Great encapsulation of the sticking point here. I don't believe that terms, especially buzzwords or genre classifications, are inherently immutable. Just look at early punk rock compared to some of the more modern stuff that's worn the same title (Blink-182 comes to mind) to get an idea of what I mean. Freedom of choices and actual role-playing may be where it started, but the limitations of video games in the past shaped many people's perceptions of what the term RPG means and a lot of that has stuck.
The purpose of this thread is to define "RPG," but more than just offering an opinion of what I think they should be, those four elements (overarching story, numbers, transition/upgrades from weak to strong, and inventory/loot) encompass a wide variety of games both past and present. A wide net, like you said, but games that focus on freedom and choices could be considered a sub-genre and the whole classification would be clearer for it. I'm not focused so much on what it should ideally mean, then, but what the term actually means in gaming today, which means finding the commonality between all of the different kinds of games that identify themselves as such. Is that not the closest one can get to objectively measuring something as abstract and subjective as a word?
I'm just horrified that nobody else wanted to save the puppy.
@227 - I think my concern with your argument (and Rep's, if he's still agreeing with you) is if the term RPG has changed its meaning because of marketing-speak, which is why this thread was phrased as being about what we, as individuals, considered to be an RPG rather than what the industry calls their games. So it's fine if your definition is "whatever the developer/publisher decides is an RPG", but I'm stil not convinced that this necessarily represents the actual expectation of someone thinking of buying a game described as such.
Wow, so many multi-syllable words. And I'm not even drunk.
Last edited:
The term hasn't changed its meaning. This is what it has always meant. The first computer RPGs were nothing more than dungeon crawlers. And it is those core mechanics that all RPGs, as we know them in their video game form, share.
This is why we have add-ons to the genres, to describe a game more accurately. So, The Witcher is not just an RPG, it is a story-driven, action RPG, while Torchlight is a hack 'n' slash RPG.
RPG, the genre, describes the core mechanics that the game uses, the add-ons describe what extra stuff the game offers (if any) and how those mechanics have been implemented.
This is why we have add-ons to the genres, to describe a game more accurately. So, The Witcher is not just an RPG, it is a story-driven, action RPG, while Torchlight is a hack 'n' slash RPG.
RPG, the genre, describes the core mechanics that the game uses, the add-ons describe what extra stuff the game offers (if any) and how those mechanics have been implemented.
Last edited:
It's not just them, though. The fans ultimately have the final say on whether something is an RPG or not, so there's no effort expended trying to shoehorn in games that fans feel are unfairly labeled as such. Obviously not all fans will agree (some people believe the Zelda games are RPGs), but there's generally a consensus as to whether the developers lied about their game in the marketing or not. Taking past games into account, then, would mean drawing from that consensus more so than marketing-speak, wouldn't it? For example, Mass Effect 2 and 3 have been the subject of plenty of arguments centering around whether or not they're RPGs. Because no consensus seems to exist for those games, they get ignored and other games more widely considered to be RPGs are cross-referenced. Then, using the shared features from all of those other games as a reference, one could check and see that ME2 and 3 don't really fit the mold. One would think that drawing from that consensus would mean a definition true to more people's expectations than one that says that large swaths of RPG past are no longer a part of the genre.
Don't you mean "inebriated"?
Well. Ultima. More than a mere dungeon crawler. And it was a high water mark, an example of what these dungeon crawlers were trying to be.
The idea was to replicate DnD, as said by nearly every RPG designer ever, in one form or another. DnD, despite it's flaws, was always about choice and consequences, freedom to act, so forth. Even in a dungeon. Even the Temple of Ultimate Evil.
This is because DnD grew from tactical wargaming roots, mostly a game called Chainmail.
I think what you guys are describing, is, ironically, a return to pre-DnD: tactical wargaming. Not role-play, which DnD and the CRPGs that followed, were trying to do.
So although the first so-called RPGs were dungeon crawlers, they were trying for DnD. DnD used stats, inventory and whatnot to simulate being an adventurer - but the point was to pretend to be that adventurer. That's why you had a GM.
And that lack of a GM is why early CRPGs were choice-light, by necessity.
So your core-mechanics, inventory, stats, small units, upgrades are actually tactical wargaming, which are shared by many more games than RPGs. Thus the CoD bleed-over.
I don't think Reptile and 227 are off in their points about the origin or current perception of RPGs - I just think that because, for example millions of people,( and it seems half the media outlets ever) still call assault rifles to be "machine-guns" doesn't make them machine guns. And they never-were machine-guns.
But Assault Rifles did share their roots with Machine-Guns and have many things in common with them. It's just that assault rifles do a different job and are used differently.
How do you like that for a Cyberpunk 2020 reference?
4298, Wikipedia says Mass Effect - all of them - are role-playing games and no one has edited that away. Consenus is that they are RPGs, then. You may inform everyone arguing the point it has been resolved! Grin!
I'm enjoying how this thread has morphed from, "what to you is an RPG" to "what are RPGs to the user-base and what is the history?"
I found this interesting article. http://armchairarcade.com/neo/node/1081
I did not know that the -year- DnD came out, geeks immediately started putting it onto mainframes. The second version, made that year, was even called dnd. Heh.
EDIT: Hmm. Reading Wikipedia, they illustrate we may be going about this the wrong way, definition wise. Rather than try to make choice and consequences a sub-genre, what Wikipedia has done is make games that focus less or not-at-all on those things sub-genres of Western Roleplaying: "Sub-genres include action role-playing games and tactical role-playing games."
I do find it amusing that when follow the link the History of Eastern RPGs, this pops up almost immediately: "Japanese computer RPGs See also: Action role-playing game and Tactical role-playing game"
I think perhaps that JRPGs are generally more tactical that role-play. That does make them a sub-genre of the RPG classification,
Last edited:
Stop trying to push CoD, jeez. It has nothing to do with our flawless classification of RPGs - the MP component has no story and there's no loot in the game. And the SP component doesn't feature any of the soldier/equipment modifications. The 'bleedover' is there because CoD borrows some RPG mechanics for its MP component, not the other way around.
People being ignorant about real life objects such as assault rifles has nothing to do with a genre that started on consoles and never had any actual roleplaying to begin with. The term RPG is misused but it stuck, so now it is used to define stat-heavy games. Even jRPG, when you think about it, doesn't mean what it logically should, since there are jRPGs that aren't even made in Japan - it's all about the mechanics. Because video games. If you want to go in-depth, you end up with a classification similar to what 227 and I have put together here (even wikipedia has a very similar, but more broad, one).
As for ME, it is considered an RPG by our classification. ME2 and ME3 are a bit iffy, either TPS/RPG or aRPG. And those are games that the gaming community in general has a tough time putting in one genre or the other.
People being ignorant about real life objects such as assault rifles has nothing to do with a genre that started on consoles and never had any actual roleplaying to begin with. The term RPG is misused but it stuck, so now it is used to define stat-heavy games. Even jRPG, when you think about it, doesn't mean what it logically should, since there are jRPGs that aren't even made in Japan - it's all about the mechanics. Because video games. If you want to go in-depth, you end up with a classification similar to what 227 and I have put together here (even wikipedia has a very similar, but more broad, one).
As for ME, it is considered an RPG by our classification. ME2 and ME3 are a bit iffy, either TPS/RPG or aRPG. And those are games that the gaming community in general has a tough time putting in one genre or the other.
Last edited:
Scrubbing old post. @Nars made a good point we're just rehashing. Reptile, I've laughed at you for saying RPGs were first on consoles. ONWARDS.
Okay, what makes an RPG interesting to you? And why? IS it the character growth? Is it the stats? Is it the choice? Why?
Example for me: character creation differentiating RPGs from, say, shooters or even a tactical game like XCom.
I found myself playing Divinity: Original Sin the beta recently. I liked it before, but this time they added more class choices and customization options. Immediately I spent an hour screwing with that.
