Definition of Roleplaying Games

[Gahbreeil]

In its entirety it consists of the deeds and dialogues that a player whom is willing to play out a role performs in the theatre of life imagined by the playwright. The player takes up the mantle of an actor whom writes the story o' the character by choosing between the lines and actions available within the play presented by the proprietor of the theatre or, in other words, the narrator.

Yet within the dialogues and deeds that the actor is allowed there exist two more points. First and foremost, the thrill of combat as it is presented by the rolling o' dice and second, the thrill of sharing experiences with friends and companions whom are the other actors or the writer of the play.

Are the two paragraphs above sufficient to fully describe a Roleplaying Game? Or not? Do share your facts and opinions.

 

[Glop_dweller]

There is a demented schism among those who interpret the term 'Role' in 'roleplaying' to mean a job, rather than character identity. These players actually believe that the term 'roleplay' means to enact a job; eg. Tank, Healer, Damager, etc...
These people are not playing a role, they treat it like playing positions on a football team.

So with them (it seems typically) they are playing themselves as a job/class, so it's them [personally] as a wizard—not (for instance) Gandalf the wizard; how they would react as a wizard, not how Gandalf or other PC would react.

*IE. how they would react to snakes when playing the adventurer, and not how Indiana Jones would react if that was the role they were to play.

It is to the great detriment of the RPG genre, because devs are not only designing to these players, but in many cases are themselves of the same belief or blindness. I once questioned an InXile developer about [not] having both a walk state and a run state for the PC in their then upcoming Torment game, and the guy could —not— fathom the reason for it; seriously! (This is despite pointing out that Planescape (and Fallout both) implemented this.)

 

[deem]

cRPGs can offer enough options for the player where he/she may not need to feel like an actor needing to stick to the pre-written script. The cracks start showing when you find yourself in a situation where none of the options prepared by the developer reflect how the character would react in a particular situation. Following your own idea of what the character is supposed to be is another story though.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

There is a demented schism among those who interpret the term 'Role' in 'roleplaying' to mean a job, rather than character identity. These players actually believe that the term 'roleplay' means to enact a job; eg. Tank, Healer, Damager, etc...

Always has been:
"Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user. Thereafter they will work upwards — if they survive — as they gain "experience". First, however, it is necessary to describe fully the roles possible.
CHARACTERS: There are three (3) main classes of characters: Fighting-Men Magic-Users Clerics
Fighting Men includes the characters of elves and dwarves and even hobbits. Magic-Users includes only men and elves. Clerics are limited to men only. All non-human players are restricted in some aspects and gifted in others. This will be dealt with in the paragraphs pertaining to each non-human type. [et cetera]"

Anyway, RPGs from the beginning have been defined by the three pillars of combat, exploration, and character-related aspects. Arguably, exploration has always been paramount, as recognized by many in the 1970s:

 

[Glop_dweller]

RPG sessions can have pre-assigned PCs. Therein the players are given their established roles.

Other games [like Fallout] are classless; which is fine. I have no problem with classes, as they reflect the character's life, training, and aspiration from long before the game starts. But a classless game does allow for a more varied set of talents and skills.

Fallout PCs have one thing in common, they were all born in an institutionalized environment, and later set loose in the unrestricted outside world.
That should affect their outlook, behavior, and reaction to authority figures.

The PCs are run through the game's encounters, and we see prior who's life experience, attitude, outlook, and ethics allow them to either succeed or miserably fail in the post apocalyptic world.

@topic: There exists yet another strange belief about roleplaying games, in that some players actually disqualify RPGs (even great ones) that offer fixed or assigned roles as not being RPGs [because they can't roleplay

if it's not their own custom character ] —despite that this allows the developers to tailor the adventure to a well understood PC. Notice that in the Witcher, there are NPCs who have known Geralt for years; where as Elderscrolls PCs begin in the world as an adult infant with no past, no acquaintances, no [strict] class, no skills competent enough for them to have survived on their own to adulthood. They basically fell out of the sky one night and started pestering people.

