Crispy™ What is an RPG Attempt #186,091

[Reapa]

Ah, but DOOM is not an RPG. Why?

- You obviously step into the role of Space Marine. Yet, DOOM is not an RPG.

- Well there are mathematical representations provided to the player that correspond to statistics. Actually, I think there's only one that's represented as a numerical value, rounds of ammo. Health is a graphical bar, is it not? Yet, DOOM is not an RPG.

- Your purpose in the game world, your quest, is to eliminate all the demons and to find the reason they have invaded. Yet, DOOM is not an RPG.

- You can meaningfully interact with the game world, but it is rudimentary. You can open doors, you can shoot things. It is arguable whether the accumulation of any of the mathematical bonuses you receive in the game affects these actions, but they do exist. Yet, DOOM is not an RPG.

- Of course, our failing characteristic here is the fact that DOOM guy cannot level up. No matter how many demons he kills, no matter how many objectives he completes, he will never grow geometrically stronger. This is one of the essential aspects of a game for it to qualify as an RPG. DOOM is still not an RPG.

The question is, what if DOOM *did* include the ability for Space Marine to "level up"? Even with its lack of desirable inventory system, I say yes, it would qualify as one. Wouldn't that be bizarre?

no, it wouldn't. doom would still need npcs, rtwp or tb combat, c&c and ideally a multi character party. speaking of ideally, i don't think the minimallistic approach to defining an RPG is the right approach. since no one wants to play just an RPG but rather an ideal RPG, the idealistic approach to defining it is probably much more suited.

 

[groke]

If Doomguy got better at fragging the more he did it, I would consider it an RPG.

 

[Reapa]

With all gravity...

The problem with defining RPGs, from the start, has been the moronic label that was assigned to them by RPG geeks, and which subsequent generations of RPG geeks have refused to discard out of sentimentality and the need for inflated self-importance.

RPG:

=

Role-playing-game

=

Game in which you play a role

=

Practically every game in existence

In fact, it's much harder to find a game in which you don't play a role, than it is to find a game in which you do. Only abstract puzzle games with no story eg Tetris could begin to be games in which you don't play a role. But even then 'tards could argue that you do play a role in the form of "the puzzle solver" and as such even Tetris is a RPG.

So how do we get to an actual definition of RPGs? The problem is simple: stop allowing the label to define the games, and start making the games define the label.

Once you've done this, you'll understand that the proper label for the bulk of the games we enjoy are actually just Baldur's Gate clones, and the rest - the "sand box RPGs," the "first person RPGs," and the "action RPGs" - are just Elder Scrolls-clones/Diablo-clones. You could also make genres for Fallout-clones and Wizardry-clones, but they are pretty dead except for indie games.

at what point does a game leave its clone status and defines its own genre? and who decides when that happens? IGN? you want to hear about twitcher 3 or fallout 4 being not only goty 15/10 but also a genre defining milestone? also do you really believe anyone would be having this conversation over and over again if a role playing game was any game? is pnp any board game?

 

[upwardlymobile]

5 pages in 12 hours.. well played crispy

 

[eremita]

An RPG is never a game itself, but a game has or has not various RPG elements (character progression, choices and consequences, inventory management etc.). In other words: the term should be used as a predicate not a subject. Thus, when comparing Mass Effect with Age of Decadence for example, we're comparing games with different amount of RPG elements. It's obvious now that asking which one is or is not an RPG is meaningless. Unless of course you decide, which RPG elements are essential for calling a game an RPG. But that's arbitrary. A simple listing of various RPG elements is the closest thing to definition.

As you can see, I have solved the problem, because I have discovered that the logic behind question "What is an RPG?" is fundamentaly flawed. So It's ok now, after all these years, you can finally put the issue to rest. You're welcome guys. For my undisputed intellectual prowess, I demand a tag. Like dumbfuck or something.

 

[DavidBVal]

The two requisites for a game to be a cRPG:

1. There is a rules system that determines if the actions of the characters are succesful or not, as well as other effects. This system takes into account character advancement, items and other special circumstances.

2. The player controls a "player character" or optionally a small party of player characters. This PC will have some freedom to explore the game world and interact in different ways with it, typically solving quests and puzzles. The game offers the ability to personalize/customize the PC(s) according to the rule system in point 1.


Point 1 is shared between RPGs and strategy games; point 2 is shared with many action and adventure games. But a RPG is the only game that will combine both.

 

[eremita]

The two requisites for a game to be a cRPG:

1. There is a rules system that determines if the actions of the characters are succesful or not, as well as other effects. This system takes into account character advancement, items and other special circumstances.

