-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The age-old question: What is an RPG?
- Thread starter Arulan
- Start date
TriAceJP
Member
A RPG is a table top role-playing game.
A video game RPG is a conversion of the above into a digital format. It must include the ruleset and play style, but automated.
Games used to tell you what ruleset it was based on (AD&D was a popular choice), but not really anymore.
JRPGs are based off a bastardized version of AD&D and they kind of muddled the line between an actual ruleset and making shit up.
Current RPGs implement the ideas of published rulesets but made their own thing out of it.
Edit: RPG Elements vs A True RPG:
Call of Duty has an XP system, but doesn't rely on dice rolls and equipment bonuses. It includes RPG elements, but isn't an RPG.
You can take an engine out of a car and connect it to your lawn mower. It has a car part, but it isn't a car.
A video game RPG is a conversion of the above into a digital format. It must include the ruleset and play style, but automated.
Games used to tell you what ruleset it was based on (AD&D was a popular choice), but not really anymore.
JRPGs are based off a bastardized version of AD&D and they kind of muddled the line between an actual ruleset and making shit up.
Current RPGs implement the ideas of published rulesets but made their own thing out of it.
Edit: RPG Elements vs A True RPG:
Call of Duty has an XP system, but doesn't rely on dice rolls and equipment bonuses. It includes RPG elements, but isn't an RPG.
You can take an engine out of a car and connect it to your lawn mower. It has a car part, but it isn't a car.
Jerry Orbach
Member
When defining an RPG, the most important distinction is the first one anybody had to make: the difference between an RPG and a wargame. Both represent characters using statistics. Both resolve challenges using an RNG. But whereas wargames provide statistics for their characters, an RPG instead makes creating your own characters a part of play. This creation can take place all at once at the outset of a campaign, progressively over the course of the game, or any combination of the two.
RPGs are character modelling games. When a player's choices in the game determine the statistics of their character(s), that game is an RPG.
RPGs are character modelling games. When a player's choices in the game determine the statistics of their character(s), that game is an RPG.
I really don't know, there's a fuck ton amount of stuff that you can call an RPG, while the same mechanics in other games you wouldn't call an RPG. You also have people who'll say "everything is an RPG, because you always play as someone else", but that's waaaay too broad. As for me, I have four pretty straightforward "rules":
- Customisation (own character or an existing character's attributes and skills)
- Main focus on narrative
- Exploration
- Replay value
- Customisation (own character or an existing character's attributes and skills)
- Main focus on narrative
- Exploration
- Replay value
TriAceJP
Member
You are taking the title literal and ignoring it's actual meaning.
I get anal about categorizing RPGs, since they're so personally important.
If the game play relies on twitch-based input or timing things outside of a legend of dragoon-like button press sequence, it is an action game with some rpg elements sprinkled in. There aren't anything wrong with those. I play them and enjoy them. It just gets my goat when I'm die sing for something that requires winning outside of those systems, something like turn-based, atb-based, command based, which tests you purely on your ability to strategies and prioritize though numbers and orders, but have bloodborne, mass effect, and the witcher show up on my "recommended for you" list.
It's understandable. Nobody wants "shooter/rpg action/rpg labeled all the time. It's simpler to clump the name up as a big umbrella.
If the game play relies on twitch-based input or timing things outside of a legend of dragoon-like button press sequence, it is an action game with some rpg elements sprinkled in. There aren't anything wrong with those. I play them and enjoy them. It just gets my goat when I'm die sing for something that requires winning outside of those systems, something like turn-based, atb-based, command based, which tests you purely on your ability to strategies and prioritize though numbers and orders, but have bloodborne, mass effect, and the witcher show up on my "recommended for you" list.
It's understandable. Nobody wants "shooter/rpg action/rpg labeled all the time. It's simpler to clump the name up as a big umbrella.
"RPG" is a pretty broad category of game, much like "action" is a broad category. However, it does have some key features.
Originally, it branched off away from classic wargaming when people started to focus on a small party of individual characters rather than large armies composed of aggregate units. That distinction is still in place, as can be seen by the differences between the strategy game Advance Wars and the tactical RPG Fire Emblem, despite some notable similarities.
So, a clear importance is placed on individuals or small parties of characters, each of whom possess individual characteristics that can be differentiated on a per-character basis. These characteristics often take the form of stats, skills, and special moves.
One can also define RPGs by tracking the various clear lines of descent that define the evolution of the modern RPG. You can track the evolution of everything from Nethack to Final Fantasy XIII back to the original tabletop RPGs, forming clear evolutionary paths. This common history can also serve as a useful definition of RPG.
Originally, it branched off away from classic wargaming when people started to focus on a small party of individual characters rather than large armies composed of aggregate units. That distinction is still in place, as can be seen by the differences between the strategy game Advance Wars and the tactical RPG Fire Emblem, despite some notable similarities.
