Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

What do you think makes a game a role-playing game?

Mulciber

Novice
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
87
Location
The Frozen Wastes (of Manitoba)
I've recently been giving this some rethinking and I'd like to know what you think a game needs to have to qualify as a role-playing game. I've been expanding my gaming horizons recently, and there are a lot of games out there that don't fall under the traditional envelope of sorcery and rat-killing, yet have a lot of role-playing elements- Games like Midnight Club 3- Quite freeform, worlds to explore, things to collect and a way to put your own personal stamp on how you play. I'm not asking what makes something a good RPG- I'm asking what is necessary to make a game role-playing at all.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
Choices that matter is number 1. Stats is number 2.
 

Mulciber

Novice
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
87
Location
The Frozen Wastes (of Manitoba)
stats...

When you say stats, do you mean your standard numbers-based str, con, dex, int, wix cha breakdown? I agree that you find that in all of the traditional RPGs, but I'm beginning to think that its becoming an evolutionary relic- only there because thats the way its always been done. A game like the remake of Sid Meier's Pirates! manages to reflect character progression quite nicely without using stats, and still manages to be a quite satisfying RPG.
 

roguefrog

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
545
Location
Tokyo, Japan
stats/attributes/skllls/whatever that determind the player characters abilities and allows him/her to progress in a reactive gameworld. So no action elements aka reflex/twitch gameplay aka user skill determining player character ability nonsense. (unless its an action RPG)

Also choices, through dialog/action/whatever that take into account the PCs abilities. No one choice being correct but each lead to different outcomes.
 

roguefrog

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
545
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Such a system would you say, start you off at level 6 and give you +20 weapons or the equivalent from a pack of kobold foozles. (an average)
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,344
Elves.

Hot Sex.

Hot Sex with Elves.

Some feeling that the decisions I make within the game have a significant affect on the game world.
 

Higher Game

Arcane
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
13,662
Location
Female Vagina
Stats, and lots of them, the more the better! Rogue-likes have this.

Atmosphere, a dynamic world, and a progressive character who shapes both the world and his destiny. Few games have had this.

Very, very few games use both effectively, but they are what make games masterpieces. Stats and atmosphere.

By the way, in before the trolls who say Ocarina of Time is a role playing game. ;)
 

Mulciber

Novice
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
87
Location
The Frozen Wastes (of Manitoba)
Well, the reactive world and progression of character seem to be the two things that everyone wants- What about games where the character progression is limited in some way? Consider a game like Uplink: It is a wonderful example of a recative world and working your way up through levels of ability, but in the end, you can't be anything other than a hacker. Does this mean that it doesn't qualify as an RPG?
 

roguefrog

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
545
Location
Tokyo, Japan
No. In KotOR you had to be a jedi. As long as the hackers uber leet icebreaking skillz aren't govern by your own. Show me the stats!
 

Goliath

Arcane
Zionist Agent
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
17,830
Female characters with gigantic boobs. Chainmail Bikinis. A plot so idiotic that even the most pathetic pulp writer wouldn't dare to use it. Thousands of repetitive battles. And ...
well who cares it should be clear by now that only pathetic, moronic losers play RPGs..
 

Shevek

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
1,570
Exitium is right. A character system based on the development of stats is what makes a roleplaying system. Technically, any title with this "roleplaying element" could be called a roleplaying game. However, how involved the development system is and its ability to move beyond combat (social, steath, survival, tech, etc etc etc) determine its quality. Therefore, a title focused exclusively on one thing (often combat) can be said to have weaker roleplaying than a title that allows the player character to succeed using both combat and noncombat options (diplomacy, technical knowledge, stealth, etc etc) depending on his stat allocation. The wider the set of options (and the strength of their implementation), the better. Linearity is an issue as one can make the case that nonlinear systems are more conducive to the implementation of better roleplaying systems.
 

GuideBot

Novice
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
27
stats/attributes/skllls/whatever that determind the player characters abilities and allows him/her to progress in a reactive gameworld. So no action elements aka reflex/twitch gameplay aka user skill determining player character ability nonsense. (unless its an action RPG)

Why is it that using the skills of the player is a complete no-no when it comes to combat, but when it comes to dialogue or exploration, the player is allowed to use their own "skill"?

