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

@Scythe: I'd say that's more of a natural evolution to making RPGs more engaging. After all, Dragon Quest I had no specialization but is still an RPG.

But yeah, that's not to say it was good compared to present games, it's just that it's one of the many that set the base to work off of.

@Shadow Scythe: There's a select few games where max stats are always the same, though.

Which is the exception to the awesome rule.

I really do like Ramus' explanation, yes.

But to stay within the boundaries of this stat-defined square is madness. If we can get away from it, and develop new and innovative ways to look at how our characters can develop and grow stronger in gameplay terms, we should.

And they'd still be RP Gs.

Okay, I never ruled that RPGs had to have stats. After all, I said they could just have a base set of skills and those to expand upon and gain and it'd still be an RPG. It just has to enable growth.

I said they should have stats, though.

I can't imagine a true one without it. But that's just my opinion on it respectively.

Well, understand that I'm trying to stay as broad as possible in defining an RPG. Everything evolves and that goes for videogames too, so we just might see the RPG with no stats get popular in a manner we didn't expect... or something completely different can get innovated. The basic idea is that RPG is growth just like Action is, well, Action, Puzzle is a thinking oriented type game, etc, etc. Actually, the reason most of this confusion came up is because of how poorly named the RPG is.

Right, I understand completely.

I'm just a pedant person about things. No big deal, man. Your definition is fine too.

Understandable, genre is a vague thing to begin with anyway, but we understand each other points, so I'm happy with that.

I doubt there's a "pure" game of ANY genre by now anyway.

JRP Gs trace their history back to DND as well, or at least early WRP Gs. The first JRPG was basically an Ultima clone - the designer of Dragon Quest cited Ultima and Wizardry as his inspiration for the game.

I think, with video game genres, its important to detach the narrative's genre from the gameplay's genre.

When lookning at two games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate, two canonical WRP Gs, there's a massive difference in the narrative genre (Post-Apocalyptic Black Comedy vs High Fantasy). While they have rather different systems of gameplay, there are a number of similar trends.

I would personally define an RPG as a game in which its gameplay mechanics are detached from the player's skill level and heavily associated with the character. Of course, this term is something of a misnomer, it would be better to call RP Gs something else that I can't quite put my finger on. A form of meaningful character progression is also absolutely essential, and it is very important that said progression be nonlinear in today's RP Gs (though not necessarily in the older ones), and have a meaningful effect on gameplay. (there are alternate builds) Both Fallout and BG manifest this trait. Under this definition, Skyrim and Fallout3 are indeed RP Gs, your created character progresses a great deal numerically in ways that will drastically alter the game-play, in particular the combat. While there is character progression in Mass Effect 2, it is not, in my opinion, sufficiently non-linear or meaningful enough to be central to the game. The weapons upgrade system in Mass Effect 2 is completely linear for example, and while it makes a large difference in gameplay, there's no choices in how the weapons progress. Then there's the powers and abilities, which, while seemingly RPG like, seem to fall at the wayside in favor of gunplay, particularly when playing an infiltrator or soldier. Even with purely biotic or tech classes, the gameplay still seems to be focused on gunplay more than powers, which can be attested to by the numerous situations in which biotic/tech powers are useless and the player is forced to resort to guns. Of course, I personally consider Mass Effect 2 to be a borderline case, somewhere between a Shooter with heavy RPG elements and a hybridized shooter/RPG, particularly due to its handling of many of its quests, which feel more quest like than mission like.

While roleplaying a character is certainly a very welcome and common feature in an RPG, it is by no means exclusive to an RPG, and since its not native to the CRPG/WRPG genre (though it was admittedly native to Tabletop Games, I believe it rose to prominence in the text/point and click adventure games, as did the Multiple Endings concept), shouldn't be considered an RPG element so much as a narrative element which is common in RP Gs and descends from TTRP Gs, the reason being that many, many games incorporate this to some degree. Consider the fact that most early TTRP Gs were heavily focused on the combat mechanics, and generally could be traced by to earlier war games exclusively focused on combat; in early RP Gs, the combat was the centerpiece of the game.

