An RPG article

NO IT ISN'T. Solve puzzles? Navigate through a branching plot? Get multiple endings? That's an Adventure Game, tracing its lineage to the Choose Your Own Adventure book (unlike the RPG's wargame ancestry) with other current offshoots including the Visual Novel.

Eric,

I've many people calling Zelda 'RPG', liking you or not (I don't like either, btw, as I said). Also, I am not sure I understand you. What do you mean by "branching plot" and "multiple endings"? This, again, is one thing people commonly attribute to RPGs (unlike puzzles). Anyway, Zelda has neither.

Funny you mention Choose Your Own Adventure. These also are called 'RPG'. In fact, in my country, these books are called "solo RPG" ("RPG" in the context of Tabletop RPG, btw).

At any case, the point of my post is people call many things 'RPG', so fighting over it is silly.

Roland. How many RP Gs, outside of modern Bioware stuff, have you played?

edited 14th May '11 6:01:03 AM by JotunofBoredom

Umbran Climax◊

I'm in favour of streamlining what we consider 'RP Gs', mostly because of the accountancy vs. gameplay argument.

While minute character customisation (including gear) is a hallmark of the genre that should stay, there's no reason for developers to throw in minute weapon upgrade progressions. I really loved how, in Mass Effect 2, gaining access to new weapons was not necessarily an upgrade, but an opportunity to alter your tactics. This allows for more interesting gameplay that focuses on how you actually play and the way you make decisions. It also eliminates 'munchkinism', to borrow jargon from tabletop gamers.

It's by no means limited to ranged weapons, either. In the context of fantasy or historical games, a scimitar is a better slashing weapon than a cruciform longsword, but the longsword thrusts more effectively and is double-edged. It's a more versatile weapon, if less obviously killy. One doesn't have to be a better choice than the other, they just have to be different enough that both are justified choices for different reasons.

But, then again, people will defend entirely different kinds of games to death, all of which fall under the moniker of 'RPG'. It really depends what you're talking about at the time.

Personally, I think Bioware currently do the best RP Gs. They force you to make tough calls, give the supporting characters relevance and afford the player a great deal of control over their own character. Between Mass Effect and Dragon Age, they also force tactical consideration. They are by no means perfect, but these are the sorts of qualities that should be praised. I only wish that the PC version of Dragon Age 2 was more action-oriented with less emphasis thrown on gear.

Then again, I'm informed mostly by what I love about tabletop RP Gs and how I run them. Players looking for great loot and lots of bloody action are seldom rewarded quickly. The reward is the gameplay itself. And that's how I feel all games should be. If the player is constantly looking forward to becoming more powerful rather than looking forward to the possibilities of the next scenario, then I feel gameplay design has failed somewhere. This is why I think Mass Effect 2 is currently the best RPG out there. I was having fun from the beginning until the end irrespective of my gear. That's a good sign.

edited 14th May '11 7:41:59 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Pretty much what they said. And the Adventure Game is a nearly dead genre for very good reasons, most of them Sierra's fault.

Put simply, the definition of "RPG" that works best is "Having characteristics akin to a pencil & paper RPG". Which are *not* interchangeable with wargaming, wargaming is not the same thing. Now, there are a variety of ways to run an RPG, with varying degrees of emphasis on complicated party based combat, exploration, social interaction, plot choices. The question I always ask myself is "Could I see this game being done as a P&P game?" If the answer is "Yes", its an RPG.

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com

Actually quite a few Jotun. I actually traditionally didn't like western RP Gs half as much as JRP Gs. That said, I played the Baldur's Gate series, Dragon Age: Origins and DA 2, tried out Fallout 3, (tedious)... On the JPRG front my experience is more varied.

And I was met with the almost universal truism of essentially meaningless stat customization. If anything JRP Gs were far less tedious about it than CRP Gs. So don't claim lack of experience. I simply reject the idea that what we call RPG Elements is really necessary or essential to the "RPG" experience.

Agreed.

And D&D mechanics are based in the fact that there;s no good way to simulate a more dynamic set of mechanics in pen-and-paper format.

All these arguments are arguments of "how," not "why". More or less your insistence has been "it's always been done this way before!" I'm saying "So? that doesn't make it good, either."

edited 14th May '11 7:42:34 AM by Roland

I like this definition. However, this is not a very popular one. I don't think any JRPG would count by that.

If it is not a very popular definition, it is a useless one. Names and labels are what people (as a collective) determine then to be. Not what a few think it 'should' be.

RPG's are defined in making choices, however these choices are not the "Overtly Dick Move/Jesus Charity" choices for in-game plot things, "choices" refer to the choice in picking one armor over the other or selecting which weapon you want or choosing between having a squishier party with more damage vs. a tankier party with less.

Why? Because RPG's are still games even with their great stories, and games contain gameplay, and picking story choices is not a RPG exclusive thing nor can it be considered one, things like choosing inventory and balancing stats are gameplay elements which belong to the RPG category and RPG Elements.

