Incline Okay let's be real here... Which games can never be RPGs?

[DJOGamer PT]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

 

[adegron]

I think that cRPGs need to part ways with tabletop RPGs. The experience is just too different. I'm glad there are new systems like Pillars of Eternity, Fallout and Divinity Original Sin.

About what is a ARPG and what is the difference between a stealth game and a RPG, I guess you could put into account the skills and the interaction of the character with its surrounding world.

For example, Divine Divinity is much more of a RPG than Diablo, because you can interact with the world in different ways, as Deus Ex is more of a RPG than Thief. Even though in Thief you read letters and other things that make some worldbuilding, which would be a RPG characteristic.

 

[Machocruz]

I think that cRPGs need to part ways with tabletop RPGs. The experience is just too different. I'm glad there are new systems like Pillars of Eternity, Fallout and Divinity Original Sin.

Those games are still patterned after general tabletop design, structure, and rules, so I think they qualify as "reasonable digital analog". It's easy to see the foundational format at work in them, not so much in Borderlands.

 

[Conan]

Okay. Here's my actual answer.

A game is an RPG if the controllable statistics of the character determines the ability of the character to respond to the world. Everything else is a fluff. What do I mean by that? Imagine playing a game of DnD. In this special campaign you and you party go through a dungeon. You choose the stats of the characters, allot points yourself, choose your class and feats. And forth you go...

1. However in this case there is no combat at all. Only environmental encounters + social interactions with the world. Success in all of these conflicts are of course determined by how your stats are allotted. Is this campaign experience still an RPG?

2. Same example as above. You start at level 5 with all the appropriately self chosen feats / skills / spells etc. However, during the campaign you do not earn enough XP to advance any levels on any char. Is this experience still an RPG?

3. Finally, consider the case where the dungeon romp is a pure combat encounter with NO other non combat skill use (such as dialogue rolls, trap disarms etc). You still gain no levels because you didnt earn enough XP at the end of the campaign. Is this experience still an RPG?

You will find that the answer is a resounding YES in all these cases.

What about the game where you do the same exact things, but you can not choose the char's stats at all. They are fixed. The DM does not even give you a character sheet. He simply asks you to make rolls and then tells you the outcome and you have no other input to the game.

Is this last experience still an RPG?

I am inclined to say no.

 

[luj1]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

Go on

 

[luj1]

Okay. Here's my actual answer.

A game is an RPG if the controllable statistics of the character determines the ability of the character to respond to the world. Everything else is a fluff.

Well, I can get better suspension in NFS Underground, which leads to better steering and control of the vehicle. That doesn't make it a CRPG.

 

[just]

games i like = rpg
games i dont like = not rpg
it's that simple

 

[Machocruz]

Okay. Here's my actual answer.

A game is an RPG if the controllable statistics of the character determines the ability of the character to respond to the world. Everything else is a fluff.

Well, I can get better suspension in NFS Underground, which leads to better steering and control of the vehicle. That doesn't make it a CRPG.

That falls under equipment, not stats

 

[cvv]

Okay. Here's my actual answer.

A game is an RPG if the controllable statistics of the character determines the ability of the character to respond to the world.

This is a p. anal definition but yes. Without character development there is no RPG.

To be clear that technically allows for an RPG without any combat because you can gain XP (or an equivalent currency used for the chardev) through questing or other activities. Though I for one still struggle to label something like Disco an RPG, i.e. a game without combat, i.e. a system that involves enemies and dedicated mechanics to overcome them. This fucking game sure threw a wrench into a time-honored understanding of what an RPG is.

I guess for now it remains an adventure game with RPG elements in my head lore.

 

[Machocruz]

What about the game where you do the same exact things, but you can not choose the char's stats at all. They are fixed. The DM does not even give you a character sheet. He simply asks you to make rolls and then tells you the outcome and you have no other input to the game.

Is this last experience still an RPG?

I am inclined to say no.

Oh it gets even worse than that for a lot of video games, where there are no rolls and it's just a matter of your hand-eye-coordination. So no roll-playing. And no role-playing. "B-b-but you play the role of Bubsy the Bobcat!" No, you control a digital game piece named Bubsy, you do not act out his personality, mannerisms, voice, etc. And you also don't play his role in the hierarchical sense because the game offers no other roles to perform or a hierarchy to perform a role in.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

So in a RPG shooter, it should never be enough for the player just to aim well with his mouse, he must also increase his character skill stats, like "accuracy" or "damage"? The latter sounds as if enemies would be bullet sponges. Nothing wrong with that where it makes sense - like when trying to destroy an armored vehicle with a pistol - but if you can't even kill an unprotected NPC point blank with a powerful gun just because your "damage" skill is too low, I think the RPG mechanic is taken too far.

Do these stats always have to be associated with the character's personal abilities (unlocked in an abstract skill tree menu, where the player assigns skill points), or can they also manifest themselves as better equipment (bought by an in-game trader, where the player pays with earned credits)? Getting better guns or armor should be regarded as stat upgrades. I'm asking because I recall reading complaints about Stalker Clear Sky, that you can't hit anything with the early non-upgraded guns, which seems like a typical RPG mechanic to me.

Like Alpha Protocol or Mass Effect, you can still hit with low stats (and enemies are not bullet sponges) but accuracy and how well you can wield the weapon are directly related to character build and that's mandatory.

Upgrading equipment is just Upgrading equipment, I don't see how that's related to the above because you'll still be shit at using the weapon itself. It needs to be combined with character stats.

If I can run around and blast people in the head as if I'm playing counterstrike, without caring about character building, it's not an RPG.

I'm still failing to see the point you're trying to make.

 

[Beans00]

Those are Action RPGs buddy.

Dark Souls is (relatively) good. And falls under Action RPG which is often not a "true" RPG, no. But sometimes I would say they are, such as Arx Fatalis or Morrowind.

My definition would be to have at least maybe 70% of well-established RPG game design to qualify as a "true" RPG. 40-69% then your game is RPG-lite. Any less than that, not an RPG.

RPG progression systems, preferably intersecting and numerous.
Puzzle and adventure game elements
The ability to roleplay to some extent
Sense of adventure - a variably non-linear world, including navigation challenge and exploration gameplay. Dungeons, towns, overworld.
NPC interactions. People to talk to at bare minimum, the majority optional, and not just a couple dudes, but enough people that creates sense of an actual living world.
Dialogue choices and NPC reactivity for bonus points.
Side quests and optional content in general (secrets)
Die rolls to apply at least some aspects of core gameplay
Inventory, economy, shopping.
Perhaps most importantly, combat to tie much of this together.

Gameplay design should ALWAYS be the determining factor for genre qualification. e.g RTS - the basis is the gameplay. Stealth - the basis is the gameplay. Platformer - the basis is the gameplay.

 

[Raghar]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

Why?

BG I was an attempt to recreate tabletop session.

 

[Beans00]

I have never played pen and paper or any tabletop game.

When I played magic the gathering as a kid(I quit when I was like 12 or 13) all the people who played dungeons and dragons were weird looking or fat.

Also I saw a fat guy playing warhammer tabletop(no idea if it was 40k or fantasy) literally pick his nose and eat it. Then they started sperging out about lore and I realized I couldn't be around these types of people anymore.

Going into a hobby shop in the early 00's was more traumatizing for me then when I drowned as a kid. RPG's are best enjoyed at a computer screen in the comfort of your own home without bad odors.

 

[Lord_Potato]

Okay, so this is the thread in which we finally try to define what RPG is. Okay, I'll throw my hat in the ring.

RPG is a game in which you begin with amnesia and have to interact with your skills so much they actually start talking to you. Then they help you solve a criminal mystery and find redemption for mistakes of the past.

Few devs manage to nail it down to the last detail, but when they succeed, it just works.

 

[Inhabitants of Khorinis]

I have never played pen and paper or any tabletop game.

When I played magic the gathering as a kid(I quit when I was like 12 or 13) all the people who played dungeons and dragons were weird looking or fat.

Also I saw a fat guy playing warhammer tabletop(no idea if it was 40k or fantasy) literally pick his nose and eat it. Then they started sperging out about lore and I realized I couldn't be around these types of people anymore.

Going into a hobby shop in the early 00's was more traumatizing for me then when I drowned as a kid. RPG's are best enjoyed at a computer screen in the comfort of your own home without bad odors.