So, a clear importance is placed on individuals or small parties of characters, each of whom possess individual characteristics that can be differentiated on a per-character basis. These characteristics often take the form of stats, skills, and special moves.
One can also define RPGs by tracking the various clear lines of descent that define the evolution of the modern RPG. You can track the evolution of everything from Nethack to Final Fantasy XIII back to the original tabletop RPGs, forming clear evolutionary paths. This common history can also serve as a useful definition of RPG.
GravityMan
Member
RPG as a genre classification made sense back in the 90s (NES, SNES, PS1, early PC) because most games back then tended to fall into a single genre quite neatly.
"RPG" applied to today's games is less logical. It's a broad term. These days, "RPG" is easier to understand if you don't overthink it and don't take it literally. Same goes for JRPG and WRPG.
Most games these days blend in elements from several genres, although for a lot of them there's still one primary gameplay or story element that sticks out and helps identify the game's "genre".
"RPG" applied to today's games is less logical. It's a broad term. These days, "RPG" is easier to understand if you don't overthink it and don't take it literally. Same goes for JRPG and WRPG.
Most games these days blend in elements from several genres, although for a lot of them there's still one primary gameplay or story element that sticks out and helps identify the game's "genre".
A videogame rpg is a videogame version of a pen and paper rpg, where the director/computer is the gamemaster and handlesall theannoying paperwork bullshit on the backend.
Thats why they were named rpg's. They were named after... RPG's.
To answer the query of the clearly pained author on your op...
The answer to why is a comvination of increasingly overbearing marketing and increasingly easier to manipulate 'gamers'.
Publisher incumbant pr has altered the definition of a considerable amount of words and terms that used to belong to gaming enthusiasts and twisted them into related, but very notably different, marketing charged definitions.... Which were swallowed hook line and sinker.
Thats why they were named rpg's. They were named after... RPG's.
To answer the query of the clearly pained author on your op...
The answer to why is a comvination of increasingly overbearing marketing and increasingly easier to manipulate 'gamers'.
Publisher incumbant pr has altered the definition of a considerable amount of words and terms that used to belong to gaming enthusiasts and twisted them into related, but very notably different, marketing charged definitions.... Which were swallowed hook line and sinker.
No, its literally named for being a computer version of a pen and paper role playing game like dungeons and dragons. And that is a proper useof literal.
It has always been a pretty specific thing...
Until marketing teams found out they could play off the assocation of RPG's= long multi hour games= association with high value to dollar ratio= suddenly every fucking thing was having rpg tacked onto it.
That's arguably every game.
Primethius
Banned
It's whatever makes Dark Souls an RPG, and a JRPG at that.
Dark Souls is an RPG made in Japan so it is indeed a JRPG.
To me, an RPG is a game wherein:
1. World design and story informs mechanics and systems, not the other way around.
2. The success of a player at navigating the game's systems is a culmination of mastering in understanding the systems, not in mastery of reflex or coordination.
3. The avatar's ability within the system is more important in determining success than player ability.
4. Significant gameplay time is devoted to elements beyond a primary system like combat (i.e. conversation, stealth, survival, exploration). These secondary elements must be systematized in a manner that is holistic and inclusive of other game elements such as combat (i.e. integrated into a wider character system).
5. The focus of gameplay and story is generally on a single character or group of characters, and where the player has an avatar or avatars representing themselves within the game world (contrary to, for example, a strategy game, where the player is an omniscient "god" outside the game world).
6. The game systems and experience is rooted in the tradition of tabletop gaming. This is the murkiest qualifier unfortunately, but it's one of those "you'll know it when you see/feel it" things.
The sub-genre action-RPG is usually the same as the above, but points 2 and 3 are often reversed. This one is a bit trickier, though (i.e. is Borderlands an action-RPG?).
That said, I also feel that strict definitions of genre, while useful for establishing a baseline for conversation, aren't really worth arguing over the technicalities of. Genre is only important as a way of forming consensus and basic understanding. Genre politics is not something I'm very interested in arguing either.
1. World design and story informs mechanics and systems, not the other way around.
2. The success of a player at navigating the game's systems is a culmination of mastering in understanding the systems, not in mastery of reflex or coordination.
3. The avatar's ability within the system is more important in determining success than player ability.
4. Significant gameplay time is devoted to elements beyond a primary system like combat (i.e. conversation, stealth, survival, exploration). These secondary elements must be systematized in a manner that is holistic and inclusive of other game elements such as combat (i.e. integrated into a wider character system).
5. The focus of gameplay and story is generally on a single character or group of characters, and where the player has an avatar or avatars representing themselves within the game world (contrary to, for example, a strategy game, where the player is an omniscient "god" outside the game world).
