What is a RPG?

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I believe a RPG is simply just a game with role-playing, and that is all. I think the Wikipedia definition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game] is spot on:

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.

RPGs have no attachment to specific gameplay mechanics

I argue that RPGs have basically no gameplay mechanics that define the genre. The gameplay can literally be anything as long as the game features role-playing (which I will get to later).

The following are games that are universally considered RPGs by professional gaming journalism: Final Fantasy XIII, Skyrim, Demon's/Dark Souls, World of Warcraft, Star Ocean, Resonance of Fate, Disgaea, Deus Ex, Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol, Valkyria Chronicles, and many more. Pretty much all of those games listed have gameplay that are nothing like each other. Demon's/Dark Souls is as different from Mass Effect as Bayonetta is from Call of Duty. Basically, if I were to hand you a game you knew nothing about (brand new intellectual property) and tell you it was a RPG and nothing else, you'd have no idea how the game would actually play; you wouldn't know if it had turn-based combat, 1st/3rd-person shooting, hack and slash combat, etc. The only thing that would be pretty much guaranteed to be present is someway to level up your character(s) by increasing stats and/or skills and abilities.

The battle system can be any kind of battling (using any kind of real or imaginable weapons) from a turn-based system that relies character stats, player strategy, and luck (classic DnD) to full-on real-time combat where player skill takes precedent (Demon's/Dark Souls). Based on the world the RPG takes place in, the weapons being used will be different; in medieval-type world (DnD), swords and shields will be the main type of combat while in a futuristic world (Mass Effect), guns will most likely be the weapon of choice. It seems like most people feel swords, shields, and magic is more RPGish than gun combat for some reason. Everybody considers Skyrim as much a RPG as a classic turn-based RPG like say Final Fantasy VI. But then there's a group a people that consider Mass Effect more of a shooter than a RPG when Mass Effect's combat system is just gun combat in real-time like Skyrim is sword and shield combat in real-time. If you are going to label Mass Effect a shooter with RPG elements, then you need to label Skyrim a hack and slash with RPG elements.

Hell, a RPG doesn't even need a battle system of any kind. You don't need to kill things to gain experience. A RPG could just be walking around a world talking to NPCs in my opinion.

What is role-playing?

I will go back to Wikipedia's definition and state that role-playing in the video game medium (since you can't literally "act" in a video game) simply require that game to focus on a process of structured decision-making or character development so that you can role-play as a character by making dialog choices and making important decisions throughout the game.

With that in mind, Mass Effect is, with 100% certainty, a RPG. You are allowed to shape your Shepard the way you see fit. Yes, Shepard is still a "good" character regardless if you go full Paragon or full Renegade. But that isn't knock against it having real role-playing because playing as Shepard in Mass Effect is just like playing a DnD character with a set alignment. There's so many things you have control over in Mass Effect from deciding the fate of an entire race to punching a reporter in the face. You choose who is on your squad, you can screw over squadmates that you don't like, you choose who to romance (if anyone), you make the occasional story choice, and you make several important and key choices on the sidequests. You are allowed to shape Shepard's personalty through a plethora of dialog choices throughout the entire game. How is that NOT role-playing? Mass Effect is as much a RPG as Skyrim or Dragon Age is a RPG. Not only is Mass Effect a RPG, but it is one of the finest examples of role-playing in video games.

Now, with definition of a RPG in mind, any game without actual role-playing is not a RPG. It makes sense, shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Lots of games that are regarded as RPGs really aren't RPGs at all.

Pretty much every JRPG is not a RPG because those games have no role-playing in them. You normally just control a group of characters from story point to story point. Every line of dialog is scripted and you have no say of what your characters say or do. You have no choices to make. You only control what your characters do in combat and where to go much like you control the main character in a GTA game. JRPGs let you level up characters so that is a kind of character development but a lot of times you don't even have a choice in how your characters level; your HP and other stats go up, you might get a new skill every 10 levels, but there is no choice whatsoever a lot of times. Plus, you can't shape any character's personality nor make any story decisions. 1 hour of Mass Effect has more role-playing than the entire Final Fantasy series. Most games that are considered RPGs are merely adventure games with some kind of combat system.

