have different level of suspension of disbelief watching an lord of the rings movie and playing an similar fantasy game. Few ultra rare items giving non stacking bonus to certain attributes is OK. But gear making or breaking your character is not RPG. And is not just D3. Recently i saw adds about "albion online" and game that proposes that you are what you wear.

Why are so many RPG's becoming each time less about RP and more about "gear playing game"? The main appeal of a fantasy RPG is to "fell immersed" inside an skin of someone in another world. It kills the main propose of the genre IMO.

semiticgoddess

SorcererV1ct0r wrote: »

- "how you becomed the most powerful necromancer in the world"?
- "i found this gloves and boots that increases my IQ by 300 points and this big and sharp axe that i use to animate an powerful golem.

Not to tease, but the grammar mistakes make this even more hilarious than it already is.

SorcererV1ct0r

semiticgod wrote: »

SorcererV1ct0r wrote: »

- "how you becomed the most powerful necromancer in the world"?
- "i found this gloves and boots that increases my IQ by 300 points and this big and sharp axe that i use to animate an powerful golem.

Not to tease, but the grammar mistakes make this even more hilarious than it already is.

English is not my native language but i think that everyone can understand my main point. Stat and gear linked = awful.

FinneousPJ

SorcererV1ct0r wrote: »

I don't think that an RPG needs to have levels. For example, VtMB is one of the best RPG's and ... No character level. There are attribute level, skill level and discipline level measuring your character capabilities.

Your example of not needing levels is a game with "attribute level, skill level and discipline level".

SorcererV1ct0r

FinneousPJ wrote: »

SorcererV1ct0r wrote: »

I don't think that an RPG needs to have levels. For example, VtMB is one of the best RPG's and ... No character level. There are attribute level, skill level and discipline level measuring your character capabilities.

Yes, you are right. I've should said no CHARACTER level. But in overall, you can use other "metric" to measure your character capabilities. Can be symbols or even letters. For example A to F where the average human is C. But my point is that this games that links your attributes towards gear removes the meaning of attributes. Attributes stop working as an tool to measure how your character is in relation to the rest of the world and become just an number without any meaning.

If i remember correctly, on zero no tsukaima anime, people in the another world tends to use the following system. An point mage dominates one element, an line dominates 2, an triangle, 3 and a square four(...) i can imagine an RPG system working similarly. But i can't consider this games where everyone of the same class at the same level has the same skill and the same attributes and are just clones using different cloths as RPG's. Maybe "gear playing" game since everything that you do is farm gear and you never role play...

FinneousPJ

Yeah I agree. My point is an RPG does need levels (one way or another) to represent character progression. Character level is simply an abstraction of things like attribute level, skill level, and discipline level.

SorcererV1ct0r

Ohter think that i love on RPG is when you can use non combat related abilities to make your life easier. For example, having high seduction on VtMB allows you to use it on some dialogs and even get free blood by seducing woman in nightclubs. No need to put masquerade in risk to "feed". On Arcanum and FNV(to mention an more modern RPG), with high stats, you can even convince the "final boss" to not fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBAHzsqBmCA

An interesting comment from Rafa .OLL
2 years ago

"Fallout 4 version
-Maybe
-Sarcasm
-Yes
-No
*Legate proceeds to answer the same no matter what you chose""

And actions with consequences. For example, become an vampire, willing or not in Daggerfall and Morrowind makes you take a lot of damage on sun, be ostracized in many places, etc. On Oblivion, you take no sunshine damage in stage one, little damage on stage 2 and a lot of damage in stage 4, Clouds can reduce the sun damage but not negate. On Skyrim, vampires has little health regen penalties during the day but no sun damage. You cold argue that the sunlight in Skyrim is much more "weak" than in Morrowind for example, but on TES Online, you can be in a desert, during midday and honestly, sparkling vampires are awful. Doesn't matter if is in an teenager novel or in a game. I IRL suffer more with strong sun than TESO "fairy vampires", literally fainted when experienced 36ºC some years ago.

For more action focused games, one think that removes action and consequences is respec. For example, do you wanna play DkS 2 as a pyromancer? Good luck on Iron Keep. Wanna be a Hexer? Good luck against DarkLucker. Ohh wait, you can respec. So doesn't matter if your build is weak against an particular type of enemy. You can respec from one class to another, just to complete one part and then respec again.

But that brings another discussion. If an RPG game implemented badly RPG mechanics, it makes then no longer RPG's? I think that as longs the main focus is RP, yes. That is why i can't consider fallout IV or fallout 76 as an RPG.

SorcererV1ct0r

Sorry for bumping, but here is how i classify some games

Diablo 1 - aRPG
Diablo 2 - loot focused aRPG
Diablo 3 - Loot focused action game
Fallout 1/2 - RPG
Fallout 3/NV - aRPG
Fallout 4 - Shooter

Honestly, even Far Cry 3 has light RPG elements. I can't consier FL4 an RPG without considering FL 4 too. And only because the game isn't an RPG, doesn't means that is a bad game. I like Borderlands, just don't think that belongs to RPG/aRPG genre. Is a loot shooter.

mashedtaters

I’ll assist with the necromancy casting.

I think roleplaying games are just what the industry has decided to name a vast generality of videos games that share few, some, or many similarities with tabletop P&P (most usually D&D) style of play. They know if they say “RPG” it will signal to a certain gamer fanbase.

It may be most useful to break down RPGs into subcategories, and then break them down into even more defined sub-subcategories, possibly even going to another level of sub-sub-subcategories until you have sub-to-the-nTH-subcategories.