What is a RPG?

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

This came off as an attempt to get Mass Effect to be considered a RPG. And my stance on the subject is very different. (The amount of "choice" that video games have is usually laughable when compared to table-top games.)

 

[Joccaren]

'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 old game where you can 'level up'. Stats are 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'.

Actually, I have a different understanding of things. RPG games have not 'Changed', but publishers have incorrectly labelled any game with RPG elements an RPG, and that stuck.

The whole point of a genre is to communicate information about the games that are within it. With the RPG genre as it is 'Changed', it communicates absolutely nothing. Hence, the whole point of the RPG genre is nil, and it might as well not exist, hence no game is an RPG, but they are levelling up Third Person Shooters. No, that is not how it is. RPG as a genre is still the same genre it always was, and should still communicate the same information, but some companies try to manipulate that to make us buy games that are not really RPGs, but that they want to sell to the RPG audience. It is my belief that Skyrim is called RPG simply because its predecessors were - which is wrong. Skyrim, IMO, has crossed the line from 'RPG with action adventure elements' to 'Action Adventure game with RPG elements' (There is another thread for this discussion if someone wants to bring it up), and simply to have their fans still buy it (Lets be honest, if Bethesda said the new Elder Scrolls game was an Action Adventure title, there would be those who wouldn't buy it because 'Bethesda's changed, they used to make RPGs bla bla bla').
Some of what we can expect from an RPG can be found in Skyrim, however many of those things are its weak points. Its levelling system is bad - with there being no point to it at all. Its open world forces the player to play all characters rather than just themself by not reacting, the inventory was an attempted streamline, but went too far as a 'Look at our pretty 3D model' and not enough 'Here's an easy to use inventory'. The 'classes' are badly imbalanced (Not a bad thing of itself I guess, games were more fun when more emphasis was put on cool things, and less on balance. See Morrowind), the options in the quests are really just 'I want a reward or I want to brag to my friends about how I'm morally superior as I didn't kill Boethia's man for Molag Bal's rape stick', and the world will not react no matter what you do (The Werewolf thing is slightly different, I'll grant that).

Also, before someone gets at me with 'Skyrim does react, those people in X tell me I'm the new member of the companions ect.', that's not reacting. Look at SOPA and the comments there. If it were to pass, and nobody did anything but talk about it, that would not be considered a reaction. The reaction would be people rioting in the streets. Apathy is what simply talking about it would be, and the only form of reaction in Skyrim (For the most part).

Anyway, getting a bit off track now, but as you can hopefully tell by my rant up there, we can see some of the RPG elements in Skyrim, but calling it simply an RPG gives false expectations. Someone who expects to be able to properly role play only there character in the world will probably be largely disappointed by the apathy of the entire game. Someone hoping for tactical combat will be met by button mass melee, click, hold and run magic, or sniper bowman. Someone thinking of the usual true RPG experience when they see the label 'RPG' on Skyrim would be disappointed by the game in that respect. Some of the features they were expecting didn't make it into the game, in favour of making it more actiony, and thus they may feel lied to.

The RPG label has not changed, it is merely incorrectly used by publishers. An RPG is the same as it was way back, but these days you have to be cautious on who you trust when they say 'RPG'.

 

[Ragnarok185]

I don't give a shit if it's an RPG or not.
Only if it's a good game or not and THAT is what should matter.


when people think "RPG" they think of medieval times with people swinging swords and shooting fire balls around.

 

[Dastardly]

RPGs have no attachment to specific gameplay mechanics

I agree. There is a tendency for RPGs to contain some kind of experience/leveling mechanic, and to provide choices to characters as to how they advance (choose new skills, bonuses, etc.), but it's not a requirement.

Not every sandwich has peanut butter on it. And not everything with peanut butter on it is a sandwich.

 

[masticina]

Yes you got a good point what is an RPG

You can put action heavy games under this label, strategic heavy games or story heavy and guess what it fits.

In the end total choice is hard to do even in games like Skyrim, yes an open WRPG, you really have 2-3 choices usually. Because that is the path of the story! Sure you can take the fourth option, not doing them but it is what it is.

I will put it simple RPG is a working term.. because we kinda accept its zen nature. There are definitely times that you have to make a judgement call to say if a game really fits under RPG or not. And people can disagree over those choices.

