WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A GAME TO BE AN RPG?

Posts

That sounds nice, but I hardly think it will be the case...
I just think it's a random topic people get on when they're bored, and it probably won't have any relation to the future games we make. But hey, maybe I'm just pessimistic.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Start a new topic then. Otherwise maybe I will.

Of course, last time I started a new design & theory topic, it apparently resulted in someone disagreeing with my premise and responding by starting this topic. So maybe someone other than me should do it.
author=LockeZ
Start a new topic then. Otherwise maybe I will.

Of course, last time I started a new design & theory topic, it apparently resulted in someone disagreeing with my premise and responding by starting this topic. So maybe someone other than me should do it.

I don't know what your talking about.
Versalia
must be all that rtp in your diet
1405
author=kentona
An introspective look at the genre we are trying to develop will increase our understanding of its core elements and hopefully that translates into deeper consideration for the designs choices we make when we create our games.


author=Cray
That sounds nice, but I hardly think it will be the case..


Definitions are limitations. I don't see anything about this discussion leading to better game design ... it only leads to figuring out which label to slap onto which game. Worst-case scenario: you mentally box yourself in because you somehow have to stay within the definition of the RPG genre.

This genre and all genres are constantly evolving, mixing and borrowing from each other, and being pushed ever-forward. If we do agree on a definition today, it'll be different tomorrow.

I'm trying to find the excellent list of gameplay-centric features defining different genres that someone posted because it's the closest thing I've seen to a universally agreeable list of points.
Understanding the fundamental mechanics that makes an RPG an RPG isn't limiting. But I guess if you are confusing understanding with a strict framework it could be.

It's kind of like saying that understanding the mechanics of skating means you can't play hockey because you've "boxed yourself in" to only be skating. (Whereas I contend that knowing how to skate can make you a better hockey player! Like knowing what an RPG is can help you make a better game)
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you know exactly what an RPG is, you will know exactly how to best subvert that definition?
Versalia
must be all that rtp in your diet
1405
author=LockeZ
If you know exactly what an RPG is, you will know exactly how to best subvert that definition?

...But there is no single definition. You are acting like there is some kind of rigid steel structure framework that is the concrete, set example for you to bust out of. Perhaps it's the commercial games you're trying to define, given the quote below.

This conversation is not really trying to understand mechanics, from what I can see. What I have seen is people trying to make a bullet list of mechanics that belong to an RPG and not the design choices involved in using them and why they're so frequently used in that context.

Lockez
That's a tangential issue; the core of what bothers me isn't the mindset of the big game companies, but rather the mindset of players, and the resulting assumption - often subconsciously, even by amateur designers - that making your games (similar to commercial games) actually makes them objectively better games.

I think discussing a hard definition is really just going to encourage this type of mindset - thinking of that definition as what RPGs should be (and, apparently, thinking of that definition as something restrictive that you therefore need to subvert to be creative). I'd like to see more discussion about WHY and HOW these mechanics are used - and not just what they are.

Why is it so important that in an RPG the abilities are Avatar-centric, and not Player-centric? Point: A large part of playing an RPG is that the 'role' you're playing is immersed in a world that reacts to and is affected by your avatar. Their skills and abilities, even equipment, are a huge chunk of individuality and personality reflected onto that avatar and their role in this world that most players expect from an RPG.

But I don't think I could point at a game that doesn't use this and definitively say "well then it's not an RPG," and I don't think I should try. It's been repeated over and over that nobody can ever really agree on the concrete definition...

An RPG isn't just 1 thing that defines it. As I stated, and it is obviously correct as there are MANY things that can define the genre. It is like saying there is only 1 defining feature, word or whatever that explains the genre of music known as Metal. When in reality, it is thousands of things that define it. This whole argument as to what it is, is so pointless. Like that one person talking about stats and skills. That is one common factor most people use, but it isn't the major thing about it.

Counterpoint: You post it
Yeah understanding what makes an RPG will make you better at making... RPGs. This is why I'm slightly (very) annoyed at this list:
- A currency of some kind.
- At least one playable character with stats that must evolve (even if its one stat).
- An inventory of some kind or form.
- Battles of some kind or form.
- Interactive NPC's (not like the kind in shooters, these guys need A-button initialization).
- Some form of exploration.
- Some form of quests, missions, goals, objectives. (Read: Not necessarily "story").

If these are the must-have ingredients for an RPG... Well... I always tend to go back to tabletop to see what things are true. Mostly because the tabletop has evolved a lot more than the backwater computer games. Now I know it's hard to find an RPG that doesn't involve all these points, but these points are in no way a requirement for the RPG.

Let's go through them one by one.
Currency.
Why is this necessary? If the game takes place in a world without currency! Or if the game takes place during a military campaign where the military supplies all the equipment for characters. Going back to basics there are plenty of settings where there mightn't be a currency. RPGs are NOT about buying and selling your loot. (although I'll admit. To many people that's what it's about)

Stats and Experience.
This is one that I guess I have to submit to. But even experience isn't exactly necessary. Going back to the tabletop experience a convention game is often short enough that there is no experience or leveling up to be had. The skills you start out with are the skills you get. And as for stats... Well... Every game has stats. Even if it's as simple a stat as how many lives you've got.

Inventory.
Going with currency it's hard to imagine a game without an inventory. But really it isn't in any way necessary. Very few games are without inventories these days anyway (multiple weapons and whatnot). Sure Pac Man didn't have an inventory. Or at least not one you could access (those dots he ate probably went into that inaccessible inventory though) but having or not having an inventory doesn't make or break an RPG. Many CRPGs these days even streamline away the inventory (compare the inventories between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 or System Shock 2 and Bioshock). And I can easily think of scenarios where keeping track of your possessions isn't paramount to the RPG experience.

Battles.
Now this is one of my major gripes. RPGs don't have to have battles. Going back to the tabletop many RPG groups stay away from fighting. An RPG based around diplomacy or trade or investigation without actually getting into fisticuffs is one I've wanted to play for the longest time. You can still have RPG skills (lockpicking, charm, electronics, barter) in use that affect your gameplay experience without actually killing things all the time. There are even examples of RPGs that you can play through without killing a single thing. (of course in those battles are often an option but going without battles is also an option)

Interactive NPCs.
I'll grant you that one. Almost. There are those hardcore dungeon crawls where you start out in a dungeon and eventually you die. But even most of those have the occasional merchant or maybe even a village where you can sell off loot and rest at the inn.

Exploration.
Yeah to many this is a big part. But an RPG doesn't have to have exploration. It could be set in a small location. Like a house. Or a town that the character knows well. Sure there's some exploration in ANY game ("can I reach that platform with my guy?") but it's not like there has to be more of it in an RPG. Take an RPG like Vampire: Bloodlines. The whole game is set in the city of Los Angeles and, yeah, you can walk around and explore the dark corners of the city and occasionally find an easter egg or a quest. But it's not like the game is about making blank space disappear from a map.
And although I don't personally think that Final Fantasies are RPGs and I haven't played the latest Final Fantasy. But I heard somewhere that the game was all about linear corridor-running for the player. Not really very explorative that game eh.

End Goals.
Yeah this one is really stupid. Almost all games have an end goal. Sure some are infinite (Pac man and Tetris) but most have an end goal in them.


So yeah, you people making RPGs don't think that you need to follow that list to make a true RPG. Now of course I'm a crazy purist (I basically think that 90% of games called "RPGs" really aren't). There's a crazy group of people who have similar views as me and they are one of the (many) cesspools of the internet.

So there's a big difference to me if you want to make an RPG, know what it is and end up with a game that follows all the "rules" that Radnen posted. It can still be an RPG. However if you start out wanting to make a game that follows all the "rules" that Radnen posted because you think that's the RPG formula. You can't actually be guaranteed to end up with an RPG.

And also I won't fault anyone for not making an RPG. But I prefer it if they know that what they're making is not an RPG, which is what this discussion is about I suppose.




tldr:
Too long. Don't Read.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Holy shit a constructive post that gives examples of how to modify, exclude or subvert common gameplay elements while still creating a fun game that will be attractive to people who like RPGs. I am blown away.

Quick, lock the topic before it reverts to semantic bickering again.

(I like Shinan's post)
Shinan, I doubt that a game that doesn't have ANY of those elements would be considered as a RPG by most people.
That's what I meant when I said we could use common elements to define the genre, do we really want to know what the exact definition of it is, even though most people won't agree with it, or do we care more about finding some guides that we can all agree on to define the genre?
If you don't think FF's are RPG's then what's the point of having a exact definition that no one will agree with?
Versalia
must be all that rtp in your diet
1405
author=LockeZ
Holy shit a constructive post that gives examples of how to modify, exclude or subvert common gameplay elements while still creating a fun game that will be attractive to people who like RPGs. I am blown away.

Quick, lock the topic before it reverts to semantic bickering again.

(I like Shinan's post)


Yessss. My point.

Pointless post:
- A currency of some kind.
- At least one playable character with stats that must evolve (even if its one stat).
- An inventory of some kind or form.
- Battles of some kind or form.
- Interactive NPC's (not like the kind in shooters, these guys need A-button initialization).
- Some form of exploration.
- Some form of quests, missions, goals, objectives. (Read: Not necessarily "story").


