What are the elements of an RPG game?

[Dispraise]

"role-playing game: a game in which players assume the roles of fantasy characters." It means exactly what it says on the tin.

What's that you say? That definition is too vague, broad and meaningless for practical applications? Why yes, yes it is. That's what happens when you try to appropriate existing terms, and let idiots assign them meaning ad libitum.

[Ferocity]

"role-playing game: a game in which players assume the roles of fantasy characters." It means exactly what it says on the tin.

What's that you say? That definition is too vague, broad and meaningless for practical applications? Why yes, yes it is. That's what happens when you try to appropriate existing terms, and let idiots assign them meaning ad libitum.

So Duke Nukem 3D is now a RPG? Why, you assume role of Duke Nukem. Not a fantasy character? Ok, then Mortal Kombat. It has mostly fantasy characters, each with his own background and story.

Video game genres have specific distinction. Warcraft (RTS) isn't shooter, and Prince of Persia isn't strategy game. And even though you can play role of fantasy characters in those games, it doesn't make them (C)RPG either.

[Dispraise]

So Duke Nukem 3D is now a RPG?

Yes. Indeed it is. Don't like it? Then stop using useless terms.

[Itisamuh]

The literal definition doesn't work, since it basically covers every single game with a story. I'd say it's typically stats (character power progression, usually in the form of gear, levels, and grinds) that separates them from standard action adventure games.

[Dispraise]

The literal definition doesn't work, since it basically covers every single game with a story.

That's exactly my point. The term itself is broad and meaningless. Therefore the debate is moot, as any random jackass can define the term to mean what they think it should mean. So we can continue to argue different points of view, each of them equally wrong, or we can cede that the english language was cobbled together by idiots and move on.

[Fencers]

I didn't say you said it was an action RPG. I said, I don't get how you can conclude it is not an RPG, when you cite 'the videogame industry' as your reasoning, who in turn say Oblivion as being one of the best RPGs ever.

You didn't read my post carefully. I said;

"genre tropes and mechanics established over the last 20+ years of video games as experienced, understood, defined, practiced, designed and investigated within the video game industry & intelligentsia."

It's very possible and common for poor or misunderstood terminology to proliferate. Even such with opinion. One sees this all the time in other media.

Even the snippet of Chris Avelone is in line with what I posted. RPG as a genre has a set of play mechanics defined by Role, Role or Roll. This is, by nature, broadly applied across many genres. Even within RPGs themselves. Where it might be that a game has all three Rs, so to speak.

The point is one of gameplay and operation. We have RPGs [in a strict sense], MMORPGs, Tactical RPGs, Rogue-Like RPGs, ARPGs, FPSRPG, MMOFPSRPGs, etc.

In Skyrim, one does not have to progressively accumulate Rolls to complete the game's goals. One does not have to play a Role to complete the game's goals. One does not have act in Role to complete the game's goals [you actually can't to some degree. The game mechanics disallow it].

That is not a RPG.

Now Skyrim does have, like Deus Ex, very many RPG conventions. Stats, loot, leveling, narrative drive, divergent outcomes, etc, etc. Though none are the gameplay drive of the game.

What drives Skyrim's gameplay is an emphasis on active interaction through real time combat, NPC interaction and exploration. Which are notably Action and Adventure genre operation.

An astute analysis would assert by gameplay operation Skyrim is an Adventure game with Action and RPG genre aspects. In a strict sense, Skyrim is not an RPG anymore than Half-Life is a platformer.

[Kerrath]

In Skyrim, one does not have to progressively accumulate Rolls to complete the game's goals. One does not have to play a Role to complete the game's goals. One does not have act in Role to complete the game's goals [you actually can't to some degree. The game mechanics disallow it].

i wouldn't say an rpg has to necessarily have an ending. lots of times, in dungeons and dragons--the ultimate and final example of what an rpg is--there is no ultimate goal.

even then, structurally speaking how is it any different from morrowind, which you acknowledged is an rpg? because if you're going to dismiss the main quest of skyrim, you have to dismiss the main quest of morrowind as well.

you can't just walk up in here and say "this is what I think an rpg is". because to me, an rpg isnt about stats, loot, or levelling. it's about a game that thrusts you into a situation that enables you to create stories. i wouldnt even consider action/adventure to be a seperate genre from rpg. in fact id say few rpgs are not adventure games.