Enough hybrids out there to show that the question if it matters really. Fallout series, you can call it an RPG with guns or a shooter with rpg elements. Many choices ready for you! And both are right.. you even can stay it is a strategic game as you can play it sneaky. And plan ahead battles.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

RPGs have no attachment to specific gameplay mechanics

I agree. There is a tendency for RPGs to contain some kind of experience/leveling mechanic, and to provide choices to characters as to how they advance (choose new skills, bonuses, etc.), but it's not a requirement.

Not every sandwich has peanut butter on it. And not everything with peanut butter on it is a sandwich.

But rules and mechanics are how you define games. If I were to say 'game played with a ball, on grass, with eleven men per team' I could be talking about either football or cricket - two very different games. It is the rules and game mechanics that make all the difference.

 

[A Free Man]

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".

I wouldn't say that at all. Do you even have a character in civilization? I didn't play the game much but it seems more like you controlling the city then your character controlling the city. I think there are some must haves for RPG, like being in control of a single character and only having certain powers over others, as well as having to have some sort of choice in character development as well as in your approach to the main narrative. Even if it is a limited choice.

 

[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 old game where you can 'level up'. Stats are 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'.

Actually, I have a different understanding of things. RPG games have not 'Changed', but publishers have incorrectly labelled any game with RPG elements an RPG, and that stuck.

The whole point of a genre is to communicate information about the games that are within it. With the RPG genre as it is 'Changed', it communicates absolutely nothing. Hence, the whole point of the RPG genre is nil, and it might as well not exist, hence no game is an RPG, but they are levelling up Third Person Shooters. No, that is not how it is. RPG as a genre is still the same genre it always was, and should still communicate the same information, but some companies try to manipulate that to make us buy games that are not really RPGs, but that they want to sell to the RPG audience. It is my belief that Skyrim is called RPG simply because its predecessors were - which is wrong. Skyrim, IMO, has crossed the line from 'RPG with action adventure elements' to 'Action Adventure game with RPG elements' (There is another thread for this discussion if someone wants to bring it up), and simply to have their fans still buy it (Lets be honest, if Bethesda said the new Elder Scrolls game was an Action Adventure title, there would be those who wouldn't buy it because 'Bethesda's changed, they used to make RPGs bla bla bla').
Some of what we can expect from an RPG can be found in Skyrim, however many of those things are its weak points. Its levelling system is bad - with there being no point to it at all. Its open world forces the player to play all characters rather than just themself by not reacting, the inventory was an attempted streamline, but went too far as a 'Look at our pretty 3D model' and not enough 'Here's an easy to use inventory'. The 'classes' are badly imbalanced (Not a bad thing of itself I guess, games were more fun when more emphasis was put on cool things, and less on balance. See Morrowind), the options in the quests are really just 'I want a reward or I want to brag to my friends about how I'm morally superior as I didn't kill Boethia's man for Molag Bal's rape stick', and the world will not react no matter what you do (The Werewolf thing is slightly different, I'll grant that).

Also, before someone gets at me with 'Skyrim does react, those people in X tell me I'm the new member of the companions ect.', that's not reacting. Look at SOPA and the comments there. If it were to pass, and nobody did anything but talk about it, that would not be considered a reaction. The reaction would be people rioting in the streets. Apathy is what simply talking about it would be, and the only form of reaction in Skyrim (For the most part).

Anyway, getting a bit off track now, but as you can hopefully tell by my rant up there, we can see some of the RPG elements in Skyrim, but calling it simply an RPG gives false expectations. Someone who expects to be able to properly role play only there character in the world will probably be largely disappointed by the apathy of the entire game. Someone hoping for tactical combat will be met by button mass melee, click, hold and run magic, or sniper bowman. Someone thinking of the usual true RPG experience when they see the label 'RPG' on Skyrim would be disappointed by the game in that respect. Some of the features they were expecting didn't make it into the game, in favour of making it more actiony, and thus they may feel lied to.

The RPG label has not changed, it is merely incorrectly used by publishers. An RPG is the same as it was way back, but these days you have to be cautious on who you trust when they say 'RPG'.