Finally, it is very important to note that genre shouldn't be used to evaluate the merit of a work, in fact, works that were not created with genre in mind are, in my opinion, generally superior than those that were deliberately designed with genre in mind. While I don't consider Mass Effect 2 an RPG so much as a Third Person Shooter/Action game with fairly heavy RPG elements, I don't consider it any worse for it, in fact, I'd say that it's much better for it, as the original game was rather mediocre as an RPG.

edited 5th Mar '12 11:41:54 PM by Archereon

What I dislike about this statement is that it implies a false dichotomy between narrative and game mechanics. Both should reinforce one-another; ideally, the mechanics and the narrative should be built around the same themes.

A great example of this is Monster Hunter. It's not well known for having a strong story, but it's one of those games where the system itself creates little ones with every mission. When the mechanics are entirely based on expressing a particular theme (in this case, hunting), then they'll naturally create narrative around themselves. Everyone who's played a Monster Hunter game has a story that's not part of anyone's game but theirs. It could be the way they killed a particular monster, or when another monster wandering into the area distracted their aggressor and saved them from certain death.

From the game environments to the mechanics to the visuals, Monster Hunter completely themes itself around hunting. One constructs traps, sets bait and manipulates the inhabitants of the ecosystems for their own benefit. If you like, you can sneak into a monster's den, set a trap and then fight the monster into a retreat, at which point it'll spring your trap. Because the mechanical tools of the game reflect the narrative theme, stories flow naturally from it.

One might argue that RP Gs, as we understand them, should also have the storytelling style that we're used to. I agree. But why not have both? If one themes the gameplay and the narrative together while providing a well-written story, I promise you immersion will go through the roof. The major point here is focus — a game cannot be too many things at once. Games that spread themselves too thin, with few exceptions (such as The Elder Scrolls), always end up without enough interesting material dedicated to some or any aspects of the game.

Think about any excellent game, and I can ensure it has no more than three (but probably less) central focuses. Some of the best have just one, like Monster Hunter. Fallout has survival in the post-apocalypse as its central theme and relates everything to that, which is why such a diverse gameplay experience can create such a unified experience.

In the best games, narrative and mechanics are one and the same. You can have a story on top of that, but without that unified foundation you've got an inherently weak game.

Fair enough. You're right, ideally, the story and gameplay should be supporting each other.

My statement was probably a little too absolute. I simply disagree with the idea that the story should be subservient to the gameplay. In the end, it depends on the game's purpose. If it's trying to tell a great story, then the story has to come first, even if that occasionally means tweaking the gameplay to make it fit the story better.

Any game that isnt a shooter, a platformer, puzzle game or strategy game is an RPG. Nah, I probably missed some other genres, and the difference between an RPG and an adventure game (ie like Zelda) can get pretty fuzzy, but to me RPG is a pretty huge expanse of games as long as you play a "role", ie your character/characters actually exist and you interact with the game world through them, and you have some degree of customization over those interactions.

No. It doesn't work like that. True, a game that unifies both narratives and mechanics are all the better for it, but at the same time, its gameplay that matters in the long run. A game with a shit narrative but awesome gameplay and mechanics is still a good game, but a game with a strong narrative but weak gameplay and mechanics is just a bad game with one good aspect.

Would you say that Mario is such a franchise that does the stuff you described? What about Pac-Man? Mega Man? Devil May Cry?

edited 6th Mar '12 12:36:02 AM by Rynnec

My answer to this question got me into trouble before on this very wiki but since I have really slopey shoulders, it just slides off.

Every game you play on a computer apart from possibly solitaire is an RPG.