Just where do you lay down the line between character and player? Obviously it has to be somewhere in the middle, because if you remove all player skill, you end up with Dungeon Siege...

(Hi all, First Post, etc. etc)

[Edit: Just thougt I'd add my own opinion. I think that an RPG is about mainly two things; choices, and immersion. If the player has heaps of things to do, and they're all interesting, and they all have an effect on the world, and you can go down to a library and read books, or chat to bartenders, or slay dragons (or mutants), then it's an RPG. Stats and "levelling up" are useful from a gameplay (it's fun) and progression standpoint (can't let the player go to the Dark Lands of Uber Doom until they finish the Happy Forest of Bunny Love!) but it's not really, to me, necessary to an RPG. If stats were the be all and end all to being an RPG, then Nolf and Tron 2.0 would be RPGs (both fail to be an RPG through lack of choice and "immersion" above and beyond that normally provided in an FPS, in my opinion, despite being entertaining games both.)]
 

Shevek

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
1,570
Guidebot:

This is why better roleplaying systems offer greater dialogue choices to _characters_ who have more skill in diplomatic, technical or other misc skills. Even exploration could be handled this way. In Realms ofArkania, characters who had better skill at hunting and other survival skills proved to be far better explorers than those that didnt. In Fallout, your skillset determined the ease at which you found the randomly placed special encounters.

Edit:
Immersion and choice may be byproducts of a good roleplaying system but they are by no means what defines it.
 

GuideBot

Novice
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
27
This is why better roleplaying systems offer greater dialogue choices to _characters_ who have more skill in diplomatic, technical or other misc skills.

Certainly, and I love systems that do this (though I'd prefer uncharismatic characters have the OPTION of trying to persuade someone, and failing miserably, than not getting the option at all, like in Bloodlines. Obviously the current system works better for technical knowledge and things, though) but eventually it comes down to the player's choice as to what they want to do. A stupid character shouldn't have the option of organising a brilliant flanking manoever (or whatever), but they do. So having a bit of player "choice" as to how accurate a shot is (through unintentional "twitch" rather than deliberation) does not seem terribly wrong to me.

Additionally, allowing a bit of player skill can liven up a dull combat system (Bloodlines' was pretty horrendous, but kicking things into walls repeatedly made up for it a bit). And I think fun should win over maintaining a strict separation between player and character. To take the example of a first person RPG, I don't think stats (or "the character", which is what stats basically boil down to) should have an affect on accuracy, but rather on the options available to a player; a better combat fighter might have many different ways of swinging a blade, or using it in interesting ways that your typical chum wouldn't.

I think it's interesting, though, that it's so hard to come up with a definition of what an RPG is. It seems to be a "I'll know it when I see it" sort of thing, where an RPG generally has certain components (stats, choices, immersion) but can not have some of them and still remain an RPG, and other genres can have some of these things and not become an RPG.
 

Shevek

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
1,570
GuideBot said:
I think it's interesting, though, that it's so hard to come up with a definition of what an RPG is.

I have no problem whatsoever defining what a RPG is.

A character system based on the development of stats is what makes a roleplaying system. Technically, any title with this "roleplaying element" could be called a roleplaying game. However, how involved the development system is and its ability to move beyond combat (social, steath, survival, tech, etc etc etc) determine its quality. Therefore, a title focused exclusively on one thing (often combat) can be said to have weaker roleplaying than a title that allows the player character to succeed using both combat and noncombat options (diplomacy, technical knowledge, stealth, etc etc) depending on his stat allocation. The wider the set of options (and the strength of their implementation), the better. Linearity is an issue as one can make the case that nonlinear systems are more conducive to the implementation of better roleplaying systems.
 

Ismaul

Thought Criminal #3333
Patron
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,871,807
Location
On Patroll
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
NOT stats. Those are just a tool to better the roleplaying experience, as in quantifying certain characteristics that are harder to compare. They are in essence part of the rules of the game, so everyone is on the same level, and we can compare the effect of someone's punch versus another one's. They are not roleplaying. They are quantification of a role's attributes. They are not necessary.

The role
Roleplaying is taking a role and playing it (doh). So, the question to ask is "what's in a role?". What can differentiate roles? Characteristics of an individual and of his environnement. Someone always develops in function of his environement. So, we have personnality, experience, beliefs, social bonds, aptitudes and capacities.

