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

[Dorateen]

Combat, Exploration, NPC Interaction: the three pillars of a role-playing game.

With character interaction not defined by developer companions who join the party, but rather everyone else encountered on an adventure, from merchants to the local quest giver, damsels in distress, and the monsters you kill in a dungeon.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I would just make the following amendments:

Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)

IMO this is an incorrect view as it takes away too much control away from the player and it's logical conclusion would be to make most, if not all, actions dependant on mathematical abstractions
"So, you're about to land the finishing blow on this gruelling final boss? Oh, you want to move to that spot to get a better tactical positioning? Ups sorry, your PC got the 1% critical failure and slipped on a banana peel and broke his spine. Fuck you, try again eheheheheheheheh."
At that point what we have is more a game of roulette than one about decision making

No, what character properties such as Stats, Skills and the like should primarly do is limit and expand the character's capabilities
It's what properties the player chooses to invest and more importantly how he chooses to use them that should be what most determine the scope of his success/failure
A pure warrior shouldn't be able to tackle stealth challenges, not because the gods of RNG don't favor his sneaking endeavours, but for the simple fact he isn't trained in stealth
You can have actions whose success are dependant on odds influenced by mathmetical properties, but those should be the minority not the majority

This also means, that yes ARPGs are RPGs

in real-time games at least a pause function

No
I agree with your point on Deliberation, but not this segment
This fundamentally goes against the point of real-time, to pressure the player to make a decision in a limited amount of time

Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)

This is entirely optional
It can enchance the experience, but shouldn't be a mandatory element

Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)

I would replace this with "Quests"
Quests being a series of gameplay challenges linked by a narrative or thematic thread

Dungeons is too restrictive to be such a defining element of an RPG, while Quests include both Dungeons and a variety of other Activities



That's all
I would say if a videogame is an RPG if it contains those elements or almost all of them
In fact, I think the reason this as always been such a contentious topic is because "RPGness" in videogames is basically a spectrum of qualities - that's why some games are more evident as RPGs than others

Also I feel I should point that I am talking about Role Playing Videogames and not Tabletop, so don't @ me if you don't think these fit into the definition of the latter - as I've already said they're divergent at their core, despite their similarities and historical ties

 

[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

Why?

BG I was an attempt to recreate tabletop session.

Because they are fundamentally distinct mediums and game experiences

No shit they're different. Playing Magic The Gathering with your friends is a different experience from playing a digital TCG. And it is a different medium, because you are using a computer. So what?

As such trying to transform one into the other is a misguided pursuit and ultimately gimps the former

According to this, porting TTRPGs to CRPGs was misguided and gimped tabletop. While the latter may be true, we got some fine CRPGs over the decades. So are you saying CRPGs were a mistake? I thought you had a point, but it seems you got nothing.

 

[luj1]

RPGs are defined by their character-related aspects, combat-related aspects, and exploration-related aspects, which can be summarized as:

1. Character Progression (leveling up to become more powerful)
2. Character Customization (at least classes and attributes, though classes can be replaced by a skill-based system; party customization can substitute)
3. Equipment (weapon, armor, other things that give active or passive benefits; better equipment makes a character more powerful)
4. Inventory (items on hand that can be switched with equipment or consumed)
5. Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)
6. Deliberation (player has opportunity to consider character’s actions before choosing what to do; in real-time games at least a pause function)
7. Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)
8. Statistics (game system is coherent and transparent enough that player can weigh the numbers to gauge the chance of success in an action)
9. Exploration (player has control over character’s movement through gamespace and can make meaningful exploration decisions rather than follow linear path)
10. Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)
11. Openness (players have control over their characters’ movements and objectives in the world rather than being forced into particular quests; difficult in CRPGs and fairly rare)
12. Logistics (players must manage their characters’ resources, due to inventory limitations, encumbrance, stamina/fatigue, need for food, need for water, need for sleep, realistic lighting and a day/night cycle, Vancian magic memorization, weapon/armor deterioration and repair, etc.)

Can you do it in one sentence though?

 

[luj1]

Half of those (or more) were inherited from fantasy wargaming btw

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

COD4 is an rpg because it has stats, it has tactical combat, it has XP and lvls, you can roleplay(voicechat) it even has perks and classes!

Okay, yeah, but I think the problem with this thread is that it's very black and white. Can it be an RPG? Maybe? Is it a good RPG? Probably not at all, no matter how much you try. But hey, if that's how some people want to play it, more power to them.

