Incline Action RPGs - are they a valid form of Role-playing Videogames?

[DJOGamer PT]

This is a particular question that has been bothersome to RPG enthusiasts for years.
Natural really, as this classification directly relates to the classic conundrum of the genre.


I think the following are the two most common opinions on this matter:

1. for some, a videogame can only be considered an RPG if it's fundamentally trying to be a digital analog of the tabletop model, and therefore ARPGs don't qualify, as the success of an action performed by the character isn't purely determined by mathematical abstractions ;
2. for others, any game with a form of character progression, segments of non-linear level design, an integral narrative, and real-time combat qualifies as ARPG.

I will argue that both stances are incorrect and attempt to prove that Action RPGs do qualify as Role-playing Videogames.
I will also try to make these justifications succinct.

---

---

To begin, I believe the most effective approach is to tackle the foundational and persistent question previously mentioned: the classic conundrum, "What is an RPG?".



I believe the reason for the contentiousness of this issue is that, at its heart, the genre is comprised of multiple characteristics that all feed into the Gameplay, Narrative and Simulation dimensions of the game:

• Flexible Character Development & Logistics > essentially resource management, both intrinsic to the Playable Character (i.e., attributes, abilities, awareness, etc.) and extrinsic (i.e., items, equipment, reputation, time, etc.) - these should open new gameplay, simulationist, and narrative possibilities and considerations - this system should also be open and robust enough to support diverse Character "Builds" ;
• Non-linear Exploration > the player can meaningfully decide his/her own goals and how to achieve them, instead of being forced into a particular "path" - paradoxically, this doesn't imply a campaign must be devoid of instances of linearity ;
• Quests > gameplay challenges linked by a narrative or thematic thread, with the PC's performance and choices inciting both short and long-term consequences and changes in the simulation.

Basically, "RPGness" is a composite spectrum of qualities.

An interplay between specific Gameplay, Narrative and Simulationist intentions, which together must provide a sufficient degree of "freedom" so the player can consistently craft individualized experiences within the activities of questing, exploration, and the exercise of the PC's capabilities (as conferred by the gameplay system, such as: combat, stealth, socializing, hunting, cooking, etc.) to interact with the game world - i.e., role-playing.
Hence why some videogames are more "evident" as RPGs than others, and why defining the genre always seemed both intuitive and elusive.



So with that out of the way, why are ARPGs a valid subgenre of Role-playing Videogames?
I'll answer this question by addressing the two opinions above — since they sit on opposite ends, an explanation can be reached by meeting them in the middle. I will focus on critiquing the general ideas of these opinions, should more specific issues arise while I write this, I will compile and adress them in a spoilered sub-section.

Personally, I find the first opinion the weakest argument, so let's start off there.

A Role-playing Videogame should be the digital analog of a Tabletop Role-playing system and ARPGs don't qualify because the success of the PC's actions is primarily determined by Player "skill" and not mathematical abstractions.

Well, the first issue with this perspective is the assumption that being a 'digital analog of a tabletop session' is the ultimate aspiration of RPVGs, their "quintessence".

If that is indeed the case, then all RPVGs are destined to fail for the very obvious reason that they exist within a fundamentally distinct medium from TTRPGs.
Even text-based MMORPGs, which are inherently the closest an RPVG can get to achieving that ideal, can't succeed in this endeavor.


The second issue with this perspective, and in my opinion the most significant, is that it rejects the merits of Videogames in favor of those of Tabletop games.
Near-limitless player agency, full system customization and a personal, collaborative social experience — these are the strengths TTRPGs have over RPVGs (again illustrating why the latter can never be a successful digital "translation" of the former).