And how about a rules system where all actions are always succesful (for example, an attack is always hit, even if the amount of hit points taken is negligible)? Why such a game wouldn't be an RPG?

 

[Naveen]

Your moms are an RPG.

Also, in an RPG the result and success of an action is determined by your virtual avatar internal rule-based skills, not by your ability as a button-smashing monkey. A blind man could play a perfect RPG if it had a voice-recognition program: "Attack the ork", "Use sneak attack on that peasant", "Cast Melvin's Explosive Diarrhea on that dragon", "Rape the tavern wench", "Pickpocket that merchant", "Lie to the guards" etc. Then you sit back for a while (a unit of time, like a turn or some fixed "real-time round") and wait for the computer to translate that order, check what skill could be used, crunch the necessary numbers according to some arbitrary rules you don't control and are not based on your player-human skills, and then it tells you the result. An ideal (although not necessarily good) RPG could autistically be played inside your head, with only the aid of a random number generator and a very, very good memory. In every true RPG there is a gap between your desires (head-shooting that mutant) and the result; the game rules and random numbers, not your hand-eye coordination or reflexes, fill that gap.

No ideal exist, of course, and we are talking about VIDEO games. Hybrids are common if not universal and, at a minimum, some kind of "map" where your avatars -whose continued existence allows you to keep playing- move and collision with other objects (to kill them, talk to them or whatever) as a substitute for verbal descriptions in a P&P game, is necessary. That usually adds an element of tactical positioning in combat and stealth, but if that's the main element and success is determined mostly thanks to battlefield/tactics control, like in a wargame, then it's not an RPG, or it may be some sort of hybrid (like X-Com or something like that, I guess). And, obviously, gameplay extends beyond single closed and autonomous "dungeons" (or whatever), there is a world to be explored, since you avatar is not just a "resource", otherwise you'd be playing just a very complex board game with, perhaps, RPG elements (like SpaceHulk)

 

[DavidBVal]

And how about a rules system where all actions are always succesful (for example, an attack is always hit, even if the amount of hit points taken is negligible)? Why such a game wouldn't be an RPG?

As long as the relevant part of deciding who wins or loses a battle relies on the system (in this case, purely a damage system), it would be an RPG. But I think what you mean is, action-RPGs, like Diablo or Skyrim. In those cases, part of the combat is defined by rules system (damage, effects) and part by player skill (reflexes, speed, reaction). That sways away from the "pure RPG" territory and into the action game territory. In my opinion, for instance Skyrim keeps enough RPG elements to be called a RPG, because no matter your skill, a giant will one-hit you at level 1, and then by raising stats or getting items, a player of high level can kill it. When player skill becomes the most relevant part of the game, it stops being an RPG, to become an action game with RPG elements.

 

[DavidBVal]

A blind man could play a perfect RPG if it had a voice-recognition program

Good notion to which I agree, except that there's very good RPGs out there that make use of a tactical grid.

 

[Neckbeard Shitlord]

RPG is a game that stimulates the autism of rules wizards and exploration wizards without stimulating the autism of simulation wizards.

 

[Cadmus]

posting in the monthly "wutz n RPG" thread dominated by people saying DOOM is an RPG

Would you agree that we, as RPG fans, far prefer for weapons and armor to be more than mathematical modifiers to our characters' stats? I realize you are merely being formal here, but to my point an inventory "system" must, by virtue of the way we as humans interact with computers, include a visual representation of them (hopefully a well-done one, at that), and may indeed include even more colorful descriptors: textual ones, even audible ones?

An inventory system is multi-layered. It is not merely and purely mathematical. So we're back to the implied part. How do we know that the party's weapons and armor are there, if only implied? They have to exist in visual or described form. Therefore the system, even if primal, exists.

An RPG must have an inventory system.

Imagine BG or Fallout without any inventory management. Your guys have static equip. Still seems like an RPG to me.

Definitions exist to define things, duh, so by broadening the definition you are making it meaningless. You need to tighten it. You need to call things the way the are in reality. Sadly for muricans, this will require more than 1 stupid acronym to be of any use. It's supposed to be an informative label actually describing what one can expect from the game, not a marketing term.

 

[eremita]

As long as the relevant part of deciding who wins or loses a battle relies on the system (in this case, purely a damage system), it would be an RPG. But I think what you mean is, action-RPGs, like Diablo or Skyrim. In those cases, part of the combat is defined by rules system (damage, effects) and part by player skill (reflexes, speed, reaction). That sways away from the "pure RPG" territory and into the action game territory. In my opinion, for instance Skyrim keeps enough RPG elements to be called a RPG, because no matter your skill, a giant will one-hit you at level 1, and then by raising stats or getting items, a player of high level can kill it. When player skill becomes the most relevant part of the game, it stops being an RPG, to become an action game with RPG elements.