Conclusion: If a fat fuck plays it, it's an RPG.

 

[Butter]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

Why?

BG I was an attempt to recreate tabletop session.

I feel really sorry for the people in that tabletop campaign who didn't get to be the Bhaalspawn.

 

[Raghar]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

Why?

BG I was an attempt to recreate tabletop session.

I feel really sorry for the people in that tabletop campaign who didn't get to be the Bhaalspawn.

What? I was talking about BG I.

 

[Iucounu]

So in a RPG shooter, it should never be enough for the player just to aim well with his mouse, he must also increase his character skill stats, like "accuracy" or "damage"? The latter sounds as if enemies would be bullet sponges. Nothing wrong with that where it makes sense - like when trying to destroy an armored vehicle with a pistol - but if you can't even kill an unprotected NPC point blank with a powerful gun just because your "damage" skill is too low, I think the RPG mechanic is taken too far.

Do these stats always have to be associated with the character's personal abilities (unlocked in an abstract skill tree menu, where the player assigns skill points), or can they also manifest themselves as better equipment (bought by an in-game trader, where the player pays with earned credits)? Getting better guns or armor should be regarded as stat upgrades. I'm asking because I recall reading complaints about Stalker Clear Sky, that you can't hit anything with the early non-upgraded guns, which seems like a typical RPG mechanic to me.

Like Alpha Protocol or Mass Effect, you can still hit with low stats (and enemies are not bullet sponges)

I recall Mass Effect enemies are very much bullet sponges, regardless of your character stats.

Upgrading equipment is just Upgrading equipment, I don't see how that's related to the above because you'll still be shit at using the weapon itself. It needs to be combined with character stats.

In an Action RPG, the character's skill could be that of the player's own, and the RPG stats could instead be applied to the character's equipment; like weapon accuracy, ammo types (armor piercing, incendiary), etc. That way the game doesn't have to put artificial limitations on the character's own abilities, which always feels like wearing a straitjacket to me when playing an action game. For example, if the character's own accuracy is low stat, an RPG may represent that as an annoying swaying reticule. If an Action RPG instead only limits weapon accuracy, the character can aim just as good as the player, but a low stat weapon's bullets will not hit quite where its reticule shows, and the player must use extra skill to compensate for the weapon's shortcomings.

When you control a party, those semi-autonomous characters can obviously rely on character stats since they're not under first-person control by the player.

 

[SixDead]

I think action games, FPS, adventures, strategies, tactics, racings, simulators, platformers, visual novels, puzzles, sport games, fightings - can't be called RPG

 

[Geckabor]

After observing so many of these threads over the years, the best conclusion I could come up with (and I know some will hate this) is: If it feels like an RPG, it's an RPG.
Call it unsupervised clustering, if you will.

 

[Ash]

My definition would be to have at least maybe 70% of well-established RPG game design to qualify as a "true" RPG

Gregz suggested this, but it doesn't work imo. Because it's not a qualitative approach, but merely a quantitative one. Ergo, you can put stats, quests, inventory in a racing game, but that still won't make it an RPG.

It is both qualitative and quantitive - it needs to have a certain quantity of those specified qualities to be an RPG. You can even throw additional base qualifiers in such as "needs to have a sense of adventure and potential to roleplay to be a true RPG" before you move on to the second data set if desired.

Not sure what isn't making sense to you people. You haven't been able to sensibly define RPGs for decades even though there is plenty source material and established rules. Kind of embarrassing!

 

[luj1]

I think action games, FPS, adventures, strategies, tactics, racings, simulators, platformers, visual novels, puzzles, sport games, fightings - can't be called RPG

That's exactly what people don't understand - grafting stats onto other genres does not necessarily create an RPG.

 

[luj1]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

Go on

Well? Do you have anything or you're just full of shit?

 

[destinae vomitus]

The further a game leans away from the grassroots tabletop elements that started it and still define it, the less an RPG it is, it's not more complicated than that. Action RPGs and such are literal hybrids, like the term implies, while all the perfunctory leveling/progression systems that get slapped onto all sorts of games these days are so shallow and not to mention ubiquitous now that I don't think they can really even be called "RPG elements" anymore. But what do I know, certain professionals clearly disagree.