What is an RPG?

Dungeon Siege is an RPG because that's what it says on the box. Who am I to disagree?

And your point is?

Because it doesn't offer the main RPG element. It is simple:

Role-playing = Choices from point of view of a character
Game = Success or failure dependant on something (not an imagination get-together)

To complete the two, success or failure is dependant on the character's skills.

RPGs involve choices that the player makes (not script reading) that have impact, and the success of those choices is determined by stats. It isn't playing War as a kid and arguing over who shot who first, you have initiative.

GUIDEWARS IS RPG BECAUSE IT KINDA LIKE DIABLO EXCEPT WITH ALOT MORE PEOPLE> KAKAKAKAKA.

Human Shield said:

Because it doesn't offer the main RPG element. It is simple:

Role-playing = Choices from point of view of a character
Game = Success or failure dependant on something (not an imagination get-together)

To complete the two, success or failure is dependant on the character's skills.

RPGs involve choices that the player makes (not script reading) that have impact, and the success of those choices is determined by stats. It isn't playing War as a kid and arguing over who shot who first, you have initiative.

Click to expand...

Role-Playing = An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

What you define as a role playing game is a hell of alot different from a diablo fan, or a final fantasy fan, or even a fucking zelda fan. None of it is set in stone, it's very broad.
You can ponder all you like, but all you'll come up with is what you want in an RPG, not what an RPG is, because there is no definition other than what the actual words mean.

I find debating over what RPG is, from personal experience, is much like drinking poison (no, I never did that, though). For me, RPG is when the game offers me choices on how to play my character in the ways I want to, not the way the developers want me to. Plus, it has to make it feel like the choices made aren't just empty, it has to present consequences, specific changes to the gameworld, progression of the game, etc.

C&C is an RPG. You role play a general in charge of his army.

Actually, you don't. Not in the original C&C. You're always referred to as "Commander." As I recall, you're a general in RA2's Soviet campaign, a Nod colonel in Tiberian Sun, and a commander in every other Westwood-made C&C.

A multitude of characters!

You even get role-playing choices, like choosing your next territory to attack.

Role-Playing = An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. That is role-acting, that is what actors do for movies. Role-playing involves playing out the role with freedom of choice, not acting it out.

What you define as a role playing game is a hell of alot different from a diablo fan, or a final fantasy fan, or even a fucking zelda fan. None of it is set in stone, it's very broad.
You can ponder all you like, but all you'll come up with is what you want in an RPG, not what an RPG is, because there is no definition other than what the actual words mean.

Click to expand...

Some of it is set in stone and all the other fans are wrong. They all meet the "game" definition but don't involve role-playing.

Haven't we had this conversation?

Human Shield said:

To complete the two, success or failure is dependant on the character's skills.

Click to expand...

No, that's a 'choose your movie'. You choose the character (and thus it's stats), and then everything happens according to those.

In a game, success or failure depends on the player's actions. In a roleplaying game, the game allows the player to assume a role of his choice and then gives feedback on his choices, but success or failure is still ultimately dependant on the player's actions (the choice of a role is one of this actions, but it shouldn't be the only one).

Role-playing games shouldn't be about success or failure. They should be about role-playing, and how a player copes with the decisions he makes. Fallout is a good example of a good role-playing game. There was no 'wrong' thing to do, and there wasn't a 'right' solution for every problem, either. Games like Dungeon Siege and NWN don't even pose you with problems like those, offering only problems with single solutions.

Exitium said:

Role-playing games shouldn't be about success or failure. They should be about role-playing, and how a player copes with the decisions he makes.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. When I was talking about 'success or failure' I meant in achieving your goals. Success or failure in achieving your goals should ultimately depend on the player's actions, not just your stats. The multitude of goals (or paths to reach goals) is what makes the game role-playing.

If it's just choose your stats and then making some dialogue choice, it's not playing, and it's not a game. It'll become like one of those 'choose your adventure' books or whatever you call them.


EDIT: To clarify, on the long-end an RPG shouldn't be simply about success or failure, but if it doesn't have short-term success or failure it'll cease being a game.

There truly isn't much point in defining specifically what an RPG is. The category doesn't change the product, nor impact your enjoyment.

Greyhawk said:

I find debating over what RPG is, from personal experience, is much like drinking poison (no, I never did that, though). For me, RPG is when the game offers me choices on how to play my character in the ways I want to, not the way the developers want me to. Plus, it has to make it feel like the choices made aren't just empty, it has to present consequences, specific changes to the gameworld, progression of the game, etc.