Awesome post:
Shinan

GOLD STAR FOR THE DAY
WTF ppl? When I use "some form" or "some kind of" am I not creating generalities?

Every RPG I've played has all of those on that list, both commercial and amateur.

I won't even go through (all) the drudgery that is Shinan's post, because its nonsensical.

Now:
I find it funny one would make a game without some form of currency, while not traditional 'gold' or 'caps' or 'rupees' (this list goes on and on, because I didn't derive it from bullshit), do know that your game would be bland in this area, I'll put it bluntly:

No form of currency/economy, no buy/sell/trade period. An RPG may not necessarily have it but you are taking a large chunk for role-playing out of the game without a currency, so sorry but your ultra-liberal view point (that versalia shares) is a non-sequitur in my mind's RPG rulebook.

Also I never mentioned "End Goals"; but more along the lines of side-quests. Which are admittedly not crucial, but needed nevertheless, or otherwise it will take a lot out of RP'ing in RPG's. :/

God dammit, I'm going to respond.

Inventory:
Mass Effect 2's "streamlined inventory" is a step backward in my book, it has turned more into a shooter. It has became more hybrid than anything which will support Versalia's argument ( :) ), but I can't call Mass Effect 2 a fully traditional RPG. :/

Battles:
Picking a lock is a battle of some kind or form. Guess the antagonist, anybody?

Exploration:
Woefully needed, sorry bro, but here you're just being funny. Why cant you just agree? No, but you *need* to disagree, because its the sustenance you must thrive off of (of course). ;)

Stats and Experience:
Supports the claim that character skill evolves apart from player skill. Woefully needed to have individuality, especially when you add in traditional D&D stats and role playing elements, which are common on many board or card games. Roll a Charisma 20 anybody?
author=Radnen
WTF ppl? When I use "some form" or "some kind of" am I not creating generalities?

Every RPG I've played has all of those on that list, both commercial and amateur.

I won't even go through (all) the drudgery that is Shinan's post, because its nonsensical.

Now:
I find it funny one would make a game without some form of currency, while not traditional 'gold' or 'caps' or 'rupees' (this list goes on and on, because I didn't derive it from bullshit), do know that your game would be bland in this area, I'll put it bluntly:

No form of currency/economy, no buy/sell/trade period. An RPG may not necessarily have it but you are taking a large chunk for role-playing out of the game without a currency, so sorry but your ultra-liberal view point (that versalia shares) is a non-sequitur in my mind's RPG rulebook.

Also I never mentioned "End Goals"; but more along the lines of side-quests. Which are admittedly not crucial, but needed nevertheless, or otherwise it will take a lot out of RP'ing in RPG's. :/

You would be creating a game close to Rivera, then. It still would qualify as an rpg, with or without stats. Side quests without a main quest, would become the centerpeice and thus be considered the "main" quests nonetheless.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Hey Radnen, you know what entire sub-genre of RPGs doesn't have currency? Dungeon crawlers. You pick up stuff, instead of picking up gold and trading it for stuff! Like, whoa, what a crazy idea. Such an integral change like that must totally ruin the game and/or change it into a completely different genre, right?

I like how you gave no actual argument about how or why it would affect the game, negatively or otherwise. You, sir, clearly have no time for logical arguments to explain your points, no time for deconstruction of the other person's suggestions. No time to waste on any explanation or logic at all. Only time to yell blanket statements and run. I can do naught but stare in awe and applaud as you ride into the sunset and hide back under your bridge.
Battles:
Picking a lock is a battle of some kind or form. Guess the antagonist, anybody?

You're talking yourself into a hole there. This means (just like stats) that EVERY single game has this. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find ANY game in existence without some kind of conflict. Which means it's completely unhelpful in trying to define a genre. Just about as helpful as "oh it's an RPG because you're playing a character".

No form of currency/economy, no buy/sell/trade period. An RPG may not necessarily have it but you are taking a large chunk for role-playing out of the game without a currency,

I don't see how the roleplaying is removed by removing currency (or bartering, or whatever). A very good tactical RPG I've played (not a pure RPG, but has a fair amount of RPG in it) called Silent Storm did the military scenario. Since it's a military campaign you're playing you could go back to your home base after every mission and re-equip your guys with all the stuff they needed. No money involved. Granted in the setting money existed (it was WW2 after all and I think they even mentioned money in dialogue once) but gameplay-wise it didn't, because it didn't have to.
author=LockeZ
Hey Radnen, you know what entire sub-genre of RPGs doesn't have currency? Dungeon crawlers. You pick up stuff, instead of picking up gold and trading it for stuff! Like, whoa, what a crazy idea. Such an integral change like that must totally ruin the game and/or change it into a completely different genre, right?

Actually, most dungeon crawlers from the 90s are not completely like this. In the eye of the beholder series, there were times monsters would drop gold, that you could use at a shop. Even in Shining in the Darkness, you could get money and loot off of the baddies, thus your point is not completely accurate, but I understand what you meant.
author=LockeZ
I like how you gave no actual argument about how or why it would affect the game, negatively or otherwise. You, sir, clearly have no time for logical arguments to explain your points, no time for deconstruction of the other person's suggestions. No time to waste on any explanation or logic at all. Only time to yell blanket statements and run. I can do naught but stare in awe and applaud as you ride into the sunset and hide back under your bridge.

I like how Shinan did quite much the same. :)

author=Shinan
Battles:
Picking a lock is a battle of some kind or form. Guess the antagonist, anybody?
You're talking yourself into a hole there. This means (just like stats) that EVERY single game has this. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find ANY game in existence without some kind of conflict. Which means it's completely unhelpful in trying to define a genre. Just about as helpful as "oh it's an RPG because you're playing a character".

Nope, just covering my ass. ;) RPG conflict just includes much the same any other game would... I just felt like I wanted to include it in the list, for as far as I'm aware I tried to keep a pretty safely worded list that perhaps 90%+ of RPG's go by. I like how some people really want to contest that the sky is indeed blue and has about 70% nitrogen content. But then you say 90% of games called RPG's you think aren't so I can, ah, see where the contention comes from. ;)

No form of currency/economy, no buy/sell/trade period. An RPG may not necessarily have it but you are taking a large chunk for role-playing out of the game without a currency.
I don't see how the roleplaying is removed by removing currency (or bartering, or whatever). A very good tactical RPG I've played (not a pure RPG, but has a fair amount of RPG in it) called Silent Storm did the military scenario. Since it's a military campaign you're playing you could go back to your home base after every mission and re-equip your guys with all the stuff they needed. No money involved. Granted in the setting money existed (it was WW2 after all and I think they even mentioned money in dialogue once) but gameplay-wise it didn't, because it didn't have to.

Not much to go off there. Never played it, dunno its an RPG... Probably would not consider it one. You yourself don't call it a "pure RPG" which begs me to say how you've defined that. :)

author=LockeZ
Hey Radnen, you know what entire sub-genre of RPGs doesn't have currency? Dungeon crawlers. You pick up stuff, instead of picking up gold and trading it for stuff! Like, whoa, what a crazy idea. Such an integral change like that must totally ruin the game and/or change it into a completely different genre, right?

Well, it is a sub-genre, and while the more involved ones do have a currency, there is no doubt some kind of economy present, given that there are items. If I were to play a game like that - for I have not - I'd kinda be dissuaded to play by the mere fact there are no shop-like interactions.

And why say "Like, whoa, what a crazy idea"? When that's kinda disconcerting to read... :( Were you being an ass here? My net-sensors are a bit off today. Haha, touché.

Anyways that's how I see RPG's. Jesus people I already said this, and I'll say it again: RPG's are how you make it, just know that if others think you don't have an RPG, would suggest you probably don't have an RPG.
I'll double post so you could see it:

I see where the contention mainly comes from. You guys are upset of my use of the word 'every'. :(

It's perhaps not every. I wished someone would have kinda suggested that. But peoples hubris - as well as my own - got in the way.

My guidelines are just that, guidelines. If you follow them you would have an RPG - albeit cookie cutter. Stray too far, and we've gotten into the realm of sub-genres and one-off's, which could still indeed be RPG's.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Radnen
Were you being an ass here?

My avatar is an MPL version of House as a donkey. Make your own judgement call.
author=Radnen
I just felt like I wanted to include it in the list, for as far as I'm aware I tried to keep a pretty safely worded list that perhaps 90%+ of RPG's go by.

The problem with the list is not actually that it covers 90% of RPGs (which it probably does) it's that it ALSO covers about 50% of all other genres.

It's like defining a cake as something sweet you can eat. It's true most of the time (the exception being the Sandwich cake) but a lot of things that aren't cakes are also sweet and edible.

(on Silent Storm)
Not much to go off there. Never played it, dunno its an RPG... Probably would not consider it one. You yourself don't call it a "pure RPG" which begs me to say how you've defined that. :)

The game is very linear, where few of your actions affect the game world. However it does affect it a bit (depending on how many objectives you meet in a mission different mission paths open up). So while not a crazy pure RPG it's firmly set in the Tactical RPG genre. (All the characters have skill points and even familiarity with weapons that increase their to hit chances, as well as non-combat skills like first aid and lockpicking. And there's a bit of the RPG freedom, but not enough diverging paths.)

(Oh and here was my definition of the RPG)