Why Choices do Not Define a RPG.

[Ranorak]

Yes, this again.

During my 4 hour mailman route, my mp3 player died, forcing me to use my brain for productive things.
I didn't want any of that, so I decided to use it on the ever popular RPG discussions that are all the rage here. And I came up with what I think is a nice analogy.

Acting.
I don't think it's a far stretch to say that acting is a form of Role Play.
But even if you don't agree with that, at least hear me out.

I'm going to compare two types of acting, namely; improvised acting, and movie or theatrical acting.
Improvised acting is often seen in tv shows like "Whose Line Is It Anyway?".
They give the actor total freedom to put down a character, and do a little act, often funny.
The actor makes a character, gives it a role and makes choices on the spot about the plot, or situation.

Then there is movie acting.
The actor is given a script, with a pre-made character. who's choices are already set in stone. Not a single thing is up to the actor.
The name is taken, the type of character is taken, the role is set in stone. Yet the actor plays the role.

These two examples are also seen in games land.
We have the Free RPG's like Fallout 3, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Dragon Age. Who let you improvise (to a very limited extent). You make the role and you play the role.

And confined RPG's, like Final Fantasy, Tales series, Diablo, MMO's.
The role is premade, you might get the option to give a name, but your actions are already set in stone.
However, you DO play that role. You act out the script. You are still playing that role.

So I hear the question forming in your head.
"What makes Final Fantasy XIII a RPG, while Halo isn't. You both play a role."

Yes, yes that is right.
But over the years, another factor sneaked into RPG's that defines them more than the act of playing a role. Stats.
Or rather, the improvement of character attributes that progressively increase your character's abilities and skills.

You see, in Halo, I will get better at the game. MY skills will improve. That is why I can later go back to the first level and beat the monsters far better. My aim improved, my reaction time improved, I learned more about the AI.

While in Final Fantasy, it is your character that improves. It gains new stats, it gains new powers, new skills and new attributes.
If I start a new game, that boss will be just as hard as on the first play through. Sure, I might have learned some new tactics, but generally, my character is level 1.

And even those boarders are getting thinner now. More and more games include a RPG style into their main genre. Look at the heroes in Warcraft 3. Or the increasing attributes of Lara Croft in.... I forgot there are too many Tomb Raider games.

Or even the other way, Kingdom Hearts takes both your and your characters' abilities to the test.
But at the core, RPG's are still the games that progress through stats, and not through your skill.

My two cent.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

A lot of text, and all you're basically are saying is "if the characters improve their stats, it's an RPG".

So I guess Football Manager 2010 is now an RPG?

 

[TheTaco007]

A lot of text, and all you're basically are saying is "if the characters improve their stats, it's an RPG".

So I guess Football Manager 2010 is now an RPG?

Good point.

Though that isn't 1 specific character, that's many. RPGs are more about 1 character's skills/customization.
Wait, Mass Effect 2... shit...

 

[blackhole1]

You have a good point here. These discussions about whether or not a game belongs to a certain genre is completely moot unless you somehow define the genres first, an I thing you have a pretty good definition. Still, I think we should not worry to much about a game's supposed genre and just judge each game on its own merrits rather than comparing it to games like it.

 

[jaydub47]

A lot of text, and all you're basically are saying is "if the characters improve their stats, it's an RPG".

So I guess Football Manager 2010 is now an RPG?

I seem to have spent most of my 300 hours + on FM 10 actively lowering my managers stats

 

[Ranorak]

A lot of text, and all you're basically are saying is "if the characters improve their stats, it's an RPG".

So I guess Football Manager 2010 is now an RPG?

I never said that every stat game is instantly a RPG.
Genre's overlap and take gameplay modes from each other.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

So I hear the question forming in your head.
"What makes Final Fantasy XIII a RPG, while Halo isn't. You both play a role."

Actually, no.

I don't consider JRPGs to be real RGPs in the first place.

Your argument is entirely circular: "Choices do not define RPGs, because these games that qualify as RPGs based of of my definition do not have choices."