Click to expand...

Like it or not, you'll always play your character in ways that the developers wants you to, or at least allows you to do. There are exceptions I suppose, such as killing a NPC the designers hadn't planned for the players to kill, but unless the game is designed with that possibility you'll either end up with an action with no consequences or a potential game breaking situation.

True, the devs will never be able to provide all the options players can think of. But if a game still allows for a variety of choices, that can sometimes be hidden pretty well.

Exitium asked this because he's pissed we're not covering Guild Wars. Why aren't we covering this? Well, I set three guidelines for what we cover when I started here:

• It must have a single player game. If you can't play it with your modem turned off, it's not covered.
• It must not be a console only title. Final Fantasy clones be damned.
• It must not be a cross genre hybrid. RPG "elements" are not enough.

Guild Wars fails on the first criterion, it lacks a single player mode. It meets the second two, since it's a Windows game and it's an action CRPG - even though it's a completely shit action CRPG.

Sure, Dungeon Siege lacks meaningful dialogue, but so does Nethack and most rogue-likes, which we cover. So did a lot of the Gold Box games. So did Temple of Apshai Trilogy, and other granddaddies of the CRPG genre.

Heck, you can even argue that Baldur's Gate lacked meaningful dialogues since there was very little productive about them, and many of the so called choices in them lack a unique response/event.

So, do we stop covering rogue-likes, even though they actually do push the genre forward in their own way? Sure, Nethack has no dialogue, really - but how interactive is the experience? How many possible ways are there to die in a dungeon? There's hundreds of YASD threads on usenet about the situations that can lead to a player's death. YASD(Yet Another Stupid Death) threads still continue where people are still finding unique circumstances which end their character's quest prematurely, even though Nethack is over a decade old. I think that alone is a testiment to the dungeon design and character event model in the game.

So, do we not cover dungeon crawlers? Well, you can argue that they're light on actual role-playing. After all, most dungeon crawlers are mostly combat with little else. We already think rogue-likes are pretty spiffy, and they're dungeon crawlers, so.. Why not cover something like JA2 or JA3, which is a modern dungeon crawler with some pretty nifty features like a nice turn based combat system and fairly good behavior and character model? It does still fit within the schema of a CRPG and it does push at least one area forward - the combat.

So, if we cover things like JA2, ToEE, IWD, and other dungeon crawlers which are sparce on diagloue, but still basically fit - why not cover action CRPGs since they're focused more on combat moves and lewt systems.

Heck, why not? Then again, we also have those three core rules on what we do and don't cover. If something doesn't meet those criteria, then we end up snowballing on what we do cover like other sites do.

For example, if we violate Rule #3 and cover something like Spellforce, which is a CRPG/RTS hybrid, then why not cover C&C like Exitium suggested? After all, C&C has ranks and experience for units.

That's why there's rules.

Oh, and thanks for participating in the latest chapter of Exitium needs to get a girlfriend.

Heh. I've been playing Civ3 for the past week and I've been thinking of a post along these exact lines.

I mean, in Civ3 I 'roleplay' a commander and hey, my troops' stats increase.

While I don't think Civ3 is an RPG, it has as much right to be branded one as some so-called RPGs out there, IMHO.

Vault Dweller said:

And your point is?

Click to expand...

Since when does Rex need a point to post something? Sheesh.

And I still don't think we should cover guild wars. Teambased online games? Huh, wow - and I did try it.

What makes a RPG? Anything I say is one. That's all. The game needs my permission to be considered a RPG. That seems fair.

Exitium said:

Dungeon Siege is an RPG because that's what it says on the box. Who am I to disagree?

Click to expand...

A person without a brain in your head, if you agree with everything you read.


including this

Its an RPG if you get more fulfillment from the conversations and actions held within that you do from those in real life.

Human Shield said:

Role-Playing = An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. That is role-acting, that is what actors do for movies. Role-playing involves playing out the role with freedom of choice, not acting it out.

Click to expand...

I guess my dictionary is wrong then.

Haven't we debunked a whole load of other idiotic semantic word-games involving this very topic? There's even another whole thread devoted to this subject, in which I've posted how the genre came about and why it is called that for a reason. I've already pointed out to some hopeful bullshitter holding a thesaurus another facet of the CRPG genre, in the Ten Commandments thread.

The "it's role-playing because I can make Mario jump" bullshit can be stowed safely now before I make personal sacrifices. I will be the one making the sacrifices, and I'll make sure they're personally delivered. :twisted: