What is an RPG? My theory

[Jason Liang]

So the past two days I've been doing a lot of research and thinking about the games I played when I was growing up and the gaming journalists that I read in my formative years. I realized that those writers that I read, who wrote for VG&CE, they loved RPGs. They almost always gave RPGs glowing reviews... even snarky, edgy Chris Bieniek. Looking back, I can tell Clayton Walnum reviewed every RPG he could get. And the legendary computer review trio- Bill Kunkel, Arnie Katz and Joyce Worley- they loved RPGs more than anything else too. I read a Katz interview on gamasutra this morning and he said that, the the three games that got him to say "wow", one was Wizardry (the other two was Pong and Castle Wolfenstein). These guys interviewed Brian Fargo in issue #1... this is deep shit.

Then this afternoon I was trying to put together my own list of the best RPGs. As I was trying to figure out if Jagged Alliance 2 and Star Control 2 were really RPGs, and why my top 3 RPGs were Bloodlines, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate 2, I started trying to figure out... what is an RPG? What is the ideal RPG? And so I ended up with the following theory.

Table 1: My top 25 Computer RPG list

Title [Genre]
1. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines [adventure]
2. Neverwinter Nights [adventure]
3. Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn + ToB [adventure]
4. Ultima V [sandbox]
5. Planescape: Torment [storytelling]
6. Sengoku Rance [strategic]
7. Star Control 2 [strategic]
8. Temple of Elemental Evil [tactical]
9. Knights of the Old Republic II [adventure]

10. Fallout 2 [sandbox]
11. Wizardry 7 [tactical]
12. Jagged Alliance 2 [tactical]
13. Pool of Radiance [tactical]
14. Ultima IV [sandbox]
15. Shadowrun: Dragonfall [tactical]
16. Invisible Inc [tactical]
17. Wizardry I [tactical]
18. Arcanum [sandbox]
19. Darklands [sandbox]

20. Knights of the Old Republic [adventure]
21. Fallout [sandbox]
22. Baldur's Gate [adventure]
23. Age of Decadence [tactical]
24. Wizardry V [tactical]
25. Wizardry 8 [tactical]


What is an RPG?

An RPG is a game with schizophrenia. Every RPG is some mixture of two or more common but diverse genre elements. We can classify an RPG by its strongest genre element, but the greatest RPGs are those strong in many if not most RPG elements. When I considered what made the greatest RPGs great, I ended up with the following five RPG genres-

Adventure
Tactical
Storytelling/ Conceptual
Sandbox
Strategic (choice & consequence)

I. Adventure RPGs- It's the journey, not the destination
Adventure is at the heart of the RPG genre. I realized this when I realized that my top 3 RPGs- Bloodlines, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate 2- all classified in this genre. So what is an adventure RPG?
Adventure RPGs take the player on an epic journey with unforgettable encounters. I think Bloodlines is a perfect example- when people talk about Bloodlines, they always bring up Ocean House, or Grout's Mansion, or Janette/ Theresa. An adventure RPG is a series of exciting and memorable unique encounters, whether those encounters are combat, a puzzle, a dungeon or a memorable NPC. The game leads you from one encounter to the next. And you wish it would never end- but most adventures do. Even the greatest adventure ends, when the game designer runs dry of content- it's over. So it's common for adventure RPGs to have a disappointing ending... first, you don't really want the game to end, and second, you've already sucked the game designer's creativity dry. This is true for both Bloodlines and SoA. The game runs out of gas and it's over. Of course, the exception is the open-ended adventure- Neverwinter Nights. When one journey ends, it's time to start a new one.
Adventure RPGs have passable but not particularly iinteresting combat. Combat is lackluster in those 3, and in the KotOR games too. But adventure games can't stand on their combat engine. Occasionally there's a memorable fight, but that's it.

2. Tactical RPGs- Bring me my victory wenches!
Tactical combat is a crucial element to most RPGs, since most RPGs derive their challenge entirely from combat. A game must provide some sort of challenge, or else it would be a book, not a game. Sure, games can have puzzles or maze-like dungeons, but in an RPG those only serve to enhance the challenge from combat, not supplant it. If a game's challenge comes from puzzles, it's a puzzle game or a text adventure, not a RPG. Tactical combat is at the heart of a RPG's challenge, and the pleasure that the player gets from overcoming those challenges with his own player character.
RPGs allow players to control the game's difficulty. If the player wants the game easier, they can choose a more combat oriented character. If they want the game to be more difficult, they can choose a character with more abilities outside of combat.
A tactical RPG is pretty easy to identify. Character creation is primarily concerned with maximizing the character's effectiveness in combat. The D&D character creation rules are designed for tactical RPGs. Same with Wizardry. Age of Decadence does many things outside of combat, but when I'm making an AoD character, I'm still mostly concerned with whether to go Axe, Bow, Crossbow, Sword or Spear, Block or Dodge. Everything else is of secondary concern.
If the game's combat system is its best feature, it is a tactical RPG. Also, tactical RPGs always have turn based combat, not real time or real-time with pause. I just got done replaying Baldur's Gate: EE on Bhaal difficulty with SCS where every combat I solo'd with a Ranger by gayly running away and either shooting an arrow or swinging then running before the enemy can swing back. That isn't a good combat system. BioWare rpg engines have gay combat systems, their games are not tactical rpgs, and this is why IWD and IWD2 are fail rpgs.

3. Storytelling RPGs- This would make a great movie...
A great story is a great story no matter what medium. It just so happens that this story is told through a game. Having a great story can be an asset to any RPG, but like stories in movies and in books, a great story is pretty rare. Most RPGs do not have great stories. A band of adventurers who meet at an inn and save the world from an evil elven outcast wizard is not a great story.
Baldur's Gate doesn't have a great story. None of the Wizardry games have great stories. The Ultima games do not have great stories. Temple of Elemental Evil does not have a great story. The Fallout games do not have a good story. Arcanum's story isn't terrible, but it isn't that good either.
Dragonfall has a good story. Bloodlines has a good story. KotOR II has a good story. Some of the best NWN modules have great stories. Sengoku Rance's story is pretty good. Age of Decadence has a decent story. Star Control 2's story is one of the best.
But of course, there's one game with a great story, and it basically defines this genre by itself, and that's Torment of course.
The difference between an adventure RPG and a storytelling RPG is that you want to finish a game with a great story. Adventure RPGs are ones that you want to go on forever. Story RPGs are the ones you play obssessively to finish, because you want to know what finally happens. While adventure RPGs often have disappointing endgames, a story RPG has to nail the endgame. So it's actually very easy to tell the difference.
Story RPGs often have repetitive gameplay, and maudlin combat. Many console RPGs are story RPGs. Phantasy Star IV doesn't have any real memorable encounters, but you play it to the finish. No one starts a great story RPG and doesn't finish it.
Your character's stats often don't matter in a story RPG. You might not even have stats.

4. Sandbox RPGs- Wasn't I supposed to be on a quest of some sort?
Sandbox RPGs are in many ways the opposite of storytelling RPGs, and also the opposite of tactical RPGs. A sandbox RPG provides you with a distant or non-existent objective (Arcanum? check. Ultima? check. Fallout? check.). The game instead provides a world for you to play in. Combat is often terrible, and to get the most out of the game you create a character that focuses on abilities outside of combat, not inside combat. A story or adventure RPG might provide you with interesting NPCs to join your party. A sandbox RPG often has ways for you to get ANY NPC to fight for you, or any animal or monster. Interactivity with the environment and with NPCs are crucial to a sandbox RPG. The focus of a sandbox RPG is defining the relationship between your PC and the world. You create the content when you play; the premade content is often repetitive and mediocre (Arcanum? check. Fallouts? check.).
Is it an RPG you start 20 times but never care to finish? It's probably a sandbox RPG. (Arcanum? check. Fallouts? check. Ultima? check.) As opposed to Adventure RPGs are journeys that you don't want to end, a Sandbox RPG is something you throw away once you've had your fill of fun.
This genre is the legacy of the Ultima games, and the Arcanum and Fallout games are the spiritual heirs to Ultima.

5. Strategic RPGs- If I could only get there a day earlier...
As I was trying to figure out if Star Control 2 was a RPG, and if Sengoku Rance was a RPG, I realized that, actually they were. In fact, they were the same genre of RPGs: the strategic RPG. Most RPGs get their challenge from tactical combat. But another way to go is to make a game that presents a strategic challenge rather than a tactical challenge. When we talk about choice and consequence, we are talking about the basic elements of a strategic RPG. The gameplay in a strategic RPG is very straightforward- you must make a series of difficult choices. No choice is obvious, each has long term consequence. When the game ends, depending on the choices you made, you get better ending or a worse ending.
There is a common element that connects Sengoku Rance, Star Control 2, and, I assume, every other strategic RPG- time is a finite resource. In a strategic RPG, you always have a deadline. If you fail to achieve your objective in the deadline, you get a bad ending. If a RPG has a stringent, hard time limit (not a vague and distant time limit like Fallout, or a fake time limit like Dragonfall/ SR: Hong Kong) it is almost certainly a strategic RPG. Strategic RPGs are meant to be replayed, and each time you replay you get better at figuring out how to manage your time resource.
So in some ways strategic RPGs feel like sandbox RPGs, since you are given so many choices, but it is also the opposite of sandbox RPGs since you have no control over when the game ends. Your choices actually have consequence.
It's worth noting that classic Rogue games are inherently strategic games since classic Rogues are designed with a food system. You have a finite number of actions before you starve to death, (or die of corruption in ADoM) so you shouldn't wander about aimlessly. Also, you often must choose between items due to carrying capacity.
And as you can tell, Star Control 2 and Sengoku Rance are two of my favorite games. They have great stories, and interesting characters and encounters. They don't have especially remarkable tactical combat. But for me, Strategic RPGs are second only to adventure RPGs. When one game ends, you are already trying to figure out how to play better the next time.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I'll wait until you've finished your OP, you seemed to have got bored near the end and stopped bothering. Take a break then come back and finish it up. (edit 20 to 25. needs a 5. Strategic. Expand sandbox etc etc etc).

 

[mixer]

Wait a minute, are you trying to setup a new voting system here?

 

[Somberlain]

 

[Lord Azlan]

Title [Genre]
1. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines [adventure]
6. Star Control 2 [strategic]

Read with interest and not played these two yet - since you rank them so high I better get going with them.

 

[Jarmaro]

the greatest RPGs are those strong in many if not most RPG elements

No shit Sherlock

 

[Lazing Dirk]

Every RPG is some mixture of two or more

So if I play a pacifist run in Fallout, does that mean I'm not playing an RPG any more, since I'm missing the tactical element? You specifically excluded Fallout from 3 and 5, and it doesn't seem to fall into 1 by your description, leaving only 4.

 

[curry]

You never played Gothic?

 

[Mustawd]

4. Sandbox RPGs- Wasn't I supposed to be on a quest of some sort?

I think you might be stretching out your own definition here. A sandbox is just a method to introduce the player to the game world. A "sandbox rpg" is as much an rpg as a "linear rpg" is a type of rpg. Even your definition of the category is lacking compared to your other categories, and it's because you simply mentioning sandboxes due to their present popularity.

But that was a pretty good post, and I like your idea of how the best rpgs are ones that combine as many of the rpg elements into one tight and enjoyable package (no homo).

 

[KILLER BEAR]

The difference between an adventure RPG and a storytelling RPG is that you want to finish a game with a great story. Adventure RPGs are ones that you want to go on forever. Story RPGs are the ones you play obssessively to finish, because you want to know what finally happens. While adventure RPGs often have disappointing endgames, a story RPG has to nail the endgame. So it's actually very easy to tell the difference.

So the difference is that adventure RPGs have lackluster endings? If an "adventure RPG" has a good ending then it becomes a "story RPG" ?

When you keep playing a game because you want to see "what happens next", that doesn't mean that you want to get over with it, it means you want to "keep going", to get more content (or in this case, more of the story).
If you play an enjoyable game, you just want to get more of this.

So yeah what you call "adventure" and "story" RPGs are essentially the same thing.

 

[Jason Liang]

Every RPG is some mixture of two or more

So if I play a pacifist run in Fallout, does that mean I'm not playing an RPG any more, since I'm missing the tactical element? You specifically excluded Fallout from 3 and 5, and it doesn't seem to fall into 1 by your description, leaving only 4.

Fallout does have a story. It's just not great story. Which is ok since most RPGs don't actually have a great story.
If the game has no tactical or strategic element, it is just an adventure game instead of an RPG, like Monkey Island. A 5 year old could complete it with a spoiler walkthrough. An example is Final Fantasy VIII; it's possible to play this game pretty much like an adventure since you can run away from everything and you also get an ability early that turns off random encounters completely. At that point the game is simply an adventure game. You don't even care about your character's stats or levels anymore. You can beat FFVIII without raising your level even once.

So the difference is that adventure RPGs have lackluster endings? If an "adventure RPG" has a good ending then it becomes a "story RPG" ?
When you keep playing a game because you want to see "what happens next", that doesn't mean that you want to get over with it, it means you want to "keep going", to get more content (or in this case, more of the story).
If you play an enjoyable game, you just want to get more of this.

So yeah what you call "adventure" and "story" RPGs are essentially the same thing.

When people discuss an adventure RPG, they rarely talk about the story. When you think about SoA, what do you think about? Not about the story. You think about fighting the Shadow Dragon, or journeying through the Underdark, or the time stupid Edwin changed himself into a girl. You think about the memorable companions that Bioware wrote for you. You will never forget Saerileth's love. When you reach the endgame, you are clearly overleveled, and yet you hold off, running around, searching for content, even a stupid fedex quest, when you've already sucked this game dry. You would rather keep playing then end the game, since you don't care about the ending.

When you play an RPG that actually has a great story, you stop sleeping. You stop eating. You stop fapping (this is why they stopped putting storylines in porn). You don't even care about solving the game's puzzles and combats yourself; you just want to get to the end, just like if you watch a great movie or read a great book, you finish it. When people play Dragonfall, they basically finish it in 2 or 3 days, playing obssessively. While someone who gets into SoA the first time might play for a month or longer. Do you really care about rescuing Imoen? Nah, let's suck Aklatha dry first and visit Trademeet. Do you really care about stopping Irenicus? Nah, he ain't going nowhere. Do you really care that Throne of Bhaal is shit? Nah man, it's MOAR CONTENT. FEED. ME.

Again, pretty much every RPG has a story, even a bad one, and pretty much every RPG has some memorable encounters. RPGs have all these elements, but we can compare them and understand their strengths and weaknesses better by sorting them by their strongest element. It helps us understand why all these games which we find pleasurable for different reasons are all RPGs.

 

[KILLER BEAR]

My point is that "playing obsessively" just means that you really like the game. I remember playing System Shock 2 non-stop until I finished it; does that makes it a "story RPG" ?

The way you differentiate between Adventure and story RPGs seems very fuzy.

 

[Sigourn]

The problem with the roleplaying genre is that it amasses a bunch of games that have nothing to do with each other, and it's impossible to narrow down what makes an RPG because of this.

 

[Mustawd]

NCAA 2006 was a great RPG. Awesome stats, good real time action, and a decent story mode with real C&C. It even had a strategic layer that simulated a real recruiting system. It was a badass rpg, men.

 

[Jason Liang]

I guess we come back to sigh tactical combat. Even Rance and Star Control 2 have tactical combat.

 

[shihonage]

Fallout does have a story. It's just not great story. Which is ok since most RPGs don't actually have a great story.

If the game has no tactical or strategic element, it is just an adventure game instead of an RPG, like Monkey Island.

we really need to curtail the Chinese

 

[Jason Liang]

My point is that "playing obsessively" just means that you really like the game. I remember playing System Shock 2 non-stop until I finished it; does that makes it a "story RPG" ?

The way you differentiate between Adventure and story RPGs seems very fuzy.

It's easier when you can consider console RPGs (mostly JRPGs). Our stereotypical JRPG is usually Adventure or Story RPG, with very primitive tactical combat and sandbox elements. You're right the difference is fuzzy and perhaps I made up this category just to make Torment feel special. But I would say it depends on the quality of the story. If it's a fresh, engaging story, or has a great concept, it's a story RPG. If it doesn't, it's an Adventure RPG. The other difference is that in a story RPG your character's attributes and skills have minimum effect on gameplay and they tend to be more linear with less sidequests and optional content than Adventure RPGs. The essence for me of Adventure is, again, the journey.

