What makes an RPG?

+

What makes an RPG?


  • Total voters
    46
What makes an RPG?

OK, so I threatened in another thread to start this, and since you're all such civilised people, and as I may be blinking in and out of existence for the next few weeks which means Sard may need to moderate (giggle) if you start fighting, here goes.

A lot of developers define games as "RPG". In some cases, especially with the aRPG, people disagree with the tag.

What do you consider the essential features that a videogame needs in order to be called an RPG? Examples? What isn't essential but its presence strengthens the role-play element?

So... me first, Because.

Essentials:

1. My character must have a personality, and I must be able to determine it to a certain extent. There can be boundaries - it's OK if the game only gives me limited choices, stops me from (for example) killing everyone I see, but I have to have some impact on what kind of person my character is.

2. My character must have a motivation which goes beyond "Kill the enemy and loot" or "Get from A to B without dying". So it needs a story, a mission, a main quest. The motivation may change as the game progresses, but it must always be present.

3. There must be choice and consequences that go beyond "Choose the right weapon/upgrade or die". These choices don't need to change the world, and there don't need to be a lot of them, but they need to exist.

Examples. These are all defined by some at least as aRPG.
The Witcher 2 - definitely, it meets all the criteria.
Deus Ex HR - Yes, but only just, because Choice & Consequence isn't strong (and I disregard the ending, which I see as a player judgement on the world, not a choice with consequences)
Dishonored - Right on the edge, because Corvo remains a cipher, and you only really get the one personality/C&C point, the decision on whether or not to make him a killing machine.
Bioshock Infinite - No, because even though Booker has a strong personality, you get no opportunity to tune it, and there's no C&C. The only criterion matched is the existence of a strong story.
Torchlight - No, he/she just kills and loots.

Nice to have but not essential:
Character Customisation at the start of the game: It helps, but a strong pre-defined character should allow effective role-play without this.
Freedom to do what you want: Story is more important, so there need to be boundaries, but a good game will allow more freedom of expression before hitting those boundaries.
 
Last edited:

227

Forum veteran
Bare breasts.

Oh yeah, and also a steady progression from weaker to stronger where it's possible to overcome obstacles at the end that would be impossible in the beginning. A platformer or shooter comes down to skill even despite many games making you stronger as you go along, whereas the end of an RPG should be statistically impossible until you've become stronger.

Technically that would mean that Witcher 2 isn't an RPG, since it's possible to play through the game without leveling up at all. Compare that to Final Fantasy 6 or Baldur's Gate, where no matter what you do, there's no way you're going to finish the final fight until you level up. Incidentally, your #3 requirement would mean that jRPGs aren't RPGs. I know Reptile and a bunch of other people hate them, but they still count.

Now that RPG elements have bled into virtually every genre, it makes more sense to have an entire new name (RPG-lite?) to refer to them with. For example, Mass Effect has an RPG-ish progression reminiscent of many older games, but is still ultimately player skill-based. Same with Human Revolution. Many RPG elements carried over into new genres and should probably be recognized, but I wouldn't consider those games to be pure RPGs. They're like the light beer or diet coke of RPGs.
 
I would definitely consider the cRPG category to have a lot of necessary features that may not be present in other games, such as levelling up, and agree with the fact that there are two definitions - the "classic" one (not gonna use the word "true" or "pure" because semantics) and a broader one that covers an awful lot more games.

I think that I'm happy with the broader definition - if it allows you to play a role, then it's an RPG. In Bioshock Infinite, you're controlling the body but have no influence over the mind. In The Witcher, you have both. That, to me, is what makes one a role-play game and the other not.

Personally, I don't consider the skill issue to be a deciding factor (which is where we started in the other thread). When it comes down to it, everything should be player skill, whether it's twitch mechanics or deciding how to build your character, it's still something the player is responsible for.

As far as C&C is concerned, if it meets both of the other criteria strongly, then I'm prepared to give it leeway on that, which is why I included DX:HR in my "pass" list. I haven't played any jRPG so can't comment. If you say it would exclude them, then OK.

And weak to strong? Yes, but...
If the game is designed to allow the character to get stronger, I would consider it meets the criteria even if some players can beat the game without upgrading.
 

