What makes an RPG

[King_of_GRiffins]

I don't think anyone on these boards doesn't know what RPG stands for. RPG's allow one to take up a role and play it through a plot of some construction, and programmers be willing, have some fun while doing so. We all enjoy this, and it's always interesting to put yourself into the position of another to play a game. Where there seems to be some debate is that there are some games, which while calling themselves role-playing games, don't seem to meet everyone's criteria for an RPG.

For instance, let's take some examples; Baulders Gate and Final Fantasy. Baulders Gate allows the player to go through a very nice DnD campaign while making an incredibly large number of choices for the character, from the standard characteristics of race, class and appearance, to individual dialog options and a roughly free to explore world.

Final Fantasy, while allowing for free roaming in some games, does enforce a linear trail of exploration and plot points in order to progress to some areas or in the game in general. Few, if any, choices can be made, all of them leading to the same ending. All of the characters are made to fit the story, and are portrayed through their own, prewritten dialog.

None of this is necessarily bad; A game can be enjoyable even if the story is already written, and progress flows in one direction. Indeed, most games are like that. However, this does bring up that the likes of Final Fantasy and Baulders Gate end up having in common only the fact that both track experience points despite being classified as the same genre.

That would be the basics of the arguement, and it would be my opinion that games like Final Fantasy are not so much RPG's as they are Adventure Games, with more in common with Legend of Zelda then Neverwinter Nights.

What does the other side say? Why is Final Fantasy an RPG, and not merely an Adventure?

[Zeful]

Okay what makes FF an RPG over an Adventure game?

First is that the FF game line is varied. There are no Rail Shooters, but there are both adventure games and RPG. A good example of the RPG side would be FF 1,3(japan) 5, X-2 and both Tactics. You may be forced to play a specific character, but what that character does (in the party) is entierly up to you. Some of the more adventure styled games are X, 6(japan), Mystic Quest, and so on. They have a story line and very little player choice or input.

However the FF games are not Just adventure games or not just RPGs they are a mix of the two genres in differing amounts. This is where the confusion comes in. There is no such thing a just an RPG (unless theater is a game to you), or just an adventure game. Both have elements of the other built in from the start.

A good game will have a mix of many genres. Because a game of just one genre sucks.

[Enlong]

Okay what makes FF an RPG over an Adventure game?

First is that the FF game line is varied. There are no Rail Shooters, but there are both adventure games and RPG. A good example of the RPG side would be FF 1,3(japan) 5, X-2 and both Tactics. You may be forced to play a specific character, but what that character does (in the party) is entierly up to you. Some of the more adventure styled games are X, 6(japan), Mystic Quest, and so on. They have a story line and very little player choice or input.

However the FF games are not Just adventure games or not just RPGs they are a mix of the two genres in differing amounts. This is where the confusion comes in. There is no such thing a just an RPG (unless theater is a game to you), or just an adventure game. Both have elements of the other built in from the start.

A good game will have a mix of many genres. Because a game of just one genre sucks.


I agree with everything but that last sentance:

single-genre games can indeed be awesome, usually when they manage to distill the genre into its best qualities.
I defy you to say that Super Mario Bros., being a pure platformer, sucks.

[warty goblin]

At this point in time, I've pretty much come to the following conclusions:

1) A game is an RPG if and only if it allows me choice about how the plot plays out, regardless of combat mechanism, parties or inventory conceits. All of that is window-dressing. The "depth" of the RPG is how many and how significant these choices are in game, not in the final cutscene or few minutes of gameplay.

2) A game has RPG elements if by taking certain actions, at various times over the course of the game I increase my character's aptitude in some area of gameplay, or gain a new ability alltogether. The term of course arrises because most RPGs have, surprisingly enough, RPG elements. The key is that it is possible to have an RPG without any RPG elements.