[MisterMxyzptlk]

laughter kindness generosity..... oh wait i mean.... rockets, a arming mechanisium and.... not that ether?
oh RPG, Roll Playing and Game. and generally stats levels and an in depth story

[Deleted]

Considering WoW, I think it's one of the games that can certainly be considered an RPG for the following reasons.

First, you play a character that whatever he says or does comes directly from you as a player. Don't pretend as chat means nothing in the game. It's your player's voice in addition to help you communicate.

Second, you are in an open world with lot of choices in terms of exploration and what to do. Your character can do whatever you want. You can choose to stay in your starting area if you want to. End game has nothing to do with the gameplay of an RPG.

Third, you can choose what gear your character will have. There are some limitations concerning the battle gear, but in almost every game there are pieces of equipment that are considered "must have". Also don't forget that there is plenty of cosmetic gear as well, such as jewelry, shirts, trousers, etc.

Finally, your character can be almost anything you want him to be, within class restrictions. Do you want to be a druid that doesn't want to kill animals? You don't have to. Do you want to spend your time playing a merchant? Level up your professions and start working. Even a life as a fisher is available and with the recent additions you can also be a farmer.

If RPGs are mainly about choices, then WoW has lots of them, imo.

[Fencers]

i wouldn't say an rpg has to necessarily have an ending. lots of times, in dungeons and dragons--the ultimate and final example of what an rpg is--there is no ultimate goal.

Having an ending (or not) is not counter to a game having a goal of play. You can only have a game because it has a goal.

even then, structurally speaking how is it any different from morrowind, which you acknowledged is an rpg? because if you're going to dismiss the main quest of skyrim, you have to dismiss the main quest of morrowind as well.

The main quest is irrelevant to both game's genre.

Story is not gameplay. It's a contextual device.

you can't just walk up in here and say "this is what I think an rpg is". because to me, an rpg isnt about stats, loot, or levelling. it's about a game that thrusts you into a situation that enables you to create stories.

You just described Ace Combat.

i wouldnt even consider action/adventure to be a seperate genre from rpg. in fact id say few rpgs are not adventure games.

This would be a faulty notion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action-adventure_game

[Shinzai]

Having an ending (or not) is not counter to a game having a goal of play. You can only have a game because it has a goal.

The main quest is irrelevant to both game's genre.

Story is not gameplay. It's a contextual device.

You just described Ace Combat.


This would be a faulty notion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action-adventure_game

Right, I understand now, that your argument is basically that to classify as a RPG, you feel the game *has* to have certain rules and definitions in it. My response is a quote by Gary Gygax:

"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."

I will state, that by virtue, all RPGs are adventures. Whether they fall into the adventure game category that has been arbitrarily defined is completely irrelevant. All of the core mechanics of adventure games exist in RPGs. They're just one segment of the experience:

"Your party enters a dimly lit room, there is a light flickering on the far wall. There are door ways to your North and South, in a corner there's a table with a strange looking box on it. - What do you do?"

That could be a line spoken by a DM, written in a text adventure, or visually displayed in a 3D world. It makes no difference.

Sinister Design makes a good argument for what defines a CRPG:

"Conclusion - A game is a computer RPG if it features player-driven development of a persistent character or characters via the making of consequential choices."

Again, what you do in Skyrim or Deus Ex defines your character. In Skyrim, you can take up the role of the Dragonborn and do all required of you, or you can become a master thief and just ignore the main story line completely - That is the very definition of role playing.

Now, if you absolutely must define a CRPG as being absolutely representative of the core mechanics of a tabletop RPG, then I assume your ideals are like that of this old RPGFan editorial:

"What is a Role Playing Game? Personally, I like to define a Role Playing Game as a game that MUST, ABSOLUTELY have three elements. One is a statistical setup for characters that describe certain skills/aspects of that character. Two, it must have some method of increasing and strengthening those statistics (usually but not necessarily by way of the experience/level system). Three, it must have a menu-driven combat system that utilizes the skills/aspects of the characters. Given there are other elements of RPGs that I'll leave out because of their obvious nature, these are the elements that are required for a game to be labeled RPG."

So basically your argument is that just because a game lets you play a role defined by what you do, does not make it a roleplaying game, because it doesn't adhere to rules that a lot of roleplaying games used to simplify the experiences.