Note: In no way am I trying to say WRPGs are awesome and JRPGs suck. This is not a WRPG vs JRPG topic, it's just a topic about "What is a RPG?" and nothing else. I merely came to the conclusion that JRPGs aren't RPGs, which does not at all imply they are bad games. I enjoy the fact that JRPGs focus on creating a 100% scripted story with set characters. I feel you can write a better story when the writer doesn't have to give any freedom to the gamer. JRPGs are very much like old adventure games but with a combat system to me, that is all.

 

[Zhukov]

I have no idea. The range of games referred to as RPGs kind of defies a common definition. Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy XXYZ, Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol, Persona, Oblivion, Deus Ex etc etc.

If a rabid gamer were to put a gun to my head and demand a definition then I would say, "An RPG is a game in which the player can define the protagonist's characterization and is afforded some measure of choice in regards to events of the game's narrative." Then the rabid gamer would probably shoot me because his favourite game didn't fit the definition and that seems to be incredibly important to some people.

At the end of the day I don't see how it really matters. I'm more concerned about whether a game is good or bad or if I will enjoy it rather than what genre it belongs to.

...

PS. I'm getting the distinct impression that you wrote this in order to say, "Mass Effect is an RPG, leave it alone!" rather than for the purposes of nailing down a definition of RPG.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

At the end of the day I don't see how it really matters. I'm more concerned about whether a game is good or bad or if I will enjoy it rather than what genre it belongs to.

True. But I also made the point that RPGs have no set requirements for any specific gameplay mechanics. Why do people feel having sword and shield combat is more RPGish than having shooting combat?

PS. I'm getting the distinct impression that you wrote this in order to say, "Mass Effect is an RPG, leave it alone!" rather than for the purposes of nailing down a definition of RPG.

It just so happens that I think Mass Effect has some of the best role-playing the video game medium has seen whereas for some reason, lots of people choose to call Mass Effect a shooter with RPG elements instead of a RPG that just happens to have shooting as it's combat system. It was obvious example to use as a basis for the discussion and the fact that like everyone has played Mass Effect. I don't see topics about Dark Souls being a hack and slash with RPG elements when that game has no role-playing. It seems to get an automatic pass because it has standard sword and shield combat. Also, the games has like no story either, which is a pretty big thing for most RPG gamers.

 

[madwarper]

Well, first and foremost, are we talking about table-top gaming or computer (ie. video) gaming? Because, they're not the same same.

In table-top gaming, players "role-playing" their characters is possible as they can come up with any solution they can think of and apply it as long as it fits within the rules of the world and their DM allows it, but it's only possible since the DM can adapt and adjust accordingly.

In computer gaming, players can not "role-play" as they would in table-top gaming, since computer gaming is an on-rails experience where you are only offered the illusion of choice. As such, what DOES define Computer RPG's is what does translate into cRPG's; Levels, Experience, Stats, Items, etc., ie. Numbers.

So, in regards to Mass Effect; ME1 was a RPG third-person shooter. ME2 was a third-person shooter with WEAK RPG elements. ME3... Can't say until the final product it released, but the footage revealed doesn't look promising.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

If a rabid gamer were to put a gun to my head and demand a definition then I would say, "An RPG is a game in which the player can define the protagonist's characterization and is afforded some measure of choice in regards to events of the game's narrative."

Wouldn't that include Call of Duty? I can choose to be a gun-slinging patriot, a stealthy assassin or a peacemaker.

 

[Zhukov]

If a rabid gamer were to put a gun to my head and demand a definition then I would say, "An RPG is a game in which the player can define the protagonist's characterization and is afforded some measure of choice in regards to events of the game's narrative."

Wouldn't that include Call of Duty? I can choose to be a gun-slinging patriot, a stealthy assassin or a peacemaker.

Ehhh... kind of. In CoD you can certainly define your combat style, but I'd say there's a lot more to "characterization" than that.

Either way, it certainly doesn't give you any choice with narrative events.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

So, if halo had dialouge options. No levelling up or anything else added, but you got to pick masterchiefs responses to things people say to him but still got railroaded(kinda like Mass effect). Would that be an rpg?

 

[skywolfblue]

I have no idea. The range of games referred to as RPGs kind of defies a common definition. Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy XXYZ, Mass Effect 2, Alpha Protocol, Persona, Oblivion, Deus Ex etc etc.

If a rabid gamer were to put a gun to my head and demand a definition then I would say, "An RPG is a game in which the player can define the protagonist's characterization and is afforded some measure of choice in regards to events of the game's narrative." Then the rabid gamer would probably shoot me because his favourite game didn't fit the definition and that seems to be incredibly important to some people.

At the end of the day I don't see how it really matters. I'm more concerned about whether a game is good or bad or if I will enjoy it rather than what genre it belongs to.

I agree with this. A lot of banter goes on about "this game" fitting into "that genre" when it doesn't really matter. If it's fun it doesn't matter whether it gets called an RPG, an Action RPG, a Third Person Shooter or whatever.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

If a rabid gamer were to put a gun to my head and demand a definition then I would say, "An RPG is a game in which the player can define the protagonist's characterization and is afforded some measure of choice in regards to events of the game's narrative."

Wouldn't that include Call of Duty? I can choose to be a gun-slinging patriot, a stealthy assassin or a peacemaker.

Ehhh... kind of. In CoD you can certainly define your combat style, but I'd say there's a lot more to "characterization" than that.

Either way, it certainly doesn't give you any choice with narrative events.

Not sure what you mean by narrative events. Wouldn't your definition cover a game like Civilization? Your choices with regard to your character (peaceful or aggressive, the types of attacks you use etc) define how the story progresses, which I would call "narrative events".

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well, first and foremost, are we talking about table-top gaming or computer (ie. video) gaming? Because, they're not the same same.

In table-top gaming, players "role-playing" their characters is possible as they can come up with any solution they can think of and apply it as long as it fits within the rules of the world and their DM allows it, but it's only possible since the DM can adapt and adjust accordingly.

In computer gaming, players can not "role-play" as they would in table-top gaming, since computer gaming is an on-rails experience where you are only offered the illusion of choice. As such, what DOES define Computer RPG's is what does translate into cRPG's; Levels, Experience, Stats, Items, etc., ie. Numbers.

So, in regards to Mass Effect; ME1 was a RPG third-person shooter. ME2 was a third-person shooter with WEAK RPG elements. ME3... Can't say until the final product it released, but the footage revealed doesn't look promising.

Video game RPGs spawned from people wanting to recreate the table-top RPG experience in video game form. To me, they are the same thing. Just because computer technology limitations at the time didn't make it able to recreate all facets of table-top RPGs doesn't change the RPG genre. Video game RPGs also started with mainly using battle systems that were turn-based because of technology limitations, same goes for random battles. Should turned-based combat and random battles then be included in the list of things that a RPG must have because that's how the early video game RPGs did things? Most RPGs are no longer turned-based because today's CPUs can now do all of that computing of "dice rolls" and calculations in real time and behind-the-scenes. But Mass Effect 2 has more role-playing than 99% of the RPGs out there, why do you consider it to have "weak" RPG elements?

Table-top RPGs also have the illusion of choice to a degree. The DM writes the general story and creates the dungeon and then he/she pulls the players along a basic path. Don't get me wrong, based on a how a session goes and what the players do, the DM may make major story changes to future sessions. The DM is able to make big changes to the overall campaign between sessions because the campaign is not a finished product like a game; however, the session itself is a "finished template" pretty much, and major changes really can't happen within a single session.

