Is there such a thing as an "Action RPG"? Poll inside

[Glop_dweller]

If i were to alter the definition to allow for pre-determined personalities, then that would result in oxymoron - that is games that are clearly not RPGs would end up being labeled as such. But it never happens with the current definition that i have. Sure, it will exclude games like the witcher and planescape torment, but i'm okay with that.

Then you are —okay— with a self admittedly flawed definition; one that excludes some go-to examples of great RPGs.

Your criterion is that you get to pick the role—and so that excludes the games where they have meticulously crafted a role to play; and doubtless they've tailored the campaign to suit the [known quantity] character. This is bullocks to me, not your preference for custom characters, but the idea that a game offering an exceptionally detailed (and reactive) role to play, is somehow not a role playing game. There are many, many reasons not to be considered an RPG—but offering a role seems ridiculous to be considered among them.

The other problem is that people tell you that Planescape, Withcer, and Gothic are all RPGs. However they are not able to tell you WHY they think that. What makes either of those games RPGs? Most people have vague idea of what an RPG is in their heads, or they are simply echoing what other people say.

And this matters why? They can all tell you the Sun is a star—but it's not if they can't explain it?

Witcher is a roleplaying game because it sets an interactive stage with an interesting protagonist in an interesting situation; one where their unique insights, abilities, attitude—and shortcomings will change the course of events for themselves and for others, through conversation and choice of actions.

Planescape is a roleplaying game because it sets an interactive stage with an interesting protagonist in an interesting situation; one where their unique insights, abilities, attitude will—and shortcomings change the course of events for themselves and for others, through their conversation and choice of actions.

—And the same could sardonically be said of Super Mario Bros. However, the measure is in the detail, depth, and extent of the opportunities for this that are presented. Mario & Luigi can be said to have changed the course of events for all of the monsters they killed, and by freeing the princess... but that's about it, and it wouldn't qualify as a cRPG even in the '80s. All of those actions are unavoidable; side effects of playing the game to complete its simplistic goal, and they rely upon player reflex—when Mario fails, it's not his fault.

To make Super Mario Bros. into an RPG, it would need to differentiate the brothers (give clues to their deeper personalities). It would need to allow for them to fail at tasks for no fault of the player, and to have [plenty of] choices that would allow them to grow (or wither) as individuals. Basically it's what they did with the cartoon. If they made the cartoon into a game, it could be made as an RPG.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

To make Super Mario Bros. into an RPG

 

[Glop_dweller]

Looks like a jRPG.

 

[Lord_Potato]

If your definition of a RPG excludes Planescape Torment you know it's pure garbage.

All I hear from you is "retarded", "wrong", "pure garbage" etc. You don't seem to have ideas of your own.

Well, you are still lost in the fog. Most of us here abandoned the autistic idea of finding a perfect definition of a rpg ages ago. That's why "first we need to define what rpg is" is simply a meme.

 

[thesheeep]

A game can have action elements and RPG elements, making it an Action-RPG.
That this concept is too much to grasp for a few people (thankfully only a few according to the poll).... boggles the mind.

 

[HoboForEternity]

Someone has to come up and say that this kind of thread is pointless. I don't really enjoy it but I'll take the responsibility. Hope you come to your senses someday, OP.

how else will OP seek attention from internet strangers so he can relieve his crippling loneliness even for just a moment?

 

[Cryomancer]

Dark Souls 1/2 are Action RPG's, with an amazing combat, character combat and world building

Diablo 1/2 too. But Diablo 3, is just an glorified slot machine.

 

[PsychoFox]

If your definition of a RPG excludes Planescape Torment you know it's pure garbage.

All I hear from you is "retarded", "wrong", "pure garbage" etc. You don't seem to have ideas of your own.

Well, you are still lost in the fog. Most of us here abandoned the autistic idea of finding a perfect definition of a rpg ages ago. That's why "first we need to define what rpg is" is simply a meme.

