What is a role-playing game? How can you define it?

By your definition, there is no such thing as a role playing game.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:03:32 PM by unnown

You're confusing absolute freedom with relative freedom. It is physically impossible to make a game that lets the player dow whatever the hell they please. Instead RPGs are just relatively free compared to other fare.

I dunno if people want to munchkin and powergame more than roleplay then that's their business and I'm not going to criticize their style of rping. I don't want to be involved in that personally and far prefer freeform RP Gs, but eh. At least in terms of tabletop gaming and such. With videogames Dragon Quest esque games are my favorite. Little to no choice and simplicity in design. Grinding is now your thing.

I see little reason to stop calling things like Mother and Final Fantasy RP Gs. For years this has been what they're called. Sure it may not be the most accurate name, but it's the one people use and recognize. In this case convenience trumps the strict meaning of the term.

I may hate how the word karma is used in English, especially in relation to morality meters in games, but that's how it's used in English. There's no real reason for it not to be used in that fashion. I suppose there's "But it's incorrect" but really forcing others to not use it that way just inconveniences people and slows conversation and such down.

The problem with the term isn't that things like Mother get defined as such, but that the definition has become hideously freaking vague and wonky over the years.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:10:08 PM by Aondeug

There is no game that I have played that felt as stifling as the Mass Effect trilogy.

Recent Final Fantasy games were at least upfront about how they were rail-roading you.

But so-called "WRP Gs" give you so many "choices" that ultimately lead to the same result.

RPG=

Ruined

Piece of

Garbage

or,

Really

Putrid

Genre.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:23:29 PM by unnown

I don't care for WRP Gs because of the choices honestly. There's rarely a choice I want to pick and morality meters tend to be...shit. Then there's things like being able to murder someone in front of someone else, only to do a task for them and have them be completely happy with you again.

Even though there's the corpse of someone in their house still.

It's...eery. And hurts immersion.

I feel more immersed in the experience of Final Fantasy 6 because even though I'm railroaded for the most part the story is being told in a fashion that doesn't pull me out of things.

I do like how Persona 3 handles choices though. But then I like visual novels and how the Japanese handle such things as story and character development so eh? It plays like half dungeon crawling JRPG and half visual novel.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:15:13 PM by Aondeug

At least you get choices, which is more than most J"RPG"s can say.

Who's trying to change the genre of a game that already came out? Isn't that, like, impossible?

edited 5th Mar '12 6:17:26 PM by setnakhte

I'm just annoyed that people actually seem to think they can suddenly change the Genre of 20 year old games.

Having bad choices is not actually better than having no choices.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:17:05 PM by unnown

Though this leads to an undirected plot. Honestly I forget that shit is going down in Tartarus half the time because so little focus is spent on it. The formula is "Big thing on a full moon. Fuck around in real life and Tartarus with no plot for a bit."

There is a big world saving plot type thing but it feels like we forget it's there a lot of the time. Because I'm too busy dating Elizabeth and hanging out with old people before I study at night time because my midterms are coming up.

^I'm not annoyed by it though I think it has little need.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:17:11 PM by Aondeug

That's not an argument for the definition of RP Gs, that's disliking Mass Effect and WRP Gs that failed to deliver to expectations.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:19:58 PM by VutherA

You are, by saying that Final Fantasy Earthbound and the like aren't RP Gs.

The first Final Fantasy game came out 25 years ago this year.

What's the problem with trying to reclassify games based on changing the definitions of the genre? You'll enjoy Final Fantasy whether its an RPG or an Action-Adventure or whatever.

That's the whole thing about a debate about terminology: you can't just Grandfather Clause the old stuff in with only newer stuff getting changed. The result is ridiculously confusing (*cough* American politics *cough*). So if you argue that Final Fantasy I should be an RPG no matter what, you better be prepared to defend applying that definition to all games.

There's no real point to it? That's not a problem but it doesn't really matter...We already have something that's used so why not use it...

I'm not changing the genre I'm saying that the genre is a misnomer, because they aren't.

Exactly. They've been classed as RP Gs for largely arbitrary reasons, and that's led to this silly view that any RPG needs to be all about stats, rather than the actual role-playing aspect that the genre is actually named for.

I'm not going to stop calling FF RP Gs. I'm just saying that, really, they're not RP Gs.

Honestly, why wouldn't you define a genre by it's mechanics? If I were to play a platformer, should the plotline affect what people call the kind of game it is?

To me, no matter what RPG you're playing, you are role playing. Taking up the role as (a) character(s) whose inherent prowess and skills aren't completely reliant on your own abilities. I think the shooting in the first Mass Effect is a great example of this. You could be the best third person shooter player in the world, but if Shephard's abilities to use a gun are not up to snuff, then he will have vastly reduced accuracy, despite what you can do. You're in Shephard's shoes, acting as him. On the other extreme, imagine if you were the worst third person shooter player in the world, but your character's stats allow him to compensate for your weaknesses.

Taking a look at Eastern RP Gs, especially turn based, your skill as a player often has very little effect on the fact that your party is smashing dragons with their bare fists because of how they their selves have improved. You are role playing as their characters in so far as you have control over what they're doing, but their traits are mostly independent of you, making them less like the player and more like their selves. As silly and stupid as that sounds.

edited 5th Mar '12 6:41:11 PM by hnd03

Hence why it's a misnomer.