Here we see where stats fails. Quantify social bonds, personnality, experience or beliefs. It doesn't work. It's even worse with an experience system where you level up and increase the characteristics.

Playing the role
Now that we know what is a role, we have to ask what is playing it. Playing it is making the character's actions (including thoughts, dialogue, motivations...) in function of the role. That's it. That means that personnality, experience, beliefs, social bonds, aptitudes and capacities are going to determine the actions.

A role evolves while playing it. A character's life experience is always greater after playing the role than before, but it does not have to impact on other characteristics such as personnality, beliefs, social bonds, aptitudes and capacities. Consolidation or redefinition of the role, it doesn't matter.

Standard stat systems include this evolution as experience points and whatever. The problem is, they are only attributed to aptitudes and capacities. While those are fine, they are not the essence of a role. A role is much more personnality, beliefs and social bonds than aptitudes and capacities. That's why the "role playing games" we play are sucky.

Defining the role
We know what's a role, and we know what is playing it. The next question is how is one role defined. Or, how much freedom does the player have when "creating" this role. In every roleplaying game, there is always a defined setting. There is also a defined situation, which might be, in some pnp game, at the player's discretion. One possiblity is letting the player take on any role possible within the boundaries of the setting, and put him in a situation, to which he reacts. The other way is handing the player a predefined role. It is similar to the precedent possibility, but the player has now to play the role within the limits of the setting, the situation and the role itself. Both possibilities work fine in a pen-and-paper rpg. Playing the role resides in guessing what would this character do in the situation, predefined role or not.

In computer roleplaying games, the second option is very limiting. Since the developpers are already guessing what the character would do in a situation and the character is predefined, you end up with a game that is pre-roleplayed. To permit roleplaying in this possibility, one has to make the defined role as less defined as possible, malleable. Hence the vault dweller, the nameless one... Part of their role is defined, part of it is left to the player. Roles that are completely defined, see Gordon Freeman or else, do not offer roleplaying possibilities. The role is already played. The game, in this case, is just the action between the preplayed roleplaying scenes.

Immersion
Immersion, just like stats, is a tool to facilitate roleplaying. It is, in a way, what permits the dissolution of self to let the role take all the place. Components that affect immersion are graphic style, sound, music, interface, rules of the game and player's interest. In a pnp rpg, graphic style, sound and music are left to the player's imagination, with some help of the gamemaster/storyteller. Interface is the player himself, which is the best interface you could have. That leaves us with rules of the game and player's interest in the setting/situations that affect the player's immersion.

In a cRPG, all of those components affect immersion, therefore there is a higher risk of fucking up. For example, night/day cycles and people's daily occupations are taken for granted in a pnp rpg, unlike in a cRPG. Things like climbing and jumping are pretty simple in pnp, while they are not in crpgs. You can always try to persuade someone even if you don't know how, but some rulesets do not permit you to do this, more often in crpgs. When immersion is broken by one of the component being bad or limited, the player's roleplaying suffers in return. Here is where we see that a living and reactive world is necessary to good roleplaying, as it is the determinant factor in immersion or "make believe". When the player fails to be immersed in the role, by not identifying to it or thinking about it as a role (by personnality, experience, beliefs, social bonds, aptitudes and capacities), the game ceases to be a roleplaying game. The best example: Diablo. Never does the player associate with the character he is playing, never does he thinks about it in terms of personnality, beliefs or social bonds. Therefore, it is not a roleplaying game.


Here we go.
A cRPG is an immersive game that lets the player play a role, inculding personnality, beliefs, social bonds, aptitudes and capacities, where the role is partially or entierly defined by the player to permit the roleplaying. The player has to be aware he is playing a role different than himself, and has to dissociate himself from the role voluntarily.

Well, I guess that's it. I'm sure I missed something, but it's all out of my mind right now. Heh
 

Mulciber

Novice
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
87
Location
The Frozen Wastes (of Manitoba)
Very nice response, Ismaul. It sounds like your views are very similar to mine. I will ask you this question, though- Given that a stat system isn't necessary for a pure role-playing system, is it a necessary limitation to have in a computer role-playing game?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom