RPGs that have no Roleplaying?

[Akisa]

So I was wondering why do people refer to some games that have no roleplaying as RPG? From what I can remember playing the Final Fantasy (and Chrono Trigger) games you're playing a storyline with each characters have set personality. Most if not all quests only have one way of completing with no moral choices, and if you're presented with a choice it's usually Yes or No with the wrong answer looping back until you select the correct answer.

So what "RPG" you have played that have no or very little Roleplaying, and why do you think it's called a RPG?

[Theodoric]

Plenty of games that combine genres (RPG + Action FPS) don't have any real RP, though some, like Bioshock, do. (well, it's incredibly minor compared to the standard Bioware product, but still)

[Innis Cabal]

Your still playing the role of someone else.

[The Rose Dragon]

Your still playing the role of someone else.

Then you can call almost every single video game a roleplaying game and get away with it.

[Theodoric]

Your still playing the role of someone else.
But you don't assume the role of that person and take decisions in that role, you just act out his or her actions.

[shadow_archmagi]

Dawn Of War 2 plays exactly like a party-based RPG (complete with inventory system) but is called an RTS.

[Weimann]

It kind of depends what the definition of an RPG is.

If it's just that you take on the role of someone else, then, as TRD says, every game (except a few like Tetris) is an RPG.

If the requirement is that you have some influence of how the story goes by the actions you take, then a whole lot of the console games claimed to be RPGs suddenly aren't.

I call stuff like Final Fantasy RPGs, because that's the accepted term, and everyone knows what I'm saying. I don't actually agree it is, but it's a functionable term that works.

[Cheesegear]

I call stuff like Final Fantasy RPGs, because that's the accepted term, and everyone knows what I'm saying. I don't actually agree it is, but it's a functionable term that works.

Accepted term is JRPG. Because most Japanese RPGs function fairly differently to 'Western' RPGs.

[Bouregard]

Oldschool RPG: Development of character throught actions
New RPG: Developing a character (choosing stats, abilities and items)

Basically anything that let's you change your alter ego is a RPG in the modern sense of the word.

[toasty]

Games like Diablo and Final Fantasy are referred to as RPGs because they possess one trait of RPGs: you get some character(s) that through the course of the game Levels up. Some games allow you to select said character(s) abilities and skills, some do not.

JRPG and Hack n' Slash are the more specific term I do believe (JRPG for Final Fantasy, Golden Sun, Fire Emblem, etc; Hack n' Slash for Diablo, Torchlight, Silver, etc).

I do agree that the term RPG is very misleading in the gaming world, but, somehow that's just what it has involved into. You have the standard RPGs like KOTOR and NWM which actually have Roleplaying, then you have Hack n' Slashes and Turn-based games like FF and Diablo that don't really have any Roleplaying but are somehow still RPGs.

[Cubey]

Just because something is different from your definition of roleplaying doesn't mean it's not an RPG.

Champions of Krynn had precious little moral choices. About as many as Chrono Trigger. Yet, it is considered a classic RPG.

Might and Magic I had even less choices. It consisted almost only of dungeon exploration. RPG or not?

Are rogue-likes RPGs for you? Some of them (such as Rogue and Nethack - but not ADOM for example) have no moral decisions available for you.

Is Borderlands a role playing game for you? What about Deus Ex?

[Tengu_temp]

Unless you play an online game with people who are willing to RP, videogame RPGs have no roleplaying, western or Japanese. The former simply allow you more freedom (usually at the cost of the story being told), but freedom should not be mistaken for roleplaying.

[Ikialev]

jRPGs are like that. There are no dialogues, no choosing, no creating your main character.
Sometimes I wonder why it;[']s called a RPG.

[Winthur]

jRPGs are like that. There are no dialogues, no choosing, no creating your main character.
Sometimes I wonder why it;[']s called a RPG.

I still consider them so, even though I think this term was known when RPGs only started appearing on the computers and the term for them wasn't too fleshed out. I enjoy them for their story (which is usually pretty gripping), the challenge (especially for the NES and SNES jRPGs), characters and such. Plus, usually they're quite wide open, so I enjoy my freedom of choice in - at least - beating the sequences. (and in some of the newer jRPGs there are still some minor choices affected by the player)

Also, just for the sake of nitpickery about the "no creating your main character" point: you don't create your character in The Witcher or Planescape: Torment as well, but you can't deny those are cRPGs and they'rrrrrrrre grrrrreat! :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

Chrono Trigger actually has few quite major plot decisions left to the PC like whether to pick up or slay Magus, whether or not to resurrect Crono, and so on. Granted, they're all in the last quarter of the game, but they're there. There's also some player impact in the Trial and so on.

That said, that doesn't really have an impact on the use of the term "RPG" with video games due to the qualities and limitations of the platform.


RPG really is used in the contents of a game where you've got a bunch of characters with advancing sets of abilities, and the game is followed through said characters' eyes in a first- or third-person level. Effectively, any game where you become some specific character adventuring on screen in the game world that then has developing ability set is considered an RPG and any game that breaks one of the two is not.

So Borderlands qualifies but Half-Life does not. Neverwinter Nights qualifies but Jagged Alliance 2 does not. Not very sensible, but that seems to be the definition used when talking about RPGs in video game-context right now.

[MickJay]

In Deus Ex you had to make some decisions that affected the storyline (you could - or fail - save others' lives, or fight against some of the enemies before the game forced the fight on you). You could use minimal force, or kill just about everyone, including civilians. You also got to make a choice at the end of the game. All things considered, that's more than enough to qualify the game as RPG.


Also, just for the sake of nitpickery about the "no creating your main character" point: you don't create your character in The Witcher or Planescape: Torment as well, but you can't deny those are cRPGs and they'rrrrrrrre grrrrreat! :smallsmile:

You do, however, get to shape the character you start with, the "creation", customization, just happens over time, according to the way you play (role play?) the game.

[Eldan]

Also, just for the sake of nitpickery about the "no creating your main character" point: you don't create your character in The Witcher or Planescape: Torment as well, but you can't deny those are cRPGs and they'rrrrrrrre grrrrreat! :smallsmile:

I see your point for Torment, in that you get a pre-established background, but your personality starts as tabula rasa and you still get to choose stats and, later, classes.

[Winthur]

You do, however, get to shape the character you start with, the "creation", customization, just happens over time, according to the way you play (role play?) the game.

And, for example, in Final Fantasy V, you had the job system that allowed you to choose your character's abilities that determined his statistic growth.

Of course, it's not quite the same thing. Just something I wanted to point out.

[Morty]

Also, just for the sake of nitpickery about the "no creating your main character" point: you don't create your character in The Witcher or Planescape: Torment as well, but you can't deny those are cRPGs and they'rrrrrrrre grrrrreat! :smallsmile:

And yet they offer much more freedom in shaping your character than many a RPG where you make your character from scratch.
Whether something is or isn't cRPG is always tricky. If you ask guys over at the RPG Codex, they'll tell you that only Fallout, Arcanum and a couple of other games can be called RPGs. Their rampant elitism aside, I'm inclined to agree with them sometimes.

[Setra]

Most of the time, RPG means 'stat system'

If you want to roleplay, play D&D or some other pen and paper game (or perhaps an MMO), or just do some freeform roleplaying.

Even if a game gives you choices (ie. Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, Persona), I don't consider that the same as roleplaying... It's similar, but not the same.

Edit: That said, I prefer jrpgs, because I don't care for sandbox games.

[Optimystik]

And, for example, in Final Fantasy V, you had the job system that allowed you to choose your character's abilities that determined his statistic growth.

Of course, it's not quite the same thing. Just something I wanted to point out.

FFV is the exception, not the rule, for JRPGs. In fact, it was the last FF where you had that degree of customization over your characters. Call me a fanboy, but I definitely agree with Yahtzee's take on the reason why JRPGs are irritating in this regard.

It's a shame - I really loved the job system, though the story was quite flimsy. I mean, the Big Bad's name was Exdeath, for crying out loud. He sounds like something a 10-year old came up with.

[Eldariel]

It's a shame - I really loved the job system, though the story was quite flimsy. I mean, the Big Bad's name was Exdeath, for crying out loud. He sounds like something a 10-year old came up with.

For what it's worth, Exdeath isn't quite as obvious a name to the Japanese (his name wasn't changed).

[Setra]

It's a shame - I really loved the job system, though the story was quite flimsy. I mean, the Big Bad's name was Exdeath, for crying out loud. He sounds like something a 10-year old came up with.
To be fair, Exdeath probably sounds a lot cooler when you don't speak English...

Kinda how people seem to love using names that sounds Japanese when to a Japanese person they'd sound silly.

Edit: Ninja'd

Edit Edit:
To expand on my earlier statement of 'Most of the time RPG means stat system'..

In general, RPGs evolves from D&D, in Japan, they created a game with stats similar to those of D&D (Str, Agi, HP) so it was called the videogame equivalent of an RPG (It wasn't bad for a game made in 1986). By the time more of these games started coming out, people just called any game with a stat system an RPG, in Japan, they wanted to emulate the Dragon Quest series, rather than an RPG itself. However western games, knew more about D&D and tried to make their games closer to that.

Edit Edit Edit: That said, I do think they should change the name of RPGs to something else.. Maybe 'Statistical Manipulation Games' or something like that. I'd also ask no one look down on the games just because you don't roleplay in them. It's not the games fault the genre is named what it is.

[Iranon]

Many roleplaying games are a simplified game of a different genre (action, first person shooter, squad-based tactics...) with more fluff/story/statistics.
Unfortunately, finding one where neither the base game nor the fluff sucks is quite difficult... I've come to think of it as my favourite genre full of godawful games.

[Optimystik]

That is a fair point, but their other villains aren't as bad. FF1 had Garland, FF4 had Golbez, FF6 had Kefka...

And as for the "no roleplaying in RPGs" well you can roleplay a fair bit on your own even if the game itself doesn't let you. Take Borderlands for instance - like Mass Effect, it's a shooter with stat allocation - but you can always link your vision of the character to the talents you pick for him. It's all fluff, so who's going to stop you?

[Setra]

That is a fair point, but their other villains aren't as bad. FF1 had Garland, FF4 had Golbez, FF6 had Kefka...
Kefka could be named 'Mr. Poopypants' and still be a great villain :smalltongue:

And as for the "no roleplaying in RPGs" well you can roleplay a fair bit on your own even if the game itself doesn't let you. Take Borderlands for instance - like Mass Effect, it's a shooter with stat allocation - but you can always link your vision of the character to the talents you pick for him. It's all fluff, so who's going to stop you?
I actually do that all the time in games, though it's not like doing that is limited to RPGs themselves...

[tyckspoon]

FFV is the exception, not the rule, for JRPGs. In fact, it was the last FF where you had that degree of customization over your characters. Call me a fanboy, but I definitely agree with Yahtzee's take on the reason why JRPGs are irritating in this regard.

It's a shame - I really loved the job system, though the story was quite flimsy. I mean, the Big Bad's name was Exdeath, for crying out loud. He sounds like something a 10-year old came up with.

Tactics and X-2 used the job system in pretty much the same way V did. X had the Sphere Grid, which allowed you to develop anybody in pretty much whatever way you chose.. unfortunately you had to do some fairly annoying sidequests/end-game grinding to get access to really free movement on it. 9 went deliberately old-school, so no practical customization there (and what was there was hidden from the player- the items you wear actually do change how your stats develop, but nothing in-game tells you that.) 8 had potential, since you had a limited number of +stat-on-levelup junctions to use, but their effect was massively over-ridden by the effects of junctioning top-level magic anyway.

Most of the FF games aren't as static as they look, is what I'm trying to say.

[Optimystik]

I actually do that all the time in games, though it's not like doing that is limited to RPGs themselves...

No it's not, but only "stat-allocation games" for lack of a better term, let you actually marry the crunch and the fluff to any meaningful degree. Take Mass Effect - I can envision my Shepard as a bold, in-your-face, take-no-prisoners Defender of the Innocent type, and model that crunchwise by making him a close-range Shotgun-wielding Vanguard. To round out the concept, I make him disdainful of "cowardly" ways of killing, and represent that by making him awful with long-range weapons like sniper rifles, and by not allowing anyone on my ground team that can snipe either.

I can't do that in say, Unreal, because the protagonist there is equally proficient with every weapon she picks up.

Similarly, in Borderlands I can either make Brick into a protective, bullet-soaking tank, or a psychotic blood-crazy brawler with the right talent choices... and have the crunch echo my fluff in each case with ease.

[Tengu_temp]

And as for the "no roleplaying in RPGs" well you can roleplay a fair bit on your own even if the game itself doesn't let you. Take Borderlands for instance - like Mass Effect, it's a shooter with stat allocation - but you can always link your vision of the character to the talents you pick for him. It's all fluff, so who's going to stop you?

That's not roleplaying, that's just choosing your abilities basing on some criteria. In order to roleplay, there must be at least two people participating - otherwise there is no living thing to respond to your actions, just a limited set of scripted behaviours. If roleplaying is like sexual intercourse, than the most you can do in a single player game is the equivalent of a date with Rosie Palms - pale in comparison.

On a different note, I'd like to point out that Persona 3&4 give you more meaningful choices than most western RPGs.

[Jahkaivah]

Then you can call almost every single video game a roleplaying game and get away with it.

Which is something I've always found silly about the term.

[Optimystik]

That's not roleplaying, that's just choosing your abilities basing on some criteria. In order to roleplay, there must be at least two people participating - otherwise there is no living thing to respond to your actions, just a limited set of scripted behaviours. If roleplaying is like sexual intercourse, than the most you can do in a single player game is the equivalent of a date with Rosie Palms - pale in comparison.

I disagree. The way I see it, as long as something is responding to the players' actions realistically, it doesn't matter whether that thing is actually sentient or not. Many DMs in tabletop D&D, for instance, use premade adventuring modules - a main plot with some sidequests and challenges for the players to overcome. A video game RPG is exactly like those - they predict how players will likely act in a given situation, and give the DMs several options in how to have the world react in kind.

Now, a DM has more options simply because he can adapt on the fly to unforeseen occurrences. Assuming the players act in ways that the module-creator predicts, however, are they somehow not roleplaying?

Your comparison to masturbation is needlessly pejorative. Playing by yourself - in both cases - has many advantages compared to playing with others. But I'd rather not derail the topic further in that direction. :smalltongue:

[Tengu_temp]

Even when running a premade module the DM and players still doesn't follow it with absolute, 100% accuracy. Not to mention that the players roleplay between themselves, on top of that.
If the game is just a series of combats, with only narration in between with several yes/no choices at best, and no opportunity for the players to let their characters do anything beyond that, then no, it is not roleplaying. It's a wargame with plot.

And why yes, video games are often as fun, or even more fun, than roleplaying. But roleplaying they ain't.

[king.com]

Even when running a premade module the DM and players still doesn't follow it with absolute, 100% accuracy. Not to mention that the players roleplay between themselves, on top of that.
If the game is just a series of combats, with only narration in between with several yes/no choices at best, and no opportunity for the players to let their characters do anything beyond that, then no, it is not roleplaying. It's a wargame with plot.

And why yes, video games are often as fun, or even more fun, than roleplaying. But roleplaying they ain't.

I suppose thats where you draw the line. Roleplaying in its simplest form is making decisions to respond to a situation if "you" were in that situation yourself.

One can argue that roleplay can occur simply by choosing a stat increase, that this simple character change is a decision you would make given the circumstances.

Some prefer more realistic circumstances, and pretending the "SMG" gameplay is not taking place, instead making actual decisions affecting the actions of your character/s.

Then there are those that belive that roleplaying can ONLY take place when other characters are able to react REGARDLESS of the actions of the original player.

I persoanlly put myself in the middle, saying roleplaying must be realistic (in terms of actions = consequences) but not so far to say that i can only roleplay with the aid of human consciousness. You could also justifyably argue that nobody can roleplayer completely given that no human can possible have access to all possible outcomes to a situation (simply due to the limitations of human thinking).

Simply because our choices are limited does not stop it from being a rolepalying experience. Example, my character is in bed, i can either sleep in or get out of bed. This can be programmed into a computer and is still a roleplaying decision. I have made that decision, and given that I am currently not in that situation it is not my own actions, therfore it must be assuming the role of that character to make that decision.

A JRPG (just using this as an example) would present the choice "yes or no" and if you pick no, it would loop until you picked yes. This isnt a decision i am making, the game is making this decision for me.

You could then argue "but hey, you only have 2 choices, in a TT RPG you can do more than that". True, I would say but there are also more choices than your brain can put together, limiting choice (whilst decreasing the enjoyment in my opinion) does not take away from the fact that it is a choice.

[Cespenar]

I'm from the mind that freedom of choice is what defines roleplaying games. If the game lets you solve the same quest/situation in different ways that all have fitting consequences, it's roleplaying. Though as someone else said, since a single player game can't include enough paths to cater to your every possible choice, the "roleplaying" in it will only be limited.

Besides, a game doesn't need to be a RPG to be good.

[Optimystik]

I suppose thats where you draw the line. Roleplaying in its simplest form is making decisions to respond to a situation if "you" were in that situation yourself.

One can argue that roleplay can occur simply by choosing a stat increase, that this simple character change is a decision you would make given the circumstances.

Some prefer more realistic circumstances, and pretending the "SMG" gameplay is not taking place, instead making actual decisions affecting the actions of your character/s.

Then there are those that belive that roleplaying can ONLY take place when other characters are able to react REGARDLESS of the actions of the original player.