That's a really messed up idea you have there. You are essentially disregarding an entire genre because of one fairly recent addition to the genre that you believe defines it entirely. I'm sorry but that shows to me that you haven't really played RP Gs at all.

Please stop saying the word roleplay. It pisses me off to no end and it doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

As I already pointed out several times earlier:

Roleplaying is such a bullshit term which can be stretched to mean anything. The idea that you think it simply means dialogue options is quite ridiculous. Especially when the example you use is one of the worst examples of a game with dialogue options around.

I can 'roleplay' an FPS character by doing dumb shit in the game and pretending it's in character. I can 'roleplay' a character in Skyrim by making up an insane backstory about secretly being an alien from space but that doesn't make the FPS an RPG and that isn't the reason Skyrim is an RPG.

I can 'roleplay' by choosing from a limited range of dialogue options and that can help to define a character. Of course ME 2 is a terrible example of this as all you do is choose to be a dick or an angel and in the long run a lot of the choices get retconned or never amount to anything. You definitely do not define your own personality, half the time the personality is chosen for you. Hell, in ME 3 regardless of what you've been doing thus far, Shepard will take a kid's death really seriously. Explain to me how that fits your definition of roleplaying when ME 2 and 3 (and hell ME 1 as well) have so much forced characterisation for shepard? Go play Planescape Torment or Fallout New Vegas before you start going on about how great ME 2's dialogue system is because it's actually fucking terrible.

Finally, I can also 'roleplay' a mage by speccing out a mage focused build and as such spam spells instead of attacking people with swords.

Roleplaying is a meaningless term, so please stop with just saying "YOU ROLEPLAY!!!1111" in your argument. Explain what you mean without using that word.

An RPG is not about choice and consequence or about dialogue, it's a nice, relatively recent addition to the genre but that doesn't mean it's the only aspect to focus on.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the definition. I've already explained my definition and it's included there but it isn't necessary. The genre needs to include various different types of character building, whether that's through personality or stat progression, and focusing on one is needlessly limiting.

Up until Bioware starting dumbing down their games, RP Gs were about character building and progression with Choice and Consequence as an added bonus. Even Bethesda sticks with a character system with choice as a very minimal aspect (seriously, choice in Skyrim didn't really change anything in the long term)- and no matter how simplified Skyrim is it still has better depth than ME 2 or 3. I don't think RP Gs need to change their definition because one company has started making incredibly shallow games.

I mean, no matter how you look at it, ME 2 isn't an RPG. From a personality defining side, it's terrible. It lacks none of the depth of something like Planescape Torment and the choices and quests have none of the branching of an actual RPG like Fallout. I recommend you play other games so that you understand why I'm saying that no matter how you look at it ME 2 is far too shallow to be an RPG.

There's plenty of branching in the side quests and what happens to the various factions you get entangled with. Yeah no matter what you follow vaguely the same overarching main quest but Bioware games (which apparently people here seem to see as the pinnacle of choices and consequences for reasons I simply can't fathom) but there's a lot of branching in terms of how you get there and what happens to the companions and factions and NP Cs you meet along the way.

edited 5th Mar '12 7:10:15 PM by ShadowScythe

I see there's another one of these rather pointless "WRPGs/JRPGs aren't real RPGs" arguments going on. Anyway, for my personal definition of RPGs I go with the emphasis on stats, but it seems like no one has an unarguable definition nowadays, what with so many games having RPG elements nowadays.

edited 5th Mar '12 7:04:28 PM by rmctagg09

Yeah, I'm now certain the term is absolutely arbitrary when applied to video games.

edited 5th Mar '12 7:08:32 PM by VutherA

In Video Games, having any part of the gameplay subservient to the story is a terrible idea that has been attempted many times and has never resulted in anything of quality.

The fact we have a trope Gameplay and Story Integration sounds like that's an untrue statement to me.

"You are essentially disregarding an entire genre because of one fairly recent addition to the genre that you believe defines it entirely."

No. I'm saying the genre was given the wrong name. Dungeons and Dragons is an RPG. It's not an RPG because you assign numbers to different areas. It's an RPG because you're giving a character the personality and motivations you choose to give him.

But then video games started coming out that had mechanics based on the tabletop RP Gs. But despite giving little more control over the character's personality than any other video game, it was decided to just call them RP Gs.

And that annoys me. It's wrong. Mechanics don't matter. What matters is whether you're given control over your character's personality. And the Mass Effect games DO give you that control. YOU decide if Shepard is merciful or vengeful. YOU decide if Shepard values cooperation or independence. YOU decide if Shepard respects other races or resents them. You decide how Shepard treats his crew members, how he treats people on the streets, whether he tries diplomacy or goes straight to killing people. Hell, ME 1 lets you decide if Shepard believes in god or not. Whether all your choices ultimately lead to the same result doesn't really change matters. You're still role-playing.

Your examples are meta-playing. It's making stories up in your head.

In integration, the two are equal, and work together.

ME 1 is more of an "RPG" under your definition than the second two games combined.

Also, again, RP Gs have become defined by mechanics, because Video Games are an interactive medium, and Genre in games is based on gameplay, not story.

edited 5th Mar '12 7:22:44 PM by unnown