Define "Roleplaying Game"

[alanschu]

Those words "vast majority" hurt it though.

 

"Vast majority" is not all-encompassing

[EnderAndrew]

How so? That defenition can apply to many(x3) cRPGs I've played.

 

Besides. RPG can also stand for Rocket Propelled Grenades. But we already decided, for the purposes of communication in this thread, that it stands for Role Playing Game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However that definition won't work for a good chunk of RPGs out there if we are talking about computer and console RPGs, especially consider the definition mentions players rolling dice.

 

I've yet to see a computer of console RPG that requires the player to roll dice themself.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the term role-playing has many meanings, many of which do not apply to RPG genre of computer and console games.

[BicycleOfDeath]

Well, if you're not acting out the role by selecting choices with your given options, Then it's just an extremely linear game with few or no choices (or you have it on pause). I wouldn't classify that as an RPG.

 

Plus, the "partially determined by chance" could, and by my defenition, will be classified as the computer computing your chance to hit and all that jazz. So in essence, the computer is rolling the dice in the background for you. It's calculating numbers. Just like you would in a P&P RPG.

 

Games like BG DA aren't true RPGs, if they're RPGs at all, because you're not given options. You're not playing the role of a character. You're pulling the character through a predetermined route that will get you to the same end. That's a stat based action game.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I've seen people argue all day long that Zelda is an RPG simply because it features swords, but those people are in the minority.  Just because someone doesn't know what defines a genre doesn't mean the genre isn't defined.

Definitions exist in the heads of individuals, not outside of them. Any group, minority or majority, can exchange words according to their own currencies. Over time, the currencies of words can lose value and be replaced or fall into disuse. I don't see why RPG is different from any other term.

 

If you are just offering your opinion, then so be it, and perhaps I've been too harsh on you in that regard.  However, I don't feel your opinion represents what the majority of consumers, or the industry defines an RPG as.

 

And since I am such a big fan of semantics (with definitions being arguably the first and most important step in debate) I feel it necessary to establish the common, accepted definition of a term.

I'd definitely say you're being too harsh since the thread author asked for individual opinions.

 

However if there is a game on a shelf that you know absolutely nothing about, and it says RPG on the cover, are you first going to assume the game has an interactive story, or stat-based gameplay given that interactive stories abound in all genres, but stat-based gameplay is the staple of the genre?

I assume that RPG is a loaded term. I don't assume that what's being given to me had the same value to the giver as it does to me. I don't buy games or even look at games based on genre classifications for a few reasons 1) genre terms are loaded and highly disputed and 2) good games exist across many "genres".

 

I think what you are describing is what you want the term RPG to mean, and not so much what the term actually exists as today.

The term doesn't exist outside of individual usage. It doesn't "exist today".

 

No, rather I would argue that marketing and retail are going to use terms that the majority of consumers understand and accept rather than what a small niche market would hope to redefine.

The beliefs of the people participating in this thread have no majority. I think it's pretty presumptuous for you to assume what "consumers" as a whole believe an RPG is or is not.

 

I've also called Jade Empire an action RPG.  However, the speed with which your character reacts is controlled by both the player's speed, and the character's speed attribute.  Stats do control the gameplay mechanics in Jade Empire, even though that is less the case in real-time systems.

In Forza, the speed with which your car reacts is controlled by the player's speed and also by the car's weight, suspension, engine configuration, and weight distribution. Is Forza Motorsport a racing RPG?

 

I think that you are an extremely smart fellow who normally expresses themself quite well, so I am disappointed with what I feel is a poor metaphor here.

 

If Circle is to Action as Square is to RPG, then were does Blue fit in?

The shape of an object does not preclude or restrict its ability to have any particular value of color. My metaphor confuses you because you seem determine to use my terms according to your own definitions as opposed to the definitions I have stated that I hold.

 

Arguably Half Life 2 has a stat as well, called your Health Meter in the way you have Mood Meters in The Sims.  Your Bladder rating does not affect your success/failure in actions.  It is more like a Health/Mana/Fatigue bar that you would see outside of the RPG genre that dictates the need to replenish said bar.

You're putting an awful lot of restrictions and exceptions on something that is supposed be defined as "stat-based gameplay, period".

 

So the only valid stat-based gameplay is gameplay that involves straight value comparisons? Does it have to be randomized, or can it be a static comparison?

 

I don't see how Fable is a sandbox game because it allows now ability to create anything outside of your character.

Aren't we slaves to the definition given by the Godfather of Sandbox games, Will Wright?

 

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/the-sims-2/591767p7.html

 

Also, just because its a "sandbox" game doesn't mean it doesn't have goal structures. I think of a "sandbox" game as one where it's more the player imposing the goal structures on the experience than the game is imposing the goal structures. But still the game designer has to give them plenty of reward feedback and failure feedback around a larger landscape, a 'goal space.' So rather than having 'Here's the goal of the game,' you now have a space of possible goals that the player can choose and pick from.

 

You certainly can wander around and do a lot of things at your own pace for a variety of rewards in Fable. It sounds kind of like a sandbox game according to Will Wright's definition.

 

And strangely enough, I didn't even know about this next link before I asked you:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_(videogames)

 

Most simulation games are sandbox-style video games, however Role-playing games (and MMORPGs) and other type of games can be sandbox games as well. The best selling computer game of all time is a sandbox style game, The Sims.

 

...

 

Common features of sandbox style video games

 

...

 

* Freedom to experiment: The ability to make good or bad decisions. In sandbox games, users can often set their own tone for the game. For example, in Darklands and Fable a user can do good deeds and become famous, or perform evil acts and become infamous.

 

I define Fable as an Action/RPG, and coincidentally enough, so does the developer and publisher.

Do a search for "fable" and "sandbox" to see how the internet population associates them.

[EnderAndrew]

Here is the problem with your logic, as pointed out by your very first post in this thread, if acting a role defined a RPG game, then Mario and Doom would be RPG games.

 

BG:DA is called an RPG by its developers, publisher, and the entire industry.

 

And just so you know, there are specific characters in BG:DA. You can even play the cheese-monkey Drizzt. So you do play a role in that game as much as you do in Doom.

 

So how can you argue that Doom should be an RPG but BG:DA shouldn't?

[jaguars4ever]

Define "Roleplaying Game"

Rat Poaching Galore.

 

 

:D

[BicycleOfDeath]

So how can you argue that Doom should be an RPG but BG:DA shouldn't?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was using them as contrasting examples of debates I witnessed. Was not my logic, rather a comparison.

[Blaise Russel]

Here is the problem.

 

No.

 

A more apt analogy:

 

Person A and Person B are discussing the aura of a rock. Person A has decided that the rock's aura is this way, the way of many rocks - let us say, Upwards. B has decided on the opposite - the rock's aura is Downwards, also like many of its peers.

 

Neither can convince the other that their position is the correct one because both their reasons are equally unappealing to the opposing combatant. The decision on whether the rock is Upwards or Downwards is arbitrary and without reason.

 

I propose that the distinction between Upwards and Downwards is a nonsense one. Whether it is Upwards or Downwards is unimportant, of use only to pedants and marketing types. What instead we should be focusing on are the individual attributes of the rock that may or may not make it good and useful. Upwards and Downwards are arbitrary labels that are blurred and more a product of tradition rather than actual thought; best to be rid of them and, instead, look at whether the stone is granite, or square shaped, or very heavy, or whatever.

[EnderAndrew]

Definitions exist in the heads of individuals, not outside of them.  Any group, minority or majority, can exchange words according to their own currencies.  Over time, the currencies of words can lose value and be replaced or fall into disuse.  I don't see why RPG is different from any other term.

To say that definitions don't exist outside of people's heads is pretty silly.

 

Let's take the dictionary's definition of the word definition.

 

A statement conveying fundamental character.

A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

I'd definitely say you're being too harsh since the thread author asked for individual opinions.

Then you are just stating your opinion, and I am stating mine. I haven't made any personal attacks, or said anything negative about people. Technically the author asked how people view RPGs. You state how you view RPGs, and I didn't say that you don't have a right to that opinion, however I am stating that simply because you or any other arbitrary individual decides to redefine an item from its accepted definition, that doesn't change the definition for anyone else.

 

The reason why I feel this is important enough to warrant such a discussion is two fold. 1 - I think some people ask this question because they don't see or understand what defines a given genre. 2 - Without a common basis of reference, actual communication breaks down.

 

I recall various debates that once popped up when you lumped grenades under melee and people argued the definition of melee. I didn't care too much because I felt overall the game balance looked better with an equal number of skills split between the game paths.

 

People argued none the less, because defined terms are imporant.

I assume that RPG is a loaded term.  I don't assume that what's being given to me had the same value to the giver as it does to me.  I don't buy games or even look at games based on genre classifications for a few reasons 1) genre terms are loaded and highly disputed and 2) good games exist across many "genres".

I think you are being evasive here. I'll get into that more below.

The term doesn't exist outside of individual usage.  It doesn't "exist today".

I honestly can't believe that you are denying that communal definition doesn't exist. If we didn't have accepted definitions, then langauge on the whole wouldn't exist. Given the existance of lexicons and dictionaries, I think your arguement that terms don't exist beyong individual usage is "wack".

The beliefs of the people participating in this thread have no majority.  I think it's pretty presumptuous for you to assume what "consumers" as a whole believe an RPG is or is not.

Are you not assuming here yourself? If my belief is shared by the majority, then yes I do have a majority belief.

 

I quote dictionaries, wikipedias, and refer to industry accepted terms for a reason. I am trying to call upon what is accepted by the majority while you say such definitions don't exist. Is this perhaps a means of dodging the one-simple point I'm trying to make, that your definition does not jive with the accepted definition?

In Forza, the speed with which your car reacts is controlled by the player's speed and also by the car's weight, suspension, engine configuration, and weight distribution.  Is Forza Motorsport a racing RPG?

Again, I know you are a very intelligent individual, and given the time between posts I have to assume you think them out very carefully. So please do not intentionally miscontrue my posts.

 

I have said an RPG is defined by the primary game mechanic being driven by stat-based gameplay. Hybrid games feature or include stat-based gameplay. Given that Jade Empire is an Action/RPG hybrid, one could argue that Forze has RPG elements, but I don't think hardly anyone would really call Forza an RPG on the whole unless they were trying to be obstinate.

The shape of an object does not preclude or restrict its ability to have any particular value of color.  My metaphor confuses you because you seem determine to use my terms according to your own definitions as opposed to the definitions I have stated that I hold.

Your analogy was that a game could be both Action and RPG at the same time, and then you said that both a Square and Circle could be Blue. Action and RPG are both qualifiers of the same category, as are Square and Circle. Blue is a qualifier of a seperate category. I'm not saying that a Circle can't be blue. That statement makes logical sense. Your analogy however, doesn't make a direct correlation.

You're putting an awful lot of restrictions and exceptions on something that is supposed be defined as "stat-based gameplay, period".

No, I qualified my statement that RPGs have stat-based gameplay driving the main mechanic, and that definition would not include Half Life 2 or The Sims.

So the only valid stat-based gameplay is gameplay that involves straight value comparisons?  Does it have to be randomized, or can it be a static comparison?

I don't see where you inferred that from my post.

snip

There are plenty hybrids between genres. However, before we can define an Action/RPG or a Sandbox/Simulation, we must first define Action and RPG seperately, or Sandbox and Simulation.

[EnderAndrew]

Here is the problem.

No.

 

A more apt analogy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is really funny.

 

Your analogy says there is no wrong or right, but two different opinions, and you give a definitive no and say I am wrong.

 

So are there correct definitions or not?

 

Your analogy contradicts your post. What are you really trying to say?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Here is the problem.

 

Let's say that you see a red door (and you want to paint it black).

 

Suddenly, I say that orange is the new red, as traditional red is too primary, and only little children are into such things.  Orange has more depth, and is evocative of both powerful, bright imagery like the sun, and subdued earth tones at the same time.

 

So I look at the red door and call it orange despite the fact that everyone has been calling red, well red for ages.

 

The purpose of language is to communicate.  A word can change meanings through use over the years, but what bugs me is when this happens due to misuse.  The term moot is a great example.  We say something is a moot point, and because the term was misused often enough, most people assume moot means trivial, where as the original and perhaps correct defintion is the moot meant worthy of debate.

Suppose you took a bunch of coins and handed them out to people across the world. You establish their values clearly and make bold, obvious engravings on both sides. Some coins have smooth edges, some have ridges. Everything works well early on. Over many years, people hand these coins back and forth to each other. The faces wear off of the coins and the ridges wear down. What's more, sometimes people get confused about what the initial value of the coins were, or worse yet -- they disregard what was established and they start trading according to their own, local values. Sometimes people hand off a Gold Eagle to someone and the person accepts it as a Gold Hawk.

 

One day in the 21st century, someone says, "Hey, hold on, what is this worth, anyway?"

 

Some old geezer looks in the ancient log book and says, "Well, if that's a Gold Eagle, it's worth ten oxen. But if it's a Gold Hawk, it's worth one virgin -- but, only a black-haired virgin!"

 

"Ten male oxen or ten female oxen?"

 

"Is a blond-haired virgin more or less valuable than black-haired virgin? And what about whores?!"

 

It doesn't really matter what was intended long ago because the values that were held when the currency was established were held by people. They had agency, mainfested in individuals. Those values didn't exist outside of those people. A value written down is still a value expressed through a medium by a person Some held different beliefs than others -- or they changed their minds. And those who had the will, influence, and tenacity to do so passed on what they believed.

 

So the coins lost their faces and the old owners, the minters, they lost their coins to youngin's with heads full of opinions. It didn't stop the descendants from trading them according to their own understanding of worth. Right and wrong only existed in the minds of the owners, challenged only when making transactions.

 

I don't believe in misuse. Grammarians will tell you that Jesus does good and you do well. The linguist will shoot back that they're ain't nothin' wrong with that, everbody's doin' good, u should 2! Between the ends of the spectrum, both sides make some reasonable points. It's frustrating for me, because I live in a world where 95% of the people with whom I converse have no idea how to use the subjunctive mood. From my perspective, they mangle grammar. From their perspective, so I have been told, I sound odd.

 

I think the definition you gave for "RPG" is a broken descriptor that has not kept pace with changes in game development. For that reason, I use the word less and less and try to qualify my usage of it more and more. If people don't accept the value I give to it, that's fine. I can't force them to accept it. But similarly, any time others use "RPG" with me, my mind shatters the definition of what they could mean into a dozen possibilities, rendering the word useless.

[J.E. Sawyer]

To say that definitions don't exist outside of people's heads is pretty silly.

 

Let's take the dictionary's definition of the word definition.

Goodnight, Ender.

[Darque]

:ph34r:

[EnderAndrew]

I don't believe in misuse.  Grammarians will tell you that Jesus does good and you do well.  The linguist will shoot back that they're ain't nothin' wrong with that, everbody's doin' good, u should 2!  Between the ends of the spectrum, both sides make some reasonable points.  It's frustrating for me, because I live in a world where 95% of the people with whom I converse have no idea how to use the subjunctive mood.  From my perspective, they mangle grammar.  From their perspective, so I have been told, I sound odd.

 

I think the definition you gave for "RPG" is a broken descriptor that has not kept pace with changes in game development.  For that reason, I use the word less and less and try to qualify my usage of it more and more.  If people don't accept the value I give to it, that's fine.  I can't force them to accept it.  But similarly, any time others use "RPG" with me, my mind shatters the definition of what they could mean into a dozen possibilities, rendering the word useless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You contradict yourself. You say you don't believe in misuse and then say by your definition people mangle grammar.

 

If grammar means nothing, and definitions mean nothing then why persue a career that involves writing?

 

Why bother using proper grammar yourself if no one will notice or care?

 

Perhaps the very reason people use poor grammar, or don't speak well is that no one emphasizes the importance of such things.

 

You can't criticize people for mangling grammar while at the same time saying that accepted definitions don't exist, or don't mean anything.

 

What is the point of language if not to communicate? And without a common reference, who effective is communication? In formal debate, the first step is to define terms. I wonder why that is.

[Darque]

Ender, your posts make my head hurt sometimes

[Blaise Russel]

That is really funny.

 

Your analogy says there is no wrong or right, but two different opinions, and you give a definitive no and say I am wrong.

 

So are there correct definitions or not?

 

Your analogy contradicts your post.  What are you really trying to say?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

 

My analogy points out that when you have such a nebulous concept as 'rock auras' with equally nebulous distinctions like 'upwards' and 'downwards', you've already lost the war because you're talking random nonsense.

 

The same with the concept of 'RPG' as a genre. 'Role-playing' can mean anything and everything, and a role-playing game is the most ****ing worthless idea ever. It *means* nothing. You end up having to add unrelated issues, like STATS and CHARACTER INVOLVEMENT and TALKING TO PEOPLE in order to give it definition.

 

I have no problem with other genres. FPS? No beef with that, man; a First-Person Shooter has you shooting things from the first-person perspective. RTS? Real-Time Strategy, does exactly what it says on the tin. Platformer? Game with platforms, easy.

 

But RPG? You do that in EVERY game.

 

So my analogy suggests discarding RPG because it's a worthless concept and instead naming games as they are. Rock aura means nothing, but Tactical Combat Game means a lot.

[kirottu]

What is the point of language if not to communicate?  And without a common reference, how effective is communication?  In formal debate, the first step is to define terms.  I wonder why that is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a common reference, but it isn

[EnderAndrew]

My analogy points out that when you have such a nebulous concept as 'rock auras' with equally nebulous distinctions like 'upwards' and 'downwards', you've already lost the war because you're talking random nonsense.

Rock auras haven't quantified or defined, so yes they currently equate to random nonsense.

The same with the concept of 'RPG' as a genre. 'Role-playing' can mean anything and everything, and a role-playing game is the most ****ing worthless idea ever. It *means* nothing. You end up having to add unrelated issues, like STATS and CHARACTER INVOLVEMENT and TALKING TO PEOPLE in order to give it definition.

How does a term come to have a definition? It is assigned one, accepted, and used commonly enough in language to stick. The definition of a genre is much the same process. If a definition exists, is documented, and is applied by millions of people for several years, then it is not absurd nonsense that could mean anything.

 

Just because you don't know the definition of a term, does not mean the term does not have a definition. If the term didn't mean anything at all, then why has it had a consistent meaning and usage in the industry for 30 years?

 

Answer me that.

[Darque]

Define "Roleplaying Game"

Rat Poaching Galore.

 

 

:D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Those poor rats

[EnderAndrew]

There is a common reference, but it isn

[alanschu]

I think RPGs need more than stat based gameplay though at the same time.

 

I don't consider NHL 2006 to be an RPG.

[DemonKing]

For me a CRPG is any game where you can create/select your character(s) and make meaningful decisions that determine the development of said character(s).

 

Half-Life, Doom, Thief etc are not CRPGs because you have no choice in the character played or their development over the course of the game, which is all predetermined.

 

I would argue that early games like Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Phantasie etc are CRPGs because you can choose the make-up of your party, the manner of their career progression throughout the game, and their equipment. In many ways IWD, for example, was an extension of this format.

 

Whether or not a game is non-linear, has alternative endings, branching dialog options, good-evil subquests, opening vignets etc is irrelevant so long as the core dynamic of freedom in creation/selection & progression/development is present, IMHO.

[EnderAndrew]

I think RPGs need more than stat based gameplay though at the same time.

 

I don't consider NHL 2006 to be an RPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the primary mechanic driving the game stat-based gameplay?

 

It is quite possible to take an inferior team with inferior stats and consistently beat a better team with better stats.

 

If stat-based gameplay was the primary mechanic, that would not be the case.

 

Edit: @Demonking, I was not able to select a character when playing the Ultima games, let alone Planescape: Torment. Are you saying those don't count as RPGs then?

[alanschu]

It's possible in an RPG for a wizard to beat a warrior in melee combat. In KOTOR, I was able to beat characters many levels higher than me (I was level 2) on Taris.

 

 

There are many sports games where it is quite difficult to beat a better team, especially on very hard difficulties. Try playing a game of NBA Live with a team of people that are all less than 50 for their FG rating. See how many games you win.

 

Likewise, it's also possible for me to beat a character in an RPG that is statistically superior to me in every way. In fact, most bosses in RPGs are statistically superior to the PC in every way.

 

 

I played a game called 4D-Boxing back in the day, which let you create a character from scratch and improve his Power, Speed, and Stamina. Unless I had a good combination of all three, there's no way I had a chance at taking on the champ. He'd beat me every time, no matter how good I was at the game. But I wouldn't consider it an RPG.

[Darque]

It's possible in an RPG for a wizard to beat a warrior in melee combat.  In KOTOR, I was able to beat characters many levels higher than me (I was level 2) on Taris.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

With a good strategy anything is possible.