What is a cRPG? 2014 edition

[eremita]

I can't help but think that your (if taken literally) concept leads to a nasty paradox: limitation of interactivity. Let's say you're designing a quest. As always, player's task is some kind of activity which may be completed in various ways. You're gonna build upon your mechanics - various stats and skills. Based on them, let's say you know that there should be an option for stealth, deceiving, violence etc. and maybe (if you're really thorough) for various combination inside some particular option (there are some different checks inside stealth route for example).

Now the important question: What is player's role in here? To what extent is success/failure (generally) dependent on him (besides him being a mastermind behind his characters stats)? Is he just an initiator of actions? Can he fail? Can he miss something out? Because this is the part where the border between True RPG and the rest (according to your chart) might vanish. The reason why is because this border itself is not defined. How much of player's skill is too much (there is of course much more to player's skill than being good with your fingers...)??

Let's assume you'll try to minimize the impact of player's skill. In that case, no matter how many variations you make when designing a quest, the outcome will be determined by characters build. The only thing that player actually does in this case a) defining curse of actions (by creating and improving his character) b) being an initiator of actions (he just starts the game and uses his fucking mouse and keyboard). Everything else is predetermined. Every single route, success, failure and ultimately the outcome is out of his hands. Unless you make some room for player's skill in your game. But then there is the problem with your border being more or less relative...

Oh, thats perfectly understandable.
The thing is, that illustration only shows one of the actual core features of RPG. Not all of them. I really should make a few more that would use other core features to make a full picture.
One should use "limits of content" - which means there are options and C&C vs "no limits - have it all in one go" - fake options that dont mean anything.
Which is what actually creates diversity between each playthrough. Replayability. Reactivity. Seeing and experiencing different content based on character skills and how the player handles them.

As to the conundrum of how much player skill vs character skill - the thing is that a True cRPG cannot be reliant only on character skills. The two should always work together BUT, character skill should take precedence, over player skill - if you want to play a role.
For example, Morrowind - character skills had a big influence yet if you wanted to, you could do almost anything just by abusing your - player skill. even finish the game at level 1.
Which is the reason why it is closer to True cRPGs on that particular scale. While in obliblion the character skill is simply a charade, fake. - plus there is no limits to content thats depending on character skill, player choices or anything.
Its the "have it all in one go" approach - which is why it falls deep into the larp simulator end of the scale.

Additionally, the light blue section of the scale means that player skill is included - but character skill takes precedence. While the dark blue section means there is almost no player skill involved - and that is a CYOA section.

i hoped that calling it a hue slider will show that different colors mix, while only the ends of the scale are extremes.
maybe color mixer would be better name?

As for gameplay and its options being predetermined... isnt that present in any game? And isnt it the worst in games like obliblion, facepalm (fakeout) 3 - that have zero meaningful replayability and no meaningful C&C or reactivity? Isnt that horribly predetermined? So much so that no matter how many times you play you always end up doing the exact same things? Oh they tried to hide it in a sandbox scope, but thats nothing but superficiality.

Now, lets take a look at Fallouts or Age of Decadence. How many different playthroughs you can have there? How many different choices and consequences? aAnd in those, the character skills take precedence, but the player skill is invaluable and indispensable - within constraints of character skills.

hope this clarifies matters.

I get it. I actually think that the player vs character skill is the key to the whole "What is CRPG" question and should be expanded. "True cRPG cannot be reliant only on character skills. The two should always work together BUT, character skill should take precedence, over player skill - if you want to play a role." This is a good start but it's not enough. Could you elaborate? Where is that border? Where is too much?

As for the gameplay, the thing is, it's not predetermined in case there's a lot of player's skill to it... The more the success/failure depends on player's skill, the more interactive (maybe that's not the right word?) the game is - it's not inherently determined (inside the game). In other words, if the game is designed around character's skill, then there is no variable (the player) - your character cannot do anything more than past/not past designed checks, the player cannot interfere in the game itself. The game itself (when being designed) doesn't have to include the player in anything else than creating/managing the character. Your role is (paradox) much more passive than in case of Gothic for example. That game is designed around the player a lot. Lot of things depends on player's choices, talents, wits, perception etc. The player is this huge variable and the game is open for him to fuck around. Much less is determined, because the avatar is only one part of the whole picture...

