Define "Roleplaying Game"

[EnderAndrew]

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.

I said consistently.

 

I play various EA Sports titles, and with many of them I can humiliate both the computer, and other players. I can beat people with clearly inferior teams and clearly inferior stats.

 

Why?

 

Here is an experiment. Fire up a copy of Madden, and take the CPU's Pass Defense all the way down. Take your QB's rating up to 99, and your WR's rating up to 99 and throw a pass into double coverage. I'd say 20 out of 25 times the pass will be incomplete regardless of the stats.

 

Now inversely, raise the Pass Defense all the way up, and lower your QB and WR's rating down. Throw the ball to an open WR and you'll catch the ball.

 

Which is the primary game mechanic being driven? It's not stats.

[alanschu]

I'd say 20 out of 25 times the pass will be incomplete regardless of the stats.

 

The stats are affected by coverage though. How many times does it get completed with pass defense cranked and QB/WR pumped?

 

Regardless, with a team of <50 FG rating players in NBA Live, you're not going to win, ever, given that they will blow wide open layups frequently.

 

Better yet, try playing any sports game with a team of the players with the lowest ratings for speed, on any difficulty other than the easiest ones.

 

 

Furthermore, even with an equivalent car model, I'm not going to win the High Speed circuit in Gran Turismo unless I've boosted the stats of my car.

 

I can also consistently win fights in Morrowind despite being outclassed in every statistic.

[kirottu]

There is a common reference, but it isn

[EnderAndrew]

The mechanic is to execute the play correctly through twitch mechanics, and that drives success more than stats. Trust me. Last year they bumped pass defense seriously. After throwing 20-25 straight incompletions, I decided to edit my stats up to 99. I still threw incompletions left and right. Then I lowed the pass defense rating. I still threw incompletions.

 

The real key was learning the playbook, getting the timing for each route down, and executing the plays perfectly.

 

I feel very confident saying that the primary mechanic is not stat-based gameplay.

[Blaise Russel]

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?

 

1. I would have thought that the existence of this and many other threads like this one would be evidence enough that the term is wavery and insubstantial.

 

2. I wouldn't trust Marketing with a 1p coin, never mind accurately interpreting and reporting the nature of a game instead of deciding how best to market it to the D&D swords'n'statistics crowd.

 

3. I find the definition nonsensical and ill-conceived.

 

How can you say 'RPG' is soundly-defined when the term encompasses both Fallout and Chrono Trigger, both of which use polar-opposite approaches to 'role-playing'?

 

Chrono Trigger's an RPG, right? Characters? Check. Story? Check. Interaction? Check. So we can happily say that Starcraft is an RPG, right?

 

Wait... what?

 

Well, Starcraft's got characters, like Kerrigan and Mengsk and Tassadar and the Overmind, each one different, each one unique. Ye, and those characters even change, develop, with psi-operatives becoming inhuman monsters and self-righteous prigs becoming humbled subordinates. And there's a story, in which we see the characters acting and driving the storyline. And there's interaction of the basest kind - aside from working off each other, they tell you to do things, and you do them, whereupon they tell you to do more things, which you promptly do.

 

Seems like an RPG to me. Yet if I asked people whether Starcraft was an RPG, I'd be universally told "No, it's an RTS."

 

Now, at this point you'd come in with "STATS-BASED GAMEPLAY DUDE", and that's all very well and good, but I have two problems:

 

1) What the hell does STATS-BASED GAMEPLAY have to do with ROLE-PLAYING?

 

2) Surely Lucca's high-magic, low-strength statistics, which affect the way the character is used, is comparable to a Protoss Templar's zero-attack, high-psi-skills statistics, which affect the way the unit is used?

 

 

 

The problem is that the basic meaning of the term 'RPG' - to play a role, and all that entails - is simple insufficient to pick out a particular segment of games and identify them as distinct, especially as more and more games invest in creating more and more fulfilling, interesting storylines. Additional qualifiers, like STATS-BASED GAMEPLAY, are introduced in order to keep 'RPG' afloat, but I find them irrelevant and even still not good enough in order to truly create a new genre. As I see it, the whole term is rotten from the foundations down, and no matter how much scaffolding you put on the ailing structure, you can't disguise the fact that there's little to distinguish RPG House from RTS Block, the Adventure Hall, FPS Flats or Tactical Combat Game High Rise.

