Define "RPG"

[Mystra's Chosen]

I have played a lot of games, many of them RPG's, but I really don't know how to tell the difference between an RPG and, oh say, an action or something. Is there a dead give away, or what?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I have played a lot of games, many of them RPG's, but I really don't know how to tell the difference between an RPG and, oh say, an action or something. Is there a dead give away, or what?

Alot of times, just having character stats that grow with use and people to interact with throughout the game is all the industry needs to call it an RPG, whether it's action or not.

 

[Voss]

I'd say it requires meaningful interaction with the game-world and characters in it, and decisions and actions have consequences.

These days, however, its mostly just a marketing label. Though almost everything is tagged as a hybrid something/something/something these days, so there isn't a lot of meaning there.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't know wtf a 'purebreed' is compared to a hybrid anyway. I suppose C&C Generals is a purebreed RTS while Warcraft 3 is a hybrid of some sort. "Hybrids'" have existed for as long as any other genre. Just take a look at games like Syndicate, Chaos Overlords or Jagged Alliance 1. Tell me those aren't 'hybrids'.

 

[Rosh]

Such a simple answer for anyone who's been around for a bit.

Let's look at the history of "role-playing game", in a computer context, shall we?

Back in the origins of commercial computer gaming, there really wasn't a "role-playing" genre. "Adventure" had a good number of flavors, ranging from "action-adventure" (based upon the movie genre of the same), "text adventure" (from where everything CRPG started, really, as the interactions are what separates them from action-adventure moreso than text), "dungeon crawler" (which went along the construction styles of text adventure games, but the graphical change was mostly cosmetic when comparing the game structure as a whole), and "traditional adventure" (featuring games like Leisure Suit Larry, King's Quest, etc.), traditional being a bit misleading as it was one of the latest incarnations of the adventure genre but is the one most think of when speaking of adventure games. Only a few at that time, trailing a little from D&D, used "role-playing" in any context; most were sold by merit of adventure capability.

Take the text-based speech interface (but with pre-made responses), add in the point and click roam with world interaction, add in adversaries to be defeated through a stat system while exploring, add in a larger back story (than other genres) and character depth commonly found in many adventure games...whoa! Looks like what we think of a CRPG, isn't it? Hence coined such when it resembled all the combined aspects of tabletop role-playing, and not for the munchkin definition either. It's also interesting to mention that while a CRPG can be a dungeon crawler, a dungeon crawler isn't necessarily a CRPG. Figure out that one.

There you have the literal definition of the CRPG genre and how it came about. So do not mock those old LucasArts and others' adventure games, in whatever form; they gave us what is the RPG today, along with the thousands of text-adventure game authors.

Please do ignore the uneducated kiddies when they tout out the "anything you play a ROLE in is a ROLE-playing game" and back it up with quite indefinite examples such as Diablo. Diablo, quite technically, is "action-adventure", mixed a bit with "dungeon crawler". Of course, to their kind of "logic", Super Mario Brothers is also a CRPG.

 

[EEVIAC]

Rosh's appraisal is pertinient, even now, because I've often thought that RPG's can move in two directions, and still keep their inherent appeal. One is to revert back to the roots of the genre (adventures) and make games that are based on stories - the process of exploration leads to the ever increasing expostion of story. This becomes the primary gameplay dynamic. The other direction, and the one I personally prefer, is simulation. Where exploration becomes a self-contained end in itself, almost the diametric opposite of the first.

Most of this is superfluous anyway because the genre term "RPG" is pretty much meaningless these days, and mostly just used as marketing jargon to pretend that a game has more depth than it does. (The latest Tomb Raider had RPG elements apparently, push a box, your strength goes up, now you can push a bigger box.) There are old games that have allowed me to explore roles like Alter Ego and Pirates! that probably wouldn't be considered RPG's by its definition in the modern lexicon. Well fuck the modern lexicon, I say, fuck it to hell.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I don't know wtf a 'purebreed' is compared to a hybrid anyway. I suppose C&C Generals is a purebreed RTS while Warcraft 3 is a hybrid of some sort. "Hybrids'" have existed for as long as any other genre. Just take a look at games like Syndicate, Chaos Overlords or Jagged Alliance 1. Tell me those aren't 'hybrids'.