Well to each their own. I'll stick to my perfectly functional definition and you to your vagueness.

 

[PsychoFox]

If i were to alter the definition to allow for pre-determined personalities, then that would result in oxymoron - that is games that are clearly not RPGs would end up being labeled as such. But it never happens with the current definition that i have. Sure, it will exclude games like the witcher and planescape torment, but i'm okay with that.

Then you are —okay— with a self admittedly flawed definition; one that excludes some go-to examples of great RPGs.

Your criterion is that you get to pick the role—and so that excludes the games where they have meticulously crafted a role to play; and doubtless they've tailored the campaign to suit the [known quantity] character. This is bullocks to me, not your preference for custom characters, but the idea that a game offering an exceptionally detailed (and reactive) role to play, is somehow not a role playing game. There are many, many reasons not to be considered an RPG—but offering a role seems ridiculous to be considered among them.

The other problem is that people tell you that Planescape, Withcer, and Gothic are all RPGs. However they are not able to tell you WHY they think that. What makes either of those games RPGs? Most people have vague idea of what an RPG is in their heads, or they are simply echoing what other people say.

And this matters why? They can all tell you the Sun is a star—but it's not if they can't explain it?

Witcher is a roleplaying game because it sets an interactive stage with an interesting protagonist in an interesting situation; one where their unique insights, abilities, attitude—and shortcomings will change the course of events for themselves and for others, through conversation and choice of actions.

Planescape is a roleplaying game because it sets an interactive stage with an interesting protagonist in an interesting situation; one where their unique insights, abilities, attitude will—and shortcomings change the course of events for themselves and for others, through their conversation and choice of actions.

—And the same could sardonically be said of Super Mario Bros. However, the measure is in the detail, depth, and extent of the opportunities for this that are presented. Mario & Luigi can be said to have changed the course of events for all of the monsters they killed, and by freeing the princess... but that's about it, and it wouldn't qualify as a cRPG even in the '80s. All of those actions are unavoidable; side effects of playing the game to complete its simplistic goal, and they rely upon player reflex—when Mario fails, it's not his fault.

To make Super Mario Bros. into an RPG, it would need to differentiate the brothers (give clues to their deeper personalities). It would need to allow for them to fail at tasks for no fault of the player, and to have [plenty of] choices that would allow them to grow (or wither) as individuals. Basically it's what they did with the cartoon. If they made the cartoon into a game, it could be made as an RPG.

Detail, depth and extent are all subjective criteria and not useful for an objective definition.

That definition: ...is a roleplaying game because it sets an interactive stage with an interesting protagonist in an interesting situation; one where their unique insights, abilities, attitude—and shortcomings will change the course of events for themselves and for others, through conversation and choice of actions...

is greatly flawed and much too broad for our purposes. Going by that definition, many games would be labeled as RPGs when they clearly are not.

let's approach this from another angle: What are the core elements of a tabletop RPG? Character creation and expression. Stats, ruleset, setting etc. really don't matter in what makes a tabletop game an RPG. What matters is that players make their own characters and express them to alter the story of the session. My definition of RPG is really an extension of that definition in the digital format.

Really, think about it critically.


~~
I'm going to stop responding to this specific topic here. I don't think there can be constructive discussion on this issue because people are too sensitive about the subject and it has been memed to death. Let's all stick to our own definitions. What works for you is what you should go with and i'll certainly do the same.

The point of the matter is that "I don't know" is never a good answer to a question, and in my personal opinion this great confusion about what makes an RPG is unnecessary. But anyhow, signing off on this topic.

 

[Jacob]

Well to each their own. I'll stick to my perfectly functional definition and you to your vagueness.

It's exactly because RPG is a vaguely defined genre based on a broad range of games, it's pointless to keep arguing on the definition of RPG. This discussion achieves nothing, except for maybe satisfying your OCD, and it gets infuriating for people who's gotten bored of seeing another "what's an rpg #3424262" thread. Reading hivemind's attention whoring thread gave me more insight than this shit.

 

[Cryomancer]

This video from cannot be tamed defines well what is an RPG. In nutshell, needs narrative and mechanical character building. This is why Barbie dressing game like Diablo 3 and most mmos mainly post wow where everyone is a clone and have his IQ/muscle mass determined by their jacket is IMO not RPG's, because it is not narrative nor mechanical charater building

 

[Roguey]

Chrono Trigger isn't an RPG

As Avellone has pointed out, CT has C&C.

 

[Momock]

To make it easier on the voters:

• Deus Ex
• The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
  
• Gothic
• Fallout: New Vegas
• Dark Souls

If you agree ANY of those is an RPG, then Action RPGs do exist. The point isn't whether all of those are RPGs. Only whether it is possible to have an Action RPG.

They're not RPGs. They're ARPGs (or at least the first 4 are, Dark Souls is an hack'n'slash). RPGs and ARPGs are not the same. ARPGs need to be ARPGs to be ARPGs, not to be RPGs. If they were RPGs then they would be RPGs.

And action games with "RPG elements" are something else totaly different (Far Cry, NuTR, etc...).

Your poll is dumb and so are you.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

My face when people on here think the only RPGs ever made were Fallout 1 & 2.

 

[Lord_Potato]

Noone thinks that.

They were only the best.

 

[Morality Games]

I'm not going to post game examples, I'm not going to expand the poll option descriptions to include game examples, I'm not going to do any of that thing because the Internet has shown time and time again that the minute you do that, things go to hell.

So I keep it in simple terms. Can YOU think of "Action RPGs"? I personally do. While I'm aware the most recent Codex "best RPGs" polls show the forum DOES agree Action RPGs exists, I want to see just how many people disagree with it.

A role-playing game is, was, and always will be a game where you make believe a separate identity for yourself in an imaginary world and make choices that are consistent with the priorities of that identity and the conditions of that world. The make-believe of children doesn't count because their identities, choices, priorities, and the conditions of their imaginary world have zero consistency.

All of the systems or mechanics people associate with role playing games (stats sheets and any form of combat) are a means of providing focus to what would otherwise be a fairly aimless, mercurial activity. Stat sheets that specify attributes and skills that correlate to real life physics and abilities exist so that people have no choice to be consistent while they are playing make believe, and turn-based combat exists so that the activity can be shared among many people with conflicting ideas and goals.

So yeah, it's possible for an action RPG to be a role playing game because even live-action role-playing games conform to these conditions.

That said, a lot of ostensible RPGs that go by that name don't qualify as RPGs because while they have separate identities (the player character) and imaginary worlds, there is no element of choice involved (so you can't play with your role).

 

[Jeru]

Is there such a thing as an "RPG"?

fixed

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Yes, they exist. For example, System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and Fallout 3 + NV are "action" RPGs because they have a limited degree of player skill dependence through movement and aiming.

 

[Papa Môlé]

If your definition of a RPG excludes Planescape Torment you know it's pure garbage.

All I hear from you is "retarded", "wrong", "pure garbage" etc. You don't seem to have ideas of your own.

Well he probably doesn't. But it is better to have good ideas than unique ones.

 

[Shinji]

There was a similar topic on JRPG forums some time ago:
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...ight-and-terranigma-rpgs.128081/#post-6173885

On the other hand, most of these games that have attributes are usually focused on only one type of interaction -- that is usually combat.
Dark Souls and Castlevania SOTN are examples of games that only allow the player interact with the world through combat.

This leads me to believe that we have "role playing experiences" and "role playing games".
Role playing *experiences* (for a lack of a better term) focuses on allowing the characters to interact with the world in various ways, with no predominant form of interaction.
Role playing *games* focuses primarily on a specific activity (such as combat), and gives freedom for the player to choose how his characters will participate in this primary activity that they're bound to.

The former is only achievable in real life, by using the imagination.