 

[Madshaw]

i think its so that square enix dont have to start calling their games turn based action cutscenes

 

[Ranorak]

So I hear the question forming in your head.
"What makes Final Fantasy XIII a RPG, while Halo isn't. You both play a role."

Actually, no.

I don't consider JRPGs to be real RGPs in the first place.

Your argument is entirely circular: "Choices do not define RPGs, because these games that qualify as RPGs based of of my definition do not have choices."

No, I'm saying that choices do not define playing a role.
thus there must be some other defining feature that makes a RPG game, a RPG.

 

[veloper]

not this again. Search function!

Go bother the RPG Codex or something.

One hint: the word "role" in RPG (originally) refers to a *functional role*, like the military also have "roles".
In old school RPGs this role was the class, not this thespian bullshit, that's not what the word stands for.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Role Playing Games, RPG, comes from Pen and Paper games that originated in the seventies. Mainly Dungeons and Dragons which kind of set the whole thing off and is the most well known. For a game to be classified as an RPG it needs to have similarities with the mechanics of these games. Roughly put; alterable stats linked with the player/characters which form attributes which determine the course of play. If a game has this it is an RPG. The Legend of Zelda is not an RPG because the stats are detached from the player. The only link to any sort of RPG is the ability to select different equipment but it is also possible to select a different racket in a game of tennis, that does not make tennis an RPG (or a LARP).

RPG has nothing to do with story or acting. It is possible to play DnD with no semblance of story or even communication, just throw some goblins in a room with a PC and roll some dice. You still have an RPG but no story to speak off.

Most people would equate anything in a fantasy setting as an RPG due to the popularity of DnD. Do not be fooled, an RPG can take any setting and any sort of game can have a fantasy setting and not be an RPG.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

A lot of text, and all you're basically are saying is "if the characters improve their stats, it's an RPG".

So I guess Football Manager 2010 is now an RPG?

I never said that every stat game is instantly a RPG.
Genre's overlap and take gameplay modes from each other.

My point is that just having stats that increase does not make a game an RPG. Almost every game has stats of some kind, and on the other end of the spectrum there are RPGs that don't have stats.

If you look a the history of RPGs, then the only defining feature is that it's generally a lot like improv acting with stricter rules. When taken to electronic media RPGs lost almost all of that freedom, but there have consistently been RPGs trying to get back to that ideal of freedom. Other games deliberately split away from that ideal to create different subgenres, like the entire JRPG genre spawned by the original Dragon Quest or the Diablo-likes.

The problem with the term RPG isn't that it's ill-defined, it's that it's been badly abused and constantly stretched beyond its original meaning. Nowadays games are said to have "RPG elements" if you can upgrade a weapon or something stupid like that. Many RPGs have very little to do with the roots of the genre, and even the ones that do try to adhere to certain standards are still pathetically limited due to the inherent limitations of videogames.

Calling something like Final Fantasy or Diablo and RPG because it has stats is like calling StarCraft a shooter because it has dudes with guns shooting at enemies. But of course the term has become so stretched over the years that you could call almost anything an RPG and no one will think it's strange.

 

[fletch_talon]

A lot of text, and all you're basically are saying is "if the characters improve their stats, it's an RPG".

So I guess Football Manager 2010 is now an RPG?

When character advancement is the primary gameplay feature of the game, it is an RPG.

Footbal Manager's main feature is the simulation of managing a football team. Thus it is a sim.

Zelda lets you learn new sword techniques and gain new items, but that's got more to do with the story and to enhance the action and platforming sequences. Its generally labeled an action/adventure.

Final Fantasy involves fighting things, but your success revolves around how far your character has advanced, in terms of level stats and equipment.

Rather than there being J and W RPGs, I view them as choice driven, stat driven and free.
Choice driven - Focus on character advancement through choices during the story (still has stats for physical/technical/magical advancement)
Stat driven - Focus on achieving a level of character advancement high enough to tackle enemies.
Free - Generally focuses on stats but there is little to no story progression. Instead the focus is on creating your own goals and advancing your character to meet said goals.

Its probably not perfect since I'm tired, and they certainly can overlap, but this is how I see it.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

When character advancement is the primary gameplay feature of the game, it is an RPG.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Fire Daemon]

If you look a the history of RPGs, then the only defining feature is that it's generally a lot like improv acting with stricter rules.

No, the only defining feature is of stats linked to the player which can be altered or controlled in some fashion. It has nothing to do with improv acting or story telling. They form an important part in the entertainment but can be removed and the RPG structure will still remain fully playable. If the opposite would occur and the game be removed and the acting left it will no longer be an RPG but a personal improvised play within a circle of friends. Stats are key here and so yes, games like Football Manager and JRPGs are Role Playing Games and we all just have to come to turms with that.

Of course the typical argument comes up that I'm ignoring the role of part of Role playing games but I argue not at all. First of all you do not need to act or even talk to take a role. By rolling dice and deciding what spell/attack/ability a character uses is taking the role, the DM takes the roles of the monsters, a player takes the role of their army in a game of Warhammer, a player takes the role of Shepard in Mass Effect etc. However the taking of a role itself does not make something an RPG. You still need the stats, if you didn't nearly everything. Every game will be an RPG, Bowling would be an RPG so would Poker and pin the tail on the donkey.

I find that the definition I supply to set the bar nicely and remove any confusion as to what is and what is not an RPG.

 

[DazBurger]

So now, by your definition, Battlefield 2 is an RPG?
Or maybe COD Modern Warfare is?


You grind some duches, get some new skills and use them to kill with greater effectivity.


... A question! Anyone out there calling Bioshock an RPG? :/

 

[Deacon Cole]

But over the years, another factor sneaked into RPG's that defines them more than the act of playing a role. Stats.
Or rather, the improvement of character attributes that progressively increase your character's abilities and skills.

You see, in Halo, I will get better at the game. MY skills will improve. That is why I can later go back to the first level and beat the monsters far better. My aim improved, my reaction time improved, I learned more about the AI.

While in Final Fantasy, it is your character that improves. It gains new stats, it gains new powers, new skills and new attributes.
If I start a new game, that boss will be just as hard as on the first play through. Sure, I might have learned some new tactics, but generally, my character is level 1.

And even those boarders are getting thinner now. More and more games include a RPG style into their main genre. Look at the heroes in Warcraft 3. Or the increasing attributes of Lara Croft in.... I forgot there are too many Tomb Raider games.

Or even the other way, Kingdom Hearts takes both your and your characters' abilities to the test.
But at the core, RPG's are still the games that progress through stats, and not through your skill.

This, I think, is where many video game RPGs go horribly, horribly wrong.

Primarily, these games are video games. Interactive electronic entertainment. How a video game works is it gives the player a button* to press which causes an onscreen action to occur.

What stats do is take that away from the player. Or holds it at arms length at the very least. as it's all handled by random numbers not unlike dice. Probably because this method comes from tabletop RPGs that use dice as the primary interface because there are no buttons.

I suppose if you like turn-based combat, that's your little red wagon. But this is not the only way nor does it make the best use of the medium.

I usually hold up the original Legend of Zelda as a good example of a properly made RPG, which usually cause people who enjoy being wrong to say that it isn't an RPG. But that's not the point here. In Zelda, there are stats, albeit primitive and simplistic by comparison. The white sword does twice as much damage as the wooden sword. The magic sword does double the damage as the white sword. So the amount of damage increases. This makes sense as this is not something that is really up to the player. Whether or not the player hits the target, however, is.

It is a matter of balancing what things could or should be controlled by the player with things that can't or shouldn't. And stats are often used incorrectly in this manner.

Maybe I'm just picky, but I prefer to be an active, not passive, participant in the games I play.

* Most games give several buttons, joystick, twisty knob thingies, true. But this is just the broad strokes. Stay with me here.