227

Forum veteran
I like "pure" because of how insane and hitler-y it sounds, but okay. Anyway, this would be so much easier to explain if you all played some jRPGs, but since you're all stubborn and western-minded I'll try to explain:

Many older Japanese RPGs (such as Square classics Final Fantasy 4 and 6) are almost 100% linear and story-driven, with little to no player impact on how the characters end up. You level up as you go along, mostly in predetermined ways, in truth affecting little but your strategy during turn-based fights and the items you equip. That being said, there are outliers such as Chrono Trigger, where despite being a mostly-linear game on the first playthrough, you're eventually able to jump right to the end boss fight at different points, getting different endings to the story in the process. Most jRPGs, however, wouldn't satisfy either number 1 or number 3 on your list (and some of the really, really old ones barely satisfy number 2, though that's equally true of really old western RPGs).

That number-driven kind of gameplay where the impossible slowly becomes more possible is the only way I can think of to not exclude the various types of RPGs in some way, but the defining characteristics of anything are all in our minds, bros and she-bros. I'm probably drawn to the numbers aspect because I grew up with jRPGs and little knowledge of other kinds of RPGs, and I tend to think of RPGs on a sliding scale of RPG-ness depending on how much of an impact you can have on a game while ignoring the numbers entirely.
 
Whats an RPG? Well lets see

Blah blah blah something evil blah blah blah wants to destroy blah blah blah you are the hero counting on you and go save the word.

That was an RPG, forgot to say that its 99% fantasy based

I think that I'm happy with the broader definition - if it allows you to play a role, then it's an RPG. In Bioshock Infinite, you're controlling the body but have no influence over the mind. In The Witcher, you have both. That, to me, is what makes one a role-play game and the other not.

Disagree with witcher part, mind is absent there as well. Choosing something that only Geralt would chose and not me kill all the roleplaying
 
Last edited:
1. Emphasis on characters and plot - plot and relations between characters must evolve through the game.
2. Choice and consequences (nonlinearity) - playing a role, means being able to influence and shift world around you (plot wise).
3. Some kind of character progression.

Simple as that.

E:

Disagree with witcher part, mind is absent there as well. Choosing something that only Geralt would chose and not me kill all the roleplaying

Playing as a rogue make you choose only what rogue would do. RPG never was about absolute freedom. It was about freedom within boundaries of archetype.
 
Last edited:
I assume RPG means different things to different people. Allow me to copy/paste the answer I posted some time ago in a thread on TW2 forums:

"There are a few types of RPGs (talking about computer RPGs - P&P RPGs are a whole different beast): jRPGs, cRPGs, aRPGs, story-driven RPGs, turn based RPGs, hack n slash RPGs, open world RPGs (not covering MMORPGs, they're an entirely different genre of their own). What they all share is some sort of a progression system - character upgrades that the player acquires through level ups that imrove his character's performance be it during combat, dialogue, athletics etc.

jRPGs focus on upgradable stats and some sort of turn-based combat and also chance (critical hits, damage etc.). They have a story but they generally lack C&C. e.g. Final Fantasy games.

cRPGs are RPGs that are based on systems such as D&D. They have choices (with varying degrees of consequences), combat that is based on dice rolls and stats. e.g. BG, Torment

aRPGs ("a" stands for action) focus on C&C (again, how much consequence there is determines the quality of the RPG) and action combat that is still based on upgradable stats. (Deus Ex, ME)

story-driven RPGs (Torment, The Witcher) are a basically either aRPGs, turn based RPGs or cRPGs with a heavy emphasis on story and C&C. They still require upgradable stats but combat in them is not as important.

turn based RPGs (Temple of Elemental Evil) - they do what it says on the tin. Turn based combat, based on upgradable stats and chance (dice rolls). C&C is not needed but can be a bonus.

hack n slash RPGs (Diablo, IWD) - RPGs with heavy emphasis on combat (means it's the main feature, the moment combat is not the main feature of a game, it ceases to be a hack n slash RPG) and, due to the name "hack n' slash", it hints at weapons such as swords, bows, magical weapons - I'd say that's irrelevant though. What *is* vitally important, however, is to have a choice of character/class. Very limited choices (e.g. accept or decline quest). Again, upgrades/stats are required to determine the effectiveness of the PC (playable character).

open world RPGs - turn based RPG, aRPG, cRPG, w/eRPG that takes place in an open world.

Mixes between the subgenres are not impossible.

Note: Upgrading skills/stats must be achieved by killing enemies or progressing through quests. Upgrading your skills through items is a bonus but can't be the sole way to level up."

To sum up, stats are a must, but stats alone don't make a game an RPG.
 
Last edited:
Oh, for...did not se this when I posted in another thread. Wil link to this one. Maybe. ANYWAY.