However, RPVGs also possess strengths that TTRPGs are unable to replicate:

• Highly complex Gameplay systems and Simulationist mechanics
  • let's face it, most people don't like math and that's one reason why TTRPGs systems use simple math, it's makes the game more accessible for a wider audience - other reasons being: it speeds up gameplay by minimizing downtime, it keeps the focus on the storytelling, it promotes a clear and consistent structure, it even helps maintain adequate game balance ;
  • this simplicity is fundamental in enabling TTRPGs to thrive - however, the evident drawback is that it imposes limitations on the complexity of the Gameplay and Simulation components ;
  • as it so happens, computers excel in mathematics, capable of accurately executing thousands of calculations in a split second ;
  • consequently, RPVGs are capable of systems and mechanics of exceptional intricacy, enabling Gameplay and Simulation experiences that are simply not possible in Tabletop ;
  • on a side note, this format also more easily permits the existence of "esoteric" systems - because players are not responsible for determining the math, and might even have no way of knowing the inner mechanical workings of these systems.
• Detailed virtual rendition of the game's World
  • even if you prefer to visualize a fictional setting through your "mind's eye" rather than with your physical eyes, the fact remains that a virtual rendition allows for certain interactions and a greater depth of level design that are unattainable in the realm of Tabletop ;
  • and it's still worth mentioning that this medium supports a richer incorporation of art into the experience.
• Solo experience
  • even with humans being social creatures, it does not mean a social activity is intrinsically superior to an individual one, let alone better tailored for every individual - and after all, you can't enjoy a tabletop role-playing adventure alone ;
  • this is also a fundamental reason why (implicitly non-multiplayer) RPVGs are a profoundly distinct game experience to TTRPGs, and therefore can't (nor should they) be a direct conversion of PnP.

Finally, regarding the argument of: " The success of the PC's actions is primarily determined by Player "skill" and not mathematical abstractions. ".

This argument always struck me as arbitrary and nonsensical.
After all, even in TTRPGs, despite all the RNG, the many mechanical rules the player must consider, even the shenanigans from the GM and other players, the success of the PC's actions ultimately depends on the player's: analytical knowledge of the game's system ; good judgment in decision-making ; proficiency in managing the PC's limitations when facing each challenge ; ability to work with or against the other players.
Isn't all that also a matter of "Player Skill"?

If the mathematical abstractions really were the "end all, be all" of role-playing game systems, then the outcome of a PnP session would be basically pre-determined and outside the player's control.
A fact that isn't true, and if it was, then TTRPGs wouldn't make for engaging games...


In the end, the notion of RPVGs as a digital "translation" of TTRPG fundamentally doesn't work and can even sabotage the potential of a RPVG project as an actual videogame.
So this can't be a valid ideal for RPVGs and therefore ARPGs can't be excluded by it.

Sub-section: are cRPGs a misguided sub-genre?

'' By this logic, classic RPGs like the Gold Box Games and even more recent ones like Pathfinder - which try to fully port TTRPG systems to Computer format - were misguided game projects and fail as RPVGs ''

There are positive and practical reasons why a dev might want to base his system on some PnP ruleset:
+ as with everything, it's easier to create something by drawing on a model that has been proven to work well as your foundation ;
+ devs can also more readily identify problems and enhance strengths ;
+ players will also have an easier time learning and adapting to your system ;
+ there's also a greater chance of commercial success if the system you're adapting is already popular.

Indeed, in the early days of computer role-playing games, these projects were a lot of times designed by fans, with the intent to sell towards fans.
And since the Videogame medium was new ground and in constant experimentation and evolution well up until the 2000s, it was overall far simpler to just "copy & paste" a Tabletop system into the Computer format - in fact, I would support the argument that this was a necessary stage for us to learn what works and what doesn't.

Nevertheless, a lot of the game design issues with these cRPGs, stem from them being developed with this "CTRL+C / CTRL+V" approach with very minimal adjustments.
CRPGs like the Realms of Arkania trilogy, etc., are mined with Tabletop mechanics, which in a Videogame format, at best were inconsequential (and therefore don't make sense to exist within the game system) and at worst would softlock the player.

And while I am personally more lenient of these errors in older (especially pre-Fallout 1) titles, for newer games (especially those that have come out since the start of the "cRPG Renaissance") I hold no such leniency, and really the devs who choose this approach don't seem to have any reasonable justification for doing so, other than mimicry.
" I did it like this, because that's just how it was in this DnD rulebook. "

Of course, the desire to make an RPVG to cater towards PnP fans still exists.
And there's nothing wrong with this.
But, I do believe there's a very important distinction to be made between trying to emulate the "feeling" of a PnP session and trying to "convert" the PnP experience into a single-player digital game.
While plenty of RPVGs of the "Classic" style do fail due to their obsession with replicating the source material, plenty of them also made excellent RPVGs because the devs were willing and eager to explore the medium's strengths.

Any game with elements of character progression, segments of non-linear level design, an integral narrative, and real-time action, qualifies as an ARPG.

I find this position harder to argue against because it does describe an overwhelming amount of Action games - from 8-bit classics like Metroid, to even modern AAA first-person shooters like Far Cry 3.
Yet, for a lot of these games, we are able to intuitively recognize whether they're RPGs or not (even if we might not be able to so confidently affirm such opinions).

Why?

I think it helps if we go back to the characteristics of RPGs as analyzed in the beginning of this article.
Particularly its conclusion that "RPGness" is an array of qualities.
Under these metrics, we can more consistently determine where each game fails at providing a suitable extent of "RPGness".

Sub-section: concerns regarding these standards

• Metroid (1987)
  • character logistics are extensive, but the player has little impact on the direction of Samus capabilities ;
  • while level-design can sometimes be non-linear enough to allow the player to choose what order to tackle the different trails, the manner in which the player overcomes them is even more limited ;
  • the narrative offers no possibility of change and alternative outcomes for quests, it is thouroughly set in stone from start to finnish.
• Far Cry 3 (2012)
  • there's a vast range of upgrades to the character's abilities available to the player, but in the end the possible range of "Builds" aren't sufficiently dissimiliar to each other ;
  • while the player usually has decent freedom in deciding how he can achieve the goals of a given mission, he cannot choose what missions to undertake (at least the main story missions) ;
  • how the player completes these missions has no impact on future activities.

Yet, there are games which are more difficult to judge, as they're situated in more uncertain executions of these qualities.

This inexactness is the problem with this model - to what degree of each requisite must the game's elements correspond until they are satisfactory enough for the game to be deemed an RPVG.
It is an aspect that can fall into arbitrariness even, as each person will have their own specific "measurements", and thus it will further complicate attempts of RPVG analysis and discussion.


Moreover, this vagueness alone raises some interesting questions as to the "RPG nature" of not only many RPVGs, but even entire sub-genres of it.
For instance, jRPGs.
While the many of them excel in the Character Development and Logistics, thanks to great design in the Gameplay and Simulationist components, they are often considerably limited in Quests and Non-linear Exploration, due to their traditional preference for linear narratives.


I think this ambiguity is partly the reason why the 1st opinion is appealing to grognards.
It's simply a more practical categorization, which also puts the genre closer to its Tabletop roots (sometimes with the silly implication that this somehow makes the genre inherently more sophisticated and mature).
Even if it's ultimately an unreasonable standpoint and detrimental in its restrictiveness...

However.

While it is a problem if the standards of this model are too lenient, as then it logically results in pretty much any good and occasionally non-linear Action-Adventure game deserving of RPVG status.
Conversely, the only way these standards could theoretically exclude ARPGs from being considered RPVGs, would be if they were so extreme as to exclude the very concept of an RPVG.
Because conceptually, an ARPG has about as much potential as a CRPG in striving towards those qualities of "RPGness".

Sub-section: only Tabletop can be a RPG

InB4:

'' Well yes, PnP is the only "true" form of RPG."

What about LARPGs?
After all, they've existed far longer than any TTRPG system, and it could be easily argued they are in fact the source of this type of game.

No, this notion is foolish as well.
Both Tabletop, Live Action and Videogames are valid formats for RPGs.
And each one offers a distinct experience with their own limitations and advantages.

Consequently, perhaps each format also needs an additional characteristic which both complements the other 3 and is unique to its medium...

Ultimately, each game needs to be individually assessed according to set and sensible criteria.

An insipid answer, I know. But the only one that makes sense for this question...

---

---

To conclude this article.

After going through so many lines of reasoning and ideals in this matter objectively, I don't believe there's a valid criticism or principle that opposes the concept of a Role-playing Video Game sub-genre with a vigorous Action component. Nor accepting such a concept entails opening the "floodgates" to every game with a vestige of role-playing elements.