So, if halo had dialouge options. No levelling up or anything else added, but you got to pick masterchiefs responses to things people say to him but still got railroaded(kinda like Mass effect). Would that be an rpg?

Yes, but the game would have to focus on the role-playing aspects. You can't just stick in some dialog options here and there, and have only have a few story choices at the end that yield multiple endings or whatever. I'm not sure myself if a RPG should require a leveling system or not. A Halo RPG would have to be like Mass Effect but with Halo's 1st-person shooting as the combat so there would need to be lots of talking and lots of decisions to be made. Mass Effect has fully committed to allowing you to shape your Shepard's personality through a plethora of dialog options and Renegade and Paragon options, a Halo RPG would need to have that kind of commitment to the role-playing to be a RPG. Every game has to have a set plot, you may let the players jump off the set path here and there but then you have to get them back on the path. Mass Effect gives you lots of decisions in the side missions instead of the main plot (because that's just not feasible), you decide the fate of a whole race in one of the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2. The amount of writing that it would take to do a real branching story in a game (book, movie, visual novel, etc.) would just be a ridiculous undertaking.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I fully believe that Video Game RPG's are defined by things like leveling up and stats, they really need to be rebranded as something else. The reason i say that is because Final Fantasy, often considered the RPG series, although its declining apparently, features no real role playing, the characters all have set personalities. Same thing with Mass Effect actually, you dont really have that much control over Shepard apart from, "is Shepard a dick in this scene?"

 

[TehCookie]

Pretty much every JRPG is not a RPG because those games have no role-playing in them.

No you are just given a role or play instead of creating your own.

RPGs are just a badly named genre. A jellyfish isn't a fish because it has fish in the name. Role-playing games aren't games you play a role (you play a role in every game). Role-playing games were originally based off of D&D and include some sort of leveling system along with stats. RPGs are all about the numbers.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

snip

To put it simply, you're technically right, but it doesn't matter. The term RPG means any game that utilizes the basic table top formula or something like it.

Other games DO have role playing, but that's not what "role-playing game" entails.

That is just how the term works in the gaming industry... kind of like how the Matrix has a LOT of drama, but it's still an action movie because it doesn't focus solely on dramatic elements.

 

[pearcinator]

I define an RPG by few things. How it is played has nothing to do with it (FPS, third-person shooter, platformer can all be RPG's)

- Playing a 'role'. Your character must be controlled by you and (in most cases) you get to choose what your character looks like.
- Making 'choices'. You make choices throughout the game that impact on the story (not necessarily exclusively for good/bad choices)
- Level-up system. This is the my main 'defining aspect' of an RPG. Getting experience or upgrading your character through the story in any way you like.

I believe games like Mass Effect 2 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are RPG's.

Games like COD and Halo are not. Nor are games like Metroid Prime because even though you get upgrades for Samus, you don't get to choose what upgrades they are.

Some Zelda games have RPG elements but I define them as 'action/adventure'

In summary...RPG's are about leveling up your character. If there isn't experience to gain or abilities to upgrade it is not an RPG.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I guess I'll keep repeating this until we can stop making these threads.
RPG is a game with meaningful choices in all aspects of gameplay.

 

[Joccaren]

I have to disagree with you here.

This ends up coming down to no true Scotsman, or variations thereof, in order to cut out certain games that could be considered role playing games by that basic definition, and add in ones that, as you put it 'gaming journalism' calls RPGs.

For example, a game in which I play a role is Battlefield 3. I play the role of my soldier, stuck in the middle of a war between Russia and the US. Doing what I'm told to do for Skyrim or 'I'm not playing it right', I can make up my own backstory, and make my own context to my actions. My decisions have an impact on who lives or dies in the war as, using my voice chat, I am able to tell my squadmates what to do. Role playing right? As much as Skyrim is anyway, but with actual interaction from other 'characters'.

So now we'll add in a clause that the game has to do the reacting, and simply having someone on voice chat reacting to your RPing isn't enough. Skyrim is no longer an RPG because, put quite plainly, the world doesn't react. Saying it reacts is like saying BF3 reacts because when you get shot at, someone will shout out about being shot at, or when you spot something, a voice over will play for 'I've spotted this', and people will tell you that you lost a base. Its as reactionary as Skyrim is.

And now we'll add in some other clause to include Skyrim again, but why? Why does it have to be this hard?
Simply put, because the term is so vague it means nothing, so people try to put meaning on it whilst staying with what is popularly believed to be an RPG.



Let me also tell you something about playing a role, that discludes all FPS ever, all 3PS, all action adventure games - any game which requires the players skill and not strategy.
In such games, like Skyrim, you do not play a role - you ARE the role. It may seem like a petty distinction that makes little sense, but bare with me.
When you aim your sword and swing it, who was it that did it? You, or your character? In Skyrim, it was you. Your character played the animation, but you aimed it. Your skill determined the character's success. You did not play the character - the character played you.
In true RPGs, you do not have to aim. You are not allowed to aim. You're character's skill, modifying a random role, determines their success. Not your skill. You can make the decisions for them, but you cannot override their skill with your own.
What games like Mass Effect and Skyrim do is not let you play a role, but let that role play you. It may seem a minor difference, but it is quite a big deal.
Imagine an FPS where you didn't aim, but you clicked an attack button, and it would calculate whether you aimed properly and shot them, or whether you missed by a random dice roll. Is that an FPS? No. Its more akin to an RPG. Likewise, Skyrim is more akin to an action adventure game than an RPG thanks to that small distinction.

Now, what defines RPGs IMO is:
-The capacity to role play. This includes the world reacting to you. Unless you're doing a massive single-person-plays-the-whole-world sort of thing, the world must react to you for it to allow role playing, as if you don't want to act out everyone else there is no capacity for them to act out themselves.
Skyrim fails here, and here's a simple thing it could have done better: Pacing
Everyone in Skyrim, EVERYONE, is willing to hand their mundane little errand off to some random stranger they've never seen before. There is no point to doing these things either in the game world. All it does is earn you money - which you'll have enough of -, loot - that is not as good as your current stash - and XP - a pointless venture due to the level scaling system. Now, if people WAITED until they should know your name before handing you a quest, it would make more sense. Suddenly, Ysolda only tells you to find her that mammoth's tusk once you're a Companion, or once you join the Bard's College. It makes it appear that the world cares about what you've done. That guy who lost his family sword? He'll only send you after it if you're a companion - otherwise he won't speak to you about it (Unless you have a high speech skill). In doing this, rather than the world pointing out the obvious about what you've done, I.E 'So you're the new member of the companions are you?', it reacts. 'You're that new member of the companions? Say, could you lend me a hand?'
Some NPCs in Skyrim will do this, most won't. The guilds do things right in the fact that you get no missions unless you've done a certain quest in the guild - but the whole world needs to be like that.
Oh, and that companions guy needs to be fixed. So, you've never heard of Dovahkiin? That guy who killed the dragon outside Whiterun? Who killed Alduin? Whose name was shouted across all of Skyrim? Who is the Thane of all the holds in Skyrim? Who ended the civil war? Who is the leader of the College of Winterhold? Nightingale and leader of the Thieves Guild? Assassin of the Dark Brotherhood who killed the Emporer? Chosen one of every Daedric Lord? That guy that everyone in the world but you seems to know of? Yeah... Seems legit...
It also includes the ability to make decisions. Being forced to say yes is not role playing.

-No skill based system. This prevents you from not playing your character, but having them play you. Now, you are only able to play your character. Your characters skill determines things, and you are playing a role, 'nough said.

-Multiple ways to approach many situations, with little railroading. This is another part of role playing. You often don't have a choice of whether or not to do something monumentally stupid. Let me take the Deus Ex boss fights as an example. Say you decided your Jensen was sneaky, a real stealth type. Didn't walk into encounters without checking every corner, and avoided fights at all costs. Now, get to the first boss fight. You are no longer sneaky Jensen. You are 'I am the gladiator' Jensen, who walks into the middle of a room like "Hey Guys, where's the party?" not caring who is there, and not noticing them either, and forcing a combat situation onto himself rather than simply sneaking and following the enemy.
Different ways of approaching things also does not have to mean the archetypical thief, mage and warrior way of approaching things. In Mass Effect, at least 1, you have multiple ways of approaching situations, without that sort of thing. Go into an area with enemies, sometimes they won't even know you're there. You have to start the encounter. You get to decide how you approach the situation. You can RP a sneaky Shepard who just leaves, unable to avoid the combat, or who tries to sneak past but gets caught. You can RP 'Rambo Shepard', who doesn't even pause but just runs in and shoots everyone. You can RP 'Tactical Shepard', who hides in cover, throws a grenade out and starts taking down enemies whilst being cautious in his advance. It is up to you how you approach things, and in such situations you are not railroaded into a certain 'character' ala Deus Ex (Though such things do happen in other situations).

-A progression system. I'll cover good and bad progression systems, but such things are not needed, only as points towards how good of an RPG it is, not whether it is an RPG or not.
A progression system is needed to show character growth. It does not need levels, or new ability unlocks and perks. It can be similar to Skyrim's, without its levels and perks, and still be a good progression system - just a different style of one. If your character gets better at things by some means, then it works. Be it using magic makes your spells more powerful, or you level up and add points to your intelligence stat and pick a magic ability to give yourself more magic power.
What makes a bad progression system is one without a purpose. It leaves the feeling that there is no reason to do any quests - and really there isn't. Its the game telling you 'We're trying to be nice, so go make your own fun'. Skyrim's was a bad progression system as everything scaled. There was no need to level up. It was purely optional. You could go fight a bandit at level five, then again at level 20, and there wouldn't be a ton of difference except for the fact that you'd gathered more loot and more spells. Use the same weapons and attacks in both encounters, the battle would be just as hard as the first time. You didn't need to level up to kill a giant. You just had to have the right equipment, and use your skill. Levelling was a means to itself rather than a means to an end.
A good levelling system is one that makes you feel that levelling has a point. Most MMOs get this right. Go into a high level raid with a low level character - you're screwed. Level up to that high level, you stand a chance. In this case, levelling accomplishes something. It makes levelling a means to an end, rather than just the end.

-An inventory system of some description. Why? Well, you could RP a character with no belongings, but that's not true. It provides an opportunity for role playing. It doesn't matter if its a Dragon Age: Origins style inventory system, or a *Shudders* Mass Effect 2 Inventory System, but there needs to be one. You will notice this is a very broad span of inventory systems, and it is meant that way. I will once again point out what a good and bad inventory system is.
A bad inventory system is Mass Effect 2's inventory system. It gave the player little choice. Yes, you had the choice of which weapon you wanted to use, which armour you wanted to wear, but no choice on whether you searched dead enemies or not. Unless they were naked and punching you with bare fists, there will be something to loot off them (And even then... Lets not go there). Mass Effect 2 forces Shepard to be the 'My weapon is better' automatic type, where no matter what the enemy was using, he won't even bother looking to pick it up. This is in Stark Contrast to Mass Effect 1, where Shepard was the 'I always look' type, who always looked at what his enemies dropped, even if he didn't decide to keep everything. It limits the extent to which you can Role Play by imposing restrictions on who your character can be. These systems are better suited to linear RPGs, but I still consider bad.
A good System is the Dragon Age: Origins system. It give you the OPTION of whether you:
a) WANT to search the enemies
b) Want to keep anything they dropped
c) Want to put anything on them (From memory)
d) What you want to do with the stuff you collected
It gives you choice to do what you will with items, and is one of the things Skyrim got right. You don't HAVE to search dead enemies, but you are given the OPTION to. You don't have to keep what they drop, but you are given the option to. You don't have to place some worthless junk onto them to lighten your load, but you can if you want to. You also can interact with what you picked up if you want to.
Yes, most inventories of that style need a good brush up, some streamlined and efficient design, and some good classification systems, but they provide the most choice for a player to Role Play with.

That is most of it I think. These things are known as RPG elements. RPGs are the games in which they exist in their purest form. Other games are not RPGs, but X games with RPG elements. Skyrim is an Action Adventure game with RPG elements. Mass Effect & 2 are Third Person Shooters with RPG elements.
Alternatively, it can also work the other way around. Mass Effect is kindof on the line between one side and the other, but the extent to which it breaks the 'You play the character, not them play you' rule makes me put it on the Third Person Shooter with RPG elements side. I could be persuaded to class it as an RPG with Shooter and Puzzle Elements, but that is yet another discussion.

 

[Joccaren]

Table-top RPGs also have the illusion of choice to a degree. The DM writes the general story and creates the dungeon and then he/she pulls the players along a basic path. Don't get me wrong, based on a how a session goes and what the players do, the DM may make major story changes to future sessions. The DM is able to make big changes to the overall campaign between sessions because the campaign is not a finished product like a game; however, the session itself is a "finished template" pretty much, and major changes really can't happen within a single session.

Unless you have a great DM that plans each session so that it is very possible to change a great number of things and still have it all work out. There is a mix of railroading, providing opportunities, and not making things too set in stone + coming up with alternatives.

By Railroading, I mean putting them in an area with a limited set of options, I.E: A corridor has 2 paths, left and right, or 3 and back if you want. You now know that there are only three options that the player can take, but it is still their choice.
Providing opportunities is baiting the players into trying something they think is a different and interesting approach, whilst having you have planned it all along. Something like having a very powerful telekinetic or W/E, and a massive chasm with a set of large boulders nearby. Now, a Freaking powerful telekinetic would be required to do this, but they could lift up those rocks and use them as stepping stones. By providing the option to a player, and knowing who you're playing with, you can semi-force their decisions without railroading - just providing a very enticing option for them (Note, not a good example, but you get the gist of it. Needing to get into someone's house, and when you approach the house the gatekeeper has their back turned. They may decide to take the tempting opportunity and steal the keys, and use them to get into the house rather than picking locks).
Not having things too set in stone is self explanatory. You have an end overall goal for the session - say they learn that Alduin is going to destroy the world or something (Or take an arrow in the... BAD SKYRIM. Must stop playing). Now, what you shouldn't do is have one specific scenario by which they can find out this information, and then force them into that scenario. You should instead have multiple pre-planned possibilities of how they find it out, and also make up more on the fly so that you don't have to force them down a certain path. And then, an even better thing is to have a set of possibilities for how the story ends, a few possibilities for how each session ends, and then a few possibilities on how to get to each possibility - and then make up even more for all whilst playing the session.
You need a good DM, who is able to right a very flexible story, but it can be done. Not every session has to be set in stone before hand, nor the overall RP.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

'RPG' as a genre has (unfortunately) changed over the years. Back when they were first introduced, RPGs were computer representations of tabletop RPG games (duh) - stats, skill sets, the ability to define the main protagonist both from creation and through a leveling system, a gameworld heavily influenced by chance (an RNG system implemented to represent the dice of tabletop), and generally an open world game in which the player is free to complete the overarching plot line however they see fit. Basically it was the computer's job to fill in as GM for D&D players who didn't have a group.

Nowadays it means any game where you can 'level up'. Stats are all but gone, skills are pared back to a bare minimum, in half of the damn things you can't even define the protagonist (JRPGs I'm looking at you), the RNG is gone and replaced with FPS/Hack and Slash mechanics because gamers these days want to be able to head-shot distant opponents even if their character only has a marksman/small arms skill of 5/100, *sigh* I could go on but this thread is kinda depressing me.

Basically the term 'RPG' used to be very highly defined. In today's industry 'RPG' is a blanket term for 'an FPS onto which we've tagged a leveling system'.