Well, I was trying to point out that your first definition needed a clarification. This part: "As long as the relevant part of deciding who wins or loses a battle relies on the system" also needs a clarification - what exactly is relevant? The point is, every statement's gonna need a clarification and in the end, it's gonna be about your preferences. That's hardly a definition...

 

[DavidBVal]

Well, I was trying to point out that your first definition needed a clarification. This part: "As long as the relevant part of deciding who wins or loses a battle relies on the system" also needs a clarification - what exactly is relevant? The point is, every statement's gonna need a clarification and in the end, it's gonna be about your preferences. That's hardly a definition...

You're not going to get a mathematical definition, because we're talking about real-world, complex items with many movable parts. You can't have a perfect, objective definition for anything if you look at things that way. But that doesn't mean we can't have a real-life definition on what RPGs are, that would be agreed by most people. Especially when most people will agree on the extremes:

Fallout, Wizardry - pure RPG. Everything is determined by the rules system. There is no reflexes involved, it is a purely "intellectual" game, in which you try to work the rules in your favor, estimating the risks and the opportunities the rules give you. Story, choices, quests, exploration are strong points.

Quake, Ghosts'n Goblins - not RPG. Purely determined by action and skill. Dodge stuff hitting at you. Personal skill and reaction time, rather than strategic decisions, is all that matters. Sure there's some game progression given by equipment, but only there to scale up challenge and add a little variety in combat. No exploration except for a few secrets, no quests, no choices, no interaction.

Those are the extremes, black and white. Obviously, Morrowind is closer than Oblivion to the "RPG" than to the "not RPGs". I am not saying this in a derogatory way, just saying that being agile, skilled, or having good reflexes is not what RPGs were about in PnP: rule systems that simulated reality in a numeric way, and the ability to roleplay a character that interacts with a gameworld in a meaningful way.

 

[eremita]

You're not going to get a mathematical definition, because we're talking about real-world, complex items with many movable parts. You can't have a perfect, objective definition for anything if you look at things that way. But that doesn't mean we can't have a real-life definition on what RPGs are, that would be agreed by most people. Especially when most people will agree on the extremes:

Fallout, Wizardry - pure RPG. Everything is determined by the rules system. There is no reflexes involved, it is a purely "intellectual" game, in which you try to work the rules in your favor, estimating the risks and the opportunities the rules give you. Story, choices, quests, exploration are strong points.

Quake, Ghosts'n Goblins - not RPG. Purely determined by action and skill. Dodge stuff hitting at you. Personal skill and reaction time, rather than strategic decisions, is all that matters. Sure there's some game progression given by equipment, but only there to scale up challenge and add a little variety in combat. No exploration except for a few secrets, no quests, no choices, no interaction.

Those are the extremes, black and white. Obviously, Morrowind is closer than Oblivion to the "RPG" than to the "not RPGs". I am not saying this in a derogatory way, just saying that being agile, skilled, or having good reflexes is not what RPGs were about in PnP: rule systems that simulated reality in a numeric way, and the ability to roleplay a character that interacts with a gameworld in a meaningful way.

I can: An RPG is a game with various RPG elements. What is and RPG element just as which or how many elements are required to call a game proper RPG is a matter of agreement.

This is a definitive definition - there's no need for clarification yet it's complete.

Spoiler

 

[shihonage]

The game's proximity to true RPG rises proportionally with the range of player agency it can allow while maintaining a continuous, uninterrupted narrative which makes complete sense to said player.

This is how I feel.

____________

Example #1: a game which allows you to do a lot of stuff but quickly requires you to monstrously suspend disbelief (because consequences of your actions don't match commonly expected results), is a subpar RPG. A game such as Skyrim or perhaps GTA.

Example #2: a game which manages to maintain a continuous narrative which makes complete sense to the player, and yet has near-zero player agency, is also a subpar RPG. A game such as Game of Thrones by Telltale Games.

 

[Doktor Best]

Epicnamebro talked about the topic some time ago in one of his Dark Souls videos, and he kinda had it spot on. Rpg is not a genre anymore, since it evolved so widespread into other genres and created hybrids and hybrids of hybrids, it lost its distinctive classification as a genre and has nowadays become more like an overarching theme across the whole gaming industry. Many games have persistent worlds, many games have dialogue trees or reactive narration, almost every fucking game nowadays has a leveling system. Hell even in Fifa you have attributes now and you can train them and level up. At the same time the rpg genre took alot of influences from other genres, dwelved into the shooter genre, the action adventure genre, took gameplay elements from the metroidvania series etc etc.