Now you said that in true RPG should be both. Of course, I was just showing the extreme situations and tried to explain what I meant by predetermined. One extreme is a game (only character skill) where player cannot directly interact with the game, second extreme might be some kind of brutal sandbox/LARP (DayZ)... According to you, True RPG needs more more involvement of the character. Or is it enough, that there are different outcomes based on character's skill? I'd like to focus primarily on this...

I disagree. Progressing character development through stats, skills, abilities, equipment to solve quests/obstactles is the core of CRPGs (and RPGs) for me.

Obviously I understand the sentiment, I've been playing these games for a while, but I think this is a red herring. Like I said, it's easy to look at what came before and proclaim that this loose amalgam of traits that we're used to defines an RPG, but it's tainted by a limited perspective. You're drawing lines in the sand in a vast desert without exploring through the fog of war first. The following statement is purely speculative on my part, but I believe that if Wasteland (for example) actually shipped without any (or at least with very rare) permanent stat gains, relying entirely on equipment, buffs and in game career rank to influence your character, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as everyone would have seen for themselves the importance of permanent stat gains, or lack thereof rather.

As it stands, the position I agree with most here is the historical one: since cRPGs sprang up from trying to adapt PnP RPGs to computers, then their main defining characteristic should be adherence to this principle.
Of course, the problem with this is that it's just pegging cRPGs to what PnP RPGs are, which instead just moves the debate into defining PnP RPGs, wargames, board games, CYOA, etc, just another can of worms.

The "right" answer comes from Wittgenstein. All arguments of defintion are empty rhetorical exercises. Language games that create the illusion of conflict to obscure the simple truth that if the use of a word gets its point across there's no need for further intellectual fuss.

In total extreme, sure. (According to him, you cannot even say that the definition of circle is exact because what exactly do you mean by "the same" distance between any of the points and the centre - there is no definition of the word "same", how much inaccuracy is too much/tolerated?). But he wouldn't deny that some definitions are better that others because in some cases, if the notion is "opened", the definition actually limits the notion and closes new interpretations/ideas in the future... But that's not what we're doing here. At least I'm just trying to talk about usage.

 

[Excidium]

Also this

And in that hypothesis, yes, Fallout wouldn't be an RPG. It would be an adventure game with RPG elements. Just because you have a couple of buttons with different abilities doesn't make it an RPG. You need to progress those abilities not just tap them whenever you think they're necessary.

is the most idiotic thing I've read in a while. Not too long ago I played some Call of Cthulhu, and at no point during any session I got any sort of statistical character improvement. So, what the hell, I wasn't playing an RPG?
Cause this kinda looks like an RPG character:

Spoiler

Name: Marcin Karłowicz
Age: 22+4 = 26

Occupation: Antiquarian
	Yearly Income: 		$1500
	Assets: 		$7500
	Skillset:
	Art (Painting), Bargain, Craft (Restoration), History,
 	Library Use, (other language), Spot Hidden and Occult.

Characteristics:
| Str | Con | Pow | Dex | App | Int | Siz | Edu | San |
|  6  |  8  |  12 |  7  |  13 |  12 |  10 |  16 |  60 |

Characteristic Rolls:
| Idea | Luck | Know | Mythos | Dmg Bonus |
|  60  |  60  |  80  |    0   |   -1d4    |

	Hit Points: 		9
	Magic Points: 		12
	Sanity Points: 		60/99

Skills:
	Occult +20: 		25%
	Bargain +25: 		30%
	Anthropology +40: 	41%
	Art (Painting) +40: 	45%
	Library Use +25: 	50%
	French +50: 		51%
	German +50: 		51%
	Latin +50: 		51%
	Craft (Restoration)+55: 60%
	Spot Hidden +35: 	60%
	History +50: 		70%
	Cthulhu Mythos +2	02%

And as far as I remember there was a referee and a bunch of players and checks being made and rules being consulted and all those thingies and stuffies that constitute an RPG. Also, as you can see characters already start very competent at what they do, so stat development while existant is rare and plays a very secondary part. I figure one of the oldest and most influental RPGs is not an RPG at all?