Take Pool of Radiance. It's primary a tactical rpg due to how you approach character creation and party composition (if you get to create multiple party members, it's almost certainly a tactical rpg), but it's clearly more of an adventure rpg than a story rpg. You don't really care about the story; you're not making a beeline for Vallejo Keep to see how the game ends. Instead you play pretty much clearing out every sector and every corner.

An example of a story RPG is Crystalis. Crystalis has very repetitive gameplay. You spend the whole game exploring similar dungeons, using similiar weapons, fighting similar enemies. There's like a few cool moments, like when you get to ride a dolphin. But mostly you want to beat the game, get revenge, save the world. It's a story RPG.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I guess we come back to sigh tactical combat. Even Rance and Star Control 2 have tactical combat.

If you're in the mood for a good sigh, then the reason all roads seem to lead back to tactical combat is because, as everyone keeps repeating, D&D evolved from strategic/tactical war gaming. If D&D had never existed and the whole RPG genre never arose then you could imagine it as people making more individualised adventure themed Warhammer games instead of huge hordes in perpetual warfare.

Like all things that become popular, division arose as to the true essence of what this D&D thing was all about. Some people played it as a monster killing game, some people played it as an exercise in free thinking and some people played it as big puzzle game with riddling DMs and swinging axes that drop from the ceiling, and many played some variation of all three depending on what they thought other people were doing. There was no right way to play, but everyone thought their way was the most superior. So even the creators of D&D each inspired different philosophical paths that the genre took.

But, I ask you, what is the first thing that every RPG has? And when I say every, I don't of course mean every, I just mean 99% of them made after computer games stopped being awkward DOS games and etc (and even some during that period):

Character and/or inventory screen. Without one an RPG just doesn't feel like an RPG. And what do they all have in common in this regard, that you carry a weapon of choice, that your stats effect how you perform in combat (even in twitchers), that everything you do on these screens has an input and direct relation to combat scenarios.

So if combat is too casual then this screen feels redundant and if there's not enough combat then this screen feels redundant, but the true essence of an RPG is a game which makes this screen the most important aspect of the game - ie: your character and their combat prowess.

It shouldn't be too difficult to imagine some bright spark immediately getting ideas and thoughts of revolution from this revelation, and thinking, I wonder if I could make a game which follows this rule but does it without the need for combat, wouldn't that be awesome - and more power to them, but consumers buy things because they like them and 30 years of consumers consuming RPGs has obviously created an expectation that when they do so they will be buying a product which is combat oriented. Attempting to hook them onto a game which isn't combat oriented but still called an RPG would be like weening someone off martial arts movies and into romantic comedies because it's got Jackie Chan in it - it might work for a few games, but in the long term the core will likely just move away to a different genre which supplies combat. Even games which are very good at allowing you to avoid combat with your character build still need the combat there to justify your ability to avoid it.

So instead of looking at the end product and working backwards to try and assign a sub-category, work forwards and start from the moment you are presented with your character screens and then take note of how much influence this aspect has on the rest of the game. The greater the impact, the more of an RPG it is, the less of an impact the less of an RPG it is, and without combat it's likely irrelevant to the genre anyway regardless of this test.

 

[Jason Liang]

BUT STILL I would say that computer RPGs have evolved away from tactical combat enough so that we no longer judge the quality of an RPG by it's combat system. We want the freedom of having characters be useful outside of combat, whether it is having the character learn and make use of thief/ rogue skills, talk skills, crafting skills, or charm/ mind control spells (hence sandbox RPGs from Ultima and Darklands up to Arcanum).

