1eyedking One cRPG Definition to Rule Them All

[1eyedking]

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

So, that basically means that if a game fulfills the following criteria, it's an RPG:

• Players assume the role of fictional characters
• Players create or follow stories
• Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization
• A formal system of rules and guidelines determine the outcome of those actions
• Players can improvise freely within the rules
• Player choices shape the direction and outcome of the games

Now, that doesn't sound so far out to be a definition for cRPGs as well (save for the improvise freely part, perhaps). Fallout would fit the definition perfectly, and so would Planescape: Torment. Baldur's Gate is in as well. Oblivion dies an ugly death (no choices, no chance to base actions on characterization), and so does any Final Fantasy game (players can't determine the action and/or dialogue of their character, no choices), or jRPG game for that matter.

What does the Codex think? I personally think it could be polished some more (particularly player skill vs. character skill, improvisation, etc.), but it's a good start nonetheless.

 

[Fat Dragon]

What does the Codex think? I personally think it could be polished some more (particularly player skill vs. character skill, improvisation, etc.), but it's a good start nonetheless.

It says it's from Wikipedia. Just edit it to your liking. Anyway, seems like a good definition.

 

[made]

Hey, we didn't have a thread about the definition of RPGs yet this week. This will be new and exciting.

 

[Gnidrologist]

What does the Codex think?

Codex'es flow of thought is severely disrupted by stench of dead horses near by, so it can't respond coherently.

 

[Thydron]

why does someone's opinion of what an RPG is matter so much just cus they managed to get it onto wikipedia?

 

[aweigh]

 

[Xi]

What genre doesn't fit that definition? It seems weak through my eyes. Too much focus on the elements that are found generally in all games.

* Players assume the role of fictional characters

You do this in Super Mario.

* Players create or follow stories

You can both create and follow stories in other genres. You follow a story in Mario and you also create a story in any RTS.

* Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization

The player determines the action of what they control in every game.(They forgot to say that the character determines the outcome)

* A formal system of rules and guidelines determine the outcome of those actions

All games have rules and the success of those games is determinate on the ability of the player to make the correct choices in terms of those rules. The outcome is determinate of the player making sensible choices for the character and the character determining the outcome. With planning, foresight, and a little bit of luck.

* Players can improvise freely within the rules

Don't you also do this in every genre? It's all improvisation.

* Player choices shape the direction and outcome of the games

Interesting, they pretty much define Choice and Consequence here. Funnily this is rarely the case in modern RPGs. I wonder why? C&C seems to be you either "win" the specific encounter and progress or you "fail"(consequence) the encounter and reload your save and do it over until you win.

 

[Volourn]

"Funnily this is rarely the case in modern RPGs."

Funnily enough, it was even rarer in older CRPGs. L0LLIGAGZ@!

 

[Xi]

"Funnily this is rarely the case in modern RPGs."

Funnily enough, it was even rarer in older CRPGs. L0LLIGAGZ@!

Yep, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't progress the genre. LAWL

 

[Lurkar]

Wikipedia. Who the fuck cares what they say?

 

[Dark Matter]

Oblivion has choices i.e. it has lots of optional content that the player can experience or ignore if he wants. That's a choice. This is different from something like an action game which contain a linear set of missions with not much room for sidetracking(sure they have hidden collectibles, secrets, and shit, but I don't think that's enough).

Also, your actions(or your effectiveness with those actions to be more precise) are determined by your character(i.e his race, class etc.)

Oblivion may be a shallow game, but whether you like it or not, it's an RPG.

 

[Section8]

What Xi said. Except:

a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories.

This is clearly taken from article about role-playing games and not computer role-playing games... and a quick search on wikipedia confirms this. The article you want is this one.

Despite a spectrum of features and game styles, there are some elements common to the CRPG genre. Perhaps the most salient is that of the avatar, with its quantized characteristics that evolve over the course of the game, and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determining game outcomes. Another common element in CRPGs is a well-developed fictional setting.

That's much more reasonable. I think that's a fairly decent approach - rather than drawing a line and saying "a CRPG must have x, y and z" - you say "x, y and z are strong role-playing elements".

"Being an RPG" is not a binary state. There are simply games of all kinds with varying degrees and quantities of role-playing elements.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Considering that all the name-throwing has been an abstraction silly humans came up with ever since day one - for without it they couldn't tell left from right apparently - trying to turn such into a rule is a tad silly. How the old Infocom games had it: That doesn't work.

Role-playing in that sense of the word on a computer can be something entirelly different than pen&paper-style machanics shoehorned into a totally different medium for no apparent reason. Other than many a game designer is or used to be a total D&D geek that is. And many can't think beyond that. Which is fine, mind you, many a game that did so I liked.

Navigating mazes of pre-scripted dialogue trees don't really cut it either. That said, yes, fighting for rules and definitions doesn't only go against the very nature of what game development has always been about: a melting pot of ideas, really, that's healthy and how it should be. It's an argument made for endless repetition, and as such it's a little stupid really. It's up to you, either you can divide all these boxes into even tinier ones (Old School Dungeon Crawls and Rogue-Likes and Action Sneaksie RPGs FTW!), and as such raise the walls around ideas even further up to the point where nothing can get in or out, eventually choking all ideas in the process, RPG or otherwise. Or you are clever and let it go.

 

[Keldorn]

"Roleplaying : Choosing and then developing & playing your own unique character, while choosing & pursuing your own uniquely chosen path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld and it's ultimate outcome, BASED on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."


-Keldorn The Paladin

 

[Squeek]

It's a pretty good definition. I have only two comments:

Folks who are unable to distinguish between identities and roles are to be ignored, and collaboration really should include the game itself (not just collaboration among the role players).

 

[Xi]

It's a pretty good definition. I have only two comments:

Folks who are unable to distinguish between identities and roles are to be ignored, and collaboration really should include the game itself (not just collaboration among the role players).

So you're saying that even though it's a weak definition that fits many games outside of the depicted genre, it's a good definition because you personally think so, and anyone who fails to realize that it is a good definition, by your standards, should be ignored? How reassuring, fascism much?

Why don't you elaborate on the difference between an identity and a role for us because it sounds like you're ruling out a game that makes the player, play the role of a specific identity. This would rule out The Witcher, for instance, because it forces the player into a role just like Mario forces the player to be Mario, Luigi, Princess, etc. Basically, you're saying that any game that doesn't allow the player to create a unique identity must not be an RPG. Well, that's how I'm understanding you anyway. (Edit: On a reread I'm questioning whether you meant mixing up personal identity with character identity. Unsure though, and your distinction is raising interesting questions in my mind.)

I believe the point of an RPG definition is to be precise and include as much of a specific phenomena while excluding other familiar phenomena commonly found in different genres, such as stories, actions, improvisation, and outcome. I'm just curious what you think about all of these similar traits and what differentiates these from other genres as most games have these?

My proposition on finalizing this debate would be to agree to a specific set of unique criteria that promote Role-Playing and then to be Forward-looking when applying it so that we aren't ruling out those older games. Some of those older games were greatly limited by technology, knowledge, and experience of developers. To always fall back, or try to shoehorn these games in, seems counter productive in achieving a clear RPG definition that promotes the goal of bettering role-playing games by having the most precise implementation of the definition.

 

[Gambler]

I would say, identity is intrinsic, role is played via actions.

...

As I said before, there is a genre of cRPGs, and than there is an idea of a game where you can play different roles. They are not the same.

Checking random definition against games that are supposed to be RPGs by that definition is pointless.

 

[kingcomrade]

 

[Raapys]

Evolving character stats is pretty much the only thing I can think of that *all* games I see as RPGs have in common. Evolving character stats is also the first thing that comes to mind when I read that a game has 'RPG elements'.

 

[Squeek]

So you're saying....?

Nope. I'm saying I don't have any trouble distinguishing between the two, and I don't expect many other people do either. It's just not that hard. Not to me, anyway.

 

[Joe Krow]

My proposition on finalizing this debate would be to agree to a specific set of unique criteria that promote Role-Playing and then to be Forward-looking when applying it so that we aren't ruling out those older games. Some of those older games were greatly limited by technology, knowledge, and experience of developers. To always fall back, or try to shoehorn these games in, seems counter productive in achieving a clear RPG definition that promotes the goal of bettering role-playing games by having the most precise implementation of the definition.

Maybe you could come up something a bit more arbitrary? "Forward-looking" definitions?

Q: You mean like Nostradamus?

A: No. More like Nostradumbass.

 

[Joe Krow]

Here we go again...

If you want to define something your best bet is to pick the three most diverse members of the group and see what qualities they all share. In this case lets take Titan Quest, Oblivion, and Planescape... a pretty diverse group. Of the three, Titan Quest is the most simple. The plot progresses in a linear fashion while the character gets progressively stronger by selecting enhancements. The player's interactions in the game are limited to attacking enemies and listening to short statements from npcs. Looking at the other rpgs it is obvious that these are the bare bones of the genre.

So what do we have? Combat, a plot line, and character progression. Since your average action title also has a plot and combat we should take a closer look at what makes this type of character progression unique in rpgs. The attributes selected for the character create an opportunity cost for the player and their selection (or failure to be selected) will modify the players success in the long term. Character progression of this kind is unique to rpgs. The players success is furthered or impeded by the attributes he has accumulated for his character. This is the only characteristic that all crpgs share.

Taking this “stats decide” ideal to an extreme leads to simulations not games. The "game" aspect of an rpg comes when a player "controls" an avatar. In traditional rpgs you controlled the intellectual attributes of your character (tactical decisions, moral choices, etc.) which trivialized stats like intelligence and wisdom. This also created a degree of separation between a characters abilities and what he is actually doing... the character may not have been smart enough to have made the choice assigned by the player. Realistic simulation was sacrificed to make an entertaining game.

Taking it a step farther you have what are called "action rpgs." These rpgs rely just as heavily on the player for intellectual choices but take the character even farther out of the equation by disregarding its physical attributes in favor of the players. Stats are universally marginalized and the character is now mentally and physically disconnected from the game world. The player is "immersed" because he is no longer playing a character at all. It's the player's choices, the player's abilities; the character is merely a placeholder (which is still highly entertaining for some).

I would define an rpg as: A simulation in which the player is presented with tactical and moral dilemmas to resolve. The degree to which a players succeeds or fails is determined, as much as possible, by his avatar's attributes.

I would define an action rpg as: An action game in which the player's abilities are, at least minimally, modified by the attributes of his/her avatar.

I'll try to illustrate...

~~~~~~~~~~~role of the player | role of the character~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simulation_____________________/\__________________________________Action

The player and his character will always have there separate part to play. As you move towards simulation the player's role gets smaller while the character's increases. How the balance is struck between the two is what creates diversity (and most of the confusion) in the genre. How you define rpgs and action rpgs has a lot to do with where you would place them on this spectrum.

Dialog trees with branching stories and multiple endings are excellent features but, since most of the crpg genre does not use them, it seems silly to include them in our definition.

 

[Keldorn]

"Roleplaying : Choosing and then developing & playing your own unique character, while choosing & pursuing your own uniquely chosen path in the given game world, and having a uniquely profound impact ON that gameworld and it's ultimate outcome, BASED on your own unique choices and subsequently induced consequences."


-Keldorn The Paladin

 

[Joe Krow]

Has the Codex entered some kind of dark age? We used to be able to discuss these kinds of things intelligently. Now there's no one left to defend the conventional wisdom. Keldorn is the best defense and he is retarded. Kind of takes the fun out of it. Too bad.

 

[Aikanaro]

It might be worthwhile to consider whether cRPGs are a subset of RPGs (in the same way that, say, play-by-post games are - same thing in a different medium than it started in) or whether they're an entirely seperate entity with RPG-like qualities.

I've seen it debated on The Forge before (here's one example), though I don't think any consensus was reached. But if a cRPG is a subclass of RPGs, that could lead us to some kind of worthwhile definition. If it isn't, well, at least we have one other thing that a cRPG isn't if we need to resort to defining it negatively.