Look, to me RP means Role Play. In the Witcher, that very mcuh meant trying to roleplay a chemically-enhanced mutant supersoldier that hunts monsters for pay and..other reasons. In a setting full of moral complexity, severe racial issues and questions of personal integrity.

This meant that I had to figure out how this character that I had been handed by my GM/playwright would think, respond and choose in these challenging situations. And it really was on me. I could choose very much how my Geralt acted and shaped his world. Yes the words were on a menu, but then again, i's not like I would know what to say in that world setting. "Fuck you sideways, chummer" just didn't work.

So I felt that because my choices changed my game world and changed Geralt's personality and capabilities, and had a lasting effect ( to the next game) that I was role playing. I felt like my RP choices were much more potent than, say Mass Effect or even Fallout, because these were powerful issues being interfaced with in an adult manner, issues like genocide by otherwise reasonable people. Issues like terrorism in defense of hearth and home by otherwise reasonable people. Issues like neutrality in the face of evil as part of a code of integrity.

And the writing was so good, so consistent, that I was transported into a realm where I really connected with my role. I thought as Geralt, I believed as Geralt. It wasn't some pencil sketch of a character that matched my preferences, it was my best attempt to be the White Wolf as I saw the world seeing him.

And that, to me, is why Witcher 1 and 2 are such superb role-playing experiences. Regardless of dice and stat mechanics, regardless that I can't pick my hairstyle or weapon preferences.

Because the games invited me to and encouraged me in, the act of playing a role.




Whew. If you got through that, good for you. Kinda just scrolled out why I like the Witcher games so much and why I think everyone who likes to roleplay should play them.
 
To me an RPG, videogame RPG which I think is what occupies us, is as faithful a translation as possible (even if it's never fully faithful or realised) from the concept of either a pre-existing PnP RPG franchise/system or built from scratch but with a care for the same kind of elements.

So then I go back to my idea of what a PnP RPG is: a PnP RPG is a narrative game based on rules, simulation, imagination, interpretation and improvisation in varying degrees. It's like one of those games based fully on imagination like the ones we played when we were children only players can't say "I win every time" or "my character can do anything". Players play characters with strengths and weaknesses which tend to represent tropes that we can see in literature, cinema, etc. of a given setting. If DnD was inspired by Tolkien, a player can be a Bilbo or Frodo and so his abilities would make him good for sneaking, etc. but he wouldn't stand a chance against a strong warlike foe, and so on.

My definition includes from WRPG to JRPG. The creators of existing videogame rpgs decided their priorities, some gave more improtance to story and characters and so made them predefined, but hey, actors tend to play roles they haven't written and there are WRPGs who have preset main characters. Some gave importance to choosing how your characters' stats will grow, but even among PnP systems there are those who tell you how your character will grow.
 
Last edited:
OK, so I threatened in another thread to start this, and since you're all such civilised people, and as I may be blinking in and out of existence for the next few weeks which means Sard may need to moderate (giggle) if you start fighting, here goes.

A lot of developers define games as "RPG". In some cases, especially with the aRPG, people disagree with the tag.

What do you consider the essential features that a videogame needs in order to be called an RPG? Examples? What isn't essential but its presence strengthens the role-play element?

So... me first, Because.

Essentials:

1. My character must have a personality, and I must be able to determine it to a certain extent. There can be boundaries - it's OK if the game only gives me limited choices, stops me from (for example) killing everyone I see, but I have to have some impact on what kind of person my character is.

2. My character must have a motivation which goes beyond "Kill the enemy and loot" or "Get from A to B without dying". So it needs a story, a mission, a main quest. The motivation may change as the game progresses, but it must always be present.

3. There must be choice and consequences that go beyond "Choose the right weapon/upgrade or die". These choices don't need to change the world, and there don't need to be a lot of them, but they need to exist.

By your definition, GTA 4 and 5, as well as RDR and , meet all 3 of your criteria. Sleeping Dogs and Saints Row 1,2, and 3, meets all but #3, and even that can be argued.... as there are choices, they just have very little impact over all.

Examples. These are all defined by some at least as aRPG.
The Witcher 2 - definitely, it meets all the criteria.
Deus Ex HR - Yes, but only just, because Choice & Consequence isn't strong (and I disregard the ending, which I see as a player judgement on the world, not a choice with consequences)
Dishonored - Right on the edge, because Corvo remains a cipher, and you only really get the one personality/C&C point, the decision on whether or not to make him a killing machine.
Bioshock Infinite - No, because even though Booker has a strong personality, you get no opportunity to tune it, and there's no C&C. The only criterion matched is the existence of a strong story.
Torchlight - No, he/she just kills and loots.

Agreed

Nice to have but not essential:
Character Customisation at the start of the game: It helps, but a strong pre-defined character should allow effective role-play without this.

It's pretty much a necessity for me these days... I will play games that don't have it, because thats still the majority, but they always fveel lacking to me.

Freedom to do what you want: Story is more important, so there need to be boundaries, but a good game will allow more freedom of expression before hitting those boundaries.

I don't necessarliy agree... I think freedom is as important, if not more... In fact, I think freedom is KEY to an RPG, which is why typically sandbox games appeal to me as a tabletop gamer far more than any traditional so-called CRPG.

This is not to say I don't hink story is important, I feel story is very important, and it should be as strong as possible, but games like GTA, RDR, Fallout: NV, and Sleeping Dogs prove that you do not have to sacrifice story for sandbox. Just as at the tab letop though, regardless of how strong the story, to feel part of the world, to feel like you are actually playing a character with their own personality, it is imperative that you be able to step away from the story at times and explore the world, follow your own path for a bit. In fact, the more freedom, the more I feel immersed. The more freedom, the larger the world, the more the bars of limited cage of a video game fade.

Leveling up is most definitely NOT a defining characteristic of an RPG, tabletop or otherwise. Character preogression yes, but leveling up as in "ding woot level, more hitpoints, new abilities, new shmaaaaaah" no. Even with tabletop this is an outdated an antiquated concept that while still the majority mechanic, should be done away with completely.

I get it though, back in the day we had video gamse trying to emulate Dungeons and Dragons, and since the graphics were shit the only way they could really do that was by emulating the character build and progression and running the game on rails based off the popular modules at the time. The Japanese went wild with the concept and keep it alive today, with some competition from everyone else.

The classic CRPG market is fueled by a consumer base still mired in the soft glow of 16 bit nostalgia.

But Tabletop games have moved on since then, as new ways, many would say better ways of doing it, have come about. Yes DnD is still the market leader, but White Wolf is a strong second, and the game that is the reason we are here bears so little resemblance mechanics wise to DnD it's ridiculous.

For those who still like classic CRPG's, with the inherent limitations of obsolete systems, then there is the entire indie game market for you. Where your top down or isometric turn based gaming still shiners brightly amongst the side scrollers of yesteryear shining like new again.

But I have always been distasteful of the term RPG in video games, because the stereotype examples are almost always shining examples of the worst aspects of the games they are based on, and there is very little, if any, actual role playing involved. They aesthetically resembled rpgs, because thats what they were limited to at the time, but they are not respresentative of the tabletop experience at all.
 
By your definition, GTA 4 and 5, as well as RDR and , meet all 3 of your criteria. Sleeping Dogs and Saints Row 1,2, and 3, meets all but #3, and even that can be argued.... as there are choices, they just have very little impact over all.

Yes, I'd agree about all of these being categorised as RPG.

I don't necessarliy agree... I think freedom is as important, if not more... In fact, I think freedom is KEY to an RPG, which is why typically sandbox games appeal to me as a tabletop gamer far more than any traditional so-called CRPG.

This is not to say I don't hink story is important, I feel story is very important, and it should be as strong as possible, but games like GTA, RDR, Fallout: NV, and Sleeping Dogs prove that you do not have to sacrifice story for sandbox. Just as at the tab letop though, regardless of how strong the story, to feel part of the world, to feel like you are actually playing a character with their own personality, it is imperative that you be able to step away from the story at times and explore the world, follow your own path for a bit. In fact, the more freedom, the more I feel immersed. The more freedom, the larger the world, the more the bars of limited cage of a video game fade.

Fair enough, but I think that this comes down to "What kind of RPGs do I like?", rather than "Is it an RPG?". Which is fine - the gaming world would be much poorer in choice if every game had to have exactly the same approach.

Leveling up is most definitely NOT a defining characteristic of an RPG, tabletop or otherwise. Character preogression yes, but leveling up as in "ding woot level, more hitpoints, new abilities, new shmaaaaaah" no. Even with tabletop this is an outdated an antiquated concept that while still the majority mechanic, should be done away with completely.

I get it though, back in the day we had video gamse trying to emulate Dungeons and Dragons, and since the graphics were shit the only way they could really do that was by emulating the character build and progression and running the game on rails based off the popular modules at the time. The Japanese went wild with the concept and keep it alive today, with some competition from everyone else.