In reality, it seems to me that in embracing the opportunities that this sub-genre offers, the Role-playing Videogame format has only grown healthier and unique. Gifting us great games in the process.

 

[mediocrepoet]

tl;dr version from above:

Ultimately, each game needs to be individually assessed according to set and sensible criteria.

Great, thanks man.

 

[scytheavatar]

Making a good action game is a tremendous amount of work. Making a good RPG is even more work. In the end it is rare for devs to be able to achieve both, and most have to sacrifice one of the two.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

RPG Codex determined that Dragon's Dogma was GotY 2016 and Elden Ring was GotY 2022, and it will decide that Dragon's Dogma II is GotY 2024 and Kingdom Come II GotY 2025, so it seems that Action RPGs are indeed RPGs.

 

[cvv]

A Role-playing Videogame should be the digital analog of a Tabletop Role-playing system

Y tho?

Strikes me weird a genre that's all about evolving your character isn't allowed to evolve itself.

aRPGs happened because the genre spread to computers and evolved into something that's only possible inside chips and RAMs and monitors. They're still RPGs because the core point of RPGs isn't to roll dice and scribbling doodles on a piece of pizza stained paper, that's just a means to an end. The core point is adventure and quests and character development. As long as that is preserved, RPGs can exist in all sorts of forms.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

"RPG" is a chain that stops computer games to evolve into something better.

 

[ShiningSoldier]

There's only 2 types of RPG:
1. Good RPG games, like Morrowind, Gothic, original Deus Ex, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Might & Magic 7.
2. Retarded RPGs - the ones with DnD, isometry, full of dices, randomly generated loot and other shit.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

tl;dr version from above:

Ultimately, each game needs to be individually assessed according to set and sensible criteria.

Great, thanks man.

Now now
That is only the TL;DR for the arguments against the 2nd opinion
Not the TL;DR for the whole article itself

 

[Incognito]

 

[mondblut]

Strikes me weird a genre that's all about evolving your character isn't allowed to evolve itself.

Yearly reminder:

Funny thing about evolution. It tends to keep going even when you want it to stop.

So you guys killed off CRPG gameplay. You were a market force that demanded choose-your-own-dialogue adventure games instead, got what you wanted, and redefined the genre in your own image. Still pissed at you about that.

Here's where it gets funny. There is a whole new market force out there, and they could give a diplomatic rats' ass about C&C dialogue. Cinematic immersion FTW, baby! That's the "evolution" of your genre, like it or not. Welcome to the new new definition of RPG.

I'm betting they won't stop "evolving" the genre until they've reduced it to playing dress up with their avatar pre-game, rolling up some arbitrary traits, and then the rest of the "gameplay" involves doing this:

Press here to continue...

I have to admit, that amuses the hell out of me. Gameplay evolution at its finest.

Enjoy your God of War rpgs.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

They tend to be too much action and not enough RPG.

 

[Dark Souls II]

The Action RPG subgenre achieved perfection with Dark Souls II, and what follows from these heights of sublime prestige can only be perpetual decline. Therefore, all RPGs made after Dark Souls II should be turn-based blobbers. What we need is less Action RPGs and more "Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar".

 

[Gargaune]

Yes. And OP, you're overthinking it - in RPGs, the gameplay challenge is presented by the mechanical progression of the controlled character(s) and its tactical applications, whereas in Action games, the challenge is to the player's perception, precision and reflexes (and tactical application thereof). We have concrete examples of games that do both (e.g. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, Gothic, Bethesda Game™ etc. - remember that this is a discussion of format, not quality) in significant measures to warrant their own common design patterns, therefore it's obvious we have a hybrid Action-RPG genre.

Don't indulge the Codex's worst impulses by spending too much effort on proving this point, you could still use Geocentrism to farm Brofists from some of the locals.

 

[mediocrepoet]

tl;dr version from above:

Ultimately, each game needs to be individually assessed according to set and sensible criteria.

Great, thanks man.

Now now
That is only the TL;DR for the arguments against the 2nd opinion
Not the TL;DR for the whole article itself

Well, I did rate you tl;dr. Just saying.