 

Hmm, actually... I think the fundamental problem which RPG-definers need to overcome is that RPG doesn't describe the core mechanic of the game as other genres do. A First-Person Shooter is fundamentally shooting from the first person; Real-Time Strategy is strategic command in real time. There's no core mechanic for Role-Playing Game to describe, because Role-Playing is done entirely by the player, not the game, which means that every game is a Role-Playing Game so long as the player decides that is.

 

Player A can decide to role-play Fallout, so it becomes an RPG. B doesn't, so Fallout doesn't become an RPG. Because the role-playing status of Fallout changes with the player, it is bad form wot wot to describe Fallout as an RPG as if it was that for everyone. However, Fallout remains a turn-based tactical combat/dialogue game for everyone, no matter the player's attitude.

 

You can't say that one game is an RPG and another not, because it's player dependant. Who are you to tell me, when I hear that the Princess is in another castle, that the grief in my heart is not real and true?

 

Answer me that.

 

RIDDLE ME THIS RIDDLE ME THAT

 

I think not.

[EnderAndrew]

3. I find the definition nonsensical and ill-conceived.

 

How can you say 'RPG' is soundly-defined when the term encompasses both Fallout and Chrono Trigger, both of which use polar-opposite approaches to 'role-playing'?

 

Chrono Trigger's an RPG, right? Characters? Check. Story? Check. Interaction? Check. So we can happily say that Starcraft is an RPG, right?

 

Wait... what?

If you are going to participate in a discussion, you need to read what people are posting in front of you.

 

I never said an RPG is defined by having characters or story, quite the opposite actually.

 

I said REPEATEDLY that the definition of role-playing as a broad term is different from the specific definition of a CRPG.

 

If you are just going to make me repeat things even more, I'm just not going to bother reading or replying to your posts.

 

The question I posed to you is, "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?"

 

Try again.

[mkreku]

Woo! I knew that by playing Championship Manager 2006 I was playing at the height of the RPG bundle! I mean, it's all stats and nothing else! Thank you EnderWiggin for clearing that up, with your brilliant logic and black and white world.

[Blaise Russel]

If you are going to participate in a discussion, you need to read what people are posting in front of you.

 

I never said an RPG is defined by having characters or story, quite the opposite actually.

 

I said REPEATEDLY that the definition of role-playing as a broad term is different from the specific definition of a CRPG.

 

If you are just going to make me repeat things even more, I'm just not going to bother reading or replying to your posts.

 

The question I posed to you is, "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?"

 

Try again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stop whining.

 

I've already answered your leading "how often do you beat your wife" question, for Christ's sake. I've stated that I think your "consistent meaning and usage" is incorrect. I've said that this thread and threads like these suggest that the term 'RPG' is in doubt; after all, you don't get threads asking "What is an FPS", do you? I've suggested that 'RPG' is a term used by marketing teams to attract a specific audience, who enjoy RPGs in PnP format and therefore want 'RPGs' in computer game format. I've stated that I have a fundamental problem with the way 'RPG' is defined as a computer game genre, i.e. not really at all.

 

And if you're going to have a ****ing aneurysm because I use somebody else's definition of RPG, a definition that many people in this thread have suggested as a definition, a definition suggested by the construction of the name 'RPG', in order to construct a grander point, then maybe there IS no point in continuing this discussion.

 

On the other hand, if you would like to exchange ideas without getting pissy about it, perhaps we could start by you addressing one of my points: if games are divided into genre by core mechanic, like FPS = First-Person Shooter, RTS = Real-Time Strategy, then what is the core mechanic of RPG, and is it exclusive to a particular group of games?

[DemonKing]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well in the later Ultima series (which I asume you are referring to, rather than the early stat-driven non-Avatar) games, you have the fortune card mechanic at the beginning of the game that has some bearing on your character, and of course, you are able to modify your character as it develops, so I would call it a CRPG...except maybe Ultima 8, of course!

 

PST is a unique case. In some ways I would not call it a CRPG as the storyline is essentially linear and pre-determined, albeit with many non-consequential sidequests. The ultimate fate of your character and his identity is pre-determined, however the game does employ a surface layer of CRPG standards (eg stats, choice of progression, party recruitment etc). Frankly I've always considered a unique genre-blending mish mash more like an interactive novel than felt the need to bracket it solely as a CRPG or adventure game or whatever.

[SamuraiGaijin]

A CRPG is generally and traditionally defined as a game where the chance of success and failure is random, and you can improve your character over the course of the game to be more or less likely to succeed in the various actions available in the game. In the strictest definition, it's a simulation of a tabletop RPG.