I would like to write an essay at some point about Age of Decadence, which of course is a true hybrid trying to combine tactical combat with adventure/ sandbox elements with a decent story, but ends up failing to do any of it spectacularly. (Before I get hate, I'm hating on AoD tactical combat since you get to cheat with nets and bolas, a glaring flaw in this aspect. The combat system design is ok, but the implementation has issues) (and the game's non-combat skill use/ skill check system is really primitive and uninspired- so it fails at being a sandbox game as well)

But the real innovation of modern RPGs is adventure. Game content rather than the rule systems. Adventure has come to define RPGs, has become the heart of what RPGs are.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

BUT STILL I would say that computer RPGs have evolved away from tactical combat enough so that we no longer judge the quality of an RPG by it's combat system. We want the freedom of having characters be useful outside of combat, whether it is having the character learn and make use of thief/ rogue skills, talk skills, crafting skills, or charm/ mind control spells (hence sandbox RPGs from Ultima and Darklands up to Arcanum). But the real innovation of modern RPGs is adventure. Game content rather than the rule systems. Adventure has come to define RPGs, has become the heart of what RPGs are.

Kinda lost me here. Why do you call it evolution? All the games you mention are still combat games. RPGs have always been adventure games, I don't know what you're imagining here. Games with content (?) rather than rule systems is what is the definition of decline round here.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Overall, I think what is missing from this discussion is a sense of where the not-so-good RPGs fall. The Bethesda, Bioware, Square etc.

I covered that.

 

[Jason Liang]

Invisible Inc is an interesting case as yes, the campaign mode has the 3 day time limit, but you are also "on the clock" during each mission. But the strategic decision-making in campaign mode (which mission to take) isn't particularly meaningful long-term, so it lacks real C&C. As for on the clock missions, that's only if you choose to go stealth to save credits. If you take the Robert De Niro in Heat approach, you can basically ignore the clock.

In many ways adventure rpg's and strategic rpgs are opposite. This is why the BG2 modding community focused on creating new content like NPC romance mods, to give players an excuse to replay a game when they've already experienced everything. But adventure RPG's aren't innately replayable. Whereas strategic RPGs require you to replay many times to "learn" the game and the map and develop a real strategy.

For me, IWD2 was terrible. The combat was repetitive, there was hardly any real tactics to what I was doing to win the fights, and there wasn't much story or adventure or world interaction to keep me playing. i liked my PCs and how badass I could make them, but ultimately that isn't enough to satisfy. It was a tactical RPG in a system (rt w/p) that doesn't support interesting tactics.

I am trying to get in some time on Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 this month (after Siege of Dragonspear), so maybe I will have some more ideas after that.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

For me, IWD2 was terrible. The combat was repetitive, there was hardly any real tactics to what I was doing to win the fights, and there wasn't much story or adventure or world interaction to keep me playing. i liked my PCs and how badass I could make them, but ultimately that isn't enough to satisfy. It was a tactical RPG in a system (rt w/p) that doesn't support interesting tactics.

IWD2 gets all kinds of compliments and complaints and they've all been discussed a billion times ad-nausea, but...erm... what do you mean when you say there wasn't much adventure... I think this is where you're really confusing people big time.

 

[Jason Liang]

BUT STILL I would say that computer RPGs have evolved away from tactical combat enough so that we no longer judge the quality of an RPG by it's combat system. We want the freedom of having characters be useful outside of combat, whether it is having the character learn and make use of thief/ rogue skills, talk skills, crafting skills, or charm/ mind control spells (hence sandbox RPGs from Ultima and Darklands up to Arcanum). But the real innovation of modern RPGs is adventure. Game content rather than the rule systems. Adventure has come to define RPGs, has become the heart of what RPGs are.

Kinda lost me here. Why do you call it evolution? All the games you mention are still combat games. RPGs have always been adventure games, I don't know what you're imagining here. Games with content (?) rather than rule systems is what is the definition of decline round here.

This is why I think both Wizardry 7 and Dragonfall should be regarded highly since both found a way to marry good tactical combat with good content- not an easy thing to achieve, taking AoD as an example.

I wouldn't call Darklands an adventure game in the modern sense. Yes, there are 30 towns, but they are all the same. Yes, there are many raubritters, but they are all the same. So it doesn't have much content especially compared to Pool of Radiance.

The modern adventure game has "set pieces" "modules" and "twists" like Bloodlines or SoA or even Dragonfall. The heart of SoA is a series of unique adventures, rather than random trash combat. AoD has several adventure elements like unique fights (Antidas, the Pass). They are amusement rides with set stops (like the Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean in Disneyland).

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

You seem to have invented a language.