Exactly my point. The term RPG has become so saturated these days that I feel it no longer means what it used to. Warcraft 3 has plenty of 'RPG' maps you can download from various sites, and, while definitely very action/rpgish, they are not TRUE rpgs by the sense of the word. Bleh... I don't even really wanna get into what the TRUE sense of the word is. Fallout 1 and 2 are probably some of the best examples of 'purebreed' rpgs out there. There are plenty of others, but those two easily come to mind.

 

[Mystra's Chosen]

So what you're saying is Diablo isn't an RPG, the term "RPG" is outdated, and therefore Dungeon Seige is a crime against nature. :D

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

So what you're saying is Diablo isn't an RPG, the term "RPG" is outdated, and therefore Dungeon Seige is a crime against nature. :D

Well, Diablo is an rpg, just not a 'purebreed' one. Dungeon Seige..... errrr.... well, I'll let someone else deal with that since I think the game was a crime against the known universe myself. :evil: As far as the term rpg being outdated. No. Just overused alot.

Edit: Maybe I should say overabused instead......

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'm both passionate and detached on the subject On one hand i'm constantly analyzing the definition, seeking examples, making comparisons, judging the good and bad, etc. On the other hand, i've debated so much what is/what isn't an RPG that i sometimes can't even stomach it anymore (specially because i had too many conversations with narrow-minded idiots :evil: ).

 

[Mystra's Chosen]

Sorry Role-Player. I'm new to this particular forum (I'm Avatar in Sorcerer's Place though, so not really a newbie to RPG forums) and I didn't know. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Sorry Role-Player. I'm new to this particular forum (I'm Avatar in Sorcerer's Place though, so not really a newbie to RPG forums) and I didn't know. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up?

No, no, its not your fault, it's fine :wink: I just feel compelled to give my views but at the same time not. It's like feeling sorry for a dead horse, but then kicking it anyway. I like the subject (hell, otherwise i wouldn't be here) but sometimes, i feel like contributing to these convos won't really matter. Its kinda like trying to avoid something you cannot.

Bah. Maybe its just my old age...

 

[Rosh]

As far as the term rpg being outdated. No. Just overused alot.

Edit: Maybe I should say overabused instead......

Quite true. CRPG is quite a new genre and genre label. It has really only been around since the mid to early 90's, the SSI Gold Box and Silver Box being good examples in having the aforementioned CRPG aspects combined from the Adventure genre and sub-genres (although it did focus a lot on the crawler aspect more, being a strat/crawler first and foremost). The misuse arises mainly because of stupid gaming newbies who originally didn't do their homework and wrote a review erroniously labeling a game (under the guise of being a "professional", despite that in any other industry someone paid isn't really regarded as a "professional" by default), equally at fault with the publishers who try to pull a pig in a poke with this and fool idiots into thinking it is a CRPG by using a stat system and having little of what comprises up what is a CRPG instead of just being a flavor of adventure. Diablo and Dungeon Shit are in the same genre, action-adventure/dungeon crawler. Simple as that, without having to dice up all the merits of the game, and quite obviously so. And then you have the silly and quite clueless Diablo kiddies.

 

[Seven]

I don't think that you can define what an RPG is. You know what it is when you play it; it's a very subjective thing that way.

 

[Rosh]

Well, having played an exhausting amount of the adventure genre, all of the sub-genres, and knowing quite a few people who worked on these (and worked alongside a more modest number), I've seen the progression of elements and the combinations of what fit into making them a certain genre or sub-genre. CRPG has erroniously been used to label anything Adventure w/Stats. As CRPG was derived from tabletop P&P games, it would also argue congruently that any game that gave a close experience (or as best a CRPG can offer) to the full original scope of a P&P RPG would also be defined as a CRPG (plus the other genres exist already). So, yes, I believe you're right in believing that, as it is a full-character experience moreso than stats that defines a CRPG.

To date, the one I remember most for the ultimate CRPG would be fairly obvious, as it was one of the first to put all the aspects together. But...guess with which of the series is truly the defining one, but it wasn't the first. Now that shouldn't be too difficult, I would hope.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't think that you can define what an RPG is. You know what it is when you play it; it's a very subjective thing that way.