1. Character skill is number one. Character skill > Player skill. This is non negotiable. The success or failure or character actions need to depend exclusively on the level of skill of the character.

I agree with this for the most part. I actually prefer things that are more focused on the simulation aspect, but here's the counter argument. Your character has a low intelligence attribute, how often do you do stupid shit in the game? Your character has zero lore skill, and you see a monster you've read about in the game manual but you character is meeting it for the first time. How much ignorance do you use to deal with the situation?

 

[Sigourn]

Filmed theatre is not the only way to make films.
Faithful adaption from tabletop to PC is not the only way to make RPGs.

This is my opinion.

Any definition that excludes Deus Ex as an RPG is not one I'm interested in. I can understand Dark Souls being left out from an RPG definition: after all, it feels more like an action game where RPG elements (stats) were, much like Symphony of the Night's, tacked on as a crutch for less skilled players.

But Deus Ex isn't like that. Deus Ex is designed around the player building a character that tackles on the world's obstacles in the way best suited to the character you've built.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

IMO this is an incorrect view as it takes away too much control away from the player and it's logical conclusion would be to make most, if not all, actions dependant on mathematical abstractions
"So, you're about to land the finishing blow on this gruelling final boss? Oh, you want to move to that spot to get a better tactical positioning? Ups sorry, your PC got the 1% critical failure and slipped on a banana peel and broke his spine. Fuck you, try again eheheheheheheheh."

This is a very exaggerated point to go along with your very retarded take.

Critical failure: try again

 

[roguefrog]

I'll always opt for a very simple definition to fully encompass the history of CRPGs and it's many subgenres. Early days with more primitive features to modern day. The systems used, features, perspective, the milieu, etc, don't matter. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner like with roguelikes and the Berlin Interpretation. You also want to include games that defy easy classification or exist on the fringes.

"Player character thrives using his own abilities"

Keywords:

• Thrives: levels up, improves, gets better, progression.
• Own abilities: not the player's skill.
• Player character(AKA PC): can be a pre-defined character, or a whole party, or even a potato.

I agree that Action RPG is a true hybrid, because it incorporates the player's skill in some way, but I'd still put them under the banner of CRPG. (e.g. Fallout New Vegas, or The Witcher, or even something like Kingdom Come: Deliverance) They are sort of like what the RTS is to "Strategy Games." And they are just as varied.

What's retarded now is there's droves of people who think only a narrow slice of relatively recent RPGs are actually CRPGs, and they are switching to calling them Classic RPGs, which is stupid but also pretty fucking ironic because they would at the same time discount something like Wizardry as a CRPG, and call it a dungeon crawler. (Well, it's both, and can be also called a Blobber)

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Half of those (or more) were inherited from fantasy wargaming btw

Yes, the combat-related aspects were inherited from miniatures wargaming, and the equipment/inventory character-related aspects were inherited more specifically from smaller-scale wargaming at the squad- or individual-level. However, the character progression and customization aspects were new, as were all of the exploration-related aspects.

Can you do it in one sentence though?

RPGs are defined by polearms:

 

[Ash]

RPGs are defined by their character-related aspects, combat-related aspects, and exploration-related aspects, which can be summarized as:

1. Character Progression (leveling up to become more powerful)
2. Character Customization (at least classes and attributes, though classes can be replaced by a skill-based system; party customization can substitute)
3. Equipment (weapon, armor, other things that give active or passive benefits; better equipment makes a character more powerful)
4. Inventory (items on hand that can be switched with equipment or consumed)
5. Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)
6. Deliberation (player has opportunity to consider character’s actions before choosing what to do; in real-time games at least a pause function)
7. Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)
8. Statistics (game system is coherent and transparent enough that player can weigh the numbers to gauge the chance of success in an action)
9. Exploration (player has control over character’s movement through gamespace and can make meaningful exploration decisions rather than follow linear path)
10. Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)
11. Openness (players have control over their characters’ movements and objectives in the world rather than being forced into particular quests; difficult in CRPGs and fairly rare)
12. Logistics (players must manage their characters’ resources, due to inventory limitations, encumbrance, stamina/fatigue, need for food, need for water, need for sleep, realistic lighting and a day/night cycle, Vancian magic memorization, weapon/armor deterioration and repair, etc.)

There you go. Even though you love a slop worthless fake storyfaggot RPG elsewhere (you know what I am talking about), this...this makes you worthy of that subtitle of "Dungeon Master" (which is a form of game designer).

 

[Child of Malkav]

Your character has a low intelligence attribute, how often do you do stupid shit in the game? Your character has zero lore skill, and you see a monster you've read about in the game manual but you character is meeting it for the first time. How much ignorance do you use to deal with the situation?

I work with what the character has at that point: inventory, equipment, spells, consumables anything. Maybe brute force is enough. Maybe sneaking would be wiser. Maybe my character can talk with the thing. IDK, it depends. Character will never equal player meta knowledge so meh.
About the simulation aspect, yeah I agree but I thought all RPGs worked with stats and numerical representation of in-game reality.
In Bleak Faith you have to find armors with slots and slot in gems like 1, 2, +3 to whatever main stat your character has and it was very cool how the whole thing worked. But at that point the character is only growing stronger due to the gear he finds and not by learning, or gaining experience or stuff like that. They both have their place.

 

[luj1]

I am slowly going to take this to a close, but I understood a lot, thanks all. Some finishing thoughts,

- CRPGs are in fact a distinct genre like FPS, TPS, RTS, TBS, etc., and not some esoteric bullshit
- CRPGs are meant to resemble a tabletop campaign in digital format
- In CRPGs character skill replaces somatic player skill (like KörangarTheMighty said, there has to be some to-hit calculation)
- "Action" RPG is an oxymoron (excellent point BlackAdderBG)

This is similar to the difference between an RTS (e.g. Starcraft) and TBS (e.g. HoMM). Do you use reflexes and twitch to play Heroes? Is there an "Action" TBS?

Grafting RPG elements onto other genres is no different than adding resource gathering (from strategy games) to Need for Speed. Does that magically transform Need for Speed into an RTS? Cheers homies

 

[Ash]

Grafting RPG elements onto other genres is no different than adding resource gathering (from strategy games) to Need for Speed. Does that magically transform Need for Speed into an RTS? Cheers homies

No. Need for speed can easily be made an RTS if you graft yet more RTS elements though, particularly core ones like commanding multiple units in a strategic manner with point & click gestures and shortcuts. It wouldn't exactly be Need for Speed anymore, rather Need for Speed RTS edition, but hey, it is possible.
This is why Action RPG is also in fact not an oxymoron. Some, such as Arx Fatalis or Morrowind, feature nearly all qualifiers if not all. You think TTRPG designers wouldn't have made anything skill or action based if that were actually possible/sensible instead of purely die rolls for simple abstraction in a board gaming context? Excluding them makes zero sense, people just get uptight about it because the overwhelming majority of action RPGs abandon a lot of the core tenets...but there are exceptions. Morrowind even has hit% for its combat.

 

[luj1]

Need for speed can easily be made an RTS if you graft yet more RTS elements

Once you add more "male" elements to a female, a dick, balls and a moustache, it will easily become a man!

 

[Ash]

Lol I hope you're joking. You could easily have a Need for Speed RTS. It likely wouldn't be about actual racing, but crashing different types of cars into each other based on car stats and advantages/weaknesses since combat is a pretty core tenet of RTS, but it is very much possible. And hell RTS often have vehicle units already.

Biology is a whole lot more complicated than game design dude That will become Frankenstien's monster, not a man indeed. You need to transplant more to become a male...like male psychology. Bone structure. Nervous system. Muscle mass. Bone density and structure. Get most of the components transplanted, then yeah it will largely be a man, but this is not possible.

We finally got this shit wrapped up and actually know what an RPG is now? It's not MAGIC You breakdown the gameplay components in a sensible manner and there you go. If a game doesn't meet at least a reasonable amount of this criteria (or all if you really must be strict, but that doesn't really make sense as not even every one TTRPG is exactly the same and there has to be room for branching), then it's not an RPG.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Character building, choice and consequences and the game actually acknowledging either through stats and mechanics.

Best i can do in terms of definitions.

And the above needs to be the PRIMARY focus of the game. Hexen having some leveling and stats doesn't qualify. Weapon upgrades in nu-Doom qualifies even less.