Everyone remember Arcanum and it's many perks? Fun, right?
Anyone who has played PnP knows much of the fun comes from creating a character - sometimes depending on how the game goes, most of the fun is in creation.
How important is character creation as part of an RPG? Do you find that your idea of the character potential is the best part, even though odds are against seeing it fulfilled? Would you say that much of your role-playing comes from imagining what your character would do, and then supporting it with skill, stat and gear choices?
Okay, what makes an RPG interesting to you? And why? IS it the character growth? Is it the stats? Is it the choice? Why?
Example for me: character creation differentiating RPGs from, say, shooters or even a tactical game like XCom.
I found myself playing Divinity: Original Sin the beta recently. I liked it before, but this time they added more class choices and customization options. Immediately I spent an hour screwing with that.
Everyone remember Arcanum and it's many perks? Fun, right?
Anyone who has played PnP knows much of the fun comes from creating a character - sometimes depending on how the game goes, most of the fun is in creation.
How important is character creation as part of an RPG? Do you find that your idea of the character potential is the best part, even though odds are against seeing it fulfilled? Would you say that much of your role-playing comes from imagining what your character would do, and then supporting it with skill, stat and gear choices?
Last edited:
No, the classification defines RPGs in general. action and tactical are things you add to show the how the stats are being put to use. I can't think of an RPG that wouldn't fit the classification. Not a one. The quote you posted from wikipedia further proves that the classification has the right idea, not that it's defining a sub-genre.
"RPGs rarely challenge a player's physical coordination or reaction time, with the exception of action role-playing games." All this says is that most (emphasis on most, meaning not all) RPGs are games that don't challenge the player's reactions. But we don't have that in our glorious 'Single char/ Small group - Driving Quest - Stats - Upgrades - Loot' system. So you can't argue that we're trying to describe just a single sub-genre, based on that.
What separates an action RPG from a turn-based RPG is the implementation of the core rules, not the core rules themselves. Note that both tactical and action RPGs are just sub-genres of the RPG. Now, I'm sure you're aware how sub-systems work. You have one main system, that contains all the elements that are shared by each and every member of the system. You then have sub-systems that add on things that are not part of the common characteristics.
What we're trying to sort out here, and what the wikipedia entry doesn't attempt to do, is not just say what most RPGs do, but what all RPGs do. And not all RPGs have C&C. So it can't be a defining feature of the main system, since it is not shared by the members of all sub-systems.
"RPGs rarely challenge a player's physical coordination or reaction time, with the exception of action role-playing games." All this says is that most (emphasis on most, meaning not all) RPGs are games that don't challenge the player's reactions. But we don't have that in our glorious 'Single char/ Small group - Driving Quest - Stats - Upgrades - Loot' system. So you can't argue that we're trying to describe just a single sub-genre, based on that.
What separates an action RPG from a turn-based RPG is the implementation of the core rules, not the core rules themselves. Note that both tactical and action RPGs are just sub-genres of the RPG. Now, I'm sure you're aware how sub-systems work. You have one main system, that contains all the elements that are shared by each and every member of the system. You then have sub-systems that add on things that are not part of the common characteristics.
What we're trying to sort out here, and what the wikipedia entry doesn't attempt to do, is not just say what most RPGs do, but what all RPGs do. And not all RPGs have C&C. So it can't be a defining feature of the main system, since it is not shared by the members of all sub-systems.
Some people have said we role-play in order to escape our lives and worlds. It's an argument, but for me, that's rarely been the case. I role-play, both CRPG and PnP, to explore.
And not merely to explore physical locations, (although that can also be wonderful), but to explore the consequences of actions I would not take in the real world. Sometimes these are quite simple action fest results, the classic GTA shoot-thecops-and-run scenario. Those are mildly satisfying.
More satisfying is exploring what happens if you pick an evil path in Knights of the Old Republic. Not just staying evil, but also trying to redeem yourself. In System Shock 2, for example, you could explore an essentially hostile environment, both in and out, as well as play thtough a Skynet-runs-your-little world environment.
So exploration of ideas and territory is a key feature of RPGs to me.
And not merely to explore physical locations, (although that can also be wonderful), but to explore the consequences of actions I would not take in the real world. Sometimes these are quite simple action fest results, the classic GTA shoot-thecops-and-run scenario. Those are mildly satisfying.
More satisfying is exploring what happens if you pick an evil path in Knights of the Old Republic. Not just staying evil, but also trying to redeem yourself. In System Shock 2, for example, you could explore an essentially hostile environment, both in and out, as well as play thtough a Skynet-runs-your-little world environment.
So exploration of ideas and territory is a key feature of RPGs to me.
See, now that I agree with completely.... exploration is why freedom is important, exploration of the environment, exploration of your own abilities and personality, exploration of consequences....
This is why linear games to me just can never actually be anything I associate with roleplaying.... which is games classically labelled as RPG's just aren't to me...
This isn't just a choice and consequences rephrase, though. It's about exploration, seeing new territory, from both the designer's ideas and my own internal perspective.
It's also why games like GTA5, despite some RPG elements, lack, though. Because they do exterior physical exploration of wide spaces well, but lack for building exploration and depth and are really far too linear for me in terms of methods and plot. It's pretty much all shoot - stealth, persuade or hack are typically afterthoughts. Non-lethal? ha-ha.
Whereas I quite enjoyed the moral choice given to me in DXHR - non violent was an option, and I really had to talk to myself about what Jensen would do. He's a pro and a shooter - but he has a viable non lethal option. He has a history of avoiding simple but bloody solutions, and yet he's obviously comfortable with lethal force when necessary. Where was the line for Jensen? Where was the line for me?
I found a lethal playthrough was the safest, generally. I found pure stealth was the least safe, and couldn't believe Jensen would do that. I opted for non-lethal where possible, but lethal fast if necessary.
Until about half way through, when he went full lethal and stayed that way for quite awhile.
I was much more invested in exploration of motives than in any GTA or Diablo game. I found the environment both interesting and extremely claustrophobic.
I think I relish urban exploration when it's intimate, over the scenarios of GTA or Fallout. Still DXHR failed to satisfy my exploration urge and as you've noted, it was pretty linear.
Of course, GTA and Fallout were very plot linear, too. GTA series especially. Side quests notwithstanding, it was forward-ho!
Witcher 1 was almost right for me, in the intimacy/size/choices/freedom/plot results combo. Witcher 2 was a step back in some of that.
Edit: follow up - it's also some of what I liked about Final Fantasy VI, one of the few JRPGs I've played. It wasn't so much about exploring my choices, as it was about exploring Cloud's choices and his world. I was okay with that, too, which would drive Wisdom nuts. If the writing is solid, I really enjoy a game that takes me where a good writer wants to go.
Maybe that is even more important than choice to me: my mind being opened by a great story and seeing where it goes. Hmmm.
It's also why games like GTA5, despite some RPG elements, lack, though. Because they do exterior physical exploration of wide spaces well, but lack for building exploration and depth and are really far too linear for me in terms of methods and plot. It's pretty much all shoot - stealth, persuade or hack are typically afterthoughts. Non-lethal? ha-ha.
Whereas I quite enjoyed the moral choice given to me in DXHR - non violent was an option, and I really had to talk to myself about what Jensen would do. He's a pro and a shooter - but he has a viable non lethal option. He has a history of avoiding simple but bloody solutions, and yet he's obviously comfortable with lethal force when necessary. Where was the line for Jensen? Where was the line for me?
I found a lethal playthrough was the safest, generally. I found pure stealth was the least safe, and couldn't believe Jensen would do that. I opted for non-lethal where possible, but lethal fast if necessary.
Until about half way through, when he went full lethal and stayed that way for quite awhile.
I was much more invested in exploration of motives than in any GTA or Diablo game. I found the environment both interesting and extremely claustrophobic.
