What makes an RPG an RPG?

[DEAD34345]

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.

Not really. I play as a character in most games, but I don't necessarily role play as them. When I come across a pit in a Mario game I don't think "Would Mario want to jump over this pit? Why?" or "Would Mario really be alright with the moral implications of stomping on essentially harmless and pitifully weak Goombas?". I just jump the pits and stomp on the "enemies" so that I can win the game.

Besides, even tabletop RPGs don't always have level systems, stats or quests. The key element is Role Playing, and if a tabletop RPG isn't based around that it's a board game or a strategy game. Same with video-games, the ones focused on Role-Playing as a character (you could theoretically do this for many games, but they're not intentionally designed for it) are the Role-Playing Games, others aren't.

That's really the only definition that makes sense in my opinion.

 

[babinro]

I don't think the term can be easily defined because it applies to far to many games on the market.

For example, EA sport games often have a 'Be a Player' mode that can involve creating and customizing a player, and following him through his career based on his performance. This can easily be a greater and more personal RPG experience than you'll find in most traditional RPG's.

Yet we clearly don't call sports games RPG's. People ignore the RPG mechanics and classify the game to what it feels like and fits into most suitably.

On topic, there's been plenty of debate on the Diablo 3 forums that claim that Diablo 3 isn't an RPG game because it doesn't have permanent choice. Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 are RPG's in their eyes. Note: They are classed as action RPG's but they claim D3 is simply an action game.

Does having permanent choice (or suitable limitations/cost to respec) in any way effect if a game is an RPG? I'd say no. But I've seen dozens if not hundreds of posters over there disagree.

 

[shrekfan246]

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!

You jest, I assume, but to be quite frank I would consider the progression of species throughout Spore to be very much like an RPG in a technical sense.

In the first stage you decide whether to be carnivorous or herbivorous and create your creature accordingly, subsequently either avoiding or devouring other creatures. In the second stage, you've got a small home clan and can recruit other creatures to be a part of your traveling team, and you can sculpt your creature in such a way as to be either a jolly, friendly creature which pleases every other clan they come across and expands through acceptance, or a brutal warmonger which viciously conquers territory through death. In the third stage those mechanics are expanded in scope by a significant amount as you lead groups of your creature to victory one way or the other.

I'll stop there since it's where the similarities to other genres become far more prevalent, but I've never understood why a game's existence in one genre seems to make people think it's incapable of being classified in another genre as well. A game being a God Game, or hack&slash, or shooter, or survival-horror, or even part visual novel doesn't mean that it just can't be an RPG out of principle.

 

[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!

You jest, I assume, but to be quite frank I would consider the progression of species throughout Spore to be very much like an RPG in a technical sense.

In the first stage you decide whether to be carnivorous or herbivorous and create your creature accordingly, subsequently either avoiding or devouring other creatures. In the second stage, you've got a small home clan and can recruit other creatures to be a part of your traveling team, and you can sculpt your creature in such a way as to be either a jolly, friendly creature which pleases every other clan they come across and expands through acceptance, or a brutal warmonger which viciously conquers territory through death. In the third stage those mechanics are expanded in scope by a significant amount as you lead groups of your creature to victory one way or the other.

I'll stop there since it's where the similarities to other genres become far more prevalent, but I've never understood why a game's existence in one genre seems to make people think it's incapable of being classified in another genre as well. A game being a God Game, or hack&slash, or shooter, or survival-horror, or even part visual novel doesn't mean that it just can't be an RPG out of principle.

It just seems to me that if you make such a ridiculously broad definition it just becomes meaningless. With the conditions you said, practically every game is an RPG, which makes the term itself useless.

 

[shrekfan246]

It just seems to me that if you make such a ridiculously broad definition it just becomes meaningless. With the conditions you said, practically every game is an RPG, which makes the term itself useless.

Congratulations, you've discovered how I manage to keep from getting upset over pointless things on the internet.

I do consider the term to be largely useless. Because the way I see it used, most people seem to misinterpret their own definitions for it and contradict themselves when stating what they believe to be RPGs. I think people are far too rigid in what they believe are "true" RPGs, with misinformation borne from the origination and relationship to tabletop games conflating the issue and people using that as a springboard to say things like "JRPGs aren't RPGs". It's all silly to me, so I abide by my own definition which allows for a more lenient structuring.

"RPG" stands for role-playing game. When I feel like the game has given me enough agency as the player to consciously affect the main character or characters of the game as if I'm playing their roles, I'll consider it an RPG. It may be other things as well, but it will at least partially be an RPG.

