What makes an RPG an RPG?

[Adamantium93]

TL;DR: See title.

I've been thinking about this for a while now and I'd like to get other opinions on this.

If we break it down, an RPG (by pure definition of the words) is a Role Playing Game, ie a structured environment where you are encouraged to take on a role unlike your true self (in my case, a guy who wastes too much time on the internet). Following this logic, any game is technically a Role Playing Game, as most games ask you to jump into the shoes of a character in an unusual situation. However, it has been the custom to attach the Role Playing moniker to any game that bears similarities to Pen and Paper games like Dungeons and Dragons where players gain experience and upgrade their character as they continue in the adventure.

While this served us well back when genres were neatly defined, modern games often borrow from various genres and the "Level Up" system is perhaps the most borrowed mechanic in the business. For instance, Pay Day 2 has a level system AND a skill point system AND a class system. But is PD2 an RPG? Most people would likely disagree.

Which leads to my point: I often have an easy time stating what IS and what ISN'T an RPG, but actually putting the criteria to paper is rather difficult. Where do you draw the line?
What, for you, is absolutely necessary to consider a game an RPG?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

An RPG requires a focus on role-playing. Just like a platformer needs to focus on platforming, a shooter needs to focus on shooting, and an RPG needs to focus on role-playing. You need player agency in a game for it to be an RPG. An easy way to determine if a game is an RPG or not is how much say you have over things when you remove the combat aspect from the game. You have to have more choice than just how you go about killing enemies and not dying. For example, if you remove combat from Dark Souls, you have almost no game then. However, if you remove combat from Mass Effect, you still have quite a lot of game left. Hell, an RPG doesn't even need combat.

I really think Tito is spot-on with how he defines an RPG in the this Escapist Podcast [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast/5431-035-What-Defines-An-RPG-More-Mass-Effect] and they start talking about what defines an RPG at just before the 8 minute mark.

 

[shrekfan246]

Personally, I'll consider something at least loosely an RPG if there's any element of personalization or customization.

This can be as simple as something like the skill runes in Diablo III to the labyrinthine dialog trees of Planescape: Torment, the character creation of Mass Effect to the credible impact your decisions have in the narrative of The Witcher, or the stat and loot enhancements of Kingdoms of Amalur or Dark Souls. If I have credible agency over the characters in the game, then I feel like it's an RPG.

That's not to say there aren't various levels of how deep the "RPG" factor of it would go. While Bioshock contains many RPG-like elements, the player still has the very real ability to acquire and use all of the Plasmids and obtains many of them at static points in the story, as well as the upgrades being fairly static.

The biggest differentiation in my mind is how the player can choose to play the game. What makes Diablo III different from Bioshock is that in the former, two players are likely to have drastically different experiences with the game depending on what they've chosen to do; One person playing as a Wizard isn't going to have the same exact tales to tell as somebody who played a Monk. And at high levels, even two people playing the same class could theoretically use radically different combinations of skills and runes, optimal builds be damned. In contrast, two people playing Bioshock are going to largely have the same experience of starting with the wrench, getting the shock plasmid and a pistol and machine gun and shotgun and fireballs and ice shards and etc. so while you obtain more and more options as you continue to play the game, it brings about more "Remember when [X] happened" talk than "And then I teleported away and blew them all up using [X]" "No way, I just threw up a massive shield and heals and hammered them down!"

Er. I probably haven't communicated that very clearly.

For me it mostly just comes down to how much of an influence the player is on things. In many Western RPGs and certain JRPGs like Shin Megami Tensei, the player is largely responsible for many of the interactions the player character makes with the world around them. In action-RPGs or other select JRPGs, the player is often largely responsible for how the main character's skills, power, equipment, and abilities progress throughout the game. If these can be divergent over multiple playthroughs, then that's usually enough for me.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

A rocket-propelled grenade (often abbreviated RPG) is a shoulder-fired, anti-tank weapon system that fires rockets equipped with an explosive warhead.

Okay sorry had to get that out of my system.

The way I like to see it is this. If a game doesnt tell you exactly who your character is, its an rpg. Sure you get a lot of massively open choice Western rpgs that allow you to be anyone, villain hero or inbetween with a choice of different skillsets and that definition easily fits there but a lot of JRPGS and some western rpgs, but theres still a little bit of choice even if your character is stuck being a fast damage dealing sword fighter (like every final fantasy main character ever). You can still make choices in exactly how your character is built, what he wears.

Its the choices beyond the linear locked into one path way, thats why they say that games have rpg element whenever they inroduce unlockable moves.

 

[TehCookie]

An RPG has gameplay derived from table top RPGs, and usually are based around a level system, stats and quests.

You play a role in every game with a character.

 

[Racecarlock]

Well, if you go by game industry logic, random or generic elements of the main character such as strength or driving skill threaded into a generic ranking system that barely impacts gameplay whatsoever.