The classic CRPG market is fueled by a consumer base still mired in the soft glow of 16 bit nostalgia.

But Tabletop games have moved on since then, as new ways, many would say better ways of doing it, have come about. Yes DnD is still the market leader, but White Wolf is a strong second, and the game that is the reason we are here bears so little resemblance mechanics wise to DnD it's ridiculous.

Agreed.

To me, if you can see yourself as the player-character, and decide how to act EITHER by thinking "What would this guy do now?" or "What would I do if I were him?" then you're in the character's mind and it's role-play, which means it's an RPG. Its resemblence to PnP games, or to the first RPG videogames, isn't relevant.

I also like decatonkeil's comment about the kind of games children play. It's a long time ago, but from memory, they had rules, even though we made them up on the fly. You try to do something totally out-of-character and your friends would scream at you that "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"
 
To me, if you can see yourself as the player-character, and decide how to act EITHER by thinking "What would this guy do now?" or "What would I do if I were him?" then you're in the character's mind and it's role-play, which means it's an RPG. Its resemblence to PnP games, or to the first RPG videogames, isn't relevant.

I also like decatonkeil's comment about the kind of games children play. It's a long time ago, but from memory, they had rules, even though we made them up on the fly. You try to do something totally out-of-character and your friends would scream at you that "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!"

you..... me............. and apparently deca..... same pages baby...
 

227

Forum veteran
Grand Theft Auto and Saints Row are RPGs now? You people must be taking crazy pills, because your opinions about this subjective topic are objectively wrong. I mean, next you're all going to say that Soul Calibur 3 is an RPG and not just a fighting game with customizable elements.

I stand by my belief that it's all about the numbers. Take strategy RPGs, for example. The only thing that they carry over compared to vanilla strategy games are the numbers and a character progression from weak to strong. This is just math, people: strategy RPG - numbers = normal strategy game, therefore RPG = numbers.
 
Yea, sorry. GTA is not an RPG, I have to agree with 227 here.

If you look at my, quite obviously, superior 'is it an RPG' guide, you will see it does not fit the criteria.
 
RPG is in reference to P&P games. It's impossible to have a real RPG video game because you can't program in every possible thing that the player might want to do. However, you can do your best to give the player as many options as possible. All video games that claim to be RPGs are really just games with RPG elements. Some are heavier than others. But the closest they get to having that full experience, the more I like them.

I love any game that gives me full freedom and tons of choices. The more freedom, the better. But that freedom has to have some kind of impact on other parts of the game.
 
I stand by my belief that it's all about the numbers. Take strategy RPGs, for example. The only thing that they carry over compared to vanilla strategy games are the numbers and a character progression from weak to strong. This is just math, people: strategy RPG - numbers = normal strategy game, therefore RPG = numbers.

Giggle.
 
GTA ain't RPG, 'cause it lack in choices and consequences field. Duuuuuuh.

Well, GTAIV had choices. And it was one of the few things I didn't like in that game, as I thought I wasn't given enough information prior to the choice to, well, make the choice. The rewards or consequences weren't well implemented either in my opinion, because there was clearly a good option and a bad option for everything:
- You kill X and you get a friend you can call whenever you like, a new skill and sometimes even a new safehouse. All in one.
- You kill Y and you get a lot of money. In a game where there's nothing to spend money in.
 

227

Forum veteran
That's exactly why I don't think C&C is a very good indicator of RPG-ness-osity. Games like Mark of the Ninja and Far Cry 3 have choices at the very end that determine your ending, and even Star Fox lets you choose which of three courses you take with the rest of the game changing for that decision.

Incidentally, No One Lives Forever fits dragonbird's criteria for an RPG despite being nothing more than a simple (but amazing) shooter. It also has a conspicuous lack of numbers. Hmm.
 
Incidentally, No One Lives Forever fits dragonbird's criteria for an RPG despite being nothing more than a simple (but amazing) shooter. It also has a conspicuous lack of numbers. Hmm.

My criterion is still the same - the ability to have an impact on the protagonist's mind, not just the body. A shooter MIGHT also be an RPG, an RPG MIGHT be a shooter.

I don't know the game, but from a quick scan of the description, I suspect it would have been called an aRPG, possibly with justification, if it had been released 10 years later.

What about System Shock / System Shock 2? I think the latter may be next on my playlist. So much history to discover...
 
Top Bottom