In that case we are forced to say that the RPG genre is pretty much dead and buried. And perhaps that is so; games these days try and fit it all in so instead of having an 'RPG' game, an 'adventure' game, a 'puzzle' game and a 'hack-and-slash' game we end up instead with a 'hack-and-slash-adventure-rpg-with-puzzle-minigames' game. In an effort to reach larger audiences developers these days are moving away from 'pure-blood' single genre games and instead creating more and more cross-overs. So yeah, maybe the solid RPG game has faded, but it's bastard children are still with us.

 

[Joccaren]

I don't give a shit if it's an RPG or not.
Only if it's a good game or not and THAT is what should matter.


when people think "RPG" they think of medieval times with people swinging swords and shooting fire balls around.

No. Not at all. RPG is meant to communicate an idea about the game, and that is why it matters. If you had never heard of CoD before, and I told you it was an RPG, what would you expect? That is why it matters. Is is an efficient way of finding out if you are going to be remotely interested in the game or not.
/me sees game box
Game box says sports game
/me puts down game box

I don't even have to look at a picture (That usually has nothing to do with the gameplay), the description, or online gameplay as I know I do not like sports games. Hence, I just saved myself a lot of effort simply by s similar classification.

And RPG is not though of as medieval times with swords and fireballs. Look at Mass Effect. It is considered an RPG by many. It is the exact opposite spectrum to Fireballs and Swords. I do not classify it as an RPG, but that is not due to the era it is set in. It is due to its mechanics.

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".

I wouldn't say that at all. Do you even have a character in civilization? I didn't play the game much but it seems more like you controlling the city then your character controlling the city. I think there are some must haves for RPG, like being in control of a single character and only having certain powers over others, as well as having to have some sort of choice in character development as well as in your approach to the main narrative. Even if it is a limited choice.

Now we're getting into No True Scotsman territory. We are now adding in extra clauses to prevent games that are not called RPGs from being grouped with games that are being called RPGs simply because a simple description backfires.
Let me also break the description there: Dragon Age Origins is no longer an RPG as you can control multiple characters. Same for many JRPGs.

Why do we have to run around in these circles to make a new definition simply because publishers incorrectly label games? We have a perfectly working definition for RPG in the form of the D&D style mechanics and characteristics. As I put it 'Role Playing Elements in their purest form'. What we are trying to accomplish here is make any game that has certain role playing elements count as RPGs, and games that have others not count. Running round in circles doesn't help communicate anything at all.

Oh, and in Civilization you play the leader of your nation. You are role playing him/her making the decisions that govern what your nation will do. By the definition of 'You can role play in it and it has a narrative effect', it counts as an RPG.

 

[Joccaren]

In that case we are forced to say that the RPG genre is pretty much dead and buried. And perhaps that is so; games these days try and fit it all in so instead of having an 'RPG' game, an 'adventure' game, a 'puzzle' game and a 'hack-and-slash' game we end up instead with a 'hack-and-slash-adventure-rpg-with-puzzle-minigames' game. In an effort to reach larger audiences developers these days are moving away from 'pure-blood' single genre games and instead creating more and more cross-overs. So yeah, maybe the solid RPG game has faded, but it's bastard children are still with us.

Pretty much. The annoying thing is that this causes a lot of confusion when it comes to labelling games "RPGs" as almost nothing is any more. Devs will label it an RPG to appeal to that audience, yet it is truly an action adventure/RPG hybrid. It is this sort of thing that leads to discussions like this online.

I will in no way argue that RPG hybrids exist - they are very prominent in games today. True RPGs, I have yet to see one on the PC, though some have come close (Dragon Age: Origins comes to mind as a recent example)

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

In that case we are forced to say that the RPG genre is pretty much dead and buried. And perhaps that is so; games these days try and fit it all in so instead of having an 'RPG' game, an 'adventure' game, a 'puzzle' game and a 'hack-and-slash' game we end up instead with a 'hack-and-slash-adventure-rpg-with-puzzle-minigames' game. In an effort to reach larger audiences developers these days are moving away from 'pure-blood' single genre games and instead creating more and more cross-overs. So yeah, maybe the solid RPG game has faded, but it's bastard children are still with us.