 

[Machocruz]

Any game with elements of character progression

I find this position harder to argue against because it does describe an overwhelming amount of Action games - from 8-bit classics like Metroid, to even modern AAA first-person shooters like Far Cry 3.

This is a position common amongst normies and the inexperienced, often a tactic to have their game(s) of choice inducted into the prestigious halls of RPG. They group things by the general instead of distinguishing by the specific. They'll say things like: "you can upgrade Dante in DMC, so isn't it kind of an RPG?", 1.) as if RPGs invented the concept of upgrading, and 2.) missing that while you do "upgrade" your character in RPGs, and you do "upgrade" your character in some action games, you upgrade in specific ways in the majority of RPGs of note, outliers notwithstanding. This is not inconsequential. Where are Dante's visible, base attributes I can alter* to design or even the foundation or core of who he is? Where are his RPG-like skills (i.e. trade skills) that I can raise (an actual DMC RPG would mabye have something like Tracking or Investigation, Dante's profession/job/role being Devil Hunter afterall). Now you can argue he has 'feats' in the form of the physical/combat abilities you can buy (buying abilities with currency being more of a video game thing than a traditioinal RPG thing, but I digress), but like you correctly state, RPGs proper are an array of qualities, mechanics, features, etc. that make the whole. Great, CoD has xp -which doesn't even function the same way- but missing half a dozen other major features, and not even having the spirit of a tabletop adventure, something a number of ARPGs have accomplished.

As for the overall question, I'd say since no video game can or at least has captured the full TTRPG experience, there is then only continuum of RPGness for vg and I believe it's legit to say that some, not all, ARPGs are on it at the "low" end. For me, the question is then what is the A doing for the RPG, and vice versa? I've played many where I thought that the dearth of stats there were could have been done without and it would make absolutely no difference.

*Even in vrpgs where you can't alter stats, at least they are visible and you can see how one character compares to others, gauge their competencies, etc.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

ARPG is a legitimate distinction. So long as the player dependant motor-skill (arcade/action) elements don't surpass character abstracted mechanics, abilities, and attributes in importance, it can be an ARPG rather than an action game with some character development features.

 

[flyingjohn]

Oh boy this topic is always a bag of fun.
Here is a couple of simple comparisons:
-Difference between souls and diablo.
Souls is not a rpg, diablo is. Stats dictate everything in diablo and no amount of hitting the mouse harder/at a specific time will do anything compared to souls gameplay being purely tied to player reflexes.
-Deus ex vs Borderlands
Borderlands is not a rpg, deus ex is a hybrid that leans more heavily toward the rpg side.In Borderlands, your shooting is tied to your aim that is tied to player skill. In deus ex, aiming is combination of player skill and character skills.
TLDR:
Any action game with rpg elements needs to have some form of character skill attached to the player skill in order to be even considered a ARPG.And said character skill needs to have significant impact on player skill. Just having bigger percentage ( like longer rolls) is not enough.

 

[tritosine2k]

By now PoE2 moved such things firmly into aids-RPG subcategory.

 

[JarlFrank]

RPG Codex determined that Dragon's Dogma was GotY 2016 and Elden Ring was GotY 2022, and it will decide that Dragon's Dogma II is GotY 2024 and Kingdom Come II GotY 2025, so it seems that Action RPGs are indeed RPGs.

Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you have? I've seen you post "CYOA is the new RPG" and "Tactics is the new RPG" several times, now "Action is the new RPG"...
In response to Tyranicon's erotica RPGs, will you next make a "Porn is the new RPG"?

 

[Tyranicon]

In response to Tyranicon's erotica RPGs, will you next make a "Porn is the new RPG"?

I'm pretty sure I've already seen one on Codex somewhere.

 

[mediocrepoet]

RPG Codex determined that Dragon's Dogma was GotY 2016 and Elden Ring was GotY 2022, and it will decide that Dragon's Dogma II is GotY 2024 and Kingdom Come II GotY 2025, so it seems that Action RPGs are indeed RPGs.

Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you have? I've seen you post "CYOA is the new RPG" and "Tactics is the new RPG" several times, now "Action is the new RPG"...
In response to Tyranicon's erotica RPGs, will you next make a "Porn is the new RPG"?

Just wait for the inevitable Ontopoly, "My anus is the new RPG."

 

[v1c70r14]

ARPGs are a valid form of categorization but it's a living contradiction of a genre. CRPGs are about abstracted resolutions of conflicts, emphasizing the character(s) in terms of stats, levels, skills, and other numbers often tied to dice rolls. An action game is its polar opposite, the best of them depend purely on player skill and input. You can mix and match between these two genres, but the result is always worse than pure strains of either genre.

Either you end up with a poor action game where you don't get better at it as you play it to face harder challenges, instead relying on upgrades, level ups, and other systems, typically they also have HP bloated enemies if they aren't level scaled since your damage will go up as your character becomes better. This gives them an inverse curve in terms of difficulty, at the start of the game even big rats can beat you up but towards the end anything is a breeze.

Or you end up with a very bad RPG, where the stats don't matter nearly as much as player input, rendering the RPG parts negligible and superfluous, making the player why they even bothered inserting RPG elements in the first place if they weren't going to do them justice. Typically these mostly play the same regardless of builds, and being action games you only make (if at all) one character rather than a party.

This mongrel genre has nothing to offer that can't be found done better in either camp. With that said many games in the genre have had good qualities but it was never because of the genre-mixture. Bloodlines for example isn't a great shooter or action game, it also isn't the best RPG in the terms of the genre. Deus Ex is the same, it's not a good shooter, it's not a great stealth game and it's not much in terms of RPG clout.

 

[Serious_Business]

CRPGs are about abstracted resolutions of conflicts

That's pretty good, kid. You solved the thing. You're the winner.

So. Now that this is established, we can surely say that, in order to play a crpg, you need to abstractly resolve conflicts. In other words, you abstractly play crpgs. Or : you don't play them at all. CRPGs are, then, games that are pure speculation. Speculation on playing anything at all.

That's how it goes.

 

[Orange Clock]

If farcry3 is not an ARPG because

• there's a vast range of upgrades to the character's abilities available to the player, but in the end the possible range of "Builds" aren't sufficiently dissimiliar to each other ;
• while the player usually has decent freedom in deciding how he can achieve the goals of a given mission, he cannot choose what missions to undertake (at least the main story missions) ;
• how the player completes these missions has no impact on future activities.

then I’ll proudly present to you a TRUE ARPG — FarCry5. It’s more deserving of such honorary title than any “Modern ARPG Classics”(named so by normies mostly) such as Witcher games, BioWare game after DAO, or any famed PS exclusives.

• for starters it have some cool builds: shovel thrower, unabomber, cowboy and fabulous stealth archer. You can even have a bear companion(no romance option sadly).
• secondly, FC5 closely follows the Tim Cain’s principle of “player-driven” game, it gives you blank slate protagonists and a simple goal: destroy the cult. And how you gonna proceed is entirely up to you: are you gonna be a friendly type who helps people(and animals) in need and acquire them as allies; or maybe a stealth guerrilla fighter using hit and run tactics, destroying convoys and outposts; or maybe you just wanna have fun and complete some crazy challenges, work for CIA or help a movie director; and finally you can be a plain simple guy who just follows the main story — in the end all of these are a valuable ways to beat the game, sure you are forced into several encounters with cult leaders and it gets really annoying, but hey who’s without a sin?
• finally, all completed missions and activities have an impact on the open world.

To be honest I think that of the recent ARPGs only Elden Ring and maybe Zelda’s(I’m not 5yo so I wouldn’t know) came close to greatness that FC5 is.

Tldr: keep your rifle by your side

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Just out of curiosity, how many of these do you have? I've seen you post "CYOA is the new RPG" and "Tactics is the new RPG" several times, now "Action is the new RPG"...
In response to Tyranicon's erotica RPGs, will you next make a "Porn is the new RPG"?

In order of creation:

Spoiler

Spoiler

1. Disco Elysium
2. Dungeon of Naheulbeuk
3. Troubleshooter: Abandoned Children
4. Suzerain
5. Urtuk
6. Jagged Alliance 3
7. Elden Ring
8. Kenshi
9. Dragon's Dogma II