 

[hiver]

Genres are no absolutes.
Your formalistic approach is inherently flawed.
We should introduce other possible approaches (such as players intent/response) to the debate*

ahh... sigh... i was trying to tell you that your starting assumption - that we are seeing genres as absolutes is simply not correct and that therefore all further logic based on that wrong starting assumption you wrote is completely wrong.
Thats how logic works.

And no, we do not attribute genres as an interpretive act.

Now its you who seems to make empty declarative statements. Please elaborate on why this is wrong.

I didnt say it is wrong. I said - we are not doing that. We are not making such assumptions as you are.

If you take that sentence on face value alone, in vacuum devoid of your starting assumptions - then nothing in this universe can be attributed or valued or understood in any way.
Which is absolutist relativism fallacy.
i.e - everything is relative. Always.

which is complete nonsense.

I was referring to the latest Codex Best RPG poll. People asked whether certain games qualified as RPGs (the usual suspects). It was decided that if enough Codexers voted for a given game it therefore qualifies as RPG, thus favoring an intuitive understanding of the genre over any purely formalistic approach.

And all games on that list are cRPGs. Of many different forms. Some are even hybrids of another genres with RPG elements.

[G]enres tend to be easy to recognize intuitively but difficult (if not impossible) to define.

Not true. I just defined RPG genre in a very concise manner that nobody disputed yet. Ergo ipso...

*Random thought: Maybe the discussion would be more fruitful if instead of 'What is an RPG' it was titled 'Why do we like to play RPGs' ?

isnt that a completely different discussion?

Or are you trying to falsely imply it is the same - and therefore absolutely relative?

 

[FeelTheRads]

This again? Why do you keep bringing this up if you will never answer my question?

Hurr durr answer my question, but if you try to come up with a definition to answer it I'll laugh at you because you're trying to come up with a definition. The mark of an absolute moron.

Rest of the post is a fucking mess so it was ignored.

I'll ignore you because I don't want to answer.

No idea what any of this has to do with the current subject

That's because you're a moron. It has to do with the subject because without a definition anyone can claim anything in an RPG. And since you don't actually want an answer (see above) I guess that's OK with you.

So you're saying that at level 1 Fallout is an adventure game, only transforming into a real RPG once you reach level 2 and learn to shoot better?

Would you say that moving objects in an intentory is tetris but the game becomes an RPG once you close the inventory?
Any more retarded questions?

 

[hiver]

I can't help but think that your (if taken literally) concept leads to a nasty paradox: limitation of interactivity. Let's say you're designing a quest. As always, player's task is some kind of activity which may be completed in various ways. You're gonna build upon your mechanics - various stats and skills. Based on them, let's say you know that there should be an option for stealth, deceiving, violence etc. and maybe (if you're really thorough) for various combination inside some particular option (there are some different checks inside stealth route for example).

Now the important question: What is player's role in here? To what extent is success/failure (generally) dependent on him (besides him being a mastermind behind his characters stats)? Is he just an initiator of actions? Can he fail? Can he miss something out? Because this is the part where the border between True RPG and the rest (according to your chart) might vanish. The reason why is because this border itself is not defined. How much of player's skill is too much (there is of course much more to player's skill than being good with your fingers...)??

Let's assume you'll try to minimize the impact of player's skill. In that case, no matter how many variations you make when designing a quest, the outcome will be determined by characters build. The only thing that player actually does in this case a) defining curse of actions (by creating and improving his character) b) being an initiator of actions (he just starts the game and uses his fucking mouse and keyboard). Everything else is predetermined. Every single route, success, failure and ultimately the outcome is out of his hands. Unless you make some room for player's skill in your game. But then there is the problem with your border being more or less relative...