What makes something like (at least the single-player of) Call of Duty, Gears of War, or Halo different from Borderlands is that in the former I'm always going to be going through the exact same areas with the exact same dialogue and the exact same enemies and exact same weapons as anybody else playing the games. In Borderlands, while it has the same elements, I have the choice of using different weapons, a different character entirely, of not even going to an area somebody else has visited and finding areas myself that other people haven't been to. My character and experience with the game will be tangibly different from somebody else's. So while it may not be the most RPG-ish RPG on the planet, in my mind it still counts however slightly as an RPG.

 

[AntiChri5]

I just want to point out that "JRPG's aren't RPG's" is not always meant as a bad thing. Im far from an "RPG purist" and consider many games RPG's that others don't. But i don't think JRPG's are RPG's, i think they are JRPG's. It's not meant in a dismissive or negative way. There is nothing wrong with the difference between JRPG's and RPG's, but i think that there is a difference.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

Good question, many games that aren't really RPGs are considered such, mainly because they're in a fantasy setting, its come to a point where basically any game with Levels, A health and resource meter, healing & stat. boosting items, quest, and exp is considered an RPG despite the lack of actually roleplaying you do. Regardless I still enjoy those games quite a bit.

 

[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.

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.

True, sandbox rpg's rather show a 'story' isn't necessary.
I haven't played mount & blade myself (though sadly it's in my steam library... XD),
but it seems a little similar to the elder scrolls series which also is fairly loose in terms of a story.

 

[WoW Killer]

I've heard no end of people trying to twist the definition to specifically not make something an RPG. Like someone will say "it's an alright game, but it's not really an RPG" to something that's very obviously an RPG; I saw a topic the other day that was like "Dark Souls isn't an RPG". Most of the time people try to define the term in a way that excludes games they don't personally happen to like. Usually they end up excluding something that very much obviously is an RPG. I've had people tell me that Final Fantasy isn't an RPG before.

It's progression. Name me one game commonly thought of as an RPG that doesn't have a progression system. Oh, but that technically makes a bunch of casual games RPGs as well. So what? If you're impartial to casual games then it just means you don't like all RPGs. The genre isn't the mesiah; it's just a bloody mechanic, like platforming or first person shooting.

And yeah, if you went by "role playing game" as your definition then you could call pretty much anything that. Sim City is a role playing game. I guess if you're role playing a construction worker then Tetris is an action RPG. That's a meaningless definition. Although a lot of games these days have progression elements, it wasn't always that way. The classic Mario games weren't RPGs. The classic Sonic games weren't RPGs. That big splurge of RPG mechanics in other genres is a more recent thing. To be honest, I think it was an improvement. What would you prefer, for the market to be saturated with crass FPS games with RPG elements, or for the market to be saturated with crass FPS games without RPG elements?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I've heard no end of people trying to twist the definition to specifically not make something an RPG. Like someone will say "it's an alright game, but it's not really an RPG" to something that's very obviously an RPG; I saw a topic the other day that was like "Dark Souls isn't an RPG". Most of the time people try to define the term in a way that excludes games they don't personally happen to like. Usually they end up excluding something that very much obviously is an RPG. I've had people tell me that Final Fantasy isn't an RPG before.

It's progression. Name me one game commonly thought of as an RPG that doesn't have a progression system. Oh, but that technically makes a bunch of casual games RPGs as well. So what? If you're impartial to casual games then it just means you don't like all RPGs. The genre isn't the mesiah; it's just a bloody mechanic, like platforming or first person shooting.

And yeah, if you went by "role playing game" as your definition then you could call pretty much anything that. Sim City is a role playing game. I guess if you're role playing a construction worker then Tetris is an action RPG. That's a meaningless definition. Although a lot of games these days have progression elements, it wasn't always that way. The classic Mario games weren't RPGs. The classic Sonic games weren't RPGs. That big splurge of RPG mechanics in other genres is a more recent thing. To be honest, I think it was an improvement. What would you prefer, for the market to be saturated with crass FPS games with RPG elements, or for the market to be saturated with crass FPS games without RPG elements?

Dark Souls and Final Fantasy aren't RPGs. The FF games have more in common with point and click adventure games than anything else, an FF game is just an adventure game with a turn-based battle system thrown in. You don't need progression for an RPG either, there are many 1-shot pen and paper RPGs that don't have progression. If all you did was play DnD at max level, you'd still be playing an RPG because you're still role-playing. FF doesn't have role-playing, you are playing as characters that only say what is scripted for them and the story is static as well, that's not an RPG.

The thing with RPGs is that they really don't have any gameplay mechanics as an RPG can be turn-based combat, 1st or 3rd person shooting, hack and slash combat, etc.; you could make an RPG platformer if you wanted to.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

An RPG is any game a developer/publisher titles as such that is then accepted as such by the majority of those who play it.

Someone always tries to say Final Fantasy isn't an RPG but the truth is they are outvoted by a very large majority which means their personal definition of an RPG is incorrect.

If Super Meat Boy was called an RPG and the majority of players agreed it would be one. We determine the definitions of all gaming terms.

 

[Adamantium93]

...you'd still be playing an RPG because you're still role-playing.

This is not an entirely unexpected answer and I do believe that I agree with the base sentiment. To me, it would seem that a true RPG must ask us to make choices about who we are and where we fit in the world.

But what would you say about games like The Walking Dead where your background is predefined but your personality (and your role in the lives of the npcs) changes depending upon the dialogue choices you make?






On a side note, I guess my major bugbear is that the term "Role Playing Game" is just so broad that it could conceivably cover any game if bent in the right ways. However, when someone says "I enjoy playing RPGs", they often have a very specific sub-genre of games in mind. Perhaps we need a different name.

But I'm also the guy who thinks that "Video Game" needs to be swapped out for something that can be taken seriously by the art world, so maybe I'm just a dope.


What seems prevalent in most posts is an idea of choice and consequence, with some believing that it isn't necessary while others seem to think it is the most necessary aspect.

All interesting perspectives, to be sure.

 

[Coakle]

The term RPG is used if it's a story driven or a sandbox game. I don't think there are anymore RPGs that would not be more accurately described by those two terms.

Sandbox:
Mount and Blade
Elder Scrolls
Risen

Story Driven:
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
The Witcher
Dark Souls

(Games use choice as a tool to make the player feel more invested in the story. That's why I've decided to lump all story driven games together.)

You are playing as characters that only say what is scripted for them and the story is static as well, that's not an RPG.

There is only one game in existence where the player character's dialog wasn't scripted.

Spoiler: By default, this is now the greatest RPG of all time

I got no problems with that.

 

[Mike Richards]

The best definition I can think of is that it is a game with personal and permanent progression. There's some leeway back and forth in the specific application, but this is the general idea.

Progression is the simplest and most ubiquitous component. It's the part that most other games copy with the integration of 'RPG elements', lacking the other two is what prevents them from being full RPGs. Essentially, all it means you get better as you go, new tools/abilities, simple stat increases, any form of growth from beginning to end. Almost all games will have some form of progression or another, but it really only counts toward the genre if it's labeled and tracked specifically.

As you play, you are allowed to personalize your role in both the gameplay and world wherever applicable. In other words, do you choose to be a long range spell caster or an up close and personal slasher? Go in stealthy or guns blazing? Some games may be freer then others but the choice still exists, how you want to play is up to you.

Whatever you choose, there is a permanent outcome. If you go with a sniper rifle in one level then grab a shotgun in the next, nothing has really been gained. You must in some way become better equipped in your chosen path to deal with whatever comes next. Focus on buffing your health every level so you can stay in a fight longer and dish out the healing items when your party goes down. Spend so much time sneaking and pickpocketing that you can take the shirt off someone's back without them noticing. You need to master your path to be the best example of it, and even if it can be changed later it still takes some investment of time and effort.

You grow into a role you choose for yourself and must make some level of commitment to that role to fully realize it. By this definition, Zelda isn't an RPG because you only progress along a set path, it has no personalization. Bioshock isn't an RPG because you can change the tools at your disposal any time you wish to change your approach, it has no permanence.

Borderlands is an RPG because you chose one of four different playstyles at the start, and further fine tune each to your liking as you go. Skyrim is an RPG because you naturally grow into whatever role you find yourself using, and while you can change your focus at any time, it will not remove the progress in the first role and will place your progress in the second at a disadvantage.

 

[Sidmen]

You know, I really like the definition: "An RPG is a game where, if you remove combat (and other action sequences), you can still make choices that impact the game."

If you give me a game, and tell me it's an RPG, and I can't make any decisions besides "Do I shoot him with a shotgun or Assault Rifle?" I'll be really disappointed.

 

[Funyahns]

I have a pretty broad term for what an RPG is. I consider a JRPG to be one because I can get my self involved in the storyline while building up a character. Same with say Vampire the Masquerade. I can build a character up then follow through with a story. Rpg elements is really not an rpg to me though. If the system mainly relies on your timing and aim then its hardly an RPG.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

...you'd still be playing an RPG because you're still role-playing.

This is not an entirely unexpected answer and I do believe that I agree with the base sentiment. To me, it would seem that a true RPG must ask us to make choices about who we are and where we fit in the world.

But what would you say about games like The Walking Dead where your background is predefined but your personality (and your role in the lives of the npcs) changes depending upon the dialogue choices you make?

On a side note, I guess my major bugbear is that the term "Role Playing Game" is just so broad that it could conceivably cover any game if bent in the right ways. However, when someone says "I enjoy playing RPGs", they often have a very specific sub-genre of games in mind. Perhaps we need a different name.

But I'm also the guy who thinks that "Video Game" needs to be swapped out for something that can be taken seriously by the art world, so maybe I'm just a dope.

What seems prevalent in most posts is an idea of choice and consequence, with some believing that it isn't necessary while others seem to think it is the most necessary aspect.

All interesting perspectives, to be sure.

I think The Walking Dead is close. To me, it just didn't feel like the majority of the dialog choices changed Lee's character much. It was like pick from 4 things Lee would say instead of 4 completely different ways of responding that would change the character. That's how the game felt to me, but something like The Walking Dead can very much be an RPG. I think we need more games (regardless of genre) that don't involve killing shit and you don't need to kill anything in an RPG, you can level up from other things than killing.

I think Wikipedia's definition is very fitting for the genre:
A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) 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.

Almost all JRPGs would not be RPGs under that definition.

I think the video game medium needs different terminology across the board. Hack n' Slash is genre, that term is very unofficial sounding to me.

You are playing as characters that only say what is scripted for them and the story is static as well, that's not an RPG.

There is only one game in existence where the player character's dialog wasn't scripted.

Spoiler: By default, this is now the greatest RPG of all time

I got no problems with that.

I realize everything in a video game has to be scripted, it's just the nature of the medium. Having a choice in what you say is important for your character. You have no more choice in what is said and done in Final Fantasy vs say The Longest Journey. Whereas in Mass Effect, you have choice. The amount of writing and coding it would take to allow the gamer to have full freedom with dialog and choice would just be impossible to do. That's just a limitation of the medium.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

If the system mainly relies on your timing and aim then its hardly an RPG.

The reason pen and paper RPGs don't allow for player skill to be involved is because the pen and paper medium does not allow for that (you can physically swing a sword for your attack in a DnD session instead of rolling a die). Video games and live-action RPGs do allow for player skill. Also, player skill in speech does dictate how you pen and paper character converses to other players and NPCs so there is player skill involved in a sense even in pen and paper RPGs. I think it's poor thinking to say RPGs can't allow for player skill just because pen and paper RPGs don't allow for it because pen and paper RPGs weren't the 1st RPGs nor are they the end-all-be-all of RPGs.

 

[Coakle]

I think the video game medium needs different terminology across the board. Hack n' Slash is genre, that term is very unofficial sounding to me.

Spoiler: Hack'n Slash aside

I dunno if it needs it across the board. I'd defend the Hack n' Slash label. It conjures a descriptive image on how the game will be played. The term really is poetry.

That's what I was trying to get at. The RPG label tells you nothing about how the game will be played. The term is useless. I would never say "if you loved 'Mass Effect' you're sure to enjoy 'Mount and Blade' because they are both RPGs."

People, in general, didn't like 'Mass Effect' because it was an RPG, they enjoyed it for it's story driven plot, well-developed characters and the vast sci-fi universe.

People didn't like "Mount and Blade' because it was an RPG, they liked the mix of sandbox and medieval combat.

That's why trying to bring games in or out of the 'RPG' umbrella won't serve a purpose.

So don't even try to get me started on that vague, limp-wristed Wikipedia definition. *shakes fist*

 

[Savagezion]

1. I think the ability to impact your environment is the first step. Not only through dialogue but if a door is jammed, you can ram it open/break it down. Preferably, with effort from the player. Structural weaknesses on buildings and objects in the world. The least amount of indestructible set pieces possible. The more you can interact with the environment, the more of an RPG it is. The more impact you have on NPCs (Part of the environment) the more it is an RPG. SOme choices will have no consequences and some will. Killing a hobo may not result in anything bad or happening at all.

2. This brings up a totally different yet connected feature which is how well the game recognizes the actions the player makes. How well can it make me believe the setting is real and choices have logical consequences. How well can you make me wonder what the best course of action to take is when confronted with a problem? How many options are available? How much does my environment matter since it is all destructible? How well can I communicate with my setting and environment? Having some impact on the environment isn't really the goal, its actually only the first step. The goal to make the environment seem as real as possible within the parameters of the story universe.

Simulation seems to be the primary focus for me. It would be like a world simulator with that. However, I'll throw in another point.

3. The ability to have the environment effect the player character(s) in return. How the player interacts with the environment, could prove beneficial or hazardous. Every RPG should allow you to get a broken leg, nauseated, stronger, etc. Usually stats come in here to represent values in the environment. However, the leveling system doesn't matter to me if it uses levels and/or a skill system or something new all together. Dungeon Seige 3 used gear entirely and I thought that was a cool idea. That is a shameless Obsidian plug by the way. So long as the player can be aware of environmental conditions and try to figure out how to survive and succeed in them.

At this point it is a pre-generated world simulator the player can explore. After that, I don't care what you do. The more of that stuff there is in the game, is how much I see it as an RPG. The less of that I see in there - the less as I see it as an RPG. You get bonus points if I can make custom characters and gameplay alters by your choices in creating that character. Not many games provide that feature though.