I believe that any game that favors player skill over character skill shouldn't be considered a role playing game.
Thus, Dark Souls and Castlevania shouldn't be considered role playing games, but simply games in which the combat effectiveness of your character is determined by his attributes, and if you're a really skilled player you can finish the game without having to improve your character's attributes.

Then we have role playing games that are focused on (character skill-based) combat, but allow other forms of (character skill-based) interactions (e.g. Realms of Arkania, Darklands, Fallout 1&2)
We also have hybrids, in which player skill predominates in some interactions, while other interactions are determined solely by character skill (e.g. Skyrim, Gothic, Mount & Blade)

 

[Glop_dweller]

Detail, depth and extent are all subjective criteria and not useful for an objective definition.

I disagree. I think it's absurd to claim relative values as subjectively equal (depending upon who is measuring), when speaking of amounts comparable to "few" and "gross". Games that are not RPGs are not offering opportunities to the PC, they are offering a few binary choices; choices that don't much matter who the PC is, or how they would uniquely perceive and react to the situation. The arcade game Willow is not an RPG—despite have a host of the tropes and many recognizable characters. You play as Willow or Madmartigan; they even improve with gaining greater weapons & spells.

But it's a platform game about player timing, and mechanically little different from Ghost & Goblins.


An ostensibly better choice would seem to be the arcade game Cadash—that game actually gives one the choice of playing a warrior, wizard, priest, or ninja; each player named, with levels, quests, healing potions, equipment upgrades, and special talents... but it too does not offer any roleplaying. Every character class is the same person with a different name; their class might as well BE their name. It doesn't matter who they are. Calling your Wizard Sauruman [if you could] does not allow you to play Sauruman in the game... Progression is a fixed path on rails, and the evil wizard must play the hero even if it's out of character.

The arcade game Golden Axe and Bungie's RTS series Myth are other examples that offer more interactivity, but each is just a beat'em-up game; all non-combat situations are non-interactive. Of the two, Myth allows for character [unit] improvement due to battle experience, but neither is an RPG. The character's identities are insignificant to the gameplay.

When you compare these to the likes of Baldur's Gate or Planescape—where you get a unique party of PCs (whether player designed, or pre-made), who can adventure where they wish, help or hinder whom they wish, and approach all situations from a position of expertise, or personal weakness...and allowing the player the select the most in-keeping reaction/response for their character as they know them... it is plain that only these two of the ones listed are designed to acknowledge (and narratively react to) each character's unique nature. These are the RPGs.

That definition: ...is a roleplaying game because it sets an interactive stage with an interesting protagonist in an interesting situation; one where their unique insights, abilities, attitude—and shortcomings will change the course of events for themselves and for others, through conversation and choice of actions...

is greatly flawed and much too broad for our purposes. Going by that definition, many games would be labeled as RPGs when they clearly are not.

This is result of subjective interpretation. Any definition will fall short when the observer is hell bent on their own conflicting agenda, and willing to make any leap of logic or lack thereof to discrediting it.
(And they are helped by deliberate abuse through disingenuous marketing... like D00M RPG. )

let's approach this from another angle: What are the core elements of a tabletop RPG? Character creation and expression. Stats, ruleset, setting etc. really don't matter in what makes a tabletop game an RPG. What matters is that players make their own characters and express them to alter the story of the session.

The core elements don't include creating the role; they include playing the role. It's nice —even preferable— when the game supports a custom PC, but that's not intrinsic to roleplaying.
(Actors don't generally write their own parts.)

I'm going to stop responding to this specific topic here. I don't think there can be constructive discussion on this issue because people are too sensitive about the subject and it has been memed to death. Let's all stick to our own definitions. What works for you is what you should go with and i'll certainly do the same.

The point of the matter is that "I don't know" is never a good answer to a question, and in my personal opinion this great confusion about what makes an RPG is unnecessary. But anyhow, signing off on this topic.

This is a time honored tactic to avoid rebuttal, by implying that it is impossible to win, whilst ensuring (for ones self) that it also impossible to lose.