Pretty much. The annoying thing is that this causes a lot of confusion when it comes to labelling games "RPGs" as almost nothing is any more. Devs will label it an RPG to appeal to that audience, yet it is truly an action adventure/RPG hybrid. It is this sort of thing that leads to discussions like this online.

I will in no way argue that RPG hybrids exist - they are very prominent in games today. True RPGs, I have yet to see one on the PC, though some have come close (Dragon Age: Origins comes to mind as a recent example)

I'd have to hold up Fallout: New Vegas as the best shout at a modern 'pure blood' RPG, but with two important qualifiers: 'Hardcore' mode must be on, and Iron Sights must be switched off. Without these two qualifiers F:NV falls back into the hybrid category, but with them ... ...

 

[Aurgelmir]

To me defining the term Role Playing Game you have to look towards the origins of Paper and Pencil role playing.
Which, if I am not mistaken, derives from table top wargaming. The first games were very much all about the stats and fighting fights, the "playing your character" aspect came later.

So when I hear people say that unless you are given chance to create the personality of your character you are not playing an RPG, I get a bit miffed. Because to me that is a modern part of it, but all in all most RPGs are called this because of the stats and leveling mechanics.

Some times you can say games have "RPG elements" meaning that you get the leveling elements of an RPG, but with less emphasis on them.

 

[srm79]

No no no no no, you're all wrong.

This is an RPG...

Spoiler

I'm sorry, I'll get my coat...

 

[Joccaren]

I'd have to hold up Fallout: New Vegas as the best shout at a modern 'pure blood' RPG, but with two important qualifiers: 'Hardcore' mode must be on, and Iron Sights must be switched off. Without these two qualifiers F:NV falls back into the hybrid category, but with them ... ...

My main problem with New Vegas is the combat, where your skill determines success as much as statistics. It is definitely more on the side of 'RPG with Shooter elements' than 'FPS with RPG elements' though.

To me defining the term Role Playing Game you have to look towards the origins of Paper and Pencil role playing.
Which, if I am not mistaken, derives from table top wargaming. The first games were very much all about the stats and fighting fights, the "playing your character" aspect came later.

So when I hear people say that unless you are given chance to create the personality of your character you are not playing an RPG, I get a bit miffed. Because to me that is a modern part of it, but all in all most RPGs are called this because of the stats and leveling mechanics.

Some times you can say games have "RPG elements" meaning that you get the leveling elements of an RPB, but with less emphasis on them.

I think you hit it semi on the head. It is about the systems, but not necessarily the combat system.

I will re-explain what I said in another thread:
The combat system is a part of the larger conflict resolution system in RPGs. You should have freedom to approach that encounter how you like, and deal with it how you want. It does not have to involve combat.

You are out in a forest, and you try an awareness check. There is a forest troll 100 meters further into the forest that has not noticed you. That is the conflict. The resolution can be almost anything. You could just walk in the opposite direction, you could try to sneak past, you could play an assassin and shoot it with your bow from afar, confuse it with magics, fight it, or you could go to town, hire a thug and get them to hunt it. Tell the guards and have them deal with it. Whilst combat is an option, it is not the only option. This is one of the main defining factors of RPGs from War games in the Systems department. Not everything has to end with a dead opponent. You are given a lot of options as to how to deal with it, and your goal isn't to win the battle, merely to solve the conflict. With a good ruleset, you should get experience for however you solve it. Speech for getting the guards, or a thug, or a hunter, sneak for sneaking past it, assorted combat/magic skills based on how you fought it. The only thing you wouldn't get experience for is just walking away, as that is avoidance of the conflict rather than dealing with it.

No no no no no, you're all wrong.

This is an RPG...

Spoiler

I'm sorry, I'll get my coat...

I was waiting for someone to make that reference.
Please link me to your Internets page, you deserve one.

 

[dimensional]

computer game RPGs are very different to tabletop RPGs in that they cannot supply the complexity of pen and paper due to the need to solidly define the framework and as for just focusing on the `role` aspect of RPG I think is a bit ridiculous as that would mean any game with an avatar would be an RPG.

IMO the term RPG has been grossly misused in regards to videogames and any game that contains even the slightest RPG element is branded as a (something) RPG its like calling Halo a First person shooter vehicle simulator game.