Well the problem with subjectiveness is that it isn't universal. I mean, you look at a house and you know its a house. You recognize aesthetic features, you walk in and see the way its built, and furnished, and are given more proof its a house. This can be an association to the word, then the meaning of the word, then the meaning and the word to a representation of it, and so on. I've seen people call The Sims an RPG, and GTA3 as well. That goes beyond simple subjectiveness, thats closer to "Say whaaa?". I mean, i look at Diablo. Like Rosh, i see an action/dungeon crawler. Some call it adventure. Others call it ActionRPG, or a straight RPG, be it because of stats, or because it has an inventory you have to manage. There are multiple reasons for this, but the truth is that it won't matter. Which is unfortunate. I've played enough games, and talked to enough (thankfully) intelligent people over the matter, and very few actually see things as they are. And what do we get? Scorn for not joining the bandwagon. Laughed at because we call award-winning games crap. We can't change the world, just bitch against it. Bitching against everything and everyone on a site.

Thank you for watching another episode of "European a-hole contemplates the futility of life and labels: the Family Edition".

::shoots self::

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

for me the key word in RPG is role.....And for me, that word is pluralized in a method that english doesn't seem to effectively manage. In any case, the game has to give the player the ability to assume any number of multiples roles(but more than one or two). I don't think the majority of self-stylized RPGs qualify. Certainly, diablo and its kin do not. In those games(and i do enjoy them, but not as RPGs) your role is pretty fixed - you walk around, in whatever guise, and slay the enemies.

A real RPG would allow multiple solutions to the task: You could physically combat them, you could undermine them intellectually, you could even join them, or (and not allowed even more than some of the other options) just ignore everything and do your own thing. The problem is that most games don't allow you to assume much of a role. You can be the slayer, the conquerer, the ....., but unfortunately not just an average person existing in a world deciding your own course.

In other words, the key element for an rpg is the ability of the game world to exist, live and evolve without the player. Certainly the player's actions should have an impact, but should the player chose NOT to act, the world should continue....and that is precisely why most RPGs are not RPGs...

damn, want to write more, but fermented english hops are preventing mind from functioning...well. On another note, Samuel Smith makes some fine ales...

 

[Seven]

I don't think that you can define what an RPG is. You know what it is when you play it; it's a very subjective thing that way.

Well the problem with subjectiveness is that it isn't universal. I mean, you look at a house and you know its a house. You recognize aesthetic features, you walk in and see the way its built, and furnished, and are given more proof its a house. This can be an association to the word, then the meaning of the word, then the meaning and the word to a representation of it, and so on. I've seen people call The Sims an RPG, and GTA3 as well. That goes beyond simple subjectiveness, thats closer to "Say whaaa?". I mean, i look at Diablo. Like Rosh, i see an action/dungeon crawler. Some call it adventure. Others call it ActionRPG, or a straight RPG, be it because of stats, or because it has an inventory you have to manage. There are multiple reasons for this, but the truth is that it won't matter. Which is unfortunate. I've played enough games, and talked to enough (thankfully) intelligent people over the matter, and very few actually see things as they are. And what do we get? Scorn for not joining the bandwagon. Laughed at because we call award-winning games crap. We can't change the world, just bitch against it. Bitching against everything and everyone on a site.

Thank you for watching another episode of "European a-hole contemplates the futility of life and labels: the Family Edition".

::shoots self::

Yea, but for some people those were RPGs; you don't need a character progression system for an RPG. All you really need is a compelling story that's really immersive, so I'm not going to begrudge a guy just cause he considers the sims or GTA to be an RPG. But what I will do is point him/her towards a game that I feel is more fullfilling because if they get that out of "shallow" games imagine what they can get out of a "true" RPG. That being said, most gamers don't want a true RPG; they don't have the patience for the story, nor can they immerse themselves in the experience.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Yea, but for some people those were RPGs; you don't need a character progression system for an RPG. All you really need is a compelling story that's really immersive, so I'm not going to begrudge a guy just cause he considers the sims or GTA to be an RPG. But what I will do is point him/her towards a game that I feel is more fullfilling because if they get that out of "shallow" games imagine what they can get out of a "true" RPG. That being said, most gamers don't want a true RPG; they don't have the patience for the story, nor can they immerse themselves in the experience.

You know, it's funny, but I have had this problem with alot of the newer RPGs. They don't grab me enough to keep me interested and therefore I cannot find the patience to finish them. There have been some recent ones that have done me well. TOEE is one, as well as Prelude To Darkness (which, by the way, I just downloaded yesterday and am loving to death ). But there have been others that just felt like a waste of my time after awhile. I never finished the Lionheart demo, for example. IWD2 just totally lost me after a certain point. Pool Of Radiance... well, I won't go into THAT piece of crap.

I do want a true RPG, but I want one that's gonna let me immerse myself completely into the story and make me truly feel like I am having an impact on the outcome and not just riding a straight line to an unchanging ending. There are exceptions, but that's my true want from an RPG.

 

[Rosh]

Ahhh, an old post, but still relevent with some changes:

=================================

An RPG is a story, simply put.

You know those stories Gary made in the Greyhawk series?

Those were based off of campaigns of his in the early AD&D days.

But an RPG is more than that, when you place a free-thinking individual into the story, much less a game as well. Here's the most important aspects of an RPG, and why they are done the way they are. HOWEVER, this is not in order, but more along a list of what makes up an RPG/ideal CRPG. NPCs here are referring to non-party characters.

1. The story.
2. The character.
3. The setting (including NPCs)
4. Interaction between the character and the story.
5. Interaction between the character and other possible player characters.
6. Interaction between the NPCs and the story.
7. Interaction between the NPCs and the character.
8. Interaction between the NPCs and other NPCs.
9. Interaction of the setting and the story.
10. Interaction between the player and the setting.
11. Interaction between the NPCs and the setting.
12. Variety.

That's FAR from everything that makes up a good RPG. Let me further these points so it's easily understandable.

1: A story is not an excuse for the action, combat, or general repetitive combat. It should be first and foremost at the player's mind, and never set to the back burner.
2: The character should NEVER rely on the reflexes and/or abilities of the player. It's the character the player is playing, thus you use the abilities of the character. True, as a player you might get used to the game and be better at playing it, yet as a player you still have to rely on the stats of the character.
3: Post-apocalyptic? Fantasy? Modern? What's the setting and theme?
4: What is the protagonist's (main character's) purpose in the story? They are there to just go through endless quests, or are they there to serve a mission of great importance? In a good RPG, what the player does is reflected back in the story - hence, nonlinearity. The character indeed does have an impact upon the story, but no good RPG would be without another great detail - how does the story affect the character?
5: Are they a group of bland characters, or do they each have a personality of their own? If each character is played by a person, then it's possible, however doubtful it is to find those good at RPing a character. If they are 'played' by the computer, then do they convey a good sense of personality? A good example would be Planescape: Torment.
6: This only points out what purpose the NPCs have on the story. Are they there to tell you the sword is behind the waterfall over and over, or will they actually match the setting and act in it? A good RPG will have the latter.
7: Is the player character idolized or shunned? It depends on his actions, and the NPC reactions to his actions. This is the dynamic part of an RPG that is indeed hard to accomplish in a CRPG.
8: How do the NPCs 'mesh' into an environment or a 'community'? Are they independent little robots, or are they apparently free-thinking individuals of their own? Do events in the story have them interact with one another, and bring the player in to interact with that aspect of an RPG?
9: This is a very big point. And where a lot of RPG games fail. It seems simple, yet so many fail. You have to 'capture' the feeling of a game through the setting to make the story believable and enjoyable; to give the RPG depth.
10: What does the player do to change the setting? This ties hand in hand with number 7, and creates an environment for the player to explore and mold into how they play.
11: What do the events that the NPCs do that tie into the setting? This ties into the story and everything else.

12: No two games played in a particular CRPG should be the same. Each time should be a near or totally unique experience. Non-linearity is the epitome of this trait of RPG games.

Wasteland was a beginning, Fallout was a shining example. Planescape: Torment was a brilliant introduction to the CRPG genre, and it's held to be the best CRPG to date by many, mainly faulted for the engine chosen.
==============

A CRPG is comprised of the above because if it were lacking significant elements, then it would fall into the genre that quite adequately already categorizes it. Without a deep back-story and character interaction? Then it would likely fit into action-adventure/dungeon crawler. No character interaction and no real setting or story? That pretty much makes it into an action-adventure/dungeon crawler as well. Just character interaction? Sounds more like a text adventure or a traditional adventure (which, believe it or not, most hentai games follow). Yes, a CRPG can be devoid of any obvious stats like exp or hp, but there needs something to denote (even behind the hood, so to speak) what progress and influence the player's character(s) have made upon the world/people/environ. It takes all these elements in combination to deliver as close to a P&P role-playing experience as possible.

The Sims and GTA fail to be a CRPG on many accounts. With the latter, there's not much free action to go around as the game is linear with progressive paths. It sorely misses the interaction with NPCs (no choices at all, really) and the world on any scale other than to kill hordes of enemies and...hey! There's already a genre for that. The Sims is nothing more than character interaction and environment interaction, but it really misses because there is no story, no real setting. It is more akin to...oh, hey, there's already a genre for The Sims. SIMULATION!

That is why I had brought up one of the major origins (no pun intended) of the CRPG genre, Ultima IV (Wasteland, some of the TSR games, included). Here is a world in which your conduct is reflected in how various people react to you. Most every action had a reaction by the world and not in a "guards see you steal and kill j00!" simplistic kind of way. At this point, people in the world would respond to you in various ways depending upon your virtues, which was pretty much unheard of and not practiced anywhere outside of P&P RPGs.

It also failed to fall into any of the Adventure sub-genres at that point because it more resembled all of the sub-genres, heralded at the time of its release and for a long time to be a real computer role-playing experience (or at least as best as could be at that time). Many of the kids around the gaming industry are a bit too young to remember that game well, I'm afraid. Many were still having their drawers scraped out by their mothers when Ultima IV came out and many more are too vapid to get over the graphics.

Another one, Wasteland, was also around before "CRPG" got popular. The cover tag-line for this one was "Adventure in Post-Nuclear America". You could even check out the back of the box to see...absolutely no mention of "role-playing game", but instead there's a lot of detailing of all the aspects of CRPGs that we have come to expect from such a genre. The same goes with the Bard's Tale series, I believe, which was always filed under "Adventure". Yes, it is because of games of that construction that a more defining genre title came about. Newbies to the game industry think that Wizardry originated as a CRPG (which it had not), or that the CRPG genre has been around a long time. In some ways, it has, but has only been called such recently. Beforehand they were instead called "bloody good games with a lot of play".

The only ones to really benefit from the obfuscation of the CRPG meaning are publishers who want to capitalize upon that market and those who want Diablo (or some other stat-driven game) to be considered to be a CRPG in some vain fanboyism to excuse Blizzard or whomever from calling it and Diablo II the best-selling role-playing games to date.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

It also failed to fall into any of the Adventure sub-genres at that point because it more resembled all of the sub-genres, heralded at the time of its release and for a long time to be a real computer role-playing experience (or at least as best as could be at that time). Many of the kids around the gaming industry are a bit too young to remember that game well, I'm afraid. Many were still having their drawers scraped out by their mothers when Ultima IV came out and many more are too vapid to get over the graphics.

Well put. I don't know how many times I've gotten pissed off because someone poo-poos a game I brought up simply because it doesn't have the latest greatest eye candy technology. And then these people turn around and complain the the newer games don't have depth to them. Well friggin' get over your fixation with graphics and dive into a GOOD game, like Darklands, Ultima IV, Wasteland, Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape:Torment, among others. Hell, this just doesn't apply to CRPGs either. There are alot of great games out there that the new generation of gamers won't even touch because it's not pretty to look at compared to the eye candy popping out of the industry these days.

I've been playing games since my dad bought the Pong console system back in the 70's. Hell, Vectrex anyone? I've seen plenty of quality titles that simply got lost due to better graphics coming out. I could point out alot of old school games that will stand up to any of the newer stuff gameplay-wise and come out shining. A friend of mine and I have a saying: "Great graphics do not a great game make." It's a lesson that I wish alot of the newer generation of gamers would take to heart.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

::applauds Rosh's post:: :wink:

 

[Human Shield]

Can a MMORPG ever be a RPG?

 

[Chadeo]

2: The character should NEVER rely on the reflexes and/or abilities of the player. It's the character the player is playing, thus you use the abilities of the character. True, as a player you might get used to the game and be better at playing it, yet as a player you still have to rely on the stats of the character.

I got into this discussion a bit in another thread, but I feel it belongs much better in this thread, so I hope you do not mind me bringing it up again.

While I agree that the stats of the character should be the important factor, I claim that it is wrong to “NEVER rely on the reflexes and/or abilities of the player”. If this were in fact true, then it would not be a game, as the player would never have to do anything. At best you would set up your character and then sit back and watch as the game played out. While this might be an interesting concept, I would not call such a thing a “game” as it would utterly fail on the player controlled interaction level.

Now I know you were not making such a statement, nor would you claim such a construct would be an ideal RPG. I think what you really are trying to say is that an ideal role playing game has a character with statistics that define what is possible with such a character, and it is up to the player to use those abilities. This differs from other types of games that rely solely on the player’s abilities.

For example in a pure puzzle game you need to use your own intelligence to solve the puzzle. In an RPG with a puzzle, you might be able to gain more information on how to solve some puzzle based on dialog or observation that is in turn driven by the character’s statistics. Even so in most cases the player must still apply their own intelligence to overcome many puzzles, though the level is certainly reduced.

As an even more concrete example let me use Torment (which I agree is amazing in every respect, save for the engine). Small spoiler warning for people who have not played the game (nothing major, but thought I would say something just in case).

When you are in the morgue you can look at the giant skeletons and if the nameless one has a high enough intelligence you can figure out how to remove the various bolts holding them together and cause them to be destroyed. Thus the character’s abilities determine the solution. However the player must have already figured out how to walk around the place without setting off the aggressive skeletons. This is not something that the character’s statistics have any influence over, it is something fully under the players control.

My point being that while character statistics are a defining aspect of a role playing game, it is clear there needs to be some kind of trade off between player and character ability.

The most obvious place this distinction comes into play is combat. First of all I would like to claim that while combat is in every major role playing game, there is nothing that says a role playing game could not be made that avoided all combat. Sure it would be hard to pull off, but it is always possible. Think about a game set in the modern world. You go around killing lots of people and you will quickly get arrested. Now of course there still needs to be conflict and conflict resolution, but it does not need to be done through combat.

Having said that though, it is clear that most role playing games will allow the player the ability to solve conflict through combat. This is where the trade off between player and character abilities comes into stark highlight. If the game is real time it will rely far more on player reflexes than character statistics while if it is turn based it will rely more on character abilities.

The game designer, having made this trade off, can then go back in and try to tip the scales back in the other direction to make up for this fundamental choice. The real time system can add in many abilities or skills that make the real time combat heavily influenced by the character statistics (anything from rate of fire, steadiness of the aiming system, choice of weapons, damage dealt and taken, speed of movement, range of sight, and so on). Conversely the turn based game can add on many tactical elements to combat that force the player to use a high amount of skill to win any given battle (either because of the basic balance of the encounters, or because of the skill selection, or terrain bonuses/penalties).

True, no matter the design, the turn based system will rely on mental ability far more than physical reflexes, while the real time will rely more on physical reflexes. Even so I make the claim that in either system one can make the character statistics mostly irrelevant. I also agree that this is bad for a role playing game. I also agree that it is far easier to do this under a real time system than a turn based system.

Still I would never make the claim that a game that relied on either the player’s reflexes (like a real time FPS interface would cause) or abilities (like a highly tactical turn based system would) would stop being a role playing game. It is all a matter of the degree to which the characters abilities have an impact on the game within the given context. So the actual “things” that are influenced might differ between two interfaces, but as long as the “things” are heavily influenced by character statistics, it will meet the qualification as a role playing game.

While there are very few good examples of a pure real time system falling into this category, I still think it is entirely possible. After all, a game like Diablo two (which I agree, is a action dungeon crawl) will play TOTALLY differently based on how a player assigns their skill points. So while reflexes are very important, clearly so is character development. Thus I think that Diablo Two does in fact satisfy this aspect of a role playing game (even if it fails on others).

 

[Seven]

Could some post a Coles Notes version of Chadeo's post; I don't feel like reading it all. :wink: