RPGDX > Forums > Design and programming > What defines a RPG?

Mandrake · Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:41 pm Post subject:

yay! anonomouse :)

heh. I think i will start using spell check, just so I can stop sounding like such a dumbass.
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

Ironshanks · Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:06 am Post subject:

I think the definition is going to always be subjective because any game can call itself an RPG. It depends whether you use a broader or narrower definition.

I think you could have an objective judgement if you listed the attributes of an RPG and just saw how many of them a given game fufilled. I think now it's always going to be a matter of whether the game is more RPG or more something else.
_________________
That's not a broken link, it's a PICTURE of a broken link. It's really very conceptual.

LeoDraco · Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:34 am Post subject:

Mandrake · Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:05 am Post subject:

Ironshanks · Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:10 am Post subject:

What I was saying is that one could call something an RPG if it fits some or most of those requirements. If a game fits all of those requirements then yes, it will be an RPG. Where you draw the line is arbitrary. That's where the whole more or less an RPG distinction is made.
_________________
That's not a broken link, it's a PICTURE of a broken link. It's really very conceptual.

Mandrake · Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:24 pm Post subject:

Not really- if you look at an RPG video game as being an evolution of an emulation of tabel top RPG's (hence the name of the genre), then the conept of character stats determining ability and randomised checking of said ability rather than player skills determining the outcome of actions is the main primary basis of RPG-ness.
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

white_door · Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:45 pm Post subject:

Once apon I time, I would have said that Final Fantasy was not a RPG. I once classified RPGs as requiring non-linear gameplay and/or character choices with in plot elements. As time grew on.. I became aware that this was not a requirement of RPGs, but merely an interesting feature that many of my favorite RPGs at the time happened to share. Further more, I found different things to enjoy about many of the RPGs that did not share this trait.

I will agree that all games that label theyselves as 'RPGs' will hold to your principal of character stats being more important than player stats. And that is all that is required for game to be a RPG.

I think Ironshanks has a point though, there are other gameplay/plot elements of RPGs that we have grown to love. If you look at any one RPG, you won't find all of them. I think you will agree though, that a lot of RPGs do share these traits. So in some ways, these traits can help to define what a RPG is, but once you start using them it can become quite subjective as to what a RPG is. Since some people will find one trait or another trait to be equally important or more important to the base principals of RPGism.

Rainer Deyke · Demon Hunter Joined: 05 Jun 2002 Posts: 672

Personally I think that the focus on character skills over player skills is mostly an artifact of limited budgets, limited technology, and limited imagination on the part of the designer. I don't consider it a defining property of the RPG genre. Yes, in RPGs your actions are limited by your character. The same holds true for all computer games. At the same time, any worthwhile game requires player skill.

The core of the RPG genre, IMO, is the multifacted relationship between the character[s]/player[s] and the world. A rpg character is "real" in a sense that other game characters are not. A rpg character can fight monsters, talk with people, learn new skills, find treasure, learn about the world, affect the history of the world, make friends, make enemies, and go shopping (although not necessarily all of these in every RPG). By contrast, in a first person shooter everything is centered around shooting. All other aspects of the character and the world are either ignored, or fed to the player as static cutscenes that have little or no impact on gameplay.

Mandrake · Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:41 am Post subject:

Rainer Deyke · Demon Hunter Joined: 05 Jun 2002 Posts: 672

Actually I'm DMing an AD&D 2nd edition campaign. To reiterate my points:

Pen&paper rpgs, and by extension crpgs, rely on character skills because it is not feasible to use player skills. A good DM will try to involve the players in the game instead of relying of character stats and dice.
In all computer games where you control some sort of character, you are limited by that character. This is not a unique property of RPGs. For example, in Super Mario Brothers your ability to run, jump, take damage, and deal damage is limited by your character. If you were to control a different character, you would have a different set of abilities.

Zoggles · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:43 am Post subject:

Guest · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:45 am Post subject:

woohoo I'm an anounomouse! :)

Bjorn · Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject:

Heh.

I totally agree with Zoggles and Mandrake here. That isn't to say Rainer Deyke has an invalid point. RPGs are based on the player's skill too, but mostly in decision making process (to attack or to run, where to go, etc). There are of course the Action RPG variant and recent 1st person RPGs that require a higher level of player skill in reflexes and performing commands quickly during realtime fights, I think that's because of the Action part of the game, and not part of the RPG definition.