You play Football Manager (real football, not rugby or that thing two-legged tanks play on a grid iron) on the PC, you are playing the role of a football manager, you are not really being one. I defy anyone to say that game doesn't have as many stats as what are (lazily in my view) defined as wrpgs/jrpgs.

You play IL 2 Sturmovik ( Oleg Maddox's paean to the flight sim), you are playing the role of a WW 2 Russian/German fighter pilot. Unless you are over 80 years old, you are not really being one or ever have been one.

You play Mass Effect, as either the frankly ugly male Shepard or the hot as heck Fem-Shep, you are not really the commander of a big feck off space-ship, you are playing the role of one.

To say any game isn't an rpg, you have first to extremely narrowly define what an rpg is to accommodate either your own or some other persons/groups/factions prejudices. As a gamer, you get enough of those without adding any others. And that isn't opinion, it is subjective fact. That is, it is fact to me. Your mileage may vary etc etc.

There's really no other appropriate response;

You're wrong.

Nah, he's technically right in a manner that's overly focused on semantics and isn't actually furthering the discussion at all. Like I said, Role Playing Game was a poor name for such a genre that sort of stuck anyway. RPG is pretty catchy and such.

Well, the argument is basically that defining "Role Playing Game" by the playing of a role is useless because you're technically always playing a role in any game. You can narrow or broaden your own personal definition of "roleplaying" but it's hard to convince others that you're right when ultimately that's subjective.

edited 6th Mar '12 1:16:54 AM by Clarste

Let's try this then, Tam, if you're still reading, what genre would you put Dragon Quest I under?

He's only right if you literally interpret the meaning of the words and ignore everything else, such as the history of the genre, its roots, and the generally accepted definition, nebulous though it may be. Interpreting it to mean "any game where you play a role" is useless.

You could do the same for other genres as well. How about point and click adventure games? In Baldur's Gate, you point and click and you're on an adventure, so I guess that fits! Space simulation games? When I play Super Mario Land, I'm occupying space, and it's simulating being a plumber in the mushroom kingdom, so that fits as well! Wheee!

I think anyone making overarching pronouncements about the importance of story versus gameplay needs to keep in mind that, more than most things, this is a massively personal perspective. It comes down to immersion. When playing Football Manager, or a sports sim, my immersion comes from the sports aspect. When playing Red Alert 2, my immersion comes from the gameplay aspect. But more than most, when playing an RPG, for some reason, my immersion comes from the world and story and the characters as much as (if not more than) from the gameplay. I don't know why, but it does. So when an Elder Scrolls game fails to hook me, its not that the gameplay is particularly weak, its just that I don't care about the world and the characters I interact with. And when a Bio Ware games makes me feel glad, or miserable or hopeful or angry...its the writing and story and characters bantering with each other that bring about that kind of visceral emotional reaction.

Halfway through the discussion, the way I'm seeing it, the two camps are basically defining RP Gs as whether how they see pen n paper Dungeons and Dragons: whether the GM's story is the meat of the game, or whether the growth of the character a player role-plays as is the meat. (Computer games cannot completely capture the way a GM manages the story in a pen-n-paper RPG, though, which somehow limits them)

I can also be just overgeneralizing. Either way, the discussion is interesting.

Facepalm all you like, Talby, and really, a facepalm video compilation? Is that really the best you can do? Especially since I didn't bother clicking on it and it was aimed at me. In baseball terms, that was a swing and a miss, or something.

You won't change my mind and I find your argument as incomprehensible as you think mine's is. I have no intention of convincing anyone as to the rightness of my case or the wrongness of theirs. However right I think I am and however wrong I think theirs is. It is just my case. You are free to agree or disagree with it.

I have never played Dragon Quest 1. Or any other Dragon Quest game for that matter so have no comment on that.

Read my lower post. And really, don't bother to post at all if you're not going to discuss it. I'd honestly like to hear an argument from you, and not just an assertion, which is all you posted.

edited 6th Mar '12 2:12:12 AM by Talby