Wittgenstein proved almost 75 years ago that you can't define what's an RPG

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Wittgenstein was right, but your thread title is incorrect. We can define the RPG genre in reference to the original RPG, Dungeons & Dragons, and determine whether something is or is not an RPG based on how closely its game mechanics reflect the fundamental game mechanics of D&D.

It never ceases to amaze me how eager the members of this forum are to define the genre they supposedly like and seem to be proud of effectively as "shit".

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

 

[Serus]

RPG = game where you play as one or multiple characters whose abilities are defined by stats by at least some degree.

We've been there, done that. There is argument to be made that things like "health" or "armor" are stats, which means Doom or Zelda are CRPGs. Which they clearly aren't. Which means you need to specify what "defined by stats" means. Which means it's more tricky than that. And that's why "What is an RPG?" is meme as you well know.

 

[DraQ]

There is argument to be made that things like "health" or "armor" are stats

Which they clearly aren't.

It only makes sense to refer as stats to things that are part of the mechanical framework used to define your character and the gameplay as they experience it, effectively changing the game you play from within its universe - the feature unique to RPGs.

Things like "health", "armor" or "shotgun shells" are state, not stats. They are simply used for tracking character's state rather than specifically for creating divergent variants of gameplay.

 

[Serus]

There is argument to be made that things like "health" or "armor" are stats

Which they clearly aren't.

It only makes sense to refer as stats to things that are part of the mechanical framework used to define your character and the gameplay as they experience it, effectively changing the game you play from within its universe - the feature unique to RPGs.

Things like "health", "armor" or "shotgun shells" are state, not stats. They are simply used for tracking character's state rather than specifically for creating divergent variants of gameplay.

That's splitting hairs rather thin. Especially when it comes to health - maximum health can be increased and how much you maximum health is - influences your gameplay in games like Zelda. And thus I'd argue is not just a state (that's what current health is) but also a stat.
Aha. So you need in introduce "divergent variants of gameplay" then to specify what you mean? Or are you claiming that something can be called "stats" exclusively when they result in divergent variants of gameplay?
What about a game that has stats but not divergent variants of gameplay? Aka, there are stats but they don't result in "divergent gameplay" in practice? Is it an rpg then or not?
What about our Doomguy friend. Let's assume you'd add a "speed" stat (not temporary buff but actual permanent stat that you could increase over time) to Doom. Higher "speed" would mean faster movement. Would it be an RPG then?

For the record. I'm playing devil's advocate here for the most part.

 

[JarlFrank]

RPG = game where you play as one or multiple characters whose abilities are defined by stats by at least some degree.

We've been there, done that. There is argument to be made that things like "health" or "armor" are stats, which means Doom or Zelda are CRPGs. Which they clearly aren't. Which means you need to specify what "defined by stats" means. Which means it's more tricky than that. And that's why "What is an RPG?" is meme as you well know.

Well, I phrased it as "whose abilities are defined by stats by at least some degree", which means that health and ammo don't count - these aren't stats that define abilities, they're just stats that define certain states (are you alive? yes/no; can you shoot? yes/no).

In a Quake multiplayer match, every player controls a unit with the exact same abilities. Same speed, same health, same armor, same damage based on which weapon is equipped, etc.

Stats that define abilities include the classic stats like STR, INT, DEX etc as well as skills, feats, etc. Differences in these stats mean that the characters behave differently in-game in some way or another.

Usually you also raise these stats during the course of the game but an RPG without leveling up is definitely possible (imagine a classic D&D based RPG where you start at level 10 and never level up from there - it would still be a proper RPG due to character creation and stats making a gameplay difference).

Another important aspect which I didn't mention in my concise definition is that the player should have at least some amount of control over these stats. Either there should be character creation which lets the player create any type of char he wants, or if the character is fixed the player should be able to develop his stats into the direction he wants (which is why Gothic is an RPG despite no char gen, because the player gets to develop his char).

 

[Ranarama]

RPG = game where you play as one or multiple characters whose abilities are defined by stats by at least some degree.

Enjoy your rpg then:

 

[Kev Inkline]

Fuck stats, it's geometrical shapes that makes a true RPG.

But perfect geometrical shapes do not exist (physically).


Modus Tollens
--------------------
So there are no true RPGS.

 

[nobre]

RPG games

Appalling! Everyone knows the proper term is CRPG Video Games

 

[Drowed]

RPG = game where you play as one or multiple characters whose abilities are defined by stats by at least some degree.

Enjoy your rpg then:

Well, that is an RPG, it's just a very bad one. Just as bad/awful art is still art.

 

[thesheeep]

RPG = game where you play as one or multiple characters whose abilities are defined by stats by at least some degree.

Enjoy your rpg then:

Well, that is an RPG, it's just a very bad one. Just as bad/awful art is still art.

Yeah, idle games, at least stat-based ones, are - or can be - the purest definition of RPG.
You do play a tangible role and the outcome of everything is determined not by physical player skill, but by character stats (and dice).
The less physical player skill is involved, the more pure the RPG part.

Of course, these games do not offer any kind of player involvement at all, which makes them absolutely terrible games no matter the genre.

Just goes to show that everything put to the most extreme usually sucks. Even RPGs

 

[HeatEXTEND]

You do play a tangible role

_________________SEMANTICS_________________

 

[Luckmann]

In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argues that the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games are. From this, Wittgenstein concluded that people apply the term game to a range of disparate human activities that bear to one another only what one might call family resemblances. He argues that things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all of the things:

And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; we can see how similarities crop up and disappear.

And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities.

I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way. – And I shall say: "games" form a family.

RPG's are just a specific case of this. Elements of RPG's such as stats, choice & consequence, and rule systems don't adequately define what RPG's are. RPG's have common features but no one feature is found in all of them, there are only similarities.

Wittgenstein, you say? I heard he was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

 

[Tigranes]

He was angry, arrogant, beat up children and shoved hot pokers up Karl Popper's arse. What's not to like?

 

[thesheeep]

You do play a tangible role

_________________SEMANTICS_________________

No, it isn't.
There are some games which some consider RPGs, but completely lack that "feature". X-Com and Battle Brothers come to mind.
In none of them you really play any tangible role, at most you are a "commander" character that is mentioned somewhere but simply isn't... well.. tangible.
Everything in those games is stat-driven, yet you not playing a role that really exists in the world and has stats and gameplay of its own makes them strategy games or simulations, and NOT RPGs.

Otherwise, pretty much every simulation would be an RPG. Being stat-driven alone simply isn't enough.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

you are a "commander" character

There you go.

 

[thesheeep]

you are a "commander" character

There you go.

Okay, sorry, my troll detector was broken, I thought you were serious.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

So not being a character on screen doesn't count, having a click do something according to numbers does count, and I'm the troll? Aight.

 

[Lacrymas]

But I cannot honestly say New Vegas isn't an RPG when it is vastly, vastly superior as an "action RPG" to other "official RPGs". I refuse to put New Vegas in the same bag as Quake and below crap like Baldur's Gate, the allegedly "superior" RPG just because of its combat system.

Except nobody making an action-exclusionary argument is saying RPGs are superior just because they are RPGs. Or that they are superior at all.

 

[Sigourn]

Except nobody making an action-exclusionary argument is saying RPGs are superior just because they are RPGs. Or that they are superior at all.

Sometimes that is the case. Many times, it isn't.