I think I relish urban exploration when it's intimate, over the scenarios of GTA or Fallout. Still DXHR failed to satisfy my exploration urge and as you've noted, it was pretty linear.
Of course, GTA and Fallout were very plot linear, too. GTA series especially. Side quests notwithstanding, it was forward-ho!
Witcher 1 was almost right for me, in the intimacy/size/choices/freedom/plot results combo. Witcher 2 was a step back in some of that.
Edit: follow up - it's also some of what I liked about Final Fantasy VI, one of the few JRPGs I've played. It wasn't so much about exploring my choices, as it was about exploring Cloud's choices and his world. I was okay with that, too, which would drive Wisdom nuts. If the writing is solid, I really enjoy a game that takes me where a good writer wants to go.
Maybe that is even more important than choice to me: my mind being opened by a great story and seeing where it goes. Hmmm.
Last edited:
That's part of why I'm personally so drawn to the numbers side of things; exploring the possibilities that those numbers allow and finding ways to take the weakest characters and turn them into unstoppable killing machines by twisting the game's mechanics has that same thrill of exploration. Vidya example:
[video=youtube;NeFoe0p-MWk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeFoe0p-MWk[/video]
VII. Not VI. So disappointing—I thought you had actually played 6, which is considered by many to be the best of the series.
Yup, which is why I considered DX:HR to be an RPG.
Milwaukee Junction? Stealth, because if the bad guys find out you're there, they may kill the hostages.
Second arrival in Hengsha? Kill everyone as fast as possible because they're fucking SHOOTING AT YOU and unless you stop it, your partner may die.
There's more than one way of role-playing, and DX:HR's method worked.
Regarding JRPGs though, I still wouldn't consider it role-play if I'm not the one getting to make those choices. But it doesn't matter, calling a game an RPG shouldn't be a Stamp of Approval, it's just a way of categorising it. I enjoyed Bioshock Infinite at least as much as Dishonored.
GTA and Fallout were linear only to the extent that the story happenned, and the major plot points happenned in secession.... however at virtually any point in the games you have multiple choices as to when to do those missions, ignoring them for exploration, or side quests, or activities, or what not... at no point is there an "oops you walked through the wrong door, time to get on the train to the next stop, hope you got all outof that place you wanted...." moment. And even within the missions there are choices... you can absolutely go the stealth option, hell using the taser you can even do some missions non-lethally in GTA. It has even more impact in GTA than in DXHR, because in GTA a tasered guy WILL actually get up again... it makes shit super difficult most of the time, but it's possible. And while the other choices are minor, some are quite major... at the end of GTA you are faced with three choices, and all three have pretty big consequences as to how the game ends.... And yes, I like to think that the personality you have bestowed over the characters own personality is what informs that choice.... And all during the game you decide how the character dresses, what cars he favors, what weapons he uses and how he modifies them... role playing is heavy... you don't get much choice in the dialogue, its true.. but thats what you get when you have voiced characters... And while the characters definitely have their own personalities, you are the final arbiter of how those personalities play out and what ultimately happens to them...
GTA Online, while dismissed as nothing but a massive orgy of pvp in the lobbies, does not have to be played that way... it can be, and is, at least by me, roleplayed. I rarely attack anyone in a lobby who doesn't try to attack me first, becaus my character has honor. I don't rob stores, because that shit is beneath me. I try to avoid killing citizens most of the time. My character owns all thclothes in the game, but only wears a set few of them, because they suit his sense of style. I do not carry most of the weapons, though I qualify for them all.... even when I pick up weapons I don't prefer I drop them as soon as I am able... I carry 1 assault rifle, 1 heavy mg, no smg's at all, and 3 handguns...
yes it's difficult, and there are lots of times I just say fuck it and go murder crazy on some dudes ass if he pisses me off, or get into a huge firefight with cops because... bored... but with heists coming out, and more options for the mission creator beyond races and deathmatches coming in the future, it actually has the potentIAL for some really great stuff.....
