The minimal requirement for the "CRPG" label.

[Callaxes]

I see we have different opinions on what a CRPG is. Some (Shagnak, Jasede) think that a CRPG's only duty is to have stats. Others think that chooice and conscequence are much more important and are canon for the CRPG label. And others are more pretentios and want everything there is to have about the genre in 1 game.

 

[JarlFrank]

Nice thread.

Well, if we're talking about minimum requirements, I'll take the option Multiple ways to express your avatar's personality [dialog etc], because that's basically what an RPG is about. You don't need stats, really, and stats alone don't make an RPG. C&C also aren't covered in every RPG, especially not in the older ones. The free-roaming world is a great plus, too, but not necessary, as there are a few more linear games which still are great RPGs [like Torment]. But for me you need to have ways to express your character's personality, and if it only is in what quests to accept and which to refuse. Dialogue is pretty important in that, and if you got multiple dialogue choices with different effects, then it's perfect.

Of course, only dialogue and expressing your character only makes for an adventure, not an RPG, but I guess you see what I did thar.

 

[Nedrah]

Interesting.
What is the purpose of this thread, seeing how this discussion is as old as the codex itself?
Possibly seeing if the minimum standards for RPGs have changed in the last years?

Well, however...
It's a pretty slippery slope.
Take Forze Motorsport for the Xbox, a racing game. It has upgradeable stats (of your cars), you earn money (which can be used to raise said stats) and experience points (yes, you level up). It has classes that distinguish cars by tuning level and purpose.

It has choice & consequence (do I drive cautiously, possibly ending up only on one of the worse places) or do I try and race as hard as I can (earning me either the first or the last place). Progress depends on a mixture of your own skills and those of your c(h)ar.

People who chose to define Rpgs by those standards might end up with a little surprise when they get handed the racing wheel. It's factors like the "expressing your characters personality" one or possibly something like "dialogue can affect different parts of the game on multiple occassions" that might provide a sharper definition.

So, while I believe that stats and C&C are a part of what makes a RPG, they don't make one.

Edit: Ah, the storyline bit, missed that one. I don't think a RPG has to have one, but I tend to only enjoy the ones that have.

 

[Shoelip]

Heh, JarlFrank. You made me change my answer from stats and C&C to multiple ways to express your character's personality.

On the other hand... Not another "What is RPG?" thread!

 

[abstract]

Nice thread.

Well, if we're talking about minimum requirements, I'll take the option Multiple ways to express your avatar's personality [dialog etc], because that's basically what an RPG is about.

You know you've just eradicated every CRPG up to Fallout (or maybe Ultima, depending on what you understand by "expressing you avatar's personality"), right?

 

[JarlFrank]

Heh, JarlFrank. You made me change my answer from stats and C&C to multiple ways to express your character's personality.

On the other hand... Not another "What is RPG?" thread!

Such threads are the soul of the Codex, aren't they

Also, it's about time for some serious RPG discussion again. Miss Popularity is quite a good RPG, on that matter.

 

[JarlFrank]

Nice thread.

Well, if we're talking about minimum requirements, I'll take the option Multiple ways to express your avatar's personality [dialog etc], because that's basically what an RPG is about.

You know you've just eradicated every CRPG up to Fallout (or maybe Ultima, depending on what you understand by "expressing you avatar's personality"), right?

There's different kinds of RPGs for sure, but for a modern CRPG this would be an requirement. Fallout did it, Arcanum, Ultima 7, Bloodlines... so it should be a requirement for most of the modern RPGs.

Nothing against good old dungeon crawling RPGs, though.

 

[MrBrown]

How can "the whole package" be a minimum requirement?


Anyway. I have no idea what Computer RPGs even are, really. Table-top RPGs can be singularly defined as being mainly about negotiation of content of an assumed world, but because most computer games have a game-world in the first place, this separation ceases to exist.

So the discussion goes back to finding to similar content between RPGs and CRPGs, and CRPGs with each other. The problem is, this simply turns into drawing definitions based on assumed preferences. As in, "I liked that RPG with stats and a party system, so that must be what RPGs are about". And you end up with discussion that is simply shout matches about preference, instead of attempts to find exclusive aspects of RPGs.

Personally, I'd drop the "RPG" label all-together from computer games. Terms like "action", "adventure" and "exploration" are far more descriptive, and don't come with the whole package.

 

[abstract]

There's different kinds of RPGs for sure, but for a modern CRPG this would be an requirement. Fallout did it, Arcanum, Ultima 7, Bloodlines... so it should be a requirement for most of the modern RPGs.

So how would you differentiate between a CRPG and an adventure game (I know they don't make those anymore, but whatever)? You gotta have stats, man.

Also, I wouldn't really call clicking on keywords a'la Ultima 7 the "expression of my avatar's personality"

 

[JarlFrank]

There's different kinds of RPGs for sure, but for a modern CRPG this would be an requirement. Fallout did it, Arcanum, Ultima 7, Bloodlines... so it should be a requirement for most of the modern RPGs.

So how would you differentiate between a CRPG and an adventure game (I know they don't make those anymore, but whatever)? You gotta have stats, man.

Also, I wouldn't really call clicking on keywords a'la Ultima 7 the "expression of my avatar's personality"

Meh, I dunno, but an RPG should have some choices and dialogue at least.
Also, how to differentiate between CRPG and adventures? Oh, just fuck it, then, nobody needs exact genre borders. Genres are just there to show what kind of game it is, and with which games you can compare it.

 

[Shagnak]

Some (Shagnak, Jasede) think that a CRPG's only duty is to have stats.

Actually, I think I said something along the lines of "remove the stats from an RPG and you often have an adventure or action adventure game" or similar. That's a long way from saying that if you just chuck in some stats you suddenly have an RPG. Pretty much like Nedrah says.

I also hold that if you remove the story or dialogue driven choice and consequences from most RPGs, you still have a role playing game*. Therefore stats are more essential to my definition of "RPG", in that without them, it ain't one, whilst the addition of things like story or dialogue driven C&C merely enhance the RPG experience.

Anyway, this is a crap poll. You don't define what you mean by C&C or several other things - and these definitions will influence people's answers.

You also miss out an obvious combination - stats and C&C and customisable avatar.

If you were to take "stats" to also mean the systems that support those stats or give them "meaning", C&C to mean C&C other than story or dialogue driven/affecting C&C, and customisation of the players avatar to mean "character development", then this is what I could be comfortable voting for. And then I would also add one other requirement - "The Journey" - just so I could exclude sports/sim games. ;-)

Anyway, my definition is inclusive of old skool RPGs that have always been RPGs and fuck you all if you think they aren't. Any definition that excludes old RPGs that have always been called RPGs makes me apopletik wif RAGE. You hippies with your airy fairy hippy definitions can fuck off. Ramble ramble curse cough

 

[Zomg]

About the personality thing (more complete term: characterization) knocking out nearly everything pre-Fallout: True. I think the "definition of an RPG" issue is a pointless white elephant. Just interpret stuff that "defines an RPG" to mean "critical schemes for evaluating games". At this point I only care for spreadsheet autism and quartermaster junkie games in a few contexts (involving ASCII) so I 'm not very interested in early RPG fundamentals anymore, but I recognize the contexts where I and others will call that sort of thing an RPG.

 

[Ismaul]

It's obviously "Multiple ways of expressing your avatar's personality (dialog, moral chooices, etc.)". Really I think it's the only good answer. A game with stats but without that will end up being only a game with stats, like Diablo, or even those where you have a nice little list of random things (kills, cars stolen,...). Stats are only a tool to help arbitrate the avatar's expression/interaction with the world, and they also inform the player about the avatar. But they don't guarantee role-playing.

Choices & consequences can also exist without role-playing, for example in strategy games. In those cases, they're player's choices and player consequences, not the avatar's. Even though it's the player that makes choces for the avatar, the choices are the avatar's in RPGs, as are the consequences. But choices are nothing else but a way of expressing the avatar's presonality. IMO, for successful expression of presonnality, choices and consequences are going to be needed. Choices to define the character, consequences/repercussions/impact on the character to develop him.

 

[Shim]

Aye the poll is a tad frustrating for the reasons mentioned.

However, Ive been doing a little research at the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/) trying to see if their PnP focused academia has any relevance for CRPGs. Although Ive not had time to digest it all fully, I'll throw down a rough definition of role-playing inspired by their point of view to see what you chaps think of it.


A Forge-inspired definition of computer based role-playing.

Role-playing is essentially a creative act formed in the players mind. There are three kinds of creativity which have their own distinct aims and priorities; Gamist (challenge/conflict), Simulationist (causes/themes within a gameworld) and Narrativist (choice & consequence in story terms). These Creative Agendas are expressed through Exploration of five key elements - System, Character, Setting, Situation and Color.


I reckon this theory could go some of the way to explaining why we see different 'camps' of thought here on the Codex arguing this way or that about what a CRPG actually is. It also suggests that 'Choices and Consequences' and 'Multiple ways of Personality expression' have two sides to them, Simulationist and Narrativist. The former uses these to tease out the details/flavour of the gameworld, e.g. factions, racism, ideology. The latter uses these elements as a means to drive the Story through player choice.

Any thoughts ?

 

[MrBrown]

Any thoughts ?

Yes.

Don't bring Forge-theory into a thread half-heartedly, especially not GNS. It'll end in a flame fest. Then again, maybe the posters at the Codex aren't that set in their ways, as far as table-top RPGs go.

Anyway, Forge-theory is ultimately about human-to-human interaction, single-player CRPGs are really out of it's area.

 

[Shim]

Aye thats fair enough MrBrown, you make a good point. They treat their discussions with a lot of care and I dont mean to stomp carelessly over the subtlely of their finer arguments. That said I was just borrowing some of their terms to help shed some light on why different players look at CRPGs in such a broad variety of ways. Its an interesting place over there if a little heavy going for outsiders such as myself. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

 

[Ladonna]

If the posters here were set in their ways, this poll wouldn't exist.