This of course means that games like Final Fantasies are not in fact RPGs according to my definitions, but adventure/tactical games with RPG elements. If all it takes is to play a role in a story to be an RPG, the definition becomes meaningless because pretty much every game since Pac-Man has you doing this. Neither does it seem to me that leveling up characters and so on should denote actual RPG-ness, since a lot of clearly non-RPG games have these mechanics. Look at the original Battle for Middle Earth, it has primary and secondary missions, which are analagous to main and side quests, cutscenes, characters that leveled up through combat and so on, but it is clearly not an RPG. Hence I conclude that leveling stuff up is not sufficient for RPGness.

Neither does inventory management: Plenty of games have this yet are not RPGs. Most shooters do for one thing, although they generally do this with ammo and gun limits instead of a seperate screen, but it amounts to the same thing- do I bring X instead of Y based on their varying strengths? It doesn't really matter that in one you stand over the gun and press "F", or press "I", mouse-over then Shift-click to drop, or that you are exchanging a shotgun with a sniper rifle or a mace with a longbow.

Nor yet does squad/party management: Otherwise tactical squad based shooters would be considered RPGs. They are not, hence squad management is not a requirement for RPGdom.

[factotum]

My personal definition of a computer RPG (since we're specifically talking about that) is any story-based game where the in-game skills of your character(s) are at least as important as the twitch game-playing skills of the person at the keyboard. Under this definition Diablo 2 just about scrapes in as an RPG. Pretty much any Final Fantasy game fits, too, mainly because they have turn-based combat and so twitch gaming skills are utterly useless!

[mangosta71]

I find that I prefer RPGs in which the choices that the player makes significantly alter the ending. Honestly, there's only so much flexibility that programmers can put into a game - pretty much any run-through will see you fighting the same enemies, you'll be repeating the same basic story, etc. I like things that aren't linear - the Baldur's Gate games, Fallout, Mass Effect - in which you choose the order in which you complete your objectives, and the order (not to mention how they're done) makes a difference.

[Tengu_temp]

Yawn, the old "Final Fantasy is not an RPG!" thread again. Listen, Final Fantasy is a jRPG, which means it has a different approach to things, but is still an RPG. If the variety of player options is what makes an RPG, then Grand Theft Auto is an RPG. Try saying that with a straight face.

My definition of an RPG is "a game possessing a plot, with character stats and abilities that improve over time, important non-combat elements (such as conversations with NPCs) and combat where the abilities of the character and/or strategy are important, instead of just manual dexterity".

[Morty]

For me, an RPG is a game where I can truly roleplay my character and make choices that influence the world around me. Stat development and tactical combat are things I associate with RPGs, but neither inherent to them nor needed in them. Baldur's Gate qualifies as RPG, but not a very complex one- roleplaying is restrained and very often your choices aren't very meaningful. I don't know if FF fits my definition, because I've never played it.

[Mx.Silver]

In computer gaming terms, RPG equates with character improvement and customisation. If a game gives a fair amount of focus to choosing and improving your characters abilities and equipment (and especially if your character increases in 'levels' of power as a result of your accomplishments) then it's an RPG (or at least an RPG hybrid).
That is all there is to it. That is all there ever has been to it. Unless things change significantly, that is all there ever will be to it. Trying to add other definitions is basically pointless and seldom turns out to be more than just an excuse to demean games you don't like.

For actual 'role-playing' you'd be better off getting some friends together and playing a pen and paper variant. The reason for this is that it is impossible for a team of writers and programmers to give a player anywhere near the degree of freedom and support necessary for this that a human GM can implement. Even if that were possible, the wide-player base of a computer game means they cannot anticipate all the possible decisions, hence why ALL of them employ linear limitations and, generally, the more complex and involved the story the more linear the game is likely to be as its harder to write a detailed story when you have a lot of variables to plan for.

[itsmeyouidiot]

Anything where the screen suddenly flashes and you're forced to take turns "attacking" (i.e. standing five feet away and making hitting motions) each other instead of actually fighting.


WHOOSH! Random encounter!

[Zeful]

I agree with everything but that last sentance:

single-genre games can indeed be awesome, usually when they manage to distill the genre into its best qualities.
I defy you to say that Super Mario Bros., being a pure platformer, sucks.

There are very few exceptions to my last statement, however they are also the most noteable. Mario doesn't suck, and that's why it's such a great game.

[Diddgery]

Anything where the screen suddenly flashes and you're forced to take turns "attacking" (i.e. standing five feet away and making hitting motions) each other instead of actually fighting.


WHOOSH! Random encounter!

By that definition a lot of games that are usually described as RPGs aren't RPGs.. which includes big-name MMORPGs like WoW.

[mangosta71]

Anything where the screen suddenly flashes and you're forced to take turns "attacking" (i.e. standing five feet away and making hitting motions) each other instead of actually fighting.


WHOOSH! Random encounter!

This is actually the part of all but the last couple FF games I disliked the most. What's the point of having a tank in the group if I can't use tactical placement to protect the weaker members? If you're limited to 3 people in your group, you either have to pray that the enemies never attack your healer or run with two, which gimps your ability to slaughter everything standing in your way.

[freerangetroll]

A true RPG is not just about leveling or turn based combat. Heck it isn't even about having a good story with lots of plot text to read. It is about being able to shape your characters actions, abilities, and reactions to the worlds around them. This sadly leaves games like the FF series out in the cold. No matter how you play you will always be Cloud or Titus, it always plays out the same. I view games termed as Jrpgs to be little more then interactive movies. It doesn't make them a bad game, it just doesn't make them a true rpg.

Now as to games that I think qualified under the true RPG title and some reasons behind them.

Fallout 1 and 2:

You could literally be whoever you wanted to be from the noble fighter to the devious slaver. You could go through the whole game without killing a single person or monster, your choices dictated who lived and who died and how the people reacted to you.

Planescape: Torment:

The ultimate in character choice and your characters actions forming the world around you. Shades of grey, mindscrewing your party members or being sympathetic to your plight. The ability to literally psychoanalyze the games final boss into nothing.

The elder scrolls series (with oblivion falling a little too close to the action side):

Be anyone, or anything. Complete the main quest or don't. Become champion of the fighters guild or the head thief. Choices are limitless especially once you get into community modded content.

Those are just a couple of examples of what true RPGs are to me. Once you get put on rails and your choices mean nothing you get FFesque games that just don't ring true in the RPG genre.

[Inhuman Bot]

What makes an RPG? Playing the role of someone. Every game is an RPG. I've never understood why RPG has been attached to this sort of game, as many have little actual roleplaying.

Secondly, FF is a JRPG, as Tengu has said. It's the definiton of a JRPG, I would say.

[Geno9999]

@^ thanks for pointing this out.
For me, RPG is a game where you fight in a turn based battle, and your character levels up to increase his/her stats to take down harder monsters.
However, It's not all battling, you follow a plot, talk to some NPCs, and explore. What I would like from an RPG, is multiple endings like in Shadow the Hedgehog. (This is from some one who's only RPGs are Paper Mario, Fire Emblem, and MegaMan Battle Network) Sure, Fire Emblem has endings for each character and whether or not they marry someone, but that's more of subplot than Main plot. I want to try out what happens if I chose to be Evil. I want to see what happens if I stay on the middle road.

[factotum]

What makes an RPG? Playing the role of someone. Every game is an RPG. I've never understood why RPG has been attached to this sort of game, as many have little actual roleplaying.


It comes from the pencil and paper days. Monopoly is not an RPG, Dungeons and Dragons clearly is, so the first computer games based on D&D were called RPGs in reference to that. Technically we ought to call them CRPGs (Computer based RPGs) to differentiate them from the pencil and paper version, but very few people do that.

[freerangetroll]

Another true CRPG, and probably the best I have played in a long while is The Witcher. Yes, you can only play as the main character but your actions influence completely the the outcome of the game. You let a certain band of freedom frighting non humans gain some supplies from a camp you are guarding and later on an npc that is pivotal to one of the quest lines is assassinated by them. You take them out and the npc is there to assist you majorly in the next act.

Thats just one of the examples of choosing your own path in that game. Witcher equals A++ CRPG.

[Spiryt]

Another true CRPG, and probably the best I have played in a long while is The Witcher. Yes, you can only play as the main character but your actions influence completely the the outcome of the game. You let a certain band of freedom frighting non humans gain some supplies from a camp you are guarding and later on an npc that is pivotal to one of the quest lines is assassinated by them. You take them out and the npc is there to assist you majorly in the next act.

Thats just one of the examples of choosing your own path in that game. Witcher equals A++ CRPG.

Damn, the original version lies in my house, but I haven't played... Got to find some facter PC :smallyuk:

Anyway, from what I've played and heard the plot looks indeed fine, but on the other hand, it's tries to be a bit too "full of everything" and "mature".

Don't liked mechanics too much too.

[freerangetroll]

It is very much so on the mature or GRIMDARK side of the spectrum, and yes the control scheme can be fairly clunky at times. However you can avoid the sexually mature elements completely without it having an effect on your game. The story, dialog, and effects you see from the choices you make really have this game in my top ten CRPGS of all time.

[Mx.Silver]

A true RPG is not just about leveling or turn based combat. Heck it isn't even about having a good story with lots of plot text to read. It is about being able to shape your characters actions, abilities, and reactions to the worlds around them.
Now as to games that I think qualified under the true RPG title and some reasons behind them.

Fallout 1 and 2:

You could literally be whoever you wanted to be from the noble fighter to the devious slaver. You could go through the whole game without killing a single person or monster, your choices dictated who lived and who died and how the people reacted to you.

Planescape: Torment:

The ultimate in character choice and your characters actions forming the world around you. Shades of grey, mindscrewing your party members or being sympathetic to your plight. The ability to literally psychoanalyze the games final boss into nothing.

The elder scrolls series (with oblivion falling a little too close to the action side):

Be anyone, or anything. Complete the main quest or don't. Become champion of the fighters guild or the head thief. Choices are limitless especially once you get into community modded content.

Those are just a couple of examples of what true RPGs are to me. Once you get put on rails and your choices mean nothing you get FFesque games that just don't ring true in the RPG genre.
They ring perfectly true to the RPG genre of video games. What they don't do is ring true to the tabletop RPGs. They're a completely different breed, and trying to apply the same definition to both is pointless. In fact if you do, then you kind of have to re-classify games like GTA as RPGs, since you seem convinced on defining them mainly in terms of how linear they are (even though this would probably rule out a fair number of real D&D sessions, particularly those with a hack and slash bent).

Tabletop RPGs do not translate well to computers. Neither do games like Pictionary or Articulate.

[DeathQuaker]

Broadly, most games calling themselves "RPGs" have some basis in the mechanics of a table top RPG; i.e., the characters' abilities and combat abilities are determined by a set of numeric stats and probability of combat outcomes by "die roll" (a random number generator).

This is different from, say, an FPS where the character's aim is equivalent to how accurately you aim and hit the "shoot" button, or a platformer which relies on your reflexes to make the characters perform the right moves, etc. In an RPG, the character's performance is based on in-game numbers; all you have to do is give him the best commands for the situation (cast a spell, start a conversation, etc.) And that's why, say, Fallout 3 is an RPG and not an FPS, because even though it looks a lot like an FPS, its mechanics function like an RPGs (you need to have a high Perception and put your skill points in Guns; player "shooting" ability has nothing to do with it).

Characters improve not when the player's skill increases but when the player has them complete certain goals.

Also, combat is usually (but not always) turn-based, again much reflecting how combat is resolved in tabletop RPG systems.

Both JRPGs and Western RPGs of both the free-roaming and story-based varieties use this basic, table-top RPG mechanic-based setup, hence why they are all called "RPGs" even though other features among them differ. Likewise, many hybrids such as "action-RPGs" like Diablo are more twitch-based but still have some RPG-inspired-mechanics in place for how character abilities develop.

I would say the "truest" RPGs are those that are closest to a table top RPG experience--the players usually create their own character and have their own choices, but the "DM" is still going to guide them down a particular plotline (of course, it's never going to be exactly like a tabletop game because the pre-programmed storyline is never going to ahve as much creativity as a human GM, of course). That said, I think the other RPG-mechanics using video games are also fun in their own right, and have no problem calling them RPGs since the source of their inspiration is still obvious.

In summary: do you press lots of buttons to make your characters do cool things, or do you say "hooray" when the numbers increase on their character sheet? If the latter, it's an RPG. Even if it's one you don't like.

[freerangetroll]

True, and I would actually put the GTA's on a more pure computer roleplaying level then any of the JRPGS. At least GTA allows you to play your character as you want to the majority of the time instead of putting you on rails and making you clear zone one, then this boss, then zone 2 so on and so forth. Granted GTA fails hard as a CRPG when you always receive the same outcome in the same manner from the ending, but its core gameplay of you controlling the characters actions gives it higher marks then most JRPGs in my book.

[Spiryt]

It is very much so on the mature or GRIMDARK side of the spectrum, and yes the control scheme can be fairly clunky at times. However you can avoid the sexually mature elements completely without it having an effect on your game. The story, dialog, and effects you see from the choices you make really have this game in my top ten CRPGS of all time.

By "mature" I didn't mean "sex" just it tried to be... I'm not sure. I love more "dark" stuff, but it just don't do job of being so too well.

And by mechanic I meant rules. Skill tree, fight algoritms and such things.

[DemonicAngel]

A good CRPG... Dues Ex, boys and girls. and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.

[Cespenar]

I sort out RPGs by looking at their dialogue systems. If the dialogues are not railroading and you may get different, distinctive and game-changing results by saying different things, then clearly the game allows you to role-play, which makes the game a RPG. According to this, I call games such as Baldur's Gate (but not Icewind Dale), Fallout, KotOR, etc. as RPGs.

JRPGs, now, not so much. The dialogues in them don't allow you to "role-play", (they're more like watching a movie), hence they are not (IMHO) roleplaying games. I'm not saying that they are not fun to play, but simply, you can't roleplay in them.

[freerangetroll]

I sort out RPGs by looking at their dialogue systems. If the dialogues are not railroading and you may get different, distinctive and game-changing results by saying different things, then clearly the game allows you to role-play, which makes the game a RPG. According to this, I call games such as Baldur's Gate (but not Icewind Dale), Fallout, KotOR, etc. as RPGs.

JRPGs, now, not so much. The dialogues in them don't allow you to "role-play", (they're more like watching a movie), hence they are not (IMHO) roleplaying games. I'm not saying that they are not fun to play, but simply, you can't roleplay in them.

I like this explanation. A lot. Kudos to you.

[TheEmerged]

My Litmus Test for computer RPG's.

1> Can I can put dialog into the mouth of the character, and does that dialog have an affect on the game? Choosing off a menu is enough, as long as there's more than one choice.

2> Do my actions affect the gameworld in some way other than the mere success/failure of my mission, or the stock in the vendor's store? If there is only one real ending to the game, you only get half credit regardless of any side effects your actions have. Fallout 1 & 2, and a steampunk RPG named Arcanum, are the standards by which I judge this.

3> Is there more than one solution to at least half the "problems" in the game? For the purpose of this question, "problems" count major. pre-set combat encounters but not "speedbump" (defined as pre-set but easily defeated) or random combat encounters.

4> Can I choose a path in the game OTHER than the meta-plot? It's okay if the metaplot is on a timer (see: Fallout 1).

If a computer game can't say "yes" to at least two of those, it's not an RPG. Yes, I realize that by this litmus test a high percentage of computer games considered RPG's don't qualify.