In a First Person Shooter you use a ranged weapon from the first person view, if you take out either one of those, then it is no longer a FPS, it's not because "That's the way it's always been done" it's because those are the core gameplay elements found in that genre that separate that genre from others, a Third Person Shooter is not a First Person Shooter because it uses a third person camera, and a Third Person Shooter is not a 3D Platformer even though they use the same camera because both differ in other gameplay mechanics.

And as many have stated before "stat crunching" exists because that is simply the easiest way to track the character's progress, stats allow for a numerical system of measurement in your progress and is easily understood by most people because 78 is higher then 54. And the thing about genre definition and "core elements" is that things can be added on top of these core elements like "RPG Elements" to make the game different or unique from competitors. For example the SMT and the Press Turn Battle system, it isn't a core element nor is it required to be an RPG because it is an extra element added to make it more unique. Hence why people are so confuzzled about RP Gs now as more games are utilizing the two easiest to implement RPG elements Stats and Variable equipment.

edited 14th May '11 8:46:45 AM by WORLDTree

So the Call Of Duty multiplayer is RPG now?

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

No it has numerical progress but no variable equipment, which I probably should've elaborated so my fault. In total there are around four "core elements" which make a game a RPG, having two or three means "RPG Elements".

1.) Variable Equipment, meaning being able to choose one armor and one weapon.

2.) Stats/Numerical Progress, Self-explanatory but COD doesn't really fufil this either as the only stat is a player level and the others are only affected when you change guns.

3.) Ways to increase Stats/Performance beyond levels, so things like "+1 DEF from Helmet" or in game buff moves.

4.) Alternate combat system, along side basic attacks a significantly different combat system so the player isn't just mashing attack, in most games this is magic, they differ sometimes though like the Psionics in ME IIRC.

Where do story choices and dialogue etc. fit in there?

I have a message from another time...

1.) Variable Equipment, meaning being able to choose one armor and one weapon.

Doable.

2.) Stats/Numerical Progress, Self-explanatory but COD doesn't really fufil this either as the only stat is a player level and the others are only affected when you change guns.

Except your experience buys you new character abilities, so there is stat progression.

3.) Ways to increase Stats/Performance beyond levels, so things like "+1 DEF from Helmet" or in game buff moves.

Abilities and gear both cover this.

4.) Alternate combat system, along side basic attacks a significantly different combat system so the player isn't just mashing attack, in most games this is magic, they differ sometimes though like the Psionics in ME IIRC.

There's melee, various kinds of guns, supporting technology, setting explosive traps. A lot of stuff.

The point here isn't that Co D is an RPG. It's that you're pulling this definition out of nowhere and it does nothing to help define an RPG on an objective basis. If Co D can do all these things and not be an RPG, where does that logically leave us?

And don't even think of Moving The Goal Posts.

edited 14th May '11 9:48:44 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Let me just, as an aside, say that D&D is actually about the *worst* example of a quality RPG, these days. It has legacy influence for being the first, but really, its loaded down with tons of archaic ideas, like "fixed classes" and "defined levels." The better RP Gs use point build systems so characters need not be arbitrarily restricted.

Home of CBR Rumbles-in-Exile: rumbles.fr.yuku.com

Ah, the old prescriptivist versus descriptivist ploy eh? Here's the real reason “RPGs” should have a fixed definition: Because if the definition is too fuzzy or variable, the term is linguistically useless.

Simply put, RPGs are games in which you're abstracted from your character, as with statistics. Character skill important? More RPG-ish. Player skill important? Less RPG-ish.

CoD is primarily player skill-dependent (PC version, so no auto-aim,) thus, it's not an RPG. Ditto Zelda, it's about progressing through a series of puzzles using preset items (Adventure Game) while using purely player skill-based navigation and combat (Action Game,) so it's an Action-Adventure.

Eric,

So Secret of Mana, my first RPG, wasn't an RPG?

I haven't played it, but depending on how action-y it was, quite possibly yes. That doesn't mean it's a bad game any more than Mass Effect's drift into shooter-dom means it's a bad game, just a bad RPG.

Eric,

I blame the current problems with RPG's definition on Bioware. They don't make RP Gs, they make sci-fi shooters and crappy Hack and Slash games.

Granted, Dragon Age the first game did a decent job being an RPG...but the series went to hell when the sequel came out.

---

As for my definition of RPG...a game that allows you character to level up and become stronger as the game progresses. Stat progression that defines your character more and more the longer you play.*

^{notice how in many RP Gs, your characters all start out so similar to each other to the point where it's hard to tell their role sometimes? This is where stat progression and levelling up comes in, it actually develops the character in a way many people are unaware of.}

And every RPG must have elements of strategy in them. Real strategy, as in properly building your characters and planning your moves. Not twitch reflex and pushing a single button real fast.

With that said, I'm very conflicted about The World Ends With You. It does have some stat progression and levelling up that ends up defining your character. But strategy? Not so sure, the battle system appears to be "go nuts on touch screen and win". Not sure if the makers intended the game to have any strategy in it.

In the end, I think Devil Survivor is a good example of a modern RPG done right. Stat progression that defines your character as they level up? The characters you use start off similar in stats, it's not until much later that you realize Atsuro is supposed to be a heavy hitting physical character. Strategy in combat and development? With a battle system like theirs, check. And theres also an element of strategy when you fuse demons and level up your own main character. I wish they gave the main character a pre-set name and just give you the option to change it though.

What do you mean by "fixed classes" and "defined levels"?

edited 14th May '11 12:08:35 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Some, if not most, of the other big Tabletop RPGs (like GURPS, Story Telling/er and even so other D20 Systems) don't have 'classes' or 'levels'. You got points or similar and spend on your attributes, skills, powers and etc. The D&D-like level system is getting very outdated. Even D&D has growing more flexible (with more choices to be made each level) because of that.

Anyway, you guys are too much narrow minded. You focus so much in "it must be just like that or else is not a "true" RPG". I mean, it even makes a difference how I game is labeled? If it does, you are all pretty much screwed, since the media label quite a lot of different things as 'RPG'.

edited 14th May '11 1:21:58 PM by Heatth

^ I still don't get what you meant by "fixed class and levels"...elaborate further?

As for why we like things to be defined...it makes organization easier.

Imagine if you're looking for an RPG, and when you ask for suggestions, people start suggesting a game that isn't even an RPG, but has one or two tiny elements of it in it.

edited 14th May '11 1:24:11 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

In D&D you have classes. Warrior, cleric, mage, rogue, etc. Each level on each class you receive a set of pre-determined bonuses and new abilities. There is no much choice to be done, usually. Other Tabletop RPGs do not. You, instead, gains points each section and expend them on you abilities directly. In D&D, I high level mage will have more HP then a low level warrior. In GURPS, a "mage" with many character points may still have just s much HP as when he started (as he spend his points in mage abilities), which is probably less then a low level "warrior" (and there is not class, so "mage" and "warrior" names are are just for convenience).

The thing, Signed, is no one is going to agree what a RPG is ever. It has mutated in a lot of completely different things. Yeah, it kinda suck asking for a RPG and getting some "not-RPG". However, people who suggested this probably has it own idea of what is a RPG, and he would be pissed if you suggested your idea of RPG. Therefore, the definition must be set on a conversation to conversation basis (i.e., make clear what you are asking for).

edited 14th May '11 1:34:33 PM by Heatth

That's the entire point of character classes...the main idea is that they level up and their stats grow and grow to reflect what they're supposed to be.

This was what I was talking about. Again, look at my Devil Survivor example. Everyone starts out almost the same. But as everyone levels up, their stats will increase to eventually reflect what kind of character they are. The only character you can choose to customize is your main character. Of course it's generally best to make him a magic user since all your physical abilities should go to Atsuro or Gin...

This is what I personally consider a good thing. I like character classes and having the classes be different...

A barbarian should be a meat head with low intelligence. A wizard should be a fragile genius. If you want a warrior that also casts spells, most RP Gs also have a fighter mage or mage fighter.

Removing the idea of character classes and characters progressing like their class intends them to be is a step backwards.

edited 14th May '11 2:59:03 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

I know. I am not particularly against character classes myself (though more choices is nice too). D&D is still my first choice on Tabletop RPG, after all. I am just pointing it is a concept pretty much dieing in the Tabletop RPG scene.

I think I wanna play that Devil Survivor, but I don't understand your point here. It has classes but, at the same time, the main characters does not. What does that means, exactly? I could say it shows not having classes is preferable, as they made the main character that way.

Just to make sure, all this games without classes has ways to make the character different themselves. You may not have a "class warrior" on GURPS, but you can always focalize all your points on combat abilities, thus making a 'warrior' in all but name. It is essentially the same thing. Except the player has to think more to get where he wants and can customize minor details (why his warrior with a past as a bandit can't have a pick pocked ability?).

Finally, I fail at seeing how forcing all barbarians to be dumbs and all wizards to be fragile is a good thing. What if the barbarian is a military genius, like Genghis Kan? Or a wizard adept to "Mens sana in corpore sano"?

PS:Just realized I am thinking on "Tabletop RPG" while you are likely thinking on "Video Game RPG"(which is the topic, I guess). This shows how the discussion over "what is RPG" is silly, as RPG morphed to be many different things at the same times. All correct.

edited 14th May '11 3:16:08 PM by Heatth

BAHAHAHA! Oh, that's a good one.

I have a message from another time...

...you didn't beat every battle including boss battle by spamming drawing shapes and tapping the boss?

I WANTED the game to force me to use strategy...but the bosses just didn't put up a fight. And I even intentionally lowered my level...though mostly to get more stuff.

I used Devil Survivor of a game that "chooses a character's stat increase for you". Unfortunately that game has no character class. But it chooses the character's stats for you as they level up.

This way as you play the game, you start learning more and more about what kind of character they're meant to be as you level up more.

The significance of this? I thought Atsuro was a magic user when I first played the game, until I noticed his stats and realized he's a physical fighter.

edited 14th May '11 3:15:01 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

So it has classes, essentially. It just don't spell it for you.

I am still missing your point, though. Why does this matter to the discussion?