And at it's heart, free roaming in a sandbox is like playing your Tabletop player in a world without a GM........ which is kind of liberating in itself, but is certainly ripe with roleplaying, it's just up to you to do it, to decide what your parameters and personality are...
Granted it's like trying to role play in everquest, but at least you don't sound stupid trying to shove thee's and thou's into everything...
Yea, I did the same thing in DE:HR as you did, Sard, though I stopped using the lethal method for the final mission. And it was cool that, depending on how you went about it, the ending narration by Jenses changed a bit. A nice little touch that I really appreciated. DE is right up there with The Witcher for me. Top 10, or whatever. Too bad they fucked up the ending, could have been Top 5 instead. I disliked how lethal vs. non-lethal was done in Dishonored though - it was also reflected but the problem is, they made such a huge deal out of it before releasing the game, and the possible outcomes were so balck and white, that the choice lost its meaning - it was now a goal, not the result of roleplaying.
I agree with the story playing a huge role in how much I enjoy a game as well. That includes both the plot, and how that plot is presented. You can have a complex story, but fail miserably at making it compelling (GoT RPG). BioWare games are really good at storytelling, not so great at the story itself though. Used to be good enough that it didn't hurt the experience, until recently.
Another thing that I find is extremely important for me in games is the atmosphere. This means just the general art direction, the world, the music. Something that both HR and TW (TW1 more than TW2) got right. Again.
I agree with the story playing a huge role in how much I enjoy a game as well. That includes both the plot, and how that plot is presented. You can have a complex story, but fail miserably at making it compelling (GoT RPG). BioWare games are really good at storytelling, not so great at the story itself though. Used to be good enough that it didn't hurt the experience, until recently.
Another thing that I find is extremely important for me in games is the atmosphere. This means just the general art direction, the world, the music. Something that both HR and TW (TW1 more than TW2) got right. Again.
Last edited:
I don't know how wise it is to sink into this blackhole of a subject, but my definition of an RPG is roughly (there's always more than meets the eye in this particular subject so not everything should be taken to the letter...) as follows...
There needs to be a role to be played, obviously, and for a role to exist, there needs to be a narrative of some sort (which could really be anything - from Lil' Jimmies 3 hours of home-alone-time after school before the parents come home from work, to being a gust of wind sent down to earth by Aiolos, to Jackies trip to the mall, to a party of adventurers searching for a lost treasure; or anything, really). A point, purpose and trappings for the role to be played.
There needs to be a set of rules that govern the role (and gameplay through that role). This could be a set of attributes, a set of skills/abilities, or a combination of those -- it doesn't matter which, as long as they serve the game by letting that role be expressed through them within the confines of the setting and design. (And of course, since it is roleplaying, the role should take precedence in the player initiated attempts at the tasks that the rules govern.)
The player needs to have a say on what kind of role he plays (within the confines of the set up and the rules) and freedom of approach and expression of that role in different ways to as large quantity as needed (or possible - if it's science boy, combat boy, stealth boy; so be it, but variety of ways is the key); and there needs to be a specific response, a reaction, from the game to the way of approach or expression (reactivity). This also governs character building/progression. The design may dictate that the progression stops at character creation (eg. in the case of Lil' Jimmie from above, where there really is no need to have larger scale progressive features due to the timeframe the game takes place in; just roll or manually assign the set of required stats), the core element is that the character you create dictates the ways you can (more or less) successfully approach the gameplay; on the flip side, if the game provides the player with a premade character, there needs to be some form of ability progression to let the player develop the role. Both can be had, and it would likely make a better game, but only one or the other is really necessary depending on the games design.
So, in some obscure fucked up way, you could say that the definition lies in the term itself; there's the role (the playable character in the narrative), the game (the rules of engagement as descrbed above; working in defining the character and the experience), and (role)playing (playing and expressing the role in the narrative by the rules). And those are really the only things you need; there's no need for a huge list of singular features some of whose status as definitive elements is questionable at best (eg. if the game doesn't require inventory or exploration of land, there need not be those).
In the poll I didn't check:
- "Relationships between characters" because in theory (and why not in practice too) you could have an RPG about one single character chained to the bed wearing a straight jacket in an asylum, and have the gameplay be about the inner struggle and discussion with his malfunctioning subconscious, avoiding the insanity to completely take over (or allow it, and try to avoid sanity from creeping in), and the goal being him coming in terms with him self and submit to his condition.
- "Freedom to do what you want" because that's never true. You are (and should be) always bound to what your character is allowed to do. However, the bulk of the freedom should come (both, gradually and right away) as a consequence from your decisions (initial character build, the route of progression, narrative, main- and sidequest, choices, and even some random actions that might at first seem like they mean nothing), them being consequences meaning something else might be out of your reach now; barring some case by case world interactions (like traveling around the world at your own peril and interacting with NPC's and objects).
- "Inventory/loot" because if there's no need for those, what difference does it make?
- "I don't care I want to kill a puppy" because my character isn't into killing puppies, he'll wait them to grow up and fat so he can cook them for bigger meals.
There needs to be a role to be played, obviously, and for a role to exist, there needs to be a narrative of some sort (which could really be anything - from Lil' Jimmies 3 hours of home-alone-time after school before the parents come home from work, to being a gust of wind sent down to earth by Aiolos, to Jackies trip to the mall, to a party of adventurers searching for a lost treasure; or anything, really). A point, purpose and trappings for the role to be played.
There needs to be a set of rules that govern the role (and gameplay through that role). This could be a set of attributes, a set of skills/abilities, or a combination of those -- it doesn't matter which, as long as they serve the game by letting that role be expressed through them within the confines of the setting and design. (And of course, since it is roleplaying, the role should take precedence in the player initiated attempts at the tasks that the rules govern.)
The player needs to have a say on what kind of role he plays (within the confines of the set up and the rules) and freedom of approach and expression of that role in different ways to as large quantity as needed (or possible - if it's science boy, combat boy, stealth boy; so be it, but variety of ways is the key); and there needs to be a specific response, a reaction, from the game to the way of approach or expression (reactivity). This also governs character building/progression. The design may dictate that the progression stops at character creation (eg. in the case of Lil' Jimmie from above, where there really is no need to have larger scale progressive features due to the timeframe the game takes place in; just roll or manually assign the set of required stats), the core element is that the character you create dictates the ways you can (more or less) successfully approach the gameplay; on the flip side, if the game provides the player with a premade character, there needs to be some form of ability progression to let the player develop the role. Both can be had, and it would likely make a better game, but only one or the other is really necessary depending on the games design.
So, in some obscure fucked up way, you could say that the definition lies in the term itself; there's the role (the playable character in the narrative), the game (the rules of engagement as descrbed above; working in defining the character and the experience), and (role)playing (playing and expressing the role in the narrative by the rules). And those are really the only things you need; there's no need for a huge list of singular features some of whose status as definitive elements is questionable at best (eg. if the game doesn't require inventory or exploration of land, there need not be those).
In the poll I didn't check:
- "Relationships between characters" because in theory (and why not in practice too) you could have an RPG about one single character chained to the bed wearing a straight jacket in an asylum, and have the gameplay be about the inner struggle and discussion with his malfunctioning subconscious, avoiding the insanity to completely take over (or allow it, and try to avoid sanity from creeping in), and the goal being him coming in terms with him self and submit to his condition.
- "Freedom to do what you want" because that's never true. You are (and should be) always bound to what your character is allowed to do. However, the bulk of the freedom should come (both, gradually and right away) as a consequence from your decisions (initial character build, the route of progression, narrative, main- and sidequest, choices, and even some random actions that might at first seem like they mean nothing), them being consequences meaning something else might be out of your reach now; barring some case by case world interactions (like traveling around the world at your own peril and interacting with NPC's and objects).
- "Inventory/loot" because if there's no need for those, what difference does it make?
- "I don't care I want to kill a puppy" because my character isn't into killing puppies, he'll wait them to grow up and fat so he can cook them for bigger meals.
Last edited: