The Fundamental Aspect of an RPG is...

[obediah]

How about "capturing some subset of the experience of PnP RPGS". There is no single fundamental pillar, but the more your include the more RPG you are. And of course, PnP RPGs are many things to many people, so you'll never even get a consensus on the most important pillars.

 

[Joe Krow]

Is that really the best you could do?

How about:

1. Balance of character attributes and player ability
2. Character customization options
3. Range of available character actions

C&C... for fucks sake. Leave a little kool-aid for the next guy.

 

[Armacalypse]

1 and 2. 2 for character progression and customization. 1 so that the choices and successes in said progression and customization have lasting consequences (and can't be undone without other consequences).

I think that covers all RPGs and games with some RPG elements. It doesn't apply to strategy and driving games etc. because it requires character progression and customization. I guess the line would be murky if the game was about a character with a magical ring or something that got stronger and that you could costumize.

 

[Fezzik]

If a game has a focus on dungeon crawling give those dungeons background and history, don't make them ruins for ruins sake.

I forgot to mention earlier, but I think that this is a fairly good point and I really like it when it's done right. In Arcanum, even though a lot of the dungeons were pretty retarded, I loved the way many of the dungeons scattered across the landscape were filled with a history that related to the history of Arcanum and even to the factions involved in the story. I wish more games had those sorts of locations.

 

[phanboy_iv]

Really none of the above aspects, or at least it is problematic to define RPGs solely in those terms.

So I define RPG as "A game where you, the player, define the role, not the game" That limits it to the more traditional Fallout-esqe meaning, as well as the original P&P meaning. "Real RPGs" are not about identifying with a predefined personality/morality. They are about being able to express your personality/morality in the game world via your avatar.

That is usually easiest to manage with C&C, but as with exploration, flexible skills, and customized characters, C&C is simply a method to achieve a goal, not a goal in and of itself.

 

[bhlaab]

So I define RPG as "A game where you, the player, define the role, not the game" That limits it to the more traditional Fallout-esqe meaning, as well as the original P&P meaning. "Real RPGs" are not about identifying with a predefined personality/morality. They are about being able to express your personality/morality in the game world via your avatar.

I'd narrow this further to
"A game where you, the player, define the role and the function of the protagonist, not the game"

 

[phanboy_iv]

So I define RPG as "A game where you, the player, define the role, not the game" That limits it to the more traditional Fallout-esqe meaning, as well as the original P&P meaning. "Real RPGs" are not about identifying with a predefined personality/morality. They are about being able to express your personality/morality in the game world via your avatar.

I'd narrow this further to
"A game where you, the player, define the role and the function of the protagonist, not the game"

That's a bit more detailed, yes. The ability to define the character's function is implied by ability to define the role though.

 

[MetalCraze]

but what every good RPG need, be it pen and paper or CRPG is a good, immersive story. The story that makes you feel like a part of the game world. The story that gives you a feeling that you are realy playing your role. And it is a Role Playing Game after all.

The "good immersive story" is the least important feature even in such "pinnacle of RPGs" as Fallout. Meaning that RPGs can easily do without it.
RPG however cannot do without a good gameplay even if it has a good story. Case in point - PS:T. Good for the first time (while the story keeps you interested at least), completely unplayable for the second time where the story is not novel anymore and you are alone with the terribad gameplay.

Aren't RPG's about experiencing a different world? As a whole? If i want combat i would play an action game like God of War, if i want to explore a dungeon i would download Seplunker or play Tomb Raider.

I personally dont like excuse plots or dungeon crawling. If an RPG has focus on combat give it a good story that gives players motivation to participate in this combat. If a game has a focus on dungeon crawling give those dungeons background and history, don't make them ruins for ruins sake. So we still need a good story.

I see you think that dungeon crawlers are all about killing things in corridors.

 

[bhlaab]

So I define RPG as "A game where you, the player, define the role, not the game" That limits it to the more traditional Fallout-esqe meaning, as well as the original P&P meaning. "Real RPGs" are not about identifying with a predefined personality/morality. They are about being able to express your personality/morality in the game world via your avatar.

I'd narrow this further to
"A game where you, the player, define the role and the function of the protagonist, not the game"

That's a bit more detailed, yes. The ability to define the character's function is implied by ability to define the role though.

The definition of role is incredibly fuzzy. I think that's the biggest problem with trying to pin down the genre into a single specific idea.