Oh, thats perfectly understandable.
The thing is, that illustration only shows one of the actual core features of RPG. Not all of them. I really should make a few more that would use other core features to make a full picture.
One should use "limits of content" - which means there are options and C&C vs "no limits - have it all in one go" - fake options that dont mean anything.
Which is what actually creates diversity between each playthrough. Replayability. Reactivity. Seeing and experiencing different content based on character skills and how the player handles them.

As to the conundrum of how much player skill vs character skill - the thing is that a True cRPG cannot be reliant only on character skills. The two should always work together BUT, character skill should take precedence, over player skill - if you want to play a role.
For example, Morrowind - character skills had a big influence yet if you wanted to, you could do almost anything just by abusing your - player skill. even finish the game at level 1.
Which is the reason why it is closer to True cRPGs on that particular scale. While in obliblion the character skill is simply a charade, fake. - plus there is no limits to content thats depending on character skill, player choices or anything.
Its the "have it all in one go" approach - which is why it falls deep into the larp simulator end of the scale.

Additionally, the light blue section of the scale means that player skill is included - but character skill takes precedence. While the dark blue section means there is almost no player skill involved - and that is a CYOA section.

i hoped that calling it a hue slider will show that different colors mix, while only the ends of the scale are extremes.
maybe color mixer would be better name?

As for gameplay and its options being predetermined... isnt that present in any game? And isnt it the worst in games like obliblion, facepalm (fakeout) 3 - that have zero meaningful replayability and no meaningful C&C or reactivity? Isnt that horribly predetermined? So much so that no matter how many times you play you always end up doing the exact same things? Oh they tried to hide it in a sandbox scope, but thats nothing but superficiality.

Now, lets take a look at Fallouts or Age of Decadence. How many different playthroughs you can have there? How many different choices and consequences? aAnd in those, the character skills take precedence, but the player skill is invaluable and indispensable - within constraints of character skills.

hope this clarifies matters.

I get it. I actually think that the player vs character skill is the key to the whole "What is CRPG" question and should be expanded.

It is not "all" - it is one of the core features. But cannot exist in a vaccum alone.

"True cRPG cannot be reliant only on character skills. The two should always work together BUT, character skill should take precedence, over player skill - if you want to play a role." This is a good start but it's not enough. Could you elaborate? Where is that border? Where is too much?

there is no exact numerical border.

As RPGs are consisting of many parts that influence each other - depending on player input.

It is a fluctuating, reactive border. We cannot say or see where it ends and begins in detail, in specific numbers. We can see the overall effect and then judge based on that.

As for the gameplay, the thing is, it's not predetermined in case there's a lot of player's skill to it...

in a way, it always is in a computer game because you always have some finite number of options.

The more the success/failure depends on player's skill, the more interactive (maybe that's not the right word?) the game is - it's not inherently determined (inside the game). In other words, if the game is designed around character's skill, then there is no variable (the player) - your character cannot do anything more than past/not past designed checks, the player cannot interfere in the game itself.

Obviously RPGs do not do that.

The game itself (when being designed) doesn't have to include the player in anything else than creating/managing the character. Your role is (paradox) much more passive than in case of Gothic for example. That game is designed around the player a lot. Lot of things depends on player's choices, talents, wits, perception etc. The player is this huge variable and the game is open for him to fuck around. Much less is determined, because the avatar is only one part of the whole picture...

Yet even so the options are ultimately limited.

Now you said that in true RPG should be both. Of course, I was just showing the extreme situations and tried to explain what I meant by predetermined. One extreme is a game (only character skill) where player cannot directly interact with the game, second extreme might be some kind of brutal sandbox/LARP (DayZ)... According to you, True RPG needs more more involvement of the character. Or is it enough, that there are different outcomes based on character's skill? I'd like to focus primarily on this...