6. The game systems and experience is rooted in the tradition of tabletop gaming. This is the murkiest qualifier unfortunately, but it's one of those "you'll know it when you see/feel it" things.
The sub-genre action-RPG is usually the same as the above, but points 2 and 3 are often reversed. This one is a bit trickier, though (i.e. is Borderlands an action-RPG?).
That said, I also feel that strict definitions of genre, while useful for establishing a baseline for conversation, aren't really worth arguing over the technicalities of. Genre is only important as a way of forming consensus and basic understanding. Genre politics is not something I'm very interested in arguing either.
Lots of classic RPGs don't qualify for most of these criteria and lots of non-RPGs like God of War qualify for them all.
Nah, it's still better than Adventure games. RPGs are basically tabletop RPGs (which are fairly well defined) translated to video games. The main confusion is that some people try to read the name literally.
Zelda has RPG-like stats.
The stats and scaling are well hidden and its very far departed from your traditional leveling system.
Your hearts are your hp. Easy enough. its not numeric visually but you can count them and even divide them.
You gain levels from solving dungeons and finding secrets rather than combat. Completing a dungeon gains you one level. Finding a secret can give you 25% of a level. Gaining a level only increase your HP only.
All attack and defense power are gained through equipment exclusively. The sword can be upgraded as well as the armor. Also, finding weapons and items can increase your attack abilities and more importantly help you solve puzzles and get to secret areas which is the games primary leveling method.
In Zelda games that feature magic, you can have you MP pool increased through exploration and finding secret areas.
All these are numeric stats hidden from the player but they are there.
If you consider stats a defining feature of RPGs you would have to consider Zelda an RPG.
The stats and scaling are well hidden and its very far departed from your traditional leveling system.
Your hearts are your hp. Easy enough. its not numeric visually but you can count them and even divide them.
You gain levels from solving dungeons and finding secrets rather than combat. Completing a dungeon gains you one level. Finding a secret can give you 25% of a level. Gaining a level only increase your HP only.
All attack and defense power are gained through equipment exclusively. The sword can be upgraded as well as the armor. Also, finding weapons and items can increase your attack abilities and more importantly help you solve puzzles and get to secret areas which is the games primary leveling method.
In Zelda games that feature magic, you can have you MP pool increased through exploration and finding secret areas.
All these are numeric stats hidden from the player but they are there.
If you consider stats a defining feature of RPGs you would have to consider Zelda an RPG.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Most definitions would include stats but it would be silly to say that is the end-all-be-all of the definition.
They are action-adventure games with light puzzling mixed in. There is hardly any meaningful role-playing going on.
Right, I don't agree Zelda is an RPG either. I personally don't think stats has anything to do with RPGs.
A game with absolutely 0 stats but ability to pick skills or feats at certain intervals of play would be more of an RPG to me.
The players ability to make meaningful choices in how the character grows/advances throughout the game is what defines RPGs to me.
Psychoward
Banned
Between Borderlands and Mass Effect 2 last gen I'm already over trying to define an RPG.
That sounds like infamous second son.
Nah but seriously, I think rpgs are hard to classify because the genre has had all of its identifying traits stolen from it. It is to the point where I don't believe the genre even exists on its own anymore.
Every game is a role playing game now.
human onion
Banned
Pretty much this, but it's more about the transparency of those traits. Lots of games give you more and more options as you go along that aren't considered RPG's, but attach a visible number to it and people start to call the game an RPG. The article puts it in better words than that. I read it as more of an explanation of why the term is bad rather than an explicit definition, because there's no way to define it anymore.
Battlefield 4 is an RPG too then.
exactly
Stats in an RPG implies formulas, specifically complex formulas determining character performance. RPGs use formulas to model systems and thereby to determine character performance, or modify player performance. As so:
http://www.chrisclarke.co.uk/D2stuff/PDFs/ToHit.htm
Action games use player skill to determine performance. Whether you hit an enemy is solely dependent on your ability to aim at that monster and hit the attack button at the correct time. There are formulas here, but they are physics and matter only in determining position in a 3 dimensional space (i.e. to graphically render the action).
Hybrid RPGs come from a blend of player skill and modifying RPG formulas. Meaning the player skill determines if they hit, but the underlying skill/stats determine the effect of that hit (how much damage, criticals, etc).
Zelda is neither of these, with the exception (barely) of Zelda II. The "stats" in Zelda are no more an indication of it being an RPG than the stats on a scoreboard in Madden qualify that game as an RPG.
ForsakenLotus
Member
An RPG first and foremost should have an experience system and a form of character controlled progression. Beyond that, there are some features that are common but not required.