Who hasn't heard the shitty argument "Rayman 2 is a role playing game because you're playing the role of Rayman!"

 

[Aikanaro]

I would say the presence of a system and an identifiable protagonist.

 

[phanboy_iv]

So I define RPG as "A game where you, the player, define the role, not the game" That limits it to the more traditional Fallout-esqe meaning, as well as the original P&P meaning. "Real RPGs" are not about identifying with a predefined personality/morality. They are about being able to express your personality/morality in the game world via your avatar.

I'd narrow this further to
"A game where you, the player, define the role and the function of the protagonist, not the game"

That's a bit more detailed, yes. The ability to define the character's function is implied by ability to define the role though.

The definition of role is incredibly fuzzy. I think that's the biggest problem with trying to pin down the genre into a single specific idea.

Who hasn't heard the shitty argument "Rayman 2 is a role playing game because you're playing the role of Rayman!"

Yes but again, you do not define Rayman, the game does, and you merely control him. Therefore not RPG. The answer to that notoriously silly argument is that playing a role != defining a role. An RPG requires that you, the player, define AND play the role. A game containing one without the other cannot be an RPG.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's good we finally cleared out that PS:T is not a RPG.

 

[phanboy_iv]

It's good we finally cleared out that PS:T is not a RPG.

Ah, but it is, and a stellar example of one at that. You define TNO's approach to life, his interactions with others and the world around him, even the meaning of his life. Certainly an RPG.

 

[MetalCraze]

But you don't. In fact PS:T is very linear and you hardly ever have a choice.
PS:T however is RPG for other reasons, including combat and character system (through which you quite ironically define TNO much more than through selecting fluff dialogues). Now the quality is another question.
It doesn't matter however because what you are saying is that if you LARP your character - it is a RPG which is wrong.

 

[phanboy_iv]

But you don't. In fact PS:T is very linear and you hardly ever have a choice.
PS:T however is RPG for other reasons, including combat and character system (through which you quite ironically define TNO much more than through selecting fluff dialogues). Now the quality is another question.
It doesn't matter however because what you are saying is that if you LARP your character - it is a RPG which is wrong.

There are many choices in the game, some of them major, and all of them up the the player. Yes, the main plotline is very linear, but who TNO really is and who he becomes is up to you. Yes, the mechanics and class selection are also factors, albiet more mechanistic ones. And I'm saying the exact opposite. A good RPG is one where you don't have to LARP.

 

[MetalCraze]

The point is who TNO is is pretty much pre-defined by a game. And whether he is a fighter or a mage or has high or lower INT on the character screen has far more impact on the game than whether he will choose to help the hobo lift that curse or not as well as all other choices which in the end will have no impact on him or a game at all. It's still a RPG (a bad RPG as implementations of those things are pretty poor but that's another question for a debate)
Which means that defining the character through selections of dialogues or actions is by far not a rule defining the RPG. It's a summary of many more rules.

 

[phanboy_iv]

The point is who TNO is is pretty much pre-defined by a game. And whether he is a fighter or a mage or has high or lower INT on the character screen has far more impact on the game than whether he will choose to help the hobo lift that curse or not as well as all other choices which in the end will have no impact on him or a game at all. It's still a RPG (a bad RPG as implementations of those things are pretty poor but that's another question for a debate)

I can see that.

Which means that defining the character through selections of dialogues or actions is by far not a rule defining the RPG. It's a summary of many more rules.

Agreed. The main thing of importance is the ability to define, how exactly that definition occurs is the result of many more aspects, as you say.

 

[Forest Dweller]

skyway, you've been on a bullshit role lately. There are many ways that your actions effect the game.

1. One of the endings involves you merging with TTO. There are three ways to get him to agree. Two of those three are only possible based on things you did during the game.

2. You can lose many party members based on your actions. Morte can be given to the Pillar of Skulls, Fall-from-Grace can be sold, you can let Ravel kill Anna and/or FFG, Anna will attack you when you get FFG if you treated her badly, Vhailor will attack you if you take him with you to the Pillar of Skulls. Etc...

3. If you find out enough information about the Paranoid Incarnation, you can defeat him without a fight at the end.

4. What faction you join determines how easy or how hard it will be to get into the Sensates' restricted area. Obviously if you joined them it would be no problem, but if you don't then you will have to find out that you were once a Sensate, something that is hard to find. Also you only get the dream machine quest if you join the Godsmen. And if you piss the quest-giver off (solely through dialogue) he won't help you anymore and will even attack you if you talk to him again. If you defend yourself that will turn the whole faction against you. (This happened to me.)

5. If you are rude to one particular guy at the Sensates' place, he will curse you with hiccups, which causes you to stop frequently while moving around. I believe he is the only one who can undo it. So if you kill him you're fucked.

6. If you accept a certain axe (I think) from that one fiend who is a servant of Trias (I forget his name) it will curse you and cause you to go berserk around enemies. And you can't take it off. I think you have to use a Remove Curse spell or something.

7. If you pray to the Lady of Pain enough times, she will send you straight to Ravel.

8. Many of the items that you can buy at that curiosity shop (the one with the woman who wants Fall-from-Grace) can be used to solve quests.

And that's all off the top of my head based on one playthrough over a year ago. I'm sure there's a lot more that I'm not aware of. Saying that choices alone don't affect the game is bullshit. And even in the instances where one of your stats opens up an option, you still have to pick that option. So there is a lot of C&C in the game - in fact, I'd say it has more than Fallout.

 

[bhlaab]

skyway, you've been on a bullshit role lately

My god, this is getting so meta

 

[winterraptor]

It still hasn't been concluded that trying to define an RPG is pointless on The Codex? Intent of words = nothing here. Only how they can be twisted around back upon themselves and be 'proven' infinitesimally wrong, ludicrous, and antithetical to sentience is of any relevance here.

The problem is that a true RPG is a group of humans acting out roles through the interface of system rules. Concentrated imagination. Infinite variables. A computer game has finite variables, a shadow of its original subject. Everything a computer 'rpg' is trying to do is simply to improve this illusion's believability. To emulate various concepts virtually. Mostly only in a handful of aspects these days, usually, primarily, with graphical 'immersion'.

The classics in most cases had it as their goal to emulate PnP game play, or some beloved aspect of it (such as dungeon crawling). They did not always succeed, some were horrible, but what they tried to do is obvious. Without fail, though, they did not emulate their template completely. Not even close. With current technology, its impossible.

The point is that you're dealing with trying to compartmentalize imagination itself and pigeonhole it into a narrow set of definitions. Seems best left to psychiatrists, and they're always wrong anyway.

So whoever wants to define an RPG, go write a damn book. A poll is grossly inadequate.

A good RPG is one where you don't have to LARP.

And one where your LARPing is the game - what is that? Hypothetically.

The Holodeck, obviously, and you can call me a LARPer then.

 

[phanboy_iv]

A good RPG is one where you don't have to LARP.

And one where your LARPing is the game - what is that? Hypothetically.

The Holodeck, obviously, and you can call me a LARPer then.

Well yeah, the whole point of a computer RPG is that it takes care of all the LARPing for you, in a way. VRRPing, if you will.

 

[MetalCraze]

Dicksmoker, what's wrong with your reading comprehension mang?
But anyway the examples you made only prove my point. Out of those the majority does not affect anything in how TNO turns out to be at all as it either doesn't mean anything in the end (like in-party LARPing or the curse you remove with a spell) or sends you to the same place you would've reached anyway. Shit I imagine TNO getting hiccups makes him a totally different person from a TNO without hiccups. LARPing shit. Way to miss a point too.

Many of the items that you can buy at that curiosity shop (the one with the woman who wants Fall-from-Grace) can be used to solve quests.

And? Nice mechanic but what it has to do with your other examples?

 

[Armacalypse]

PS:T may be the greatest game ever made, but it's much more of an adventure game than an RPG. If it didn't have stats it wouldn't be an RPG at all, it would just be an adventure game with extremely deep dialogue, an awesome story, and alot of choices and consequences. Those are the reasons we like it, and they are also what many consider to make an "RPG". The industry doesn't define RPGs that way though, and the heavily story and character driven RPGs could be thought of more as part of a subgenre of RPG.

Though contrary to Skyway, I don't think that how "RPG" a game is decides how good it is.

 

[MetalCraze]

I never said that. The problem of PS:T is not in how much "RPG" it is but how good it does what it tries to do - PS:T would've rather made a great adventure game if it didn't try to involve shitty combat and poor character system which feel more out of place there and ruin gameplay. However it would've been even better if combat was much more DnD'ish, not just filler and there were more classes than generic 3.
It is also an example of how LARPing part doesn't save the game when it is the only important thing.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

PS:T is a jRPG