A games genre is defined by what makes up most of the game if its 60% action and 40% puzzle it is an action game if its 50/50 well then I guess it is a hybrid of course you will get problems on how you measure how much of each there is but for most cases it is not to hard to tell what you are doing the majority of the time.

In the end it dosent really matter if people call a game an RPG or action game or a JWRPG action shooter adventure game with puzzle elements etc as it dosent change the game and really the only need to define its genre is for marketing purposes, I mean if you wanted to get into it more you could argue (quite successfully) that there isnt a FPS as it is all from the second person perspective but honestly who gives a crap.

However here is a topic related to the RPG in games issue and I mostly agree with what is said.

[link]http://www.rpgfan.com/editorials/old/1998/0007.html[/link]

 

[4RM3D]

I made a topic about this also a while ago. If you are interested...

What makes a game a RPG [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.325360-What-makes-a-game-a-RPG]

 

[Dastardly]

RPGs have no attachment to specific gameplay mechanics

I agree. There is a tendency for RPGs to contain some kind of experience/leveling mechanic, and to provide choices to characters as to how they advance (choose new skills, bonuses, etc.), but it's not a requirement.

Not every sandwich has peanut butter on it. And not everything with peanut butter on it is a sandwich.

But rules and mechanics are how you define games. If I were to say 'game played with a ball, on grass, with eleven men per team' I could be talking about either football or cricket - two very different games. It is the rules and game mechanics that make all the difference.

Not quite.

Games are defined by goals. Rules are then added to clarify and shape those goals, and to keep the activity centered on those goals. For instance, football probably just began as, "Hey, I bet I can get this ball past you." The goal was to outsmart or outmaneuver the opponent with a ball.

Then it became, "Hey, I bet I can do it with just my feet." Add some challenge. But then the game started ranging wildly around the place, so they decided to set boundaries... which meant they needed a penalty for going outside the boundaries... Somewhere along the line more people got involved, so they had to set a limit on how many players could be on the field at a time. And on what "get the ball past you" really meant. And then they discovered it was unfair for the goal defender to have only his feet, so they let him use his hands...

And so it goes until we have a very specific code of behaviors. But while that might make it easier to pick out which sport you're watching, there is still a particular goal that defines it -- get the ball past you using only my feet. That's what makes football football. As you rightly mentioned, many other mechanics are shared with many other games. And in all things, the rules serve the original goal.

For roleplaying games, that goal is to create the sense that the player is "playing the role" of a character. It's the same goal as a three-year-old pretending he's a policeman. A traditional Mario game isn't a roleplaying game, but not because there are no "levels." It's because you're not "being Mario." You're using Mario as an on-screen device to accomplish the goal of the game -- to get from point A to point B. Mario's motivations are unimportant (or at best only superficially important), and there is no character development.

Now, a lot of roleplaying games have "levels" and "experience." That's simply because people playing a role want to feel a sense of progression. It's the same reason we keep time and score in football -- the point of the game is to play it, but the timer/scoreboard tells you how well you're doing and when to stop. They aren't really the point of the game, which is still "to play the game." They're just a way to measure if you're doing well and/or getting better. And that's what levels and experience are in a roleplaying game (when they are present).

You can watch people play football, without keeping score, and still tell that they're playing football. You can watch them play without set boundaries, and still tell that they're playing football. You can watch them play with too few or too many people, and still tell that they're playing football. Maybe they aren't calling any penalties, maybe there's only one goal... but all it takes is one thing to see that they are playing football: One person trying to get the ball past another person using only his feet. Conversely, having all the rest of it except that one thing makes it a completely different sport.

Same goes for roleplaying games. It's not "levels" or "experience points" that define them. It's not skill choices or classes. It's not the presence or absence of a fixed storyline. What does it take to have a roleplaying game? The player is stepping into the role of a character and asked to think, learn, and act the way they feel that character should or would in the game's situation(s). If that is the game's central goal, it's a roleplaying game. Everything else is just a rule or mechanic someone came up with to help create that feeling.

 

[LilithSlave]

I consider an RPG pretty much anything heavily based upon Dungeons and Dragons or any other tabletop RPG.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

RPGs have no attachment to specific gameplay mechanics

I agree. There is a tendency for RPGs to contain some kind of experience/leveling mechanic, and to provide choices to characters as to how they advance (choose new skills, bonuses, etc.), but it's not a requirement.

Not every sandwich has peanut butter on it. And not everything with peanut butter on it is a sandwich.

But rules and mechanics are how you define games. If I were to say 'game played with a ball, on grass, with eleven men per team' I could be talking about either football or cricket - two very different games. It is the rules and game mechanics that make all the difference.

Not quite.

Games are defined by goals. Rules are then added to clarify and shape those goals, and to keep the activity centered on those goals. For instance, football probably just began as, "Hey, I bet I can get this ball past you." The goal was to outsmart or outmaneuver the opponent with a ball.

Then it became, "Hey, I bet I can do it with just my feet." Add some challenge. But then the game started ranging wildly around the place, so they decided to set boundaries... which meant they needed a penalty for going outside the boundaries... Somewhere along the line more people got involved, so they had to set a limit on how many players could be on the field at a time. And on what "get the ball past you" really meant. And then they discovered it was unfair for the goal defender to have only his feet, so they let him use his hands...

And so it goes until we have a very specific code of behaviors. But while that might make it easier to pick out which sport you're watching, there is still a particular goal that defines it -- get the ball past you using only my feet. That's what makes football football. As you rightly mentioned, many other mechanics are shared with many other games. And in all things, the rules serve the original goal.

For roleplaying games, that goal is to create the sense that the player is "playing the role" of a character. It's the same goal as a three-year-old pretending he's a policeman. A traditional Mario game isn't a roleplaying game, but not because there are no "levels." It's because you're not "being Mario." You're using Mario as an on-screen device to accomplish the goal of the game -- to get from point A to point B. Mario's motivations are unimportant (or at best only superficially important), and there is no character development.

Now, a lot of roleplaying games have "levels" and "experience." That's simply because people playing a role want to feel a sense of progression. It's the same reason we keep time and score in football -- the point of the game is to play it, but the timer/scoreboard tells you how well you're doing and when to stop. They aren't really the point of the game, which is still "to play the game." They're just a way to measure if you're doing well and/or getting better. And that's what levels and experience are in a roleplaying game (when they are present).

You can watch people play football, without keeping score, and still tell that they're playing football. You can watch them play without set boundaries, and still tell that they're playing football. You can watch them play with too few or too many people, and still tell that they're playing football. Maybe they aren't calling any penalties, maybe there's only one goal... but all it takes is one thing to see that they are playing football: One person trying to get the ball past another person using only his feet. Conversely, having all the rest of it except that one thing makes it a completely different sport.

Same goes for roleplaying games. It's not "levels" or "experience points" that define them. It's not skill choices or classes. It's not the presence or absence of a fixed storyline. What does it take to have a roleplaying game? The player is stepping into the role of a character and asked to think, learn, and act the way they feel that character should or would in the game's situation(s). If that is the game's central goal, it's a roleplaying game. Everything else is just a rule or mechanic someone came up with to help create that feeling.

Alright, I see where you're coming from, but there are a few points I would raise in response.

First off, lets look at ports. FIFA is the computer port of real life football. Were FIFA to use different rules to real football rules people would not consider it a football game, just a game. Since RPGs are the computer port of tabletop RPGs, surely then they can only be considered RPGs if they follow the rules of the games they are intended to portray? A bit of a weak argument I know, but it's a slow day at the office.

Secondly - you said that the sole requirement of a role playing game is that the player plays a role. This is all well and good, and on any other day is a definition I would consider a winning one, but look at games like Doom. In Doom the player is asked to play the role of a stranded marine - the last of his squad - investigating a science facility to find his squadmates butchered and re-animated. The player is put in the direct position of the hapless Doom marine, but by no standards would anyone (least of all Romero) claim Doom was an RPG. Your Mario example is a great example of how an onscreen sprite can be just a means to an end, but the convention of FPS games putting you the player at the heart of proceedings completely removes that level of detachment. In it's purest sense yes a roleplaying game is one in which the player plays a role. The clue is in the name. But does this clash with the FPS genre's convention of placing players directly into the action?