I persoanlly put myself in the middle, saying roleplaying must be realistic (in terms of actions = consequences) but not so far to say that i can only roleplay with the aid of human consciousness. You could also justifyably argue that nobody can roleplayer completely given that no human can possible have access to all possible outcomes to a situation (simply due to the limitations of human thinking).

Simply because our choices are limited does not stop it from being a rolepalying experience. Example, my character is in bed, i can either sleep in or get out of bed. This can be programmed into a computer and is still a roleplaying decision. I have made that decision, and given that I am currently not in that situation it is not my own actions, therfore it must be assuming the role of that character to make that decision.

A JRPG (just using this as an example) would present the choice "yes or no" and if you pick no, it would loop until you picked yes. This isnt a decision i am making, the game is making this decision for me.

You could then argue "but hey, you only have 2 choices, in a TT RPG you can do more than that". True, I would say but there are also more choices than your brain can put together, limiting choice (whilst decreasing the enjoyment in my opinion) does not take away from the fact that it is a choice.

It's not often I quote a whole post this size, but I agree so completely that I had to.

Tengu, your argument seems to suggest that anything without humans is not roleplaying, but you're forgetting that video game RPGs were made by humans. The fact that they are not present for the actual game does not change that, any more than the fact that Gygax doesn't have to be present at my table for me to roleplay his modules and settings.

The key factor is the decision-making, as king said - which is present in both freeform roleplay (tabletop) and structured roleplay (computer games).

@ Cespenar - of course the RP is limited, a computer will always be more limited than a human mind - that doesn't mean it's non-existent.

[Tengu_temp]

A JRPG (just using this as an example) would present the choice "yes or no" and if you pick no, it would loop until you picked yes. This isnt a decision i am making, the game is making this decision for me.


As opposed to a western RPG? The choices most of them leave to you is creating your character and whether or not you accept a sidequest. For each one that lets you take actually meaningful choices there is an jRPG that lets you do the same.



Tengu, your argument seems to suggest that anything without humans is not roleplaying, but you're forgetting that video game RPGs were made by humans. The fact that they are not present for the actual game does not change that, any more than the fact that Gygax doesn't have to be present at my table for me to roleplay his modules and settings.

The key factor is the decision-making, as king said - which is present in both freeform roleplay (tabletop) and structured roleplay (computer games).


They were made by humans, but these (or any other) humans aren't present there to respond to your actions, only the scripts they programmed are. By your definition, Choose Your Own Adventure games include roleplaying. In fact, by this definition every game where you have to make a decision at some point includes roleplaying. Is Metroid a roleplaying game?



Besides, a game doesn't need to be a RPG to be good.

I agree with that.

[warty goblin]

I prefer playing games where my character has a set personality because sometimes- and this is in no way assured- the static characters can convey far more personality, development, and interesting interaction than I have seen in the choosy type RPGS made by Bioware etc. This isn't to say that I dislike making decisions because I like being able to choose in a game, merely that this sort of choice doesn't really do much for me.

The problem is that in a traditional western RPG most of the stuff I do in dialog not only makes essentially no difference most of the time, its awfully bland as well. I don't have any mannerisms, or quirks or anything like that. I'm basically limited to Naughty, Nice and Indifferent, each of which are usually written with as little personality as possible. Next to the often interesting and well-characterized NPCs I feel like a combat drone that is capable of impressive acts of violence and basic interactions, but is completely without a soul.

Now of course I could have a fully rendered person in my head, and use the game as a method to express them, but why would I want to do that? I don't need to pull that sort of stunt in a well executed movie or book, even those that are not particularly character driven. Why should I do so in a supposedly character driven game, and with such clumsy tools?

This is why to my eyes the Witcher does so much right. Not only do many of my dialog choices have significant ramifications later on, but I actually have a real personality! I'm not the Mk.V QuestDoer Drone from Adventurer Subsystems, Inc, instead I'm cynical, a bit snarky, someone who tries to be detached and mostly succeeds, but still cares and is terrible when angered.

[Setra]

This is why to my eyes the Witcher does so much right. Not only do many of my dialog choices have significant ramifications later on, but I actually have a real personality! I'm not the Mk.V QuestDoer Drone from Adventurer Subsystems, Inc, instead I'm cynical, a bit snarky, someone who tries to be detached and mostly succeeds, but still cares and is terrible when angered.
I need to play that game one of these days

[Optimystik]

They were made by humans, but these (or any other) humans aren't present there to respond to your actions, only the scripts they programmed are. By your definition, Choose Your Own Adventure games include roleplaying. In fact, by this definition every game where you have to make a decision at some point includes roleplaying. Is Metroid a roleplaying game?

You're oversimplifying, though I suppose so was I. The decision is not the only important factor; the other one is that the game reacts realistically to that decision. Whether that reaction is guided by a present DM or a predictive pattern is therefore irrelevant, so long as it is realistic.

In Mass Effect, I have to resolve a hostage situation. I can do so diplomatically, or by murdering everyone in sight. The game reacts realistically to my choice: it is a roleplaying game.

In Metroid, the game doesn't care whether I kill needlessly or not. It is not an RPG.

Good RPGs include many more situations besides "use violence or don't," though that is typically the choice presented in tabletop as well.

So to summarize: RPGs are driven by choice, and ramifications. The more realistic the better. If your game experience is the same no matter what methods you use to complete it, you're not playing an RPG, or you're playing a JRPG.

[Tengu_temp]

And does the way you solve the hostage situation matter in any case for the game's plot, apart from giving you slightly different rewards and/or karma points? Compare that to Shin Megami Tensei games, where your actions influence whether plot-important NPCs live or die, and where there are multiple endings, many of which are difficult to reach because they depend on your actions throughout the whole game, not just a single option at the very end and/or your karma meter. And yet the SMT games are undoubtedly jRPG.

Also, I agree with warty for once.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I guess a good benchmark would be:

Is Zelda a roleplaying game?
Was Link's Adventure a roleplaying game?

One has leveling, the other hasn't. That's pretty much what separates each other.

Personally, I don't consider a game like FF, Diablo, Zelda, etc.. as "role-playing". I see them as "Adventure games".

Games like KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights & Fable are more akin to "Roleplaying" (less so for Fable, methink, seen the amount of pure railroading).

A game like "Overlord" is merely a binary choice adventure, and not a RPG.

[SolkaTruesilver]

And yet the SMT games are undoubtedly jRPG.

Also, I agree with warty for once.

jRPG is a system. It's a principle of play. You can have a jRPG that is an actual Roleplaying game (if your description is true), and you can have jRPG which aren't.

You can have Roleplaying games with leveling systems (KOTOR), as you can have non-roleplaying games with leveling system (Diablo). You can have non-roleplaying games without leveling system (Zelda) as you can have roleplaying games without leveling system (... err.. I am sure there is one. Help someone?)

Ergo, the system doesn`t make the role-playing. The freedom of story makes the roleplaying.

[Theodoric]

Ofcourse, don't forget the subtle difference between an 'X with RPG elements' and a RPG. I'd call Borderlands the former, for example, as well as Bioshock, for the most part. (only 2 real choices; letting that Cohen live or and letting the Little Sisters live or die)

[Cubey]

Personally, I don't consider a game like FF, Diablo, Zelda, etc.. as "role-playing". I see them as "Adventure games".

Games like KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights & Fable are more akin to "Roleplaying" (less so for Fable, methink, seen the amount of pure railroading).

Funny then that Fable has less railroading than Neverwinter Nights' "Diablo lite" single player campaign. Hell - Final Fantasy VI (especially the second part of the game) has less railroading than Neverwinter Nights' campaign.

I call this thread an attempt of discrediting games you don't like by saying "they have no roleplaying" or "they're not RPGs". I criticize titles I don't like in more constructive fashion, so I won't contribute any further to the discussion.

[Setra]

I call this thread an attempt of discrediting games you don't like by saying "they have no roleplaying" or "they're not RPGs". I criticize titles I don't like in more constructive fashion, so I won't contribute any further to the discussion.
While I think that might be the original intent of the thread, I do however agree that most games called RPG's don't really have roleplaying, though that highly depends on your definition of it (As far as videogames go, I find MMOs to be the only ones that can have something that fits my definition of Roleplaying).. That said, I still love those games and think they are great fun, they're my favorite genre even.

[Poison_Fish]

When I'm playing DotA and playing puck, when I type, I only type "Waark". Even to my team mates.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Funny then that Fable has less railroading than Neverwinter Nights' "Diablo lite" single player campaign. Hell - Final Fantasy VI (especially the second part of the game) has less railroading than Neverwinter Nights' campaign.


Not really. There was quite a good amount of ways you could track down the dock creatures depending on your skills. Same thing with the Zombie-invasion, you could bypass the cult or go trough the horde.

How many different ways could you solve the Trial of the Two Brothers?

Not to forget the whole "Innocent man on Trial" part, which also was quite interesting.

While many of the main parts of the game was, indeed, pure random violence (**** yhea!) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI), this game was more interesting intellectually than, let's say, Diablo.

So I call bull**** on your argument that this thread is meant merely to bash games that you don'T like. It's not the point I have here. I love Titan Quest for itself, but I don't try to pass it off as an RPG.

There are some horrible RPGs around, which are much less fun than an action-game with leveling. Being an RPG is no indicator or quality, just of story complexity.

[Oregano]

To continue on what Tyckspoon was saying about FF and customisation. FFXIII will have a mix of FFX(no levels, you spend points to advance) and FFX-2(characters have archetypes that will change in battle). Also FF Gaiden just released in Japan and has the classic job system(based around what hat you wear).

Also what about the Crystal Chronicles games(except Crystal Bearers), there you get to choose what your character is(Race, Gender, hair styles, clothes, equipment) and at some points you even get the illusion of choice like in most WRPGs and you're also given mutliple dungeon options at times... does that mean they're RPGs and the main FFs aren't?

How about The Last Remnant, non linear, lots of sidequests, important choices to make(some that can render 100% completion impossible) but the main cast are preset characters, your customisation comes from how you assemble your forces and what abilities and weapons you use. Oh and it has no levels!

To me an RPG is just a game where it's not just about controlling a character, it's about being a characters, this can be through the character being well fleshed out with a deep personality and ties to the world or through customisation and choice, or even a mix of both. It's a game that engrosses you in the world and tells you a story. There's also some other connotations such as advancement of character's(through levelling most often) and also generally game length, RPGs tend to much, much longer than other games.

[Erloas]

This is kind of one of those all or nothing sort of topics. You can either define RPG like some people here seem to and call virtually nothing an RPG or define it like others and call just about everything an RPG. What counts though it "majority" interpretation of the term, because in all languages that is all that really matters.

Its pretty clear for the majority which games fall into the category of RPG and which ones don't, and there is no single set of criteria that works for all games that fit the accepted list of RPGs (as defined by the majority of people).

[Shyftir]

I'd like to suggest a different term other than SMG. (Statistic Management Game) I think of games like FF and Diablo (etc.) as "Levelers" because game play is focused on leveling up and achieving quest goals via improved ability.
I think it is a lot more accurate the the term RPG. Now RPG often still applies to a leveler if used as such.

As for further classifying, I bow to more experienced gamers.

[warty goblin]

And does the way you solve the hostage situation matter in any case for the game's plot, apart from giving you slightly different rewards and/or karma points? Compare that to Shin Megami Tensei games, where your actions influence whether plot-important NPCs live or die, and where there are multiple endings, many of which are difficult to reach because they depend on your actions throughout the whole game, not just a single option at the very end and/or your karma meter. And yet the SMT games are undoubtedly jRPG.

Assuming the instance in question is the last choice in Bring Down the Sky, it really only matters for about ten minutes. It's a reasonably well done moral quandary, in that there are reasonably justifiable arguments to made for either choice, but longterm it's meaningless beyond a couple of Karma points, and maybe a bit of loot. To be fair to Mass Effect though, that's not a particularly good example of decision making in the game. The Virmire mission for example can lead to the death of up to two party NPCs. I'm not sure I'd say these have massive longterm effects (at least in the first game, I can't yet speak for the second), but it's still there.


Also, I agree with warty for once.
So is this the first or second sign of the Apocalypse?

[Gamerlord]

So I was wondering why do people refer to some games that have no roleplaying as RPG? From what I can remember playing the Final Fantasy (and Chrono Trigger) games you're playing a storyline with each characters have set personality. Most if not all quests only have one way of completing with no moral choices, and if you're presented with a choice it's usually Yes or No with the wrong answer looping back until you select the correct answer.

So what "RPG" you have played that have no or very little Roleplaying, and why do you think it's called a RPG?

Well, D&D is a role playing game, and you don't need any role playing at all, just a little hack, and some slash!

A role playing game:
* Has you develop a character
*Advance in power
*Collect items to use in the fight against the opponent
That is the barest definition of RPG

[warty goblin]

A role playing game:
* Has you develop a character
*Advance in power
*Collect items to use in the fight against the opponent
That is the barest definition of RPG
It's also categorically useless. Consider Call of Duty multiplayer.
Develop a character? Yep, there's even levels.
Advance in power? Well, those unlockable .50cal sniper rifles do tend to be a bit more powerful, so yes.
Collect Items? Shoot a dude, take his gun, shoot another dude with it. So, yeah.

STALKER? Totally an RPG. Far Cry 2? RPG. Total War games? RPGs, just with really big parties. Racing games? Probably RPGs.

Honestly I think the term RPG is perhaps without any real utility. FPS isn't really much of a genre either, but at least tells you something about how the game is played. But RPG? It has advancement of some form, but it could be turn based, realtime, a hybrid of the two, or any number of other oddities. It simply doesn't tell me enough to be a useful descriptor.

[Winthur]

Well, D&D is a role playing game, and you don't need any role playing at all, just a little hack, and some slash!

A role playing game:
* Has you develop a character
*Advance in power
*Collect items to use in the fight against the opponent
That is the barest definition of RPG

Given that I'm playing WFRP, my players don't have a prayer in the world to advance in power. Sure, they might get enough XP for stuff, but the rewards from the XP and gold they're getting is in no way to be compared to the penalties for lost limbs, harvesting Insanity Points, and (a particular favourite I picked up from a certain webcomic that is, however, dead already) - losing Charisma points for various face disfigurations. Their characters won't develop, they will succumb into a shamble of crap after they somehow survive all this.

Also, Wikipedia tackles your definition rather harshly:


A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters.[1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization,[1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.[2]

[Starbuck_II]

That is a fair point, but their other villains aren't as bad. FF1 had Garland, FF4 had Golbez, FF6 had Kefka...

And as for the "no roleplaying in RPGs" well you can roleplay a fair bit on your own even if the game itself doesn't let you. Take Borderlands for instance - like Mass Effect, it's a shooter with stat allocation - but you can always link your vision of the character to the talents you pick for him. It's all fluff, so who's going to stop you?

Kefka? I don't consider huim the villian of FF6. THe last boss maybe, butnot the villian. The emperor was the villian.
Same as Golbez wasn't last boss, but he was the villian.
FF 1's villian was both though.

[Optimystik]

And does the way you solve the hostage situation matter in any case for the game's plot, apart from giving you slightly different rewards and/or karma points?

What does that matter? Are you saying every instance of roleplaying has to affect the main plot in some way?

That's just plain wrong if that's what you think. A huge chunk of most RPGs, both digital and paper, is taken up in side quests and plot hooks, NOT the main story. And that's to say nothing of ongoing PnP campaigns, MUDS and MMOs where there IS no main story, or where the one that's there is so far-off and vague that nothing the characters do has a macro impact.


Compare that to Shin Megami Tensei games, where your actions influence whether plot-important NPCs live or die, and where there are multiple endings, many of which are difficult to reach because they depend on your actions throughout the whole game, not just a single option at the very end and/or your karma meter. And yet the SMT games are undoubtedly jRPG.

I've never played those, so maybe they are actually an example of a JRPG that I would enjoy. (I don't dislike JRPGs, but I've played quite a few of them, and the rigidity of the rails has been a distinguishing feature thus far.) I'm willing to consider that there may be some titles with a bit more freedom and impact to your actions, but I'm also considering that the prevailing opinion of JRPGs is what it is for a reason.

[Gamerlord]

It's also categorically useless. Consider Call of Duty multiplayer.
Develop a character? Yep, there's even levels.
Advance in power? Well, those unlockable .50cal sniper rifles do tend to be a bit more powerful, so yes.
Collect Items? Shoot a dude, take his gun, shoot another dude with it. So, yeah.

STALKER? Totally an RPG. Far Cry 2? RPG. Total War games? RPGs, just with really big parties. Racing games? Probably RPGs.

Honestly I think the term RPG is perhaps without any real utility. FPS isn't really much of a genre either, but at least tells you something about how the game is played. But RPG? It has advancement of some form, but it could be turn based, realtime, a hybrid of the two, or any number of other oddities. It simply doesn't tell me enough to be a useful descriptor.

Never played CoD, so I didn't know that.

[Tengu_temp]

What does that matter? Are you saying every instance of roleplaying has to affect the main plot in some way?


No, I'm saying that I disagree with the "western RPGs have roleplaying and jRPGs don't because you can make choices in the former and not the latter" argument, because the former do not necessarily give you greater choice than the latter (what most western RPGs offer is only an illusion of choice). Neither of them has roleplaying (and neither would even if they offered more choices, but that's not a part of the argument I'm talking about right now).

[Optimystik]

(what most western RPGs offer is only an illusion of choice).

To which I answer, so what? Any preplanned game, whether a digital module or one written on paper, offers only the illusion of choice. Certain events are scripted - they are meant to happen no matter what character, background or playstyle you bring to the table, and the GM's job is to make sure those events come to pass.

The roleplaying occurs in how the players react to those events, not by avoiding them entirely. As long as the game accounts for realistic reactions, it is a roleplaying game; that's true whether the game is being run by a living person behind a screen, or a computer that has been fed various likely scenarios to choose from.

As for WRPG vs. JRPG, the difference between them has been made historically clear. For the impact of choice on gameplay, you only have to count the endings. How many WRPGs have multiple endings? How many JRPGs have them? The best JRPG example I can think of is Chrono Trigger; most of whose endings were jokes, but at least it had them. The Final Fantasies have all been one long rigid set of rails to me, along with the Shining Forces

And now, WRPGs are making even greater strides towards incorporating choice. You're not merely allowed to carry your character forward now, but all of his accomplishments - an entire game world changed by your actions in the previous game. Bioware is set to break the mold with Mass Effect 2 in this regard, just as they did previously wiith Baldur's Gate 2.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think the issue we're having here is multiple definitions of "roleplaying". All games allow you to play a role, and therefore role-play.

However, the issue here is whether you have freedom to express and develop a character within the context of a game, which is a different thing. And no, many games, so-called "RPGs" or otherwise, don't allow you that freedom. You can and do roleplay in them, but you can't roleplay in a deep or meaningful fashion, which seems to be what the original topic was about.

[Drascin]

I have to agree with Tengu on the whole "extremely few games have any kind of real choice, western or eastern". WRPGs like Elder Scrolls like to give you the illusion of choice, but in the end, Status Quo is God, as they say in a certain wiki. What you do only affects the exact particular flags of the quest, and nothing else - not quite unlike every sidequest in every FF ever.

Well, I lie. There is choice. But it isn't "do this or that and have different story outcomes for both". It's "do this or don't as you prefer, and stuff only will happen if you do so if you want anything to happen you have to do it anyway". Which isn't any choice at all. The only choice is "do I want to experience all the sidequests in a game I've paid for or not", which kind of isn't an actual question at all however you look at it.

I don't remember which comic it is that summed it up pretty well, but paraphrased it was more or less like this:


JAPANESE RPG
"You must save the princess!"
"No"
"But You Must!
"No!"
"But You Must!"
"Sigh. Okay, I'm going"

WESTERN RPG
"You must save the princess!"
"No"
"Okay then, you're free to go into the world map and go kill rats at your leisure, but absolutely nothing of interest is going to happen until you do, so you might as well get started now"
"Sigh. Okay, I'm going"

:smallbiggrin:



Of course, there are exceptions - games where the choices do actually matter and you can so give them a thin veneer of roleplaying or at least characterization - deciding on a particular characterization for your avatar and choosing options by said decision. For example, I like Dragon Age because it manages to make me think that some of my choices do something quite well. It does feel like I'm choosing between two outcomes in some places. But by the same token, I spent far too long debating with myself what my policy would be in Megami Tensei Devil Survivor - because each snap decision in dialogue in that game can give you that last little push to head you one way or the other.

But those are, well, rarities. For every DA, we get a dozen random Neverwinters, and for each MegaTen, we get fifty random formulaic JRPGs... but such is life. And I actually do not mind linear stories that much as long as they give you some freedom of action to reach there, really. Sometimes you need to constrain the number of variables a bit if you're going to actually tell a story instead of having an AFGNCAAP :smallwink:.

[Kish]

Strictly speaking, I don't consider any electronic game a real RPG. Not until and unless they come out with a computer which can actually give you as many options as a human gamemaster...and if that happens, I'll be lobbying for that computer to be given a vote and a choice about whether running games for humans is what it wants to do with its time. :smalltongue: That said, I'm quite a strong believer in roleplaying as much as possible within the confines of a CRPG (which I use as a technical term, quite distinct, at least in my mind, from the real RPGs I play on tabletops). A linear path doesn't bother me much; being encouraged to act inconsistently ("and then your heroic character should attack Drizzt, unless you have some weird roleplaying thing," as far too many Baldur's Gate guides put it...) does.

[warty goblin]

I have to agree with Tengu on the whole "extremely few games have any kind of real choice, western or eastern". WRPGs like Elder Scrolls like to give you the illusion of choice, but in the end, Status Quo is God, as they say in a certain wiki. What you do only affects the exact particular flags of the quest, and nothing else - not quite unlike every sidequest in every FF ever.

I don't even think in terms of stories or sidequests Oblivion gives all that much in the way of the illusion of choice. What it does do is let you opt out of the story/quest stuff, and provide reasonably compelling gameplay in that space. But within the quests, there's really not much choice. Honestly this is just fine with me, as I find the wandering hither and yon more rewarding than making one or two binary decision to get some slightly different dialog.


Well, I lie. There is choice. But it isn't "do this or that and have different story outcomes for both". It's "do this or don't as you prefer, and stuff only will happen if you do so if you want anything to happen you have to do it anyway". Which isn't any choice at all. The only choice is "do I want to experience all the sidequests in a game I've paid for or not", which kind of isn't an actual question at all however you look at it.
I think the difference, at least for a game like Oblivion is that basically everything is a side quest, so its all optional. I know a guy who's sunk I bet thirty hours into that game, an I bet hasn't done more then five quests. Really, the thing to do with Oblivion is to just push the main quest to the point where the Oblivion Gates start to pop up, then simply wander around and do stuff when you feel like it. There isn't any choice in a story sense, but there's a lot of options from a gameplay perspective, and sometimes that's all a person is looking for.


But those are, well, rarities. For every DA, we get a dozen random Neverwinters, and for each MegaTen, we get fifty random formulaic JRPGs... but such is life. And I actually do not mind linear stories that much as long as they give you some freedom of action to reach there, really. Sometimes you need to constrain the number of variables a bit if you're going to actually tell a story instead of having an AFGNCAAP :smallwink:.

This is where I think that when it comes to RPGS in an electronic medium the Witcher has the superior approach. Because you start the game as a defined person, the game's writers have a lot more flexibility in NPC responses, and can give your replies real personality. Honestly after that, it makes most other wRPG protagonists look pretty bland. Drakensang: The Dark Eye does a sort of similar thing, in that there really aren't all that many dialog choices in the game. Instead the title's very up front with you, you're playing a fantasy hero, you talk like somebody at their first ever RPG night, and kill a lot of rats. Get used to it. In a way, it's sort of a relief.

[Stormthorn]

Games like Diablo and Final Fantasy are referred to as RPGs because they possess one trait of RPGs: you get some character(s) that through the course of the game Levels up. Some games allow you to select said character(s) abilities and skills, some do not.

JRPG and Hack n' Slash are the more specific term I do believe (JRPG for Final Fantasy, Golden Sun, Fire Emblem, etc; Hack n' Slash for Diablo, Torchlight, Silver, etc).

I do agree that the term RPG is very misleading in the gaming world, but, somehow that's just what it has involved into. You have the standard RPGs like KOTOR and NWM which actually have Roleplaying, then you have Hack n' Slashes and Turn-based games like FF and Diablo that don't really have any Roleplaying but are somehow still RPGs.


In Diablo II you take on the role of a dude or dudette killing a demon god.
Thats roleplaying.
Im the sort of person who actualy bothers to listen to every line of dialogue my character says.
The Necromancer is snarky and misunderstood.
"*amused tone* Blood Raven, *voice softens* rest well."

[Zukhramm]

Having not really read through the thread all that carefully I have decided to write a little for no other reason than than fact that I should be sleeping.

RPG, when talking video game genres clearly does is no longer bound to refer to actual roleplaying. Instead the term now seems to refer to games in which the focus lies on somehow developing a character, be it through experience points gathered by killing enemies or by navigating through dialogs.

(Notice "focus lies on". An RTS is not an RPG because you have one character who levels up, just as an FPS is not a platformer for featuring a jumping puzzle.)

The reason for all this, from my gatherings (and the all mighty source of truth and knowledge, Wikipedia) seems to be that the early Japanese video game RPGs took inspiration from their western counterpart, which in turn were based on actual tabletop roleplaying games. As the two genres diverged, the leveling and the stats were kept, along with the term RPG.

It could be seen as unfortunate that the word "roleplaying" is used to describe games featuring none of it, but it does seem to be the term that has stuck, and making people change their use of it now would be hard, if not impossible.

[Emperor Ing]

RPGs that have no roleplaying for me

-Oblivion (to an extent). Great game, no doubt in my mind about that, but for a lot of quests, there's only 1 way to go through the dialogue to initiate/go through a quest.
-Bioshock. Someone said this had role-playing elements. For me, this game has as many RP elements as Halo did.
-Any game where the ending is determined by a decision made at the very end of the game. I'm looking at you, Force Unleashed.

[Optimystik]

A linear path doesn't bother me much; being encouraged to act inconsistently ("and then your heroic character should attack Drizzt, unless you have some weird roleplaying thing," as far too many Baldur's Gate guides put it...) does.

A guide encourages you to act contrary to character to get the best items. That's not the same as the game encouraging such behavior. Sure if you kill Drizz't you're rewarded with his scimitars or whatever, but how is that different from PnP?

I'm not saying CRPGs are identical to PnP, just that the point of comparison you've highlighted isn't fair.


Well, I lie. There is choice. But it isn't "do this or that and have different story outcomes for both". It's "do this or don't as you prefer, and stuff only will happen if you do so if you want anything to happen you have to do it anyway". Which isn't any choice at all. The only choice is "do I want to experience all the sidequests in a game I've paid for or not", which kind of isn't an actual question at all however you look at it.

I don't know which CRPG you're referring to, but I don't see the choice as "do all the sidequests or not." In a well-made CRPG, the majority of sidequests have multiple paths of resolution. Consider Mass Effect - one sidequest has you help a reporter by bugging a traffic control room for her scoop on their working conditions. You have the choice of refusing up front, accepting then changing your mind later (due to being busy, SAYING you're busy, or even being worried about the traffic controllers jobs), doing it just for the money, doing it for the good cause of helping the (presumably overworked) employees, or even just lying and SAYING you did it. Pick the one that fits your character - that's roleplaying.


But those are, well, rarities. For every DA, we get a dozen random Neverwinters, and for each MegaTen, we get fifty random formulaic JRPGs... but such is life. And I actually do not mind linear stories that much as long as they give you some freedom of action to reach there, really. Sometimes you need to constrain the number of variables a bit if you're going to actually tell a story instead of having an AFGNCAAP :smallwink:.

Ironically, Neverwinter is the least linear of all the RPGs you've listed due to its world-building component. You can make your own module every bit as complex, or even more so, than Dragon Age if you have the time to put into it. It's also the only game on this list capable of being run by a "live" DM.

The main quests packaged with the game are typically not very involving, but guess what? They weren't written for PnP players anyway. You're already interested, or at least aware, in/of D&D. NWN was made to introduce D&D to new audiences, not the existing cadre of dice-rolling, supplement-reading, character-sheet making aficionados.

[dsmiles]

Ironically, Neverwinter is the least linear of all the RPGs you've listed due to its world-building component. You can make your own module every bit as complex, or even more so, than Dragon Age if you have the time to put into it. It's also the only game on this list capable of being run by a "live" DM.

The main quests packaged with the game are typically not very involving, but guess what? They weren't written for PnP players anyway. You're already interested, or at least aware, in/of D&D. NWN was made to introduce D&D to new audiences, not the existing cadre of dice-rolling, supplement-reading, character-sheet making aficionados.

This is soooooooo true. As one of the "cadre of dice-rolling, supplememt-reading, character-sheet making aficionados," I feel like NWN and NWN2 were built to bring all of the computer gamers to PnP. It gives them a very basic feel for the game, with the class options and point-buy system, etc.

[$0.02]
As far as non-PnP or non-PbP games, I don't feel like any game out there has enough "role-playing" to qualify it, in my mind, as a RPG. They are action games, adventure games, or some combination of the two.

If I pop in a FPS, by some people's posts here, I am role-playing. If I take on the roll of another person, I must be "role-playing," right?

I don't think so. "Role-playing" involves a little more interaction bewteen actual people that can react to what I do or say, and the story evolves as we game. A computer (or Playstation, or XBox, or Wii, or whatever) only has programmed responses. It doesn't think about every possible outcome, only about outcomes that are possible because of the limitations of the program's coding. If I throw something out at a live DM, and they just say, "You can't do that, the module doesn't allow for that," I would be sorely disappointed in them as a DM.

So, when I buy a computer (or Playstation, or XBox, or Wii, or whatever) game, I expect to buy an action game, or an adventure game, or some combination of the two.
[/$0.02]

[The Extinguisher]

I think RPG is an unfair term really. Because the important thing that all RPG's have is the experience system. Leveling characters up, whether or not you can choose stats and skills or really anything else is what separates RPGs from other games. Maybe we should give them another name. Stat based games? SBGs?

[warty goblin]

I think RPG is an unfair term really. Because the important thing that all RPG's have is the experience system. Leveling characters up, whether or not you can choose stats and skills or really anything else is what separates RPGs from other games. Maybe we should give them another name. Stat based games? SBGs?

But it doesn't. Battle for Middle Earth II lets you build a character, level that character, equip units, and even play on a persistent turn based metagame map. I don't think anybody in their right mind would call it an RPG. It's an RTS in which you level stuff up.

[Artanis]

But it doesn't. Battle for Middle Earth II lets you build a character, level that character, equip units, and even play on a persistent turn based metagame map. I don't think anybody in their right mind would call it an RPG. It's an RTS in which you level stuff up.

The last two Dawn of War expansions also had that. Granted, they were really crappy, shallow excuses for it, but still.


Also, as long as we're talking about RTS games, Blizzard claims that StarCraft 2 will have some of the "choices actually making a difference" stuff that a lot of people have been mentioning. Not much, granted, but still.

[warty goblin]

The last two Dawn of War expansions also had that. Granted, they were really crappy, shallow excuses for it, but still.

Dark Crusade had Wargear, but no real levels per say. Can't speak to Soulstorm, as I avoided that game like the plague.


Also, as long as we're talking about RTS games, Blizzard claims that StarCraft 2 will have some of the "choices actually making a difference" stuff that a lot of people have been mentioning. Not much, granted, but still.

Which is a stupid thing to advertise in a strategy game. Of course the decisions matter, they are what determines if you win or lose. They're probably talking about the campaign, but I don't care about that. Campaigns in RTSs are places where various stupid things are inflicted upon me in the name of telling a story I don't care about.

[dsmiles]

As an avid Soulstorm player, I can attest that the wargear system is unchanged from Dark Crusade.

[HotAndCold]

I always kind of felt that a video game RPG was defined more by its plot/world structure, really. When somebody says "RPG" I automatically think of a fantasy setting, in which the player has control over a small group of characters that are typically specialized in one area of combat or another, and your little band of merry men must journey all over the world in order to save it from whatever it is that threatens it, in what is, yes, usually a very linear path, because RPGs tend to focus more on their storyline than their gameplay. Combat is typically turn-based and random unless it's a plot-pertinent fight, there are usually three types of areas (the world map, towns, and dungeons; the world map is sometimes done away with and there are only towns and "places where things try to kill you"), puzzles are frequent, and, oh yeah, characters have stats and level and you can improve your equipment in just about every town.

There's been some talk about how RPG's should be called something about stats, but, really, the stats are the least important part of a good RPG. RPG's typically stand or fail on the merit of their plot and their world. Ask somebody to talk about their favorite RPG and you'll usually get blather about their favorite character or something they loved about the world-building or the plot. Only occasionally will you get someone who'll gush about the combat system. (Hilariously, I'm actually an exception to this; the wonders of the combat system in Paper Mario 2 is one of the first things I'll gush about, but even then, I love the characters and I love its silly little plot.) Other kinds of games can have wonderful plot, characters, and world-building, sure, but they're not a necessary staple of the genre like they are for an RPG.

Video game RPGs may not involve role-playing as a specific character, but they're still about immersing yourself in a world wholly different from your own, and that's what makes them an RPG. Stats and levels and equipment and all, that's just mechanics. It's part of the genre, sure, I'll admit that, but as long as it works just fine, it's not the focus of it.

[Artanis]

Which is a stupid thing to advertise in a strategy game. Of course the decisions matter, they are what determines if you win or lose. They're probably talking about the campaign, but I don't care about that. Campaigns in RTSs are places where various stupid things are inflicted upon me in the name of telling a story I don't care about.

By "not much", I really did mean "not much". They're saying that the order you complete missions in will, among other things, determine what cutscenes and stuff you see. You're still playing a flat-out RTS campaign :smallwink:

[warty goblin]

I always kind of felt that a video game RPG was defined more by its plot/world structure, really. When somebody says "RPG" I automatically think of a fantasy setting, in which the player has control over a small group of characters that are typically specialized in one area of combat or another, and your little band of merry men must journey all over the world in order to save it from whatever it is that threatens it, in what is, yes, usually a very linear path, because RPGs tend to focus more on their storyline than their gameplay. Combat is typically turn-based and random unless it's a plot-pertinent fight, there are usually three types of areas (the world map, towns, and dungeons; the world map is sometimes done away with and there are only towns and "places where things try to kill you"), puzzles are frequent, and, oh yeah, characters have stats and level and you can improve your equipment in just about every town.

That's awfully narrow. I mean no offense, but that excludes a lot of stuff that I think most people would call an RPG-anything non-turn based, or without a party for starters. So yeah, pretty much every non jRPG produced after what, 2001 or so?


There's been some talk about how RPG's should be called something about stats, but, really, the stats are the least important part of a good RPG. RPG's typically stand or fail on the merit of their plot and their world. Ask somebody to talk about their favorite RPG and you'll usually get blather about their favorite character or something they loved about the world-building or the plot. Only occasionally will you get someone who'll gush about the combat system. (Hilariously, I'm actually an exception to this; the wonders of the combat system in Paper Mario 2 is one of the first things I'll gush about, but even then, I love the characters and I love its silly little plot.) Other kinds of games can have wonderful plot, characters, and world-building, sure, but they're not a necessary staple of the genre like they are for an RPG.
This I flat out disagree with. If you asked me to list off memorable places and interesting worlds I've been in games, RPGs wouldn't hold very many spots. What you'd probably see is something like this:
Fictional African Country: Far Cry 2
City 17: Half-Life 2+Episodes.
The Void: The Void
The Zone of Alienation: STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl.
Whatever the name of the universe where the X games take place: X3: Terran Conflict
Wherever the Witcher takes place: The Witcher.


Video game RPGs may not involve role-playing as a specific character, but they're still about immersing yourself in a world wholly different from your own, and that's what makes them an RPG. Stats and levels and equipment and all, that's just mechanics. It's part of the genre, sure, I'll admit that, but as long as it works just fine, it's not the focus of it.
Maybe I'm just wired wrong, but I tend to become more immersed in a character when I'm playing a good shooter than an RPG. The mechanics of the former just feel more natural to me, probably because I can hardly turn around in an RPG without it reminding me I'm playing a game.


By "not much", I really did mean "not much". They're saying that the order you complete missions in will, among other things, determine what cutscenes and stuff you see. You're still playing a flat-out RTS campaign :smallwink:

Nice to know my indifference to campaigns can continue unabated.

[HotAndCold]

That's awfully narrow. I mean no offense, but that excludes a lot of stuff that I think most people would call an RPG-anything non-turn based, or without a party for starters. So yeah, pretty much every non jRPG produced after what, 2001 or so?

That was my description of what I think of as a typical RPG. There are, of course, exceptions. There are exceptions to anything.


This I flat out disagree with. If you asked me to list off memorable places and interesting worlds I've been in games, RPGs wouldn't hold very many spots.

That's. Not what I said? Give it another read.


Ask somebody to talk about their favorite RPG

You like the same thing in other games, great! Not really my point. Tell me what you like most about your favorite RPG.


Maybe I'm just wired wrong, but I tend to become more immersed in a character when I'm playing a good shooter than an RPG. The mechanics of the former just feel more natural to me, probably because I can hardly turn around in an RPG without it reminding me I'm playing a game.

I also never said anything about being immersed in a character. A good RPG is a good story, first and foremost. Mechanics are, really, kind of irrelevant, as long as they work.

Personally, I can hardly turn around in an FPS, full stop. :smallbiggrin: I'm awfully uncoordinated and, trust me, you wanna talk about immersion-ruining, try being a super-soldier space marine stuck looking down in a shadowy corner because you're using the wrong analog stick to try and turn around and can't tell which way is up anymore. But different stuff works for different people.

[littlebottom]

i still think its just a very general term, and people shouldnt worry too much about it, i mean, i would much more readily call a Final Fantasy a RPG than something like Blood omen; legecy of kain, in which you had the desicion to ruin the world or save it and become an unsung hero. it sounds very RPGish, till you think that any subsequent game is based off of you chosing the "ruin the world and save your own life" option, and that the entire game simply gives you a couple new spells, a couple new weapons, and extends your health total from time to time, it was more a hack n slash (occasionally puzzle solver) than i would say FF is, because you get more freedom, even if the end result is pre determined, you can play through the game time and time again, and only the spine of the story will be the same time and time again.

BUT thats just my opinion :smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

That was my description of what I think of as a typical RPG. There are, of course, exceptions. There are exceptions to anything.

I'm not even sure you could characterize most RPGs released in the last four years like that though.


That's. Not what I said? Give it another read. You did specifically mention worldbuilding, so I talked about worlds that I found interesting.


You like the same thing in other games, great! Not really my point. Tell me what you like most about your favorite RPG.
That's easy, I like the Witcher because I find the setting interesting, and the gameplay a good fit for that. Plus, the dialog's sumptuous. Although again, for pure worldbuilding and marrying of mechanics to setting, there are plenty of other titles I'd put ahead of it.


I also never said anything about being immersed in a character. A good RPG is a good story, first and foremost. Mechanics are, really, kind of irrelevant, as long as they work.
I still would rank Far Cry 2 ahead of any RPG I've ever played in terms of story. Finally, a game that doesn't mince around with ends justifying the means, or antiheroism or any other cop-out to justify the insane amount of violence committed by the average game character. Nope, you are scum, completely and utterly, and the entire point of the story is showing you that. I found it quite immersive actually, and the ending, particularly the one where you detonated the explosives, I found quite emotionally effective.

I'll need to try the Void some more, after my last game ended with me basically starving to death before I could reach the nearest Color garden, but I suspect that game will manage a similarly powerful conclusion.


Personally, I can hardly turn around in an FPS, full stop. :smallbiggrin: I'm awfully uncoordinated and, trust me, you wanna talk about immersion-ruining, try being a super-soldier space marine stuck looking down in a shadowy corner because you're using the wrong analog stick to try and turn around and can't tell which way is up anymore. But different stuff works for different people.
Try a mouse and keyboard. I'm just about the same way on a console, but a good PC shooter might convert you yet. With a bit of practice, it makes capping dudes while on the go pretty easy. I suggest starting with something simple, and a little bit oldschool- Halo is excellent for this. It runs on a wide variety of hardware, still looks not terrible, and since it doesn't include iron sights and stuff like that, you're free to blaze away. Half-Life 2 is another good option for a similar reason.

[Optimystik]

I don't think so. "Role-playing" involves a little more interaction bewteen actual people that can react to what I do or say, and the story evolves as we game. A computer (or Playstation, or XBox, or Wii, or whatever) only has programmed responses. It doesn't think about every possible outcome, only about outcomes that are possible because of the limitations of the program's coding. If I throw something out at a live DM, and they just say, "You can't do that, the module doesn't allow for that," I would be sorely disappointed in them as a DM.

Here's what I don't understand. Why is the "live person" component so necessary? The important thing is realistic reaction, is it not? What if a module maker took into account so many contingencies when planning his events, that any action your character took outside those parameters would be out of character? As long as the parameters are realistic, who cares if its lines of code or a person?

And for all the "limitations of program coding," there are many advantages that are too often overlooked. A computerized DM can easily split the party, continually roll Spot and Listen checks in the background, generate random encounters and loot, manage weather effects, and other minutiae, and still have plenty of processing power left to plan contingencies for the party. I'd love to see a computer DM with an AI Director style adaptibility a la Left 4 Dead.

[dsmiles]

Here's what I don't understand. Why is the "live person" component so necessary? The important thing is realistic reaction, is it not? What if a module maker took into account so many contingencies when planning his events, that any action your character took outside those parameters would be out of character? As long as the parameters are realistic, who cares if its lines of code or a person?

If someone ever does this, I'll call it an RPG. I have played many computer "RPG"s and have not seen it yet.

[Kish]

Yeah, me either. Hypothetically speaking, does this module present a pregenerated character, or let you create one?

(If the module-maker could achieve consensus that a pregenerated character would be acting out of character by doing anything the character couldn't do in the module, I'd be amazed. If the module-maker could do the same for a character created by any player, I'd be in awe.)

[Optimystik]

If someone ever does this, I'll call it an RPG. I have played many computer "RPG"s and have not seen it yet.

That's easy - present the players with a moral dilemma, like any number of RPGs with sidequests do. The actual choices are limited - help or don't help, usually - but the reasons for lending aid can be quite varied.

Is this not roleplaying? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html) (Put aside for the moment that they are not actually playing a game.) Each member of the party has his own reasons for participating - or not participating - in the "hook" and every single one of their reasons can be modelled in a CRPG.


Yeah, me either. Hypothetically speaking, does this module present a pregenerated character, or let you create one?

Most well-made modules in CRPGs do both, to cater to both the detail-oriented roleplayers and the pick-up-and-play, instant-gratification video gaming crowd.


(If the module-maker could achieve consensus that a pregenerated character would be acting out of character by doing anything the character couldn't do in the module, I'd be amazed. If the module-maker could do the same for a character created by any player, I'd be in awe.)

Well, you can undermine any computer game by deliberately trying to act outside the confines of its engine. (I climb up the wall! What do you mean I can't climb?) And I agree, less options does limit the roleplay opportunities. But that doesn't mean they are non-existent.

[dsmiles]

That's easy - present the players with a moral dilemma, like any number of RPGs with sidequests do. The actual choices are limited - help or don't help, usually - but the reasons for lending aid can be quite varied.

Is this not roleplaying? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0212.html) (Put aside for the moment that they are not actually playing a game.) Each member of the party has his own reasons for participating - or not participating - in the "hook" and every single one of their reasons can be modelled in a CRPG.

Ok, so my choices boil down to "Yes, I'll do it," or "No, I won't do it," right?
I choose to do it, I get the quest. I choose not to do it, I don't get the quest, right?

Now let's say that this same mentality applies to the main quest in the game (which it usually is). I get railroaded into doing the quest on a computer or other game system.

JAPANESE RPG
"You must save the princess!"
"No"
"But You Must!
"No!"
"But You Must!"
"Sigh. Okay, I'm going"

WESTERN RPG
"You must save the princess!"
"No"
"Okay then, you're free to go into the world map and go kill rats at your leisure, but absolutely nothing of interest is going to happen until you do, so you might as well get started now"
"Sigh. Okay, I'm going"

Thanks, Drascin.


If I say to a DM, "No," he/she should basically have a backup plan in mind to continue the gaming session. Again, I'd be sorely disappointed in him/her as a DM if I was railroaded because "It's not in the module."

[Optimystik]

Ok, so my choices boil down to "Yes, I'll do it," or "No, I won't do it," right?
I choose to do it, I get the quest. I choose not to do it, I don't get the quest, right?

That's true for any module, paper or digital, so yes. If your table starts Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and you say "Hey, I actually don't want to go to Castle Ravenloft," do you think there's a whole chapter in that book detailing what happens if your character doesn't go?



JAPANESE RPG
"You must save the princess!"
"No"
"But You Must!
"No!"
"But You Must!"
"Sigh. Okay, I'm going"


Amusing :smallsmile:


WESTERN RPG
"You must save the princess!"
"No"
"Okay then, you're free to go into the world map and go kill rats at your leisure, but absolutely nothing of interest is going to happen until you do, so you might as well get started now"
"Sigh. Okay, I'm going"

Right here is where you lost me. A well-made RPG has lots more to do than "kill rats." I can think of a dozen things to do in Morrowind besides the main quest - can't you? Or Oblivion. Or Dragon Age. Or Baldur's Gate, or...

And we weren't talking specifically about the main quest, either. As my example with Ravenloft shows, why would you bother opening up a module if you didn't intend on following its main quest? I thought we were talking about sidequests, weren't we? And if so, your choices become even more varied - you can cherrypick the hooks you wish to pursue, and resume the main quest when you feel like doing so.


If I say to a DM, "No," he/she should basically have a backup plan in mind to continue the gaming session. Again, I'd be sorely disappointed in him/her as a DM if I was railroaded because "It's not in the module."

Prepare for disappointment, because railroading is part and parcel of "live" DMing. That is a failing of gaming in general, not specifically digital gaming. The person that spends time planning all your adventures is generally going to want you experiencing some of them.

[dsmiles]

Prepare for disappointment, because railroading is part and parcel of "live" DMing. That is a failing of gaming in general, not specifically digital gaming. The person that spends time planning all your adventures is generally going to want you experiencing some of them.

No, some DM's (me and all of my friends that rotate campaigns between us), run "extreme sandbox" campaigns. At any given moment, the players can change directions and run off on a whole different tangent. We'll improv the whole night, and plan something for next session. Railroading isn't "part and parcel" of live DMing. Maybe it is for people who run published modules.

And in reference to Morrowind, etc. Can't "finish" the game until you complete the main quest, can you? A live campaign can end without ever completing the quest you initially set out to complete.

[Optimystik]

No, some DM's (me and all of my friends that rotate campaigns between us), run "extreme sandbox" campaigns. At any given moment, the players can change directions and run off on a whole different tangent. We'll improv the whole night, and plan something for next session. Railroading isn't "part and parcel" of live DMing. Maybe it is for people who run published modules.

So the fact that a computer can't run an "extreme sandbox campaign" means it's barring roleplaying entirely?

The prospects may be more limited, but that's not the same as saying they're impossible.

EDIT: I think I've pointed this out to you before in previous discussions, but it bears repeating: not all DMs play like you do. (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1144) That doesn't mean they are barring roleplaying any more than a computer is.


And in reference to Morrowind, etc. Can't "finish" the game until you complete the main quest, can you? A live campaign can end without ever completing the quest you initially set out to complete.

You can't finish a paper module without completing the main quest either. Again, this is a characteristic of any pre-made game.

[Artanis]

And in reference to Morrowind, etc. Can't "finish" the game until you complete the main quest, can you? A live campaign can end without ever completing the quest you initially set out to complete.

Many sandbox games let you keep playing after you've finished the main goal. As such, the primary goal is what you set it to be. The live campaign group changed its mind about what their primary goal was, and when they achieved their new primary goal, they decided they were done.

You can do the same thing in Morrowind. The game strongly suggests that you do the Nerevarine thing, but lots of people never mess with that, instead being content with taking over a major house or a guild or killing every guard in the game. When they finish with that goal, they decide they're done.



...I hope I managed to keep that more or less coherent :smalltongue:



Edit: *points to the ninja-post* What Optimystik said.

[Oslecamo]

You can't finish a paper module without completing the main quest either. Again, this is a characteristic of any pre-made game.

Says who? If the objective is to kill villain X, then you can go to another kingdom, conquer it, get your army, and then tell them to go kill villain X. There, you finished the module, whitout doing the main quest! But only if you have a DM pretty damn good at improvising, of course.

[Artanis]

Says who? If the objective is to kill villain X, then you can go to another kingdom, conquer it, get your army, and then tell them to go kill villain X. There, you finished the module, whitout doing the main quest! But only if you have a DM pretty damn good at improvising, of course.

Says dsmile's definition of "finish", near as I can tell :smallwink:

[Optimystik]

Says who? If the objective is to kill villain X, then you can go to another kingdom, conquer it, get your army, and then tell them to go kill villain X. There, you finished the module, whitout doing the main quest! But only if you have a DM pretty damn good at improvising, of course.

The end result is the same; villain X dies. PnP offers more means of completing the module, but the goal is just as narrow as it would be in digital gaming.

Furthermore, if your living DM doesn't allow you to do that, does that mean D&D is somehow not roleplaying anymore?

[Tengu_temp]

Furthermore, if your living DM doesn't allow you to do that, does that mean D&D is somehow not roleplaying anymore?

He should allow you to try, even if not succeed - maybe the kingdom is too powerful to be conquered, maybe the villain is too strong for them to defeat, maybe it's hard to get to the kingdom in the first place. But if he says "no, you can't do that, it's not in the module" then no, it's not roleplaying anymore.

[warty goblin]

So lemme ask a question: Of what utility is a definition for roleplaying?

I've thought about it for a while, and I really don't see any use to it.

[Optimystik]

He should allow you to try, even if not succeed - maybe the kingdom is too powerful to be conquered, maybe the villain is too strong for them to defeat, maybe it's hard to get to the kingdom in the first place. But if he says "no, you can't do that, it's not in the module" then no, it's not roleplaying anymore.

But in many CRPGS - Morrowind and Oblivion, for instance - you CAN try to kill just about anyone. You will likely not succeed, but you can try.

And I still fail to see how intentionally trying to break the module is a failure on the module's part. Is roleplaying only roleplaying if the players deliberately try to get off the rails? Why bother having modules at all then?

[Avilan the Grey]

Oldschool RPG: Development of character throught actions
New RPG: Developing a character (choosing stats, abilities and items)

Basically anything that let's you change your alter ego is a RPG in the modern sense of the word.

...I don't agree. In fact I think I would invert these two completely.

[Oslecamo]

So lemme ask a question: Of what utility is a definition for roleplaying?

I've thought about it for a while, and I really don't see any use to it.

To prevent certain nasty dudes from using roleplay as an excuse for everything. Altough luckily none of them seems to have found this thread. They seem to be a dying species, precisely because we've managed to narrow down the concept of roleplaying after countless discussions over the gaming boards.

[Optimystik]

...I don't agree. In fact I think I would invert these two completely.

I think both are facets of RPGs, whether classic, modern, paper or digital.


To prevent certain nasty dudes from using roleplay as an excuse for everything. Altough luckily none of them seems to have found this thread. They seem to be a dying species, precisely because we've managed to narrow down the concept of roleplaying after countless discussions over the gaming boards.

Gamers with no concept of roleplay seemed to be a rarity on these boards to begin with, at least to me.

[dsmiles]

Maybe this will help:


role-playing game
–noun a game in which participants adopt the roles of imaginary characters in an adventure under the direction of a Game Master.

[Comet]

Maybe this will help:

Doesn't quite work. The Game Master shouldn't be a part of the definition, since I've seen plenty of pen&paper RPG's where everyone is a "player".

[dsmiles]

Doesn't quite work. The Game Master shouldn't be a part of the definition, since I've seen plenty of pen&paper RPG's where everyone is a "player".

However, that is the definition from dictionary.com.

Here's the M-W definition of "Role-Play (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role-playing)," the closest thing in their dictionary.

Encyclopedia Britannica only has Dungeons and Dragons, and a very vague description at that. I couldn't find an entry just on role-playing games.

[Optimystik]

The definition does not specify that the game master must be real time. His direction can be preplanned, as it is with any module or computer game.