Instead of working forward in regards to the label, why no work backwards? Let us look at the newest RPG's on the market, and rate them on why they are/are not RPG's and then look at the original, old skool RPG's and check the differences (besides bling).

We can look at:

Oblivion (rofl)
NWN2
Jade Empire
Um, and other assorted titles.

If you want to include indy games, then the spiderweb games can also be looked at.

Then go and check out:

Wasteland
Magic Candle
Whatever you consider to be an old, pre 95 title.

 

[Zomg]

GNS is irritating and boring, like most "total" critical frameworks. Tabletop RPG diversity has vanished into D&D, a minor '90s holdover or two, and a lot of boutique GNS games that no one actually plays because the mind-virus has destroyed the ability of a generation of designers.

 

[Human Shield]

Don't bring Forge-theory into a thread half-heartedly, especially not GNS. It'll end in a flame fest. Then again, maybe the posters at the Codex aren't that set in their ways, as far as table-top RPGs go.

Anyway, Forge-theory is ultimately about human-to-human interaction, single-player CRPGs are really out of it's area.

I disagree. GNS is also about why players play the game in the first place, and I think the same reasons follow into CRPGs. The feedback cycle is longer with developers but players flow towards the closest GNS the game can offer, that is why you see incoherent simulation in Oblivion and gamist competition in Final Fantasy.

GNS is irritating and boring, like most "total" critical frameworks. Tabletop RPG diversity has vanished into D&D, a minor '90s holdover or two, and a lot of boutique GNS games that no one actually plays because the mind-virus has destroyed the ability of a generation of designers.

Are you saying the indie games have worse design?

 

[sqeecoo]

Well, I think the "true" (in the sense of what we mean by the word, not the "essence" of Rpgs) RPG would have all of the above. If it lacks one or a few, it´s still an RPG. If it lacked more, it enters the gray zone between RPGs and other genres.

We could no longer all agree on what it is exactly, some will still say it´s an rpg, other action-rpg, and some that it´s not a rpg at all. This happens with any word: how different from a normal, prototypical chair can something be and still be called a chair? At some point people will start calling it a sofa, or a couch, or whatnot.

I think that with just one of the characteristics above, the game would be *very* deep in the gray zone, and would basically always have to be labeled a hybrid, and not a "real" rpg.

 

[NiM82]

Bah, where's the 'Must be like Fallout' option?

For me it's all of these combined: Multiple ways of expressing your avatar's personality, Stats, Choice and Consequence, plus a free roaming world in the Fallout/Arcanum/Morrowind mould (prefably) - I haven't played Darklands, so have no idea what kind of world that means.

Big question tho is what defines Choice and Consequence. Take BG, there's hardly any in terms of quest dialogue, but there is in party selection and alignment.

Personally I would class BG as a cRPG, but it's definitely on the fringe, the way I see it.

 

[Joe Krow]

Here is the definition of cRPGs:

"It's the character, not the player." Taking this ideal to an extreme leads to simulations not games. The "game" aspect of a cRPG comes from "controlling" an avatar. In traditional cRPGs you controlled the intellectual attributes of your character (tactical decisions, moral choices, etc.) which trivializes 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 that choice. Realism was sacrificed for entertainment.

Taking it a step farther you have "action cRPGs." I would argue that they 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 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 ability; the character is just a place to store your loot.

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

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

In a way, action and simulation are diametrically opposed; the more you move toward one the father you are from the other. How you define cRPGs and action cRPGs has a lot to do with where you would place them on this spectrum.

 

[MrBrown]

I disagree. GNS is also about why players play the game in the first place, and I think the same reasons follow into CRPGs. The feedback cycle is longer with developers but players flow towards the closest GNS the game can offer, that is why you see incoherent simulation in Oblivion and gamist competition in Final Fantasy.

I can understand that, though I still think there's not much the Big Model can provide for that. Besides saying, "have a coherent Creative Agenda!". Which most western RPGs, computer or table-top, don't really.

 

[MrBrown]

Aye thats fair enough MrBrown, you make a good point. They treat their discussions with a lot of care and I dont mean to stomp carelessly over the subtlely of their finer arguments. That said I was just borrowing some of their terms to help shed some light on why different players look at CRPGs in such a broad variety of ways. Its an interesting place over there if a little heavy going for outsiders such as myself. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

I'm not against talking about the Forge-theory, I'm just warning GNS is like a word of summon for comments like Zomg's here, in every RPG forum, apparently.


EDIT: I've yet to see an rpg.net forum post about rpg-theory where the flames didn't start in less than 5 posts, regardless of how the opening post was written.

 

[Zomg]

I'm not against talking about the Forge-theory, I'm just warning GNS is like a word of summon for comments like Zomg's here, in every RPG forum, apparently.

Always glad to live up to stereotype. Big bloated theoretical frameworks are polarizing because they're rhetorically powerful, and grappling with a believer in them requires the irritating labor of becoming conversant in the definitions, jargon, et cetera in their intellectual cul de sac. It's also impossible to kill theory in other people's heads without offering a replacement, which means you have to make the further step of painstakingly fuckling out another iteration of a grand totalist theory just to make Goddamn conversation.