What actually makes an RPG an RPG?

[Eclectic Dreck]

So many games that are universally known as RPGs completely defy the principal of agency over your role. Most notably the Final Fantasy series and almost every single jRPG. Plenty of western RPGs are extremely INflexible in the agency over your role or even the story.

This is starting to seem like the spelling "rule" of "I before E, except after C" which is a rule that has as many exceptions as examples; for every 'Science' there is a 'ceiling'.

My argument is simply that without player agency the game is not an RPG. I don't consider, for example, Final Fantasy 13 to be an RPG because it offers zero agency over character or narrative. I can not alter my character's function, their statistics, their world view or even how people see them nor can I alter, even slightly, the outcome of the story. By contrast, World of Warcraft offers slim agency because a player plays the role of hero by selecting one of several different classes and races and then further chooses to specialize in one of a few directions from there.

The former is an example of where people attempt to assert that a mechanical system is what defines an RPG. Such definitions are fundamentally useless. Most games have some measure of an inventory system, so how far does one have to go from a two weapon system like Halo until it is considered worthy of an RPG system? If tactical decision making in combat is important, does that mean strategy games of various sorts are RPGs? Because it is impossible to define precisely when such a system becomes worthy of an RPG, it is of no real use to defining what an RPG is.

By contrast, if you define the genre by agency, you'll note that it encompasses, quite naturally, many games that include such systems. Alpha Protocol, for example, is an RPG because it offers character agency in the form of choosing which skills one will specialize in and allows them to alter NPC perception of their character. It also allows for a great degree of narrative agency both in discreet gameplay moments as well as the story as a whole. Bioshock offered some agency over the character, largely in the form of choosing which plasmids to purchase as well as limited agency over the narrative (largely in terms of the ending).

The bottom line is simply this: while each of us will have a varying amount of agency before we consider a game to be an RPG, defining an RPG by the presence of agency is useful. It tells us when a game most definitely is NOT an RPG - something that makes it more useful than the initial tautology. And it provides a clarified set of reasoning as to when a game is an RPG. Those mechanical systems people always point to are not intrinsically a part of RPGs - it is just a common way of giving the player agency over character is all.

 

[Treblaine]

So many games that are universally known as RPGs completely defy the principal of agency over your role. Most notably the Final Fantasy series and almost every single jRPG. Plenty of western RPGs are extremely INflexible in the agency over your role or even the story.

This is starting to seem like the spelling "rule" of "I before E, except after C" which is a rule that has as many exceptions as examples; for every 'Science' there is a 'ceiling'.

My argument is simply that without player agency the game is not an RPG. I don't consider, for example, Final Fantasy 13 to be an RPG because it offers zero agency over character or narrative. I can not alter my character's function, their statistics, their world view or even how people see them nor can I alter, even slightly, the outcome of the story. By contrast, World of Warcraft offers slim agency because a player plays the role of hero by selecting one of several different classes and races and then further chooses to specialize in one of a few directions from there.

The former is an example of where people attempt to assert that a mechanical system is what defines an RPG. Such definitions are fundamentally useless. Most games have some measure of an inventory system, so how far does one have to go from a two weapon system like Halo until it is considered worthy of an RPG system? If tactical decision making in combat is important, does that mean strategy games of various sorts are RPGs? Because it is impossible to define precisely when such a system becomes worthy of an RPG, it is of no real use to defining what an RPG is.

By contrast, if you define the genre by agency, you'll note that it encompasses, quite naturally, many games that include such systems. Alpha Protocol, for example, is an RPG because it offers character agency in the form of choosing which skills one will specialize in and allows them to alter NPC perception of their character. It also allows for a great degree of narrative agency both in discreet gameplay moments as well as the story as a whole. Bioshock offered some agency over the character, largely in the form of choosing which plasmids to purchase as well as limited agency over the narrative (largely in terms of the ending).

The bottom line is simply this: while each of us will have a varying amount of agency before we consider a game to be an RPG, defining an RPG by the presence of agency is useful. It tells us when a game most definitely is NOT an RPG - something that makes it more useful than the initial tautology. And it provides a clarified set of reasoning as to when a game is an RPG. Those mechanical systems people always point to are not intrinsically a part of RPGs - it is just a common way of giving the player agency over character is all.

It's a very nice definition, very tempting.

But that it doesn't cover the two biggest and most well known games that are known as Role Playing Games: World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy. That makes it far too inadequate.

It's more than just those games, so many games are built on the formula used in those games and they too are built on others (WoW in many ways is extremely similar to Diablo and many other games known as RPGs).

If WoW, all the Final Fantasy games and and diablo are not RPGs... then what are they?!?!

How many people have to call Final Fantasy an RPG before the definition must be expanded to accommodate them?

 

[Hyper-space]

The label "RPG" is less of a genre and more of an concept that can apply to every genre. Really, there is no genre that cannot have RPG elements and most of the games that we recognize as solely "RPG" simply need further classification. So for example, something like Final Fantasy could be classified as a turn-based strategy RPG, while Fallout 3 as FPS-RPG.

Your ability to customize the way you play the game in some way. Equipment, stats, skills, levels/experience and the like are often referred to as "RPG-elements".

Games that are very storydriven and have RPG-elements are usually simply called "RPGs" while games that just have RPG-elements tacked on are called "FPS RPGs", "Action RPGs" and so on.

Story-driven as a criteria makes no sense as its a matter of interpretation and thus highly subjective. Then there's the matter of what kind of story it is, as the "story" can be emergent (such as in the case of Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft) and thus there could be a strong story-focus despite no "official" story taking place. Imagine a game with RPG elements but no story, what would you call that then?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

It's a very nice definition, very tempting.

But that it doesn't cover the two biggest and most well known games that are known as Role Playing Games: World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy. That makes it far too inadequate.

It's more than just those games, so many games are built on the formula used in those games and they too are built on others (WoW in many ways is extremely similar to Diablo and many other games known as RPGs).

If WoW, all the Final Fantasy games and and diablo are not RPGs... then what are they?!?!

How many people have to call Final Fantasy an RPG before the definition must be expanded to accommodate them?

WoW would qualify because it does offer some degree of character agency. Some entries in the Final Fantasy franchise would qualify because they have character agency as well. My claim regarding Final Fantasy's non-status as an RPG refers entirely to the latest entry in the main series - 13, an opinion that I share with <a href=http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-final-fantasy-xiii-not-an-rpg-173682.phtml>others.

 

[Treblaine]

It's a very nice definition, very tempting.

But that it doesn't cover the two biggest and most well known games that are known as Role Playing Games: World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy. That makes it far too inadequate.

It's more than just those games, so many games are built on the formula used in those games and they too are built on others (WoW in many ways is extremely similar to Diablo and many other games known as RPGs).

If WoW, all the Final Fantasy games and and diablo are not RPGs... then what are they?!?!

How many people have to call Final Fantasy an RPG before the definition must be expanded to accommodate them?

WoW would qualify because it does offer some degree of character agency. Some entries in the Final Fantasy franchise would qualify because they have character agency as well. My claim regarding Final Fantasy's non-status as an RPG refers entirely to the latest entry in the main series - 13, an opinion that I share with <a href=http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-final-fantasy-xiii-not-an-rpg-173682.phtml>others.

In Soviet Russia Japan; role plays YOU!

Well, I saw the criticism you made of FF13 to apply to all FF games. Very little give adequate agency over the roles you play, few even focus on one role but a party of equals that is much more like a turn-based-strategy game.

I thought by "slim agency" of WoW you meant it didn't have enough.

Jim Sterling in the end said ALL the Final Fantasy games were RPG for no other reason than because people called them RPGs often enough.

Which leaves RPG to be quite a meaningless label, it only therefore works for games that closely rip-off/are-derivative-of Final Fantasy, rather than doing its own thing within the scope of a certain agreed but suitably broad parameter.

So many games that would are not considered RPGs have substantial agency over your character, like Brink's character customisation.

 

[Nitrozzy7]

Note on the joke; This is an RPG-7 not an RPG.

 

[Duskflamer]

While I haven't read through the entire thread, I feel 95% certain that at least one person has said something along the lines of "The choices you make affecting things!" "Good story elements!!" or something to that effect. I am going to flat out say that you are wrong. In video games, the genre is entirely defined by the gameplay, story has nothing to do with it, and "choices" are a story element, not a gameplay one.

Then again, if nobody has said anything to that effect yet I am pleasantly surprised, good job if that's the case. Third post had a claim that choices affecting the story is what makes an RPG. I am disappoint -_-

As to what an RPG actually is in my view, it's all about progression. Super Mario World is not an RPG, as Mario is the same at the start as he is at the end (baring temporary power-ups that remain consistent throughout the game). Super Mario RPG is, well, an RPG, as the Mario (and others) you play at the end is much more powerful than the Mario you played at the start.

Typically, RPGs have two main methods of progression, leveling and equipment.

Leveling is where your characters have numerical statistics that improve over time as you play the game (usually through "Level Ups" but some games use other methods).

Equipment is where the tools available to the characters get better as you go through the game.

Most if not all clear-cut RPGs use both of these, having your characters level up and obtain new equipment as the game continues on. Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Tales Of.., and others all use this process.

It's possible to only use one or the other as well. I can't think of a leveling-only example off the top of my head, however Metroid and similar games could be considered RPGs, as you get more and better equipment as the game progresses.

When I mention equipment though, it's important to note that I don't count things like Halo or COD giving you access to different weapons over the course of the game, for the same reason I don't count Mario's power ups, they're temporary. Yea, if you pick up a rocket launcher it will do more damage than a pistol, but once the ammo is out it doesn't help you. Even if you use up all of Samus' missiles, picking up extra missile capacity and Energy Tanks still have a benefit after you burn through their capacity, as they don't go away. The progression is constant, not temporary.

It's also VERY important to note that RPG is a genre that plays very well with others, as while most genres are defined by their combat (In an FPS or TPS you're shooting things from a first or third person perspective. An action game has you running around attacking things, a platformer has you jumping around a lot, etc.), and any of those systems can be given some sort of progression, "RPG elements," as it were. Hell, even the traditional Final Fantasy style games tend to be known as "Turn-based RPG," not just "RPG."

 

[TheBritishAreComing]

An interesting read: http://www.rpgfan.com/editorials/old/1998/0007.html

To me a game fits the RPG category when it allows the player to have near total freedom when customizing their character or whatever, and when it has statistics in some shape or form and some method of increasing the effectiveness of said stat.

The thing, however, that defines whether the game is an RPG or Action RPG to me, is whether the player has real-time control over their character. This is because when the player clicks or presses a button or whatever the PC is moved by an action, thus adding the Action to the genre fit, whereas in a menu based combat system the action of the PC is not caused by the player pressing a button but by the player choosing an option in some form of menu.

 

[Hyperactiveman]

Yeah depth and choice.

Don't have those then it's a shooter... or whatever else category it falls into.