Character skills and stats should take precedence over Player skill - which should not be able to override specific limits imposed by character skills. But not to the extreme - because that removes player agency completely. And then you go into CYOA territory.
Because the more is left to Player skill - the less real choices there are.

Basically - bottom line - There cannot be choices without any limits on what you can do - because you will then do everything.
You will be the mage guild boss, and fighter giuld boss, and a robber and a sheriff, and a thief and a policeman, ... this and that and whatever is in there.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Youre going to ingore my specific answers because youre a cheap retard who can only answer them by strawman ad hominems.

Half your post consisted of barely coherent babbling. It actually took me longer to understand what the fuck you were trying to say than to write my post. If you can't be arsed to formulate a decent question, I won't bother answering it either.

no it woudlnt, because then you wouldnt be able to interact with content that makes it a RPG - and there would be no character progression either.

Tell me why that stuff is what makes it a RPG.

No, it wouldnt play at all. because there wouldnt be anything to play.

The game wouldn't exist if there was no level up screen?

you cant make any such extreme low level run at all. dumbass.

cool story, bro



Once again, I ignored the autistic shit, and will continue to do so as long as you keep talking like some kid on xbox live. I'm not your dad, so I'm really not interested in dealing with your temper tantrums.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Not too long ago I played some Call of Cthulhu, and at no point during any session I got any sort of statistical character improvement.

Myeah, let's take some example that breaks the mold and then claim this is the standard. Like phased based is not phase based because look there are some systems where you have some control during phases.
How exactly do exceptions make the defition?

And as far as I remember there was a referee and a bunch of players and checks being made and rules being consulted and all those thingies and stuffies that constitute an RPG.

All? Maybe it wasn't all. And why are those things that constitute an RPG but character progression is not? Maybe you didn't play a pure RPG or for some reason is has to be included too so then the definition should be bent to fit it?

fallout speedrun

Nothing in the game is really necessary because you can speedrun it.

 

[hiver]

10 minutes speed run...

(99% of the game not seen at all)

hohoho...

ah you despicable shit retards.... damn it must be wonderful to be that stupid. Ive always envied you incredible retards for that, in a way.

- oh and, now youre going to get a lobotomy from me you stupid shit. i gave you all the chances to back down from idiocy and answer with anything valuable or even sane.

- incoming...


-edit-
- have to go out for a bit but when i come back im going to watch that video to be very specific about pushing your head into your asshole.

i just knew youre going to try and use that, moron... i did those same runs myself you fucking idiot.

- lets quote this so it doesnt disappear in the meantime.

Youre going to ingore my specific answers because youre a cheap retard who can only answer them by strawman ad hominems.

Half your post consisted of barely coherent babbling. It actually took me longer to understand what the fuck you were trying to say than to write my post. If you can't be arsed to formulate a decent question, I won't bother answering it either.

no it woudlnt, because then you wouldnt be able to interact with content that makes it a RPG - and there would be no character progression either.

Tell me why that stuff is what makes it a RPG.

No, it wouldnt play at all. because there wouldnt be anything to play.

The game wouldn't exist if there was no level up screen?

you cant make any such extreme low level run at all. dumbass.

cool story, bro



Once again, I ignored the autistic shit, and will continue to do so as long as you keep talking like some kid on xbox live. I'm not your dad, so I'm really not interested in dealing with your temper tantrums.

 

[Excidium]

Not too long ago I played some Call of Cthulhu, and at no point during any session I got any sort of statistical character improvement.

Myeah, let's take some example that breaks the mold and then claim this is the standard. Like phased based is not phase based because look there are some systems where you have some control during phases.
How exactly do exceptions make the defition?

It's a counter-example. if your definition of RPGs exclude actual RPGs then it isn't a definition of anything except of what you like in your RPGs.

And as far as I remember there was a referee and a bunch of players and checks being made and rules being consulted and all those thingies and stuffies that constitute an RPG.

All? Maybe it wasn't all. And why are those things that constitute an RPG but character progression is not? Maybe you didn't play a pure RPG or for some reason is has to be included too so then the definition should be bent to fit it?

Character progression was an element, and it was happening, what the fuck didn't you recognize a moment ago that stat improvements aren't the only form of character progression?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Nothing in the game is really necessary because you can speedrun it.

Just replying to his (incorrect) point. Redding is teh hard?

Hurr durr answer my question, but if you try to come up with a definition to answer it I'll laugh at you because you're trying to come up with a definition. The mark of an absolute moron.

So you won't answer because you know that whatever you come up with will be retarded?

That's because you're a moron. It has to do with the subject because without a definition anyone can claim anything in an RPG. And since you don't actually want an answer (see above) I guess that's OK with you.

I've been asking you to tell me what a RPG is whenever you bring that subject up. Which amusingly enough seems to usually happen while I'm talking to someone else. Are you jealous?

Would you say that moving objects in an intentory is tetris but the game becomes an RPG once you close the inventory?

Uh. You seem confused...see, you're the one saying Fallout would become something else. I'm the one saying it would still be a RPG. Got it? Okay.

Any more retarded questions?

Just one.

WHAT IS A ROLE PLAYING GAME, FEELTHERADS?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

10 minutes speed run...

(99% of the game not seen at all)

You cant make any such extreme low level run at all. dumbass.

Keep moving those goalposts

 

[FeelTheRads]

So you won't answer because you know that whatever you come up with will be retarded?

Or rather, whatever I answer you will result in more retarded questions. Again, you don't actually want an answer seeing how you deride anyone trying to come up with one.

Uh. You seem confused...see, you're the one saying Fallout would become something else.

Yes, changing how the game plays will make it something else. What a surprise huh?
And this:

So you're saying that at level 1 Fallout is an adventure game, only transforming into a real RPG once you reach level 2 and learn to shoot better?

Is just fucking idiotic.
Cut a little piece of the game and then ask if this means it's a different game. Hey, cut one man's arm and ask if that arm is a man.

 

[Excidium]

So you're saying that at level 1 Fallout is an adventure game, only transforming into a real RPG once you reach level 2 and learn to shoot better?

Is just fucking idiotic.
Cut a little piece of the game and then ask if this means it's a different game. Hey, cut one man's arm and ask if that arm is a man.

Huh, isn't the correct analogy to ask if the man is still a man without the arm?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Huh, isn't the correct analogy to ask if the man is still a man without the arm?

No, because he asked if while you're at level 1 (the "little piece") is still an RPG.

And the man would be an incomplete man, very simple. Which means you talk about the game as a whole not pick some random piece and ask if that alone fits the definition.

It's simply a retarded question that doesn't ask anything and proof that he doesn't want any answer since no matter what you answer he'll just flipflop worse than VD at the beach.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

So, you won't answer the question, then. It's fine, nobody here seems to be able to come up with a decent answer, anyway. But then why, oh god, WHY do you keep bringing that up? Is this the aspergers version of blueballing? You pretend you will answer a question and then weasel out, over and over and over?

Yes, changing how the game plays will make it something else. What a surprise huh?

The entire point being that I believe removing that aspect of Fallout wouldn't make it something else, be it an adventure or a simulator or whatever. Are you really this retarded or you're just larping hiver?

 

[FeelTheRads]

So, you won't answer the question, then.

An entire thread is not enough apparently.
Would this be good?

Well, only core features a cRPG has to have is character development as a core feature and character skills overriding player skills. So thats what one is, if it lacks the first one its not an rpg, if it lacks the second one its an ARPG.

Guess not, because nobody has a decent answer for you.
Like I said, whoever tries to give an answer is met with derision. Troll or retard, what are you?
Or rather you want an answer you agree with? Why didn't you say so in the first place and then tell us what you agree with so we can make a definition that's right for you.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

...why are you quoting someone else? Don't you have opinions of your own?