Seriously, reviewers these days call those "RPG elements". And they always put it as a positive to the game that you can level up stuff, but it doesn't even matter if it barely has an effect. Look at GTA V's stats. Look at san andreas's stats. Look at other games that just randomly threw in EXP systems because that is apparently where the magic lies.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

im an old tabletop gamer so i tend to consider games that are close to the tabletop experience rpg's so the action rpgs like diablo, etc i like them but i dont consider them rpgs even though they have stats and inventory they are more about grinding and loot gathering rather than the story

You can't apply tabletop's fully stat-based combat to other mediums like video games because an inherent restriction to tabletop games are that they have to be all stat-based, they can't allow for player skill. You can't bring a sword to a DnD session, swing it awesomely on your turn, and then tell the DM you just landed a crit. RPGs don't have to have stat-based combat. Not that I'm saying Diablo is an RPG, but I don't think it would be just because it seems all about loot and combat (I've never played Diable but that's my perception of it) and that's why I wouldn't consider it an RPG.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

to me a rpg isnt about the combat or the gear, its the story of the character you create and the choices you make that are important, its not about defeating x boss or learning how to defeat y opponent its about exploring the world finding things in it that stick with you. its why id personally class the sims as an rpg but not diablo for example

I agree with that but I wouldn't call The Sims an RPG.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Personally, I'll consider something at least loosely an RPG if there's any element of personalization or customization.

Spore is the Greatest RPG in the world then!

 

[DarkhoIlow]

An RPG has gameplay derived from table top RPGs, and usually are based around a level system, stats and quests.

You play a role in every game with a character.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But the term usually is slapped on anything nowadays saying it's "insert genre" with RPG elements and it always gets a tag of RPG alongside the main one (Action-RPG for example).

Hack and slashes (dungeon crawlers) are considered RPG's as well since you play a role (warrior/mage/rogue archetype) and take on quests etc. They fit very loosely in that RPG category.

 

[Yopaz]

Honestly I am quite confused in this matter too. Take JRPGs (not mocking the genre, I have a JRPG special edition on pre-order) then there's little role playing at all. The very games that defined the genre once it made its transmission to video games contain almost no role-playing at all. They contain a level system and some of them don't even have much of a story. I used to think that games with levels and turn based combat was RPGs, but then came the influx of such games as Tales of Symphonia and changed my perception. X-Men Legends even more so.

So if a RPG is a game where you play the role as the protagonist in a game that includes pretty much all games. Basically I end up not caring about the definition and just enjoy the games as they are and not for the genre they are placed in. So I define an RPG as what the majority seems to think.

That said I consider Borderlands to be a shooter with RPG elements rather than an RPG on its own.

 

[AntiChri5]

A game where "you play a role" is so generic as to be utterly meaningless. But the key is still in the "RP" part of the name.

An RPG is a game where you have the freedom to at least partially define the character you play as. The "role" is left partially up to you.

The degree to which you can define the character and the methods by which you define the character (be it narrative focused, stat based or weapon choice and combat style) all vary greatly. But thats the core of the matter.

 

[veloper]

The industry, the game journalists and most gamers will call it an "RPG", if the game revolves around one protagonist or a small group of characters and there's a large focus on progressing their stat sheets (so XP or leveling, LBD, etc) and then what they mean by "RPG" is computer RPG.

And then it still doesn't tell you anything. Could be a diablo-clone or a rogue-like or Mass Effect, so try to use subgenres instead.

 

[madwarper]

Assuming you're talking about Video Game RPG's, because pen-and-paper RPG's are a whole different kettle of fish, numbers (levels, experience, stats, gear, etc.) is what makes a video game RPG an RPG. And, the reason the correct answer is numbers is because that's the only part of pen-and-paper that can be replicated in a video game. There is no DM is react to your role-playing, listen to your reasonings or "creative solutions" and either allow or reject them.

Take away the numbers from a video game RPG and you only have either an Action Game or a Tactical Game.

 

[Talvrae]

Personally i think it's a game who focus on the role playing elements if the game (levels, skills, inventory don't make a RPG, because many FPS who want nothing more than be a FPS have thouse elements.) For me it goes with the possibility of choices, you must have an inputs on how the character act, otherwise you are not playing a role, the role is already defined, even if you play the character... So for me a rpg is this Choice, and Consequences

 

[llubtoille]

Hmm, I would say the only mandatory features would be:
1) A predefined story
2) Control of at least one character in terms of consistent plot orientated decision making
(curiously, even if the options have no meaningful impact on the story)

But as those constraints are so broad and vague, I think if another genre better describes the game, then it takes priority,
for instance if it's predominantly a first person shooter, an RTS or hell, even an ARPG, it is generally considered to be that genre even if it features both the above RPG aspects.

 

[AntiChri5]

Hmm, I would say the only mandatory features would be:
1) A predefined story
2) Control of at least one character in terms of consistent plot orientated decision making
(curiously, even if the options have no meaningful impact on the story)

But as those constraints are so broad and vague, I think if another genre better describes the game, then it takes priority,
for instance if it's predominantly a first person shooter, an RTS or hell, even an ARPG, it is generally considered to be that genre even if it features both the above RPG aspects.

I would say you don't even need a pre defined story.

Mount and Blade works fine as an RPG and doesn't really have one.