I just wish people would use common sense. Call of Duty isn't an RPG because it has experience points, GTA isn't an RPG because there are side quests.
And if you think Zelda is an RPG, you are just wrong.
I just wish people would use common sense. Call of Duty isn't an RPG because it has experience points, GTA isn't an RPG because there are side quests.
And if you think Zelda is an RPG, you are just wrong.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Sometimes I get to make up the genre of actual games.
So, I hear by authorize myself to make any calls for you!
Here's one:
Zelda is not an RPG, it's in the Action Adventure genre.
So, I hear by authorize myself to make any calls for you!
Here's one:
Zelda is not an RPG, it's in the Action Adventure genre.
The original, and actual definition and its rules still works perfectly.
But it doesn't tho.
Your one line of saying it doesnt does not alter reality.
It doesnt matter how much marketing splooge you gargle.
A video game rpg is a digital version of a pen and paper rpg.
They are not called computer rpg's because 'you play a role in a game'.
They got the name because they were literally NAMED AFTER pen and paper rpg's.
You can call a cat a dog all you want, you can even get a bunch of idiots to parrot the act and call the cat a dog.
Doesnt change the the fact its a dog, and the people who know better and shake their head as they walk by the drooling yokels chanting dog at a cat are not wrong.
A Link to the Past
Banned
This is an action adventure game. A genre defining one.
The problem is 30+ years later, when everyone is using the word cat to describe a dog, there's not much those 5 people shaking their heads can do about it. They've been left in the dust along with their definition, regardless of how correct they may be.
I agree with you by the way. Just saying that it's a lost battle. RPG is whateverthehellpeoplewantittobe now.
Its not what they want it to be. Thats what marketing tells them it is.
Anything can be an RPG. It's all about presentation. There is no single defining characteristic nor does being an RPG have to exclude something from being something else. I've played table top games where the only goals were that you have to respond to situations in character which was vaguely defined at the start (forgot what the game is called). There is no preset story. At the end the DM tallys up mystery objectives and reveals them at the end of the session. It's just as fun as anything with stats and dice rolls. More so since anyone can play as long as the DM is skilled enough to convey the idea well enough and knows how to make it fun.
The only issue with defining what an RPG is is that we use the term RPG interchangeably for multiple, often contradictory things.
The only issue with defining what an RPG is is that we use the term RPG interchangeably for multiple, often contradictory things.
ForsakenLotus
Member
It's called a semantic change, and you are correct. The original definition of something doesn't matter if a new definition is commonly accepted and used. It makes the original obsolete out of context, or just period.
A Link to the Past
Banned
He's got a health meter and a magic meter, sounds like an RPG to me
If it's formulas then how do RTS play into it.
Many have similar formulas that you talk about including unit level but still are not at all RPGs. I don't think formulas or stats have anything to do with what makes an RPG.
Correct. Which is what leads to the RPG problem. There is no new definition to take over for the old definition. Things did not shift in a logical way, and publishers, developers, press, consumers, etc. apply the term RPG to any number of games for any number of reasons. It's mostly a junk term now.
It still has a little bit of value though, as usually when you say that something is an RPG, people will be able to understand and have a good idea in their head of how the game might work. But really, unless people convert back to using the term as originally intended, I'd rather just drop the term all together.
But that's not going to happen, so... whatever.
DownGrader
Member
Please read the article:
Tabletop RPG: Driven by character skill.
Computer RPG: Driven by character skill.
Other Video Games: Driven by player skill.
Action-RPG: Driven by both player & character skill.
This is the "traditional" classification of RPGs, favored by hardcore fans - it's simple, direct and clear.
There are still subgenres, like Tactical RPG, Strategy RPGs, Dungeon Crawlers/Blobbers and Roguelikes, but IMHO those are all sub-divisions of either "CRPGs" or "Action-RPGs".
BTW, that's why The Legend of Zelda games are NOT RPGs, not even Action-RPGs - because Link's stats don't matter. You won't ever see this:
They are not games about Link's stats and skills as a character, but about the player's skill in controlling him. The Biggoron's Sword is more powerful but requires two-hands, forcing you to abandon the shield. It changes your playstyle - the question it poses is not "does this fit my character's stats?", but rather "does this fit my player skills?"
Which is cool too, and makes the Biggoron's Sword more memorable than most RPG weapons, as it changes how you play the game, not just your stats.
A Link to the Past
Banned
But it's a ROLE-playing game, and Link is your role so I mean, it's an RPG!
I'm a little afraid of being banned for trolling
Well. Health meters are obviously in several different games. And magic meters are just an abstraction to limit resources and force resource management, which are, again, in several different games. By your definition Halo is an RPG because you have health and ammo. So is Street Fighter because you have health and super meter.
Oh. Nevermind then.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll