From my understanding the core of an RPG is a complete stat based driven system (I.E character-driven skill based on stats.). Is this correct as the core principle of an RPG?
And if it is, then “RPGs” such as The Witcher 3 isn’t a real RPG, moreover, it’s a hybrid, I think.
Vault Dweller
No, this is not a troll thread.
Hi smaug! Sorry for taking so long to reply.
Anyway, I think you are wrong here. I don't think statuses (or traits, or attributes, or any other name for the numbers that describe your character's abilities) are the core of an RPG. I think having a stat driven gameplay is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a game a CRPG, or a tabletop RPG or whatever. Mind you, I am not here trying to say these stats are not important. I think they are a very important tool in the creation of such games, in fact I have little interest in games that remove this aspect, either tabletop or computer. But when we are defining something, it is important to consider its genus and its specific differences; that is what kind of thing it is and what makes it unique against the others of its kind.
First, I will consider tabletop role playing games, since that is where the name came from; and also since I think computer RPGs can be defined by those tabletop games. Now as I understand it, a pen and paper RPG is in the genus of story games. Story games, by their turn, belong to the genus of both storytelling and gaming, both of which are human activities specified by their purpose (telling an entertaining story and competing in some form respectively). Story games then are literally what their name implies, the telling of a story and the playing of a game at the same time (as opposed of doing both activities in turns or in some other structured way). There are a lot of games in this genus, although RPGs are probably the most well known. Most other types of games seem to be party games where you use cards to tell some kind of story or to play some kind of riddle (which will also fit in our "storytelling" definition, we are using "storytelling" in a very comprehensive way).
At any rate, a roleplaying game is different from other storytelling games in that the players are assigned a specific, in story, role. This can be a bit messy, though. Some games have no problem with each player having several roles (that is, several characters). In most of these games, one of the players will play a very important
storytelling role (that is, not an in story role, but a role in the game itself), that of the game master. In others, players will alternate what kind of roles they play. In Ars Magica, for instance, only one player at a time should play the role of a wizard, even though all players have a wizard character. In Polaris, or in some ways to play Aces & Eights, the meta role of GM is divided among players. In some games, GMs will even have their own player character, playing as other players besides doing the duties of GM (this isn't usually a good idea, but some people do it nevertheless).
All of this is fairly high level, that is, it doesn't tell us much how to make a good RPG. Going back to the issue of stats, it might not be clear from this view why having stats might be a good thing for such a game. In this case, stats might be a good thing in an RPG because they give players an interface for both their characters and the game world. For instance, in GURPS a sword skill of 14 means that you have a parrying skill with that sword of 10. That means you have a chance of 50% of avoiding attacks with your sword that would otherwise hit you. From the point of view of a game, this is a pretty good boni, but from the storytelling viewpoint, it would still be foolhardy to try to make light of your adversary by lazily parrying with one hand while covering an yawn with the other. A skill of 10 for parry is pretty good, but nowhere that good.
Now, to go back to computer games, I am afraid I don't have a very good specific difference for them. I think computer games (at least single player computer games) are a genus, but I am not even sure that RPGs form a specific characteristic of that genus. It might be instead that it is simply an aspect that games of any other genre might have. I say this because I suspect that the different types of computer games have their specific difference according to their gameplay. Games that require spatial awareness and reflexes like platformers are a different type of game than strategy games like X-Com. Although you might still use spatial awareness in such game, the context changes the type of challenge you might have.
As far as I can tell, however, RPGs don't have a unique kind of gameplay. Rather, they should be considered in how close they are to the P&P games. Do they allow some kind of limited storytelling? Do they give you character build rules similar to those in P&P games? I am still sure about this, maybe there is something that is escaping me; but I believe CRPGs might just be a game of another genre (a puzzle or an adventure game, a strategy game, or even an action game) that also works somewhat similar to a Role Playing Game. For instance, the gamplay of the first Fallout revolves around exploration, strategy (someone might say there is not much strategy involved, but I think it would still be right to say it is part of the gameplay, even if it almost becomes an aspect of the exploration as well) and character building. However, the way the game is designed, the way the different builds and ways to explore lead to very different games, the way things make sense as a story rather than just a game, make the game be an RPG, that is, the game helps you very much play as a role and make decisions based on that.