[Seegtease]

"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."

The problem with this definition is that it includes pretty much any video game where you control a character, or even a group of characters. Which is most games, which also makes the term nearly pointless for computer/console gaming.

[Collegeguy]

So many people are writing paragraphs for what defines an rpg.

It can simply be explained in one sentence.. In order to be an RPG, the player has to be able to level up and direct their progression in the process thereof.

[Kerrath]

The main quest is irrelevant to both game's genre.

Then explain to me what the difference that quantifies Morrowind as an RPG but not Skyrim is.

This would be a faulty notion.

If we're going to use wikipedia as our standard, then a roleplaying game is any game where you assume the role of a character in a fictional setting. In Skyrim, you assume the role of Dovahkiin, in the fictional setting of the land of the Nords, in the northern portion of the world of Cyrodiil. In Morrowind, you assume the role of Nerevarine, in the fictional setting of the land of the Dark Elves, in the north-eastern portion of the world of Cyrodiil.

So many people are writing paragraphs for what defines an rpg.

It can simply be explained in one sentence.. In order to be an RPG, the player has to be able to level up and direct their progression in the process thereof.

I don't even feel that this is right. You have to realize that the genre of roleplaying games came out in a time before the advent of video games when if you wanted to pretend to be an elf wizard you had to do so in your head with your friends, and the only way to do so fairly was to invent a rigorous system of rules and mechanics. Id est, "levels" in a roleplaying game are merely a mechanic that exist to indicate that a person who has spent more time fighting is better at fighting than a person who has spent less time fighting.

I'm implying that because we now have computers to play video games on and these computers are very powerful, a "level" system isn't necessarily required to provide a roleplaying experience.

[Shinzai]

The problem with this definition is that it includes pretty much any video game where you control a character, or even a group of characters. Which is most games, which also makes the term nearly pointless for computer/console gaming.

That's the thing though; you may control a character to kill bad guys or jump on platforms and the like, but you have no actual input on how the game will progress or what will happen. You either do as you're told to progress the game, or nothing happens.

I still stand by the most simplistic definitions of role playing; Any game where you can make choices, effect the outcome of situations or the entire game and have at least some freedom to effect the story in your own personalised manner. The choices you can make may be simplified, due to computers and games being unable to span every conceivable option a person may come up with (being honest, it would probably take an entire game production cycle to create a single dungeon or area where that was possible), but the idea at least should be there.

[Ferocity]

I still stand by the most simplistic definitions of role playing; Any game where you can make choices, effect the outcome of situations or the entire game and have at least some freedom to effect the story in your own personalised manner.

Partly strategy games fall under this definition, but not CRPG. In CRPG, No matter "choices", you are still going to fight main villain or maybe have some kind of mini-choice there right at that point of the game.

Most notable example of those choices for me was when I played NWN 2. Near beginning of game, when you encounter dwarf and 2 bandits. After long dialogue and thousands options, where I tried my best to choose "Whatever, I don't care about that dwarf and I don't want to fight", still game enforced me to participate in that encounter (I even tried to stay away and let dwarf die, but he was unkillable in that event, killed those bandits himself and then even thanked me for helping). Sure, there was small choice in one of first dungeons - fight lizardmen or not, but fighting them would reward you incomparably to choosing way of diplomacy, and this choice didn't matter anywhere outside that dungeon.

Slightly off-topic, the only game which had very interesting presentation of choices in outcome of story (and story choices aren't a primary element for CRPGs) which I played was Might and Magic VII. At first you are presented with choices of small scale (should we help Catherine or elves or maybe even neither), and then on ultimate scale - choose Light or Dark Path, which played completely different, had different approaches, "pro" and "con", and had their own consequences.

Instead of trying to argue, I'd advice to simply launch some old classic CRPG - Might and Magic, Wizardry (pre-8), Final Fantasy (pre-7 pref.), Dragon Quest. Having played Prince of Persia (3D Action games) and other 3D Action games would also helped. Then try to compare, what Skyrim and most other modern games, labeled as CRPG, are closer to. If someone doesn't enjoy anything from above 4 game series, perhaps he simply likes Action, Arcade or Adventure games and not actually CRPGs.

You have to realize that the genre of roleplaying games came out in a time before the advent of video games when if you wanted to pretend to be an elf wizard you had to do so in your head with your friends, and the only way to do so fairly was to invent a rigorous system of rules and mechanics. Id est, "levels" in a roleplaying game are merely a mechanic that exist to indicate that a person who has spent more time fighting is better at fighting than a person who has spent less time fighting.

I'm implying that because we now have computers to play video games on and these computers are very powerful, a "level" system isn't necessarily required to provide a roleplaying experience.

According to your logic, being turn-based isn't necessary for chess, and was made as such because wrestling appeared much later. There is similar (not same) reason to why some people enjoy chess, while other people - wrestling, as in why some people enjoy CRPGs, and other people - 3D Action or other game genres. Liking chess doesn't exclude liking wrestling, but it doesn't mean those games are of "the same genre and pacing" and that chess is simply relic of ancient times, when people didn't know any better.

[Wilian]

Lets put the simplest thing out there, difference between RPG and 3rd person shooter like Mass Effect

In RPG, you get a quest that involves you getting somewhere. Typically you have multiple ways of approaching this depending on your character traits, say a quest in Morrowind that requires you to steal a key for a manor.

There are multiple approaches, you can talk to a servant in bar guy and if you are good with Speechcraft and Charisma, chances are you can get the key off a drunk servant. If you are strong and high speechcraft you can probably intimdate him to give the key.

Alternatively, you can lockpick into the building yourself and sneak around, finding one of the keys held inside in a safety or if you are good at other arts regarding thievery you could try to pickpocket it from the owner or the servant.

If you are a crafty acrobat you could find alternative route to the manor from the roofs and the balcony with unlocked door and through that find the key inside.

Or if you really want to, you can also just kill the servant (or the owner but that'd not be recommendable), being a thick skulled me-smash warrior as you would be. That too would naturally have it's own consequences.

It's all about how you built your character. And of course what you wear does matter, as heavier armours make more noise/slows you down or you can't jump as high.

Now Mass Effect. You get a quest and then you shoot or you go through a discussion mini-game of picking right options. Most of the cases you'll shoot before, during and after though. In discussions if you're edgy you go for red ones, if you're saint you go for the blue. That's the extension of it. Doesn't sound like RPG to me.

This is not to say game like Mass Effect is bad, just that it isn't RPG by a stretch.

[Shinzai]

Slightly off-topic, the only game which had very interesting presentation of choices in outcome of story (and story choices aren't a primary element for CRPGs) which I played was Might and Magic VII. At first you are presented with choices of small scale (should we help Catherine or elves or maybe even neither), and then on ultimate scale - choose Light or Dark Path, which played completely different, had different approaches, "pro" and "con", and had their own consequences.

Instead of trying to argue, I'd advice to simply launch some old classic CRPG - Might and Magic, Wizardry (pre-8), Final Fantasy (pre-7 pref.), Dragon Quest. Having played Prince of Persia (3D Action games) and other 3D Action games would also helped. Then try to compare, what Skyrim and most other modern games, labeled as CRPG, are closer to. If someone doesn't enjoy anything from above 4 game series, perhaps he simply likes Action, Arcade or Adventure games and not actually CRPGs.

That's the thing though; I've played almost all of these games (I only played the earlier Wizardry games, back in the early 90's however), I love the M&M series and have played Final Fantasy from Magic Quest through to 6 in full, then parts of 7, 8, all of 9, bits of 10 and have dumped a lot of time into 11 + 14. Dragon Quest I never played because it never really appealed to me. I've also played the Ultima series from Akalabeth to Ultima 8, where I promptly dropped the series due to the game being nigh on broken and ridiculous (can't wait for Shroud of the Avatar though). I've played the Lands of Lore series, the Elder Scrolls series, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Wasteland, Fallout 1-3, Witcher 1 + 2, Gothic 1 + 2, Vampire: The Masquerade, Deus Ex and more than I care to mention.

I've played old school and new RPG games, I've played table top, I've dabbled in LARP'ing. I've spent years in MUD's (I still think RavenMUD was some of the most fun I ever had) and despite all that, I still consider games such as Skyrim RPG's. The presentation of RPG's has changed constantly over the decades for me and I've always transitioned from one medium to the next, starting with Hero's Quest and going from there.

Just to bring up a specific example though, look at the Final Fantasy games as a whole; they have very little choice in them, even the oldest ones. You tend to start off as character X and go through a very specific, linear story. It may have areas you can explore between, but your playthrough and someone else's will still almost be exactly the same, the only things that will differ are who was in your party and how/when you got XP. Is that really a RPG as you're describing it, compared to Wizardry 6 or 7? Wizardry's almost a different class of game altogether, though people identify both as being RPG's.

According to your logic, being turn-based isn't necessary for chess, and was made as such because wrestling appeared much later. There is similar (not same) reason to why some people enjoy chess, while other people - wrestling, as in why some people enjoy CRPGs, and other people - 3D Action or other game genres. Liking chess doesn't exclude liking wrestling, but it doesn't mean those games are of "the same genre and pacing" and that chess is simply relic of ancient times, when people didn't know any better.

Just to verify the way I look at the RPG genre - Chess and Starcraft 2 are in the same category of games for me: Strategy. Think about it that way, considering the gigantic number of differences between the two, both thematically and how they are played.

[Ferocity]

Just to bring up a specific example though, look at the Final Fantasy games as a whole; they have very little choice in them, even the oldest ones. You tend to start off as character X and go through a very specific, linear story. It may have areas you can explore between, but your playthrough and someone else's will still almost be exactly the same, the only things that will differ are who was in your party and how/when you got XP. Is that really a RPG as you're describing it, compared to Wizardry 6 or 7? Wizardry's almost a different class of game altogether, though people identify both as being RPG's.

These are 4 different series of classic CRPGs, they all were quite different but same in the core. Storyline choices aren't core element in CRPG, it is CRPG not Quest/Adventure. And you forgot that Might and Magic III allowed you to choose whom to bring Artifacts - Bad, Evil or Neutral Side, MM VII allowed Light/Dark choice. Wiz 1-5 had emphasis on exploring one big dungeon. No "storyline choices". Only thing which made it different from MM/FF/DQ is that early Wizardry were Nintendo Hard. Your first encounter had high chances to be your last, and not because you as player suck, but just because game decided you deserve early "Game Over". What concerns linearity, recent PC games simply don't reward exploration. You can miss a lot of side-quests and dungeons and still beat the game. If you will start to zerg your way to end in any of those classic games - you will die shortly after starting the game, because those games weren't about reading book/watching cutscenes, but about actual gameplay.

Instead of having a lot of cosmetic storyline choices, which have little beneficial impact on gameplay (you still end up fighting Melissan/Morag/Sarevok/whoever), those games were straight to the point - exploration, character/development, character's resource management. The latter 3 ARE gameplay elements, whereas storyline serves simply as background. I am sure that people who never played those games, and started with BG, NWN or TES, they will have very-very uneasy time with Wiz/MM/FF/DQ (especially in Wiz and MM). I am sure those people wouldn't get past second (or even first) dungeon in Phantasy Star II (another great CRPG series), because they aren't used to actual CRPG's gameplay.

And what made those classic games different from same Skyrim, is that they were minimum dependent from dexterity skills. Now one could argue about ARPG (which is CRPG's sub-genre), but in true ARPG games there are also various checks to make sure your character has proper stats/gear/buffs, as you can't make it by dexterity skills alone (and if you might, it will just be not worth the efforts). Whole TES series downplayed and tainted it by scaling system (killing factor "M" in FUME approach of Larian and subverting FUE), making character development mostly meaningless if not punishing. Add on top of that dexterity-based combat, and TES games show themselves as Action/Adventure and nothing more.

Just to verify the way I look at the RPG genre - Chess and Starcraft 2 are in the same category of games for me: Strategy. Think about it that way, considering the gigantic number of differences between the two, both thematically and how they are played.

If to compare chess with video games, turn-based strategies (e.g. Heroes of Might and Magic) are closer in spirit than RTS. RTS requires you to act right here and now and good dexterity skills (how fast and precisely you can click) can outweight strategic planning.

Edit: btw, it is currently uncommon to see people who loved MM, those games are now mostly forgotten because of their age. If you noticed I am huge fan of MM series too :)

[obdigore]

So many people are writing paragraphs for what defines an rpg.

It can simply be explained in one sentence.. In order to be an RPG, the player has to be able to level up and direct their progression in the process thereof.

So COD: Ghosts multiplayer is a RPG? Since I level up and decide what perks/weapons/equipment I can then use?