Spoiler

 

[gurugeorge]

In its entirety it consists of the deeds and dialogues that a player whom is willing to play out a role performs in the theatre of life imagined by the playwright. The player takes up the mantle of an actor whom writes the story o' the character by choosing between the lines and actions available within the play presented by the proprietor of the theatre or, in other words, the narrator.

Yet within the dialogues and deeds that the actor is allowed there exist two more points. First and foremost, the thrill of combat as it is presented by the rolling o' dice and second, the thrill of sharing experiences with friends and companions whom are the other actors or the writer of the play.

Are the two paragraphs above sufficient to fully describe a Roleplaying Game? Or not? Do share your facts and opinions.

IMHO RPGs are adventure simulators, that's the absolute lowest common denominator and the sufficient definition, insofar as one can be found at all. It pretty much links everything that's been called an "RPG" throughout the term's history, from grognard to casual, from linear to open world.

Of course it all depends on what you mean by "adventure" (e.g. a string of combat encounters in a dungeon, or a long involved story through multiple environments, with lost of C&C plus or minus combat?) and how much "simulation" you have in what kind of gameplay context (e.g. twitch or stats) and how abstracted it is, or how deep it goes (e.g. how much of a virtual world is being simulated and is included in the gameplay, how many options for solving problems, story-wise or combat-wise, how much awareness and use of environment are involved).

Also there's the question of who is having the adventure - whether it's just one character's adventure, or a group's adventure.

That definition also guides the meaning of "role," which depends on the type of game within the above parameters - if more combat focused, then "role" means combat role (e.g. damage, cc), if more general then "role" can mean "role in the virtual world" or "role in the story." The character can also be fixed (e.g. an already-fixed backstory) or open (created at character creation).

This definition also separates the RPG from purely tactical games, "adventure" games strictly so-called (which are really more like a meld of story and puzzle), strategy games (including the type that gave birth to the genre), etc. The concept of "adventure" also links the two senses of "immersion" that are crucial to the genre: flow state (from gameplay, in both the strategic/management and tactical sense) and presence, or the sense of "being there" (suspension of disbelief).

 

[luj1]

Are the two paragraphs above sufficient to fully describe a Roleplaying Game?

wargaming with a story, 4 words

 

[Krice]

This is just as dumb as trying to define what a roguelike game is. The result of that discussion was that almost anything counts as a roguelike game if you just want it, because special woke people decided it. They just want to take anything of worth and trample it to mud.

 

[Gahbreeil]

No, no. The point of it is to understand what an RPG is since creating an RPG yields different results based on what you understand as an RPG.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

No, no. The point of it is to understand what an RPG is since creating an RPG yields different results based on what you understand as an RPG.

More precisely, people who misunderstand the nature of RPGs will fail in their attempt to create RPGs, at best generating a worthwhile entry in another genre.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Writing a thesis about what makes a RPG is a waste of time, because even if your definition is good enough, either it can be summed up in one or two sentences or it can't.
Let's assume you got a great thesis and you can sum it up, even then, it's not the table of the law, some games seem to qualify but don't, some might look like they're not RPG but they are.

Game devs knew how to define games up until the early 21st century, either millennials are way way dumber or steam, marketing and name's dropping makes them lie through their teeth.
Probably a mix of all of the above, because they're obviously dumber and calling a game a RPG is a selling point.

 

[Gahbreeil]

calling a game a RPG is a selling point.

Exactly. Skyrim in example is a First Person Combat game with dialogues, inventory management and a system of perks. The rest of what the player experiences is how they have polished the game. A true RPG like Baldurs Gate is based on dialogues, not exploration, since the dialogue tree is what the story is. Not going from place to place which is secondary. In the mainstream example of a modern RPG, Skyrim, it is backwards if the dialogues can even be considered dialogues as cutscenes advance the story more than your choices. This is why it is not strictly an RPG. Baldurs Gate, again, offers inventory management as well yet instead of perks the player has attributes and skills. Which works better is up to the player to decide yet attributes define a character far more than perks which, in the end, are there only to advance the gameplay. Not to shape the character.

All in all, perks are similar to combat skills in BG since you pick them to make sure your character stays alive. Attributes are there to show who your character is. Skyrims race system is the only thing that allows this type of choice. I'm not saying BG is perfect but it is an adaptation of a Pen and Paper. Skyrim is not and so, is not an RPG.

By the way, imagine TES VI if Bethesda does what D&D did and removes races from the equation based on some mumbo jumbo about the idea of races being racist. You'd basically have The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard.

 

[Krice]

A true RPG like Baldurs Gate is based on dialogues, not exploration, since the dialogue tree is what the story is.

Some RPGs don't even have any dialogue, because the heart of a RPG is the RPG system. Dialogue is optional always. The "story" can be understood through exploration and actions as well, it doesn't have to be dialogue or any kind of text.

 

[Gahbreeil]

Some RPGs don't even have any dialogue, because the heart of a RPG is the RPG system. Dialogue is optional always. The "story" can be understood through exploration and actions as well, it doesn't have to be dialogue or any kind of text.

I believe those are actually Dungeon Crawlers. Like Legend of Grimrock which I did play. Although it is true actions in general and exploration are important in an RPG since they leave a mark on the world of the game. If there was an RPG based on Pen and Paper fully that did not have dialogues it would be ToEE. Although if anything, the game needs more dialogues and more exploration outside of the main questline. Without dialogues it would fit the term of a Dungeon Crawler.

And remember! Even the basic conversation with a merchant or an innkeeper, even the dialogue with a guard who has noticed your crime, all those are marks of a true RPG, one that has dialogue.

 

[Falksi]

As far as computer games go, an RPG is a game where success and consequences are based on choices and thought in relation to various stats and checks. "Playing a role" is a fucking fugazi perspective which should be reserved for infants. You play a role in Streets of Rage, it's not an RPG.

Skyrim is not an RPG because most of it's success and it's consequences are skill/reflex based. The odd token gesture skill check means fuck all.

 

[Glop_dweller]

"Playing a role" is a fucking fugazi perspective which should be reserved for infants.

Roleplaying started out as a psychological exercise for evoking empathy; ie. "How does the puppy feel when you yank the leash?". The —roleplayer— in this case is encouraged to see the situation from the puppy's perspective. So... the RPG player is encouraged to see the situation of the PC, in the PC's world, with only the PC's upbringing, aptitude, skill, and natural abilities. How would this —specific— entity fair or react in the game's encounters? How would their outlook/attitude affect the situation? Who would succeed [best] or fail miserably (,and to what degree) when talking down a jumper... between John Rambo, Martin Riggs, Crocodile Dundee, Don Draper, and Jerry Seinfeld? Personality and ability should be what affects the outcome. The situation should play out very differently depending upon if it were Batman or the Joker influencing it.

In Fallout there is a situation where a man holds a prostitute at gunpoint, with the outcome contingent upon how the PC reacts. There is similar in Baldur's Gate, where the PC encounters an upset drunk in an inn, spoiling for a fight, where again with the outcome depends upon how the PC reacts; and the game reacts to the PC with different XP for each outcome, and a reputation loss if the PC pacifies [Marl] the drunk, but then kills him.

*This is (or should be) what differentiates an RPG from a game like Super Mario Bros... where some would claim you play the role of Mario the plumber.

 

[Nortar]

A true RPG like Baldurs Gate is based on dialogues, not exploration, since the dialogue tree is what the story is.

Some RPGs don't even have any dialogue, because the heart of a RPG is the RPG system. Dialogue is optional always. The "story" can be understood through exploration and actions as well, it doesn't have to be dialogue or any kind of text.

RPG without a "story" and "dialogues" is a wargame.

 

[Falksi]

"Playing a role" is a fucking fugazi perspective which should be reserved for infants.

Roleplaying started out as a psychological exercise for evoking empathy; ie. "How does the puppy feel when you yank the leash?". The —roleplayer— in this case is encouraged to see the situation from the puppy's perspective. So... the RPG player is encouraged to see the situation of the PC, in the PC's world, with only the PC's upbringing, aptitude, skill, and natural abilities. How would this —specific— entity fair or react in the game's encounters? How would their outlook/attitude affect the situation? Who would succeed [best] or fail miserably (,and to what degree) when talking down a jumper... between John Rambo, Martin Riggs, Crocodile Dundee, Don Draper, and Jerry Seinfeld? Personality and ability should be what affects the outcome. The situation should play out very differently depending upon if it were Batman or the Joker influencing it.

In Fallout there is a situation where a man holds a prostitute at gunpoint, with the outcome contingent upon how the PC reacts. There is similar in Baldur's Gate, where the PC encounters an upset drunk in an inn, spoiling for a fight, where again with the outcome depends upon how the PC reacts; and the game reacts to the PC with different XP for each outcome, and a reputation loss if the PC pacifies [Marl] the drunk, but then kills him.

*This is (or should be) what differentiates an RPG from a game like Super Mario Bros... where some would claim you play the role of Mario the plumber.

But that's just one part of it, hence why it's pretty infantile when posters try to define RPG computer games on that one part alone. It's a bit like saying "A definition of a car is something which has 4 wheels". If you're still chasing your tail around that stage of definition, you're still in the very basic stages of understanding it.

 

[Darth Canoli]

"Playing a role" is a fucking fugazi perspective which should be reserved for infants. You play a role in Streets of Rage, it's not an RPG.

Some people fail to understand what playing a role is, when you play a CRPG or whatever other games which are NOT RPGs, you're playing a GAME, not a role.

Role-playing is what you do while playing P&P.
Well, that's what you should do because most people seem to not understand the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge --> Role-playing check --> critical failure!

Spoiler

Also, I disagree, playing a role is not just for children and can be extremely fun in many situation I'll not describe.

 

[mondblut]

There is a demented schism among those who interpret the term 'Role' in 'roleplaying' to mean a job, rather than character identity.

And they are absolutely correct. "I'll play the role of a fighter, and you take the role of a wizard": the origins of "role-playing" games, ca. 1974.

 

[mondblut]

Are the two paragraphs above sufficient to fully describe a Roleplaying Game?

wargaming with a story player agency, 4 words

FTFY.

 

[Nortar]

There is a demented schism among those who interpret the term 'Role' in 'roleplaying' to mean a job, rather than character identity.

And they are absolutely correct. "I'll play the role of a fighter, and you take the role of a wizard": the origins of "role-playing" games, ca. 1974.

The retards who always want to play themselves but "in wizard hat" are enablers of p&p RPGs decline.

 

[mondblut]

The retards who always want to play themselves but "in wizard hat" are enablers of p&p RPGs decline.

Damn that Gygax guy, we had so much fun roleplaying with dolls until he came up with that stupid dice gaem!11

 

[Nortar]

The retards who always want to play themselves but "in wizard hat" are enablers of p&p RPGs decline.

Damn that Gygax guy, we had so much fun roleplaying with dolls until he came up with that stupid dice gaem!11

Gygax turned wargame into RPG by turning "unit tokens" into "characters".
It's just the next level of complexity.

If you can't play a character other then you magical self in magical pants, it's ok.
Just don't talk about stuff who have no idea about.

As Darth Canoli mentioned some players can't even tell difference between their personal knowledge and character knowledge.
Those are the fucking Mary Sues who see orcs and think about blacks, and get triggered when their fursona-selfinserts are supposed to get a negative stat modified or otherwise anything less than perfect.

 

[mondblut]

Gygax turned wargame into RPG by turning "unit tokens" into "characters".

Yeah. And then a bunch of drama queens had to ruin it with their larper bullshit.