 

[Aarwolf]

I agree with this for the most part. I actually prefer things that are more focused on the simulation aspect, but here's the counter argument. Your character has a low intelligence attribute, how often do you do stupid shit in the game? Your character has zero lore skill, and you see a monster you've read about in the game manual but you character is meeting it for the first time. How much ignorance do you use to deal with the situation?

I would think of limiting actions you can do to said monster if your character doesn't have the lore skill. Of course, you can still try to brute force the encounter, but if there is a gimmick, you don't have the means to succed. The downside is that would make most fights gimmicky, not challenging, a that's tedious trait.

 

[Iucounu]

RPGs are defined by their character-related aspects, combat-related aspects, and exploration-related aspects, which can be summarized as:

1. Character Progression (leveling up to become more powerful)
2. Character Customization (at least classes and attributes, though classes can be replaced by a skill-based system; party customization can substitute)
3. Equipment (weapon, armor, other things that give active or passive benefits; better equipment makes a character more powerful)
4. Inventory (items on hand that can be switched with equipment or consumed)
5. Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)
6. Deliberation (player has opportunity to consider character’s actions before choosing what to do; in real-time games at least a pause function)
7. Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)
8. Statistics (game system is coherent and transparent enough that player can weigh the numbers to gauge the chance of success in an action)
9. Exploration (player has control over character’s movement through gamespace and can make meaningful exploration decisions rather than follow linear path)
10. Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)
11. Openness (players have control over their characters’ movements and objectives in the world rather than being forced into particular quests; difficult in CRPGs and fairly rare)
12. Logistics (players must manage their characters’ resources, due to inventory limitations, encumbrance, stamina/fatigue, need for food, need for water, need for sleep, realistic lighting and a day/night cycle, Vancian magic memorization, weapon/armor deterioration and repair, etc.)

Reading this I believe ARK Survival Evolved is more CRPG than the Mass Effect games? ARK ticks almost all the boxes above.

Unlike ARK, Mass Effect has no Inventory, no Exploration, no Logistics, minimal Randomness and Openness (the latter mostly through dialog choices).

Not sure what Dungeons mean in Sci-Fi though.

Combat, Exploration, NPC Interaction: the three pillars of a role-playing game.

With character interaction not defined by developer companions who join the party, but rather everyone else encountered on an adventure, from merchants to the local quest giver, damsels in distress, and the monsters you kill in a dungeon.

There are no other humans in ARK, but you can interact with the dinosaurs (stealth, fighting, or taming).

 

[Ash]

RPGs are defined by their character-related aspects, combat-related aspects, and exploration-related aspects, which can be summarized as:

1. Character Progression (leveling up to become more powerful)
2. Character Customization (at least classes and attributes, though classes can be replaced by a skill-based system; party customization can substitute)
3. Equipment (weapon, armor, other things that give active or passive benefits; better equipment makes a character more powerful)
4. Inventory (items on hand that can be switched with equipment or consumed)
5. Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)
6. Deliberation (player has opportunity to consider character’s actions before choosing what to do; in real-time games at least a pause function)
7. Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)
8. Statistics (game system is coherent and transparent enough that player can weigh the numbers to gauge the chance of success in an action)
9. Exploration (player has control over character’s movement through gamespace and can make meaningful exploration decisions rather than follow linear path)
10. Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)
11. Openness (players have control over their characters’ movements and objectives in the world rather than being forced into particular quests; difficult in CRPGs and fairly rare)
12. Logistics (players must manage their characters’ resources, due to inventory limitations, encumbrance, stamina/fatigue, need for food, need for water, need for sleep, realistic lighting and a day/night cycle, Vancian magic memorization, weapon/armor deterioration and repair, etc.)

Reading this I believe ARK Survival Evolved is more CRPG than the Mass Effect games? ARK ticks almost all the boxes above.

Not played Ark, but probably. Mass Effect is a sorry excuse of an RPG, and video game, period. Pseudo-intellectual storyfag dweeb virtual girlfriend substitution shit at its finest. What does it have of note? Not much. It has lots of dialogue choices...that doesn't make it an RPG. That makes it an interactive story. Big difference. There are no TTRPG nor classic cRPG that is majority dialogue choices mixed with shit-tier whack-a-mole combat, a few shitty mini-games, romance options and not much else of note. Hell the game doesn't even have attributes that I recall, just a crappy boring skill tree. Utter garbage on par with late 2000s Oblivion/Final Fantasy 13/Bioshock/Fable/Gothic 3 levels of decline, hell maybe even worse, and yet many RPG Codex denizens love it. This is because RPG Codex is full of people that love storyfaggotry (and virtual girlfriends) more than they love actual RPG game design concepts. Terrible shame. The truly sad part is the game's story is utterly unremarkable, so even in these people's specific interest and specialization they don't know bad from good. Just tragic.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

- CRPGs are in fact a distinct genre like FPS, TPS, RTS, TBS, etc., and not some esoteric bullshit
- CRPGs are meant to resemble a tabletop campaign in digital format

What about games like Kenshi? It's probably one of the better CRPGs released within the last half decade, and it's combat is RTS combat. There also isn't too much in it that resembles a tabletop campaign, since there's so many things you can do in the game. Depending on where you decide to do it, how big you grow, and who you interact with, you can almost play a fairly full game as just a business owner.

On the other hand, the combat is entirely based on the skills/attributes of your character and the opponent you're fighting with a liberal dose of RNG. It's not turn based, but at the same time, you can have battles with fairly decently sized armies.

Reading this I believe ARK Survival Evolved is more CRPG than the Mass Effect games? ARK ticks almost all the boxes above.

A huge chunk of the "survival" genre games lean heavily into the CRPG turf. Attributes and skills determine what you can do in the game with both combat and noncombat skills. You gain experience for what you accomplish both in and out of combat. You earn levels with enough experience which allows you to raise your ability to do things.

There are no other humans in ARK, but you can interact with the dinosaurs (stealth, fighting, or taming).

There's no other people in Unreal World, if I remember right. It was considered a pretty hardcore CRPG back in the day, but it's also the granddaddy of the survival genre.

Edit: Well, shit! Apparently the developer DID add towns with other people in it. I haven't played this game in probably close to 20 years.

 

[HappyDaddyWow!]

If your definition of RPG is purely a gameplay one (I.e. experience points, level ups and skill progression) then technically Call of Duty and The Sims are by definition RPGs. So I think the actual differentiating quality is player-driven roleplaying that allows you to have a sense of agency in who your character is and how they deal with situations.

inb4 people call me a storyfag - there's plenty of RPGs that allow for deep character roleplaying, while having almost no dialogue or story to speak of. Kenshi, Shin Megami Tensei, and the early Ultima games come to mind.

The only problem with this definition, is it arguably excludes linear games with a predetermined main character from the RPG genre (think Final Fantasy).

 

[Ash]

If your definition of RPG is purely a gameplay one (I.e. experience points, level ups and skill progression) then technically Call of Duty and The Sims are by definition RPGs. So I think the actual differentiating quality is player-driven ROLEPLAYING that allows you to have a sense of AGENCY in who your character is and how they deal with situations.

Bro...that's gameplay.

then technically Call of Duty and The Sims are by definition RPGs.

It was explained that a certain quantity of matching gameplay qualities must be met to be an RPG. The only debate that should be had, assuming you understand what components make up an RPG (...), is where that line should be drawn, but it rationally only can be in a range of 70-95%. Any less than 70% you've strayed too far and are less than RPG. You're RPG-lite or not an RPG at all. Any more than 95% you're far too rigid, RPGs would have never made the transition from tabletop to video game format and it leaves no room for evolution or branching.

 

[HappyDaddyWow!]

If your definition of RPG is purely a gameplay one (I.e. experience points, level ups and skill progression) then technically Call of Duty and The Sims are by definition RPGs. So I think the actual differentiating quality is player-driven ROLEPLAYING that allows you to have a sense of AGENCY in who your character is and how they deal with situations.

Bro...that's gameplay. The rules/design of the game allow for those things in the gameplay.

But again, here's the problem with that.

Call of Duty is a game with experience points, level ups, and stat-based progression. There's a wide range of different weapon types that allow you to fulfill whatever role you'd want on the battlefield. By your own definition, if gameplay is all that defines an RPG, Call of Duty is an RPG.

So clearly we can't define RPG purely on RPG-esque gameplay and build options, there has to be other qualities that make a game an RPG. It only makes sense that the missing quality here is giving the player a setting/environment to actually play a role in an established world. This is usually done with main stories and side questlines, but there are also plenty of games that achieve this purely with excellent world building and art direction - I.e. Kenshi.

 

[Lyric Suite]

If you remove all those RPG elements, nothing much would change in Call of Duty. I think that's not an irrelevant factor.