I would say defining a game as rpg should be handled like diagnosis of mental diseases. Take borderline as an example. There is a wide catalogue of symptoms, and if you match enough of these and if your behaviour is altered in a substancial way you are considered a borderline patient. If a game offers enough features out of the "rpg catalogue" it should be considered an rpg.

 

[eremita]

The game's proximity to true RPG rises proportionally with the range of player agency it can allow while maintaining a continuous, uninterrupted narrative which makes complete sense to said player.

This is how I feel.

____________

Example #1: a game which allows you to do a lot of stuff but quickly requires you to monstrously suspend disbelief (because consequences of your actions don't match commonly expected results), is a subpar RPG. A game such as Skyrim or perhaps GTA.

Example #2: a game which manages to maintain a continuous narrative which makes complete sense to the player, and yet has near-zero player agency, is also a subpar RPG. A game such as Game of Thrones by Telltale Games.

But how about a game without narrative dude?

 

[shihonage]

But how about a game without narrative dude?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Lurker King]

i don't think the minimallistic approach to defining an RPG is the right approach. since no one wants to play just an RPG but rather an ideal RPG, the idealistic approach to defining it is probably much more suited.

But that is a even harder topic, and you can't answer that question without a definition. The definition of an ideal cRPG. To establish what is an ideal cRPG, you need to establish first what is the nature of a cRPG.

 

[Lurker King]

An RPG is never a game itself, but a game has or has not various RPG elements (character progression, choices and consequences, inventory management etc.).

But you are just postponing the problem. If a game has various RPG elements, what is an RPG in the first place? If there is not a thing that we can refer as RPG, then you can’t talk about RPG elements.

In other words: the term should be used as a predicate not a subject

.

That is even worse. If RPG is a property that we can attribute to certain games, then we not only have to provide a definition of this property, but we also have to assume that is an abstract entity that is instantiated in different things.

Thus, when comparing Mass Effect with Age of Decadence for example, we're comparing games with different amount of RPG elements.

But if RPG is a property that you attribute to things, you can’t have different amounts of the same property. They are there or not. You can't say that a game has differement amounts of chess elements. That doesn’t make any sense.

Unless of course you decide, which RPG elements are essential for calling a game an RPG. But that's arbitrary.

Why? Because the topic is abstract, controversial and difficult? That doesn’t prove that is arbitrary, but just that is abstract, controversial and difficult. Lack of consensus just shows lack of consensus, nothing more.

 

[Reapa]

But that is a even harder topic, and you can't answer that question without a definition. The definition of an ideal cRPG. To establish what is an ideal cRPG, you need to establish first what is the nature of a cRPG.

i disagree

 

[Lurker King]

i disagree

Only if you assume a definition without properly thinking about it. Someone could say that the ideal RPG is an improved version of Skyrm. That is not helpful, is it?

 

[Reapa]

Only if you assume a definition without properly thinking about it. Someone could say that the ideal RPG is an improved version of Skyrm. That is not helpful, is it?

i'm going with the theory that the ideal rpg would be defined by a sum of features. you take the open world which worked well for arcanum, morrowind, daggerfall, bg2 to some extent, fallout... combine it with the theory that a character or a party in an rpg is supposed to be free to travel if the setting doesn't imply him being locked away in some dungeon and you're done with one of the features. rinse and repeat for all other pertinent features and you don't get skyrim because some of them might be hand placed npcs, monsters, items, wide ranges of c&c and sensible dialogues but you do get the open world of skyrim as one of the features. see, i don't think any of them is intrinsically bad, they just don't get implemented thoughtfully and probably there's also a money factor but that shouldn't be a problem for a definition.

 

[Lurker King]

I would say defining a game as rpg should be handled like diagnosis of mental diseases. Take borderline as an example. There is a wide catalogue of symptoms, and if you match enough of these and if your behaviour is altered in a substancial way you are considered a borderline patient. If a game offers enough features out of the "rpg catalogue" it should be considered an rpg.

But that doesn't help because you are assuming that psychology is a mature science that discovered everything that we need to know about mental disorders. I’m not even sure that many of the assumed mental disorders are really mental disorders, instead of just personal problems or lack of character. Besides, let’s take one thing that is an obvious mental disorder, like schizophrenia. This disorder manifests itself with different symptoms for different persons. Most have auditory hallucinations, for instance. But that doesn’t show that these hallucinations don’t have a mental disorder in common, does it? Which is it? Probably there is a hidden mechanism causing the prevalence of some symptoms in some persons associated with genes, personal history, etc.