 

Almost all computer games have developed over the past several years to improve the "immersion" factor - typically with more player-character development, more robust non-player-character interaction and more interaction with the game world.

 

While an RPG should be focused more on world interaction and the choices you make than the mechanic, the same can be said of all games. If you make a bad choice in a simulation, a first-person shooter, a strategy game, etc. you'll probably fail in whatever you were trying to accomplish. Using some of the debating points presented against a game being defined as an RPG by the mechanic, you could define almost any game as an RPG.

 

That said, one fo the things that will make an RPG worth playing is meaningful choices that you can make that influence the above and the overall story of the game

 

Many posting here have used "choices" in one way or another to define "role playing game", but these can also be found in most games that are worth playing.

 

In a nutshell, I agree with Ender.

[EnderAndrew]

Stop whining.

One of us is cussing and screaming. One of us is emotional and resorting to personal comments.

 

It is isn't me.

I've already answered your leading "how often do you beat your wife" question, for Christ's sake. I've stated that I think your "consistent meaning and usage" is incorrect. I've said that this thread and threads like these suggest that the term 'RPG' is in doubt; after all, you don't get threads asking "What is an FPS", do you? I've suggested that 'RPG' is a term used by marketing teams to attract a specific audience, who enjoy RPGs in PnP format and therefore want 'RPGs' in computer game format. I've stated that I have a fundamental problem with the way 'RPG' is defined as a computer game genre, i.e. not really at all.

Your problem and inability to define it, doesn't mean that it hasn't been defined. I guess I do need to repeat things a few more times.

And if you're going to have a ****ing aneurysm because I use somebody else's definition of RPG, a definition that many people in this thread have suggested as a definition, a definition suggested by the construction of the name 'RPG', in order to construct a grander point, then maybe there IS no point in continuing this discussion.

No, you put words in my mouth and post with the logical comprehension of a 3 year old.

On the other hand, if you would like to exchange ideas without getting pissy about it, perhaps we could start by you addressing one of my points: if games are divided into genre by core mechanic, like FPS = First-Person Shooter, RTS = Real-Time Strategy, then what is the core mechanic of RPG, and is it exclusive to a particular group of games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't gotten pissy. You have. You still haven't answered the one question I've answered you, while I've repeatedly answered you.

 

The core mechanic of an RPG is stat-based gameplay.

 

Perhaps you missed that the first 10 times.

[Hell Kitty]

A game that allows and facilitates the player's ability to establish and express different aspects of a character's personality.  Further, these choices of personality expression have different/branching effects on the other characters in the world and upon the state of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I want from a roleplaying game.

 

Stat based gameplay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I expect when I buy a game that is labelled as Genre: RPG.

[kirottu]

The core mechanic of an RPG is stat-based gameplay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would say the core mechanic of a Role Playing Game is having a role. That is different ways to complete quests.

 

Stats are there, because making a character is fun and gaining levels and distributing points is fun too, but they don

[Guest Fishboot]

A game that allows and facilitates the player's ability to establish and express different aspects of a character's personality.  Further, these choices of personality expression have different/branching effects on the other characters in the world and upon the state of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I want from a roleplaying game.

 

Stat based gameplay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I expect when I buy a game that is labelled as Genre: RPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Win.

[Blaise Russel]

One of us is cussing and screaming.

 

I swear casually.

 

I also get irate when people threaten to sulk when somebody doesn't say what they want them to say.

 

One of us is emotional and resorting to personal comments.

 

If you can tell me where I've made personal comments about you, I shall gladly apologise.

 

I haven't gotten pissy.  You have.  You still haven't answered the one question I've answered you, while I've repeatedly answered you.

 

Okay, do you want me to spell it out? Fine.

 

Putting aside the issues I've already raised that render your question pointless: specifically, how the existence of this thread suggests that the definition of RPG is not as clearly defined by the industry as you make out, how what the industry says is completely irrelevant in the same way as Americans saying 'sidewalk' doesn't change how a pavement is a pavement, and how I have fundamental problems with RPG being defined as a genre... putting aside all of that...

 

Yes.

 

The industry has, for thirty years, successfully defined RPG as a tactical combat game.

 

Perhaps now you see the uselessness of the question.

 

My problem is with the inaccuracy of the definition of RPG. This is why I make my posts (that, and a penchant for self-flagellation): I find current definitions of RPG unsatisfactory.

 

Wow, look at the progress we've made! I've answered a useless question! Now, let us attend the fundamental issues at question instead of faffing around with what the industry says:

 

The core mechanic of an RPG is stat-based gameplay.

 

Perhaps you missed that the first 10 times.

 

And you've missed, in your crazed desire for me to answer a useless question, my responses, my countless, countless responses.

 

Pretty much EVERY game is ****ing stat-based gameplay. I mean, damnit, man! Do you think the computer just randomly decides what happens? NO! Zerg Hydralisks have stats! Vortigaunts have stats! Sith Assassins have stats! Stats, stats, stats everywhere, for protagonists, antagonists, everyone, everything! I seriously cannot see how you can take one game that uses stats and say that because of that, it's an RPG, whereas another game that also uses stats is not!

 

Stats are simply too generic to use as a definition for a genre, and that's because it's not a CORE MECHANIC. First-person shooting is entirely different from squad-based tactical combat, which is different from point'n'click puzzle-based adventuring, which is different from resource-managing god games. Stats-based gameplay can be used in pretty much all these different genres, which is why it cannot form a genre of its own.

 

This leads to the question: why tie stats-based gameplay to RPG? What the hell does stats-based gameplay have to do with playing a role? Note, also, how playing a role is such a generic mechanic that it can be used in all of the existing genres.

 

Stats are a means to an end - that is, creating a game in which the player struggles against adversity. They're already used in FPS, RTS, tactical combat games... they can't form their own genre alongside these ones.

[Lancer]

Ahhh.. Clashes that lead into Conflict and Mayhem..

 

This is what the web is all about

[Lancer]

The question I posed to you is, "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?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem as I see it, Ender, by your definition is that you are going strictly by what the industry thinks an RPG is. As you can see, outside the industry the meaning that you posit is extremely controversial. It is hard to claim a standard definition when anything less than a majority agrees with it (in this case it is nowhere near a majority).

 

When the "Academia Real" convenes every year to decide what regionalisms can be accepted as "standard spanish," whatever they decide becomes law. Everyone who is a spanish speaker accepts the changes (whether or not they use the changes themselves) but you certainly don't see half the populace disagreeing with the changes. People just accept the changes as they are. That is what is meant be a "standard." Another example is the consensus to use the metric system in almost all countries aside the US (though we will change too hopefully!). That is a standard.

 

This is not the case with the industry definition of RPG. The industry, for one, claims that Diablo is an RPG, but this is only standard within that population subset. Outside the industry, a significant number of gamers would disgree with that classification and would swear by the fact that Diablo can never be an RPG despite having stat-based gameplay. In fact, console RPGs are even worse. They have stat-based gameplay but the non-linear elements have many dubbing them more as "adventure" games rather than RPGs. In fact, some that play both tabletop and CRPGs would argue that CRPGS aren't RPGs at all. How can there be a standard if the word RPG means so many different things to different people? How can "stat-based- gamplay" be the standard definition if so many claim that it takes more than that?

 

The definition of "RPG" is far from set in stone and I see it as somewhat variable depending on the application. You imply that there is a strict definition to RPGs (stat-based gameplay) but it seems that you think that only the industry definition matters. The industry definition is just a label.. Some convenient broad categorization and nothing more. I doubt that this definition is shared by the vast majority of gamers.

 

Seriously.. Defining "RPG" is almost as difficult as defining "life" itself. Another term which has no general consensus on definition either.

[Gromnir]

"Must all our definitions be cleared through marketing and retail?"

 

josh forgets (or possibly ignores,) an important factor. he forgets that it were some marketing/retail clown who first came up with the definitions that josh and others is now trying to rationalize and intellectualize. much as fantasy and science fiction were simply convenient labels created by pulp fiction publishers in the post war era, we suspect that computer game labels got a similar genesis.

 

sci-fi were stories 'bout spaceships and robots and future stuff. fantasy stories had swords and wizards and mythical creatures. the labels existed, for the most part, as a marketing tool... to let the purchaser know approximately what kinda story were gonna be in the pulp publisher's magazine/book. nevertheless, in spite o' the origins and purposes o' the terms, we has seen numerous intelligent peoples, and not a few scholars spending considerable effort and substantial word counts attempting to accurately define and distinguish the sci-fi and fantasy terms/genres.

 

madness.

 

is crpg genre labels any different? we suspect that the crpg label got started as a way to inform purchasers that the game in question were gonna have qualities similar to pnp rpgs, notwithstanding the fact that a single-player rpg cannot possibly allow for the same gameplay experience as a pnp rpg.

 

ultimately, the term role-play as it applies to computer games must indeed be cleared through marketing and retail, 'cause if the general purchasing public not understand or accept josh's definition then whatever the point were in having the term in the first place is lost. after all, is not like josh or anybody else really needs to have a concrete definition o' Role-Play to create games. develop a story-driven game with squad-based or single character tactical combat wherein the player can create and advance a stat-based character that is then utilized by the player to exert a varying (albeit largely illusory,) degree o' control over the advancement o' story. the marketing guys call it a crpg? the general playing public accept it as a crpg? then guess what, it is a crpg that you has developed.

 

josh not need to know what qualities is fundamentally Role-Play qualities to make games. the term role-play offers little more to josh than a moment's opportunity to feels like he is back in university exercising intellectual muscle attempting to solve some largely academic problem... but the crpg term does have use as a marketing tool.

 

regardless, threads and debates such as this is beneficial in that they show that there is hardly a consensus on what does or does not constitute a crpg, and as such the thread has usefulness in that it further illustrates that the use of the term, which josh correctly identifies as having no real existence save in the minds of geeklings and nerdlings everywhere, is w/o clarification, subject to considerable confusions.

 

clarification:

 

when a fan asks for more role-play from their crpg, they better be damned sure they qualify what they is actually asking for... 'cause if what they really wants is more micro-management o' stats or more involved story, chances are the developer they is pleading with is gonna have some very different notion of what is or is not role-play.

 

btw, we agree, for the most part with josh

[Gabrielle]

Roleplaying game= Good Fun!

[Judge Hades]

I have gotten to the point that I don't really give a crap about what makes a RPG and what doesn't. There are traditional, there are the hybrids, and there are the wannabes. Who gives a smeg? Only thing I concern myself now is do I have fun with the game and does it work properly on my system, and if it doesn't is the game being given proper support.

 

Fun. Quality. Support. Those are they only factors that matter to me now. The days of the traditional PC RPG is DEAD. Move on. I have, and if I can do it anyone can. Trying to define what is an CRPG when the publisers and market doesn't really give a shat about proper genre labeling is like trying to roll a 10 ton boulder up a 60 degree incline that is laiden with mines.

[Lancer]

Fun.  Quality.  Support.  Those are they only factors that matter to me now.  The days of the traditional PC RPG is DEAD.  Move on.  I have, and if I can do it anyone can.  Trying to define what is an CRPG when the publisers and market doesn't really give a shat about proper genre labeling is like trying to roll a 10 ton boulder up a 60 degree incline that is laiden with mines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What? "Traditional" PC RPG are dead? What do you consider is a traditional PC RPG?

 

There are no traditional PC RPGs today? this is news to me.

 

I hope you are not implying a comparison between FPP RPGs vs. Isometric RPGs.

[Lancer]

A game that allows and facilitates the player's ability to establish and express different aspects of a character's personality.  Further, these choices of personality expression have different/branching effects on the other characters in the world and upon the state of the world.

 

The problem with classification is that people associate older games like Bard's Tale with RPGs.  In part, I think this is done because the systems and mythologies in Bard's Tale and Phantasie are so obviously torn from pen and paper RPGs.  But those games didn't really allow you to do very much in the way of developing the personalities of your characters and allowing them a variety of ways to impact the world.  In my opinion, Bard's Tale and Phantasie are tactical combat games in fantasy settings.  Fallout is an RPG.  I would consider The Sims to be an RPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with Josh to a tee.

[Fionavar]

I'm not sure this is going to work - but insert respectful though firm warning to post constructively - or not, but perhaps I may not have to get off of my roost ... remember language filters too and all that (see Forum Guidelines top left for a refresher)

 

FLoSB.ObE

[Judge Hades]

If you don't know what Traditional CRPGs are then its not my place to teach you. Lets just say I don't count the KotORs, NWN, and Morrowind among them.

[Shadowstrider]

A game that allows and facilitates the player's ability to establish and express different aspects of a character's personality.  Further, these choices of personality expression have different/branching effects on the other characters in the world and upon the state of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I want from a roleplaying game.

 

Stat based gameplay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I expect when I buy a game that is labelled as Genre: RPG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Spot on. I'd take it a step further and say that:

Stat based gameplay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is what CRPGs have degenerated to.