 

[Excidium]

Or rather you want an answer you agree with? Why didn't you say so in the first place and then tell us what you agree with so we can make a definition that's right for you.

Hey at least you recognize that every single one of those answers is subjective and/or ill-informed.

 

[FeelTheRads]

...why are you quoting someone else? Don't you have opinions of your own?

OK, so retarded troll.

And talking about butthurt and attentions seeking:

I've been asking you to tell me what a RPG is whenever you bring that subject up.

If I don't answer you, why do you keep asking EVERYTIME? Are you butthurt or just seeking attention.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You can't be serious.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Or rather you want an answer you agree with? Why didn't you say so in the first place and then tell us what you agree with so we can make a definition that's right for you.

Hey at least you recognize that every single one of those answers are subjective and/or ill-informed.

I said so a couple of page ago:

I don't think anyone actually expects to come up with a definition accepted by everybody

For example:

if your definition of RPGs exclude actual RPGs then it isn't a definition of anything except of what you like in your RPGs.

You seem to have your definition of what's an "actual RPG". Is your definition not subjective at least if not ill-informed?

 

[Excidium]

You seem to have your definition of what's an "actual RPG". Is your definition not subjective at least if not ill-informed?

No, because by actual RPGs I refer to the original thing, as in tabletop RPGs, not the videogames based on this particular variety of tabletop game. The point is that you can't define what constitutes an RPG to the exclusion of many actual RPGs.

My own definition is obviously subjective, specially accounting for genre stagnation and decline, but it won't be instantly invalidated the moment a certain game gets a CRPG adaptation or people start taking design inspirations from other sources.

 

[FeelTheRads]

No, because by actual RPGs I refer to the original thing, as in tabletop RPGs, not the videogames based on this particular variety of tabletop game.

Yes, but there are a variety of tabletop RPGs, no? And aren't stat improvements* present in the majority of them? This might be an appeal to majority, but then is any variation part of the genre? At what point it stops being an RPG and dunno becomes a board game then? If stats improvements are not necessary because there are variations that don't use it, what else can miss and still call it an "actual RPG"?

The point is that you can't define what constitutes an RPG to the exclusion of many actual RPGs.

So I think that you can't define anything if you don't set some limits. You can have a broad definition, but then we shouldn't talk about "actual RPGs".

*that's what I meant here by character progression:

All? Maybe it wasn't all. And why are those things that constitute an RPG but character progression is not? Maybe you didn't play a pure RPG or for some reason is has to be included too so then the definition should be bent to fit it?

Character progression was an element, and it was happening, what the fuck didn't you recognize a moment ago that stat improvements aren't the only form of character progression?

 

[Excidium]

No, because by actual RPGs I refer to the original thing, as in tabletop RPGs, not the videogames based on this particular variety of tabletop game.

Yes, but there are a variety of tabletop RPGs, no? And aren't stat improvements* present in the majority of them? This might be an appeal to majority, but then is any variation part of the genre? At what point it stops being an RPG then? If stats improvements are not necessary because there are variations that don't use it, what else can miss and still call it an "actual RPG"?

A whole bunch of things. The only thing that is truly essential to an actual RPG is imagination and a rulesystem to support it and grant verisimilitude to whatever the hell you come up with within the scope of the game. Now there is a bunch of shit that is just borderline, I particularly hate things that veer too much into boardgame territory, though strangely enough I'll just call it a shit RPG and not deny it RPG status.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not really interested in participating in this discussion, but I'm going to throw this idea out here and let you guys chew on it if you want to. Note that I am not saying that this is what I, Infinitron, personally believe.

Here's the idea:

"CRPGs" don't actually exist. Only RPG elements exist. What the RPG Codex typically calls "real RPGs" or "oldschool RPGs" are actually just isometric tactical combat games with RPG elements. The fact that the genre of game known as "CRPGs", at one point in their history, became strongly associated with isometric tactical combat is nothing more than happenstance.

Discuss!