there seems to be a lot of disagreement in the video game community as to what counts as an rpg. I've heard people say jrpgs like final fantasy aren't rpgs, but I wouldn't go that far since there's role playing and stat and item management and leveling and all that. on the other hand you have people saying adventure games like zelda are rpgs and I wouldn't go that far either for obvious reasons. where it gets complicated is dungeon crawlers like battlespire or amulets & armor. they have all the rpg elements, but somehow the lack of open world exploration makes me feel like they're not really rpgs and I don't exactly know why. what makes an rpg an rpg to you?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
so you don't know either? yeah I guess there's no reason to care, I just see so many people argue over it I thought why not try to create some order in it all
A beautiful sentiment but a fool's errand on this board.
>troony logic
Rpgs games are games that are widely thought of as rpg games
There’s no real definition so the only metric is common usage of the term. You can’t relate it to tabletop because no video game provides anything close to an actual tabletop experience, so if that’s the definition then there are no rpg video games.
I think comparisons can be made to tabletop rpgs even if they're not even close to the true experience. like toee is closer to d&d than ff13 for obvious reasons. and although ff13 is so distant from any real game it's almost laughable, it's the elements it took from d&d that make it an rpg to me.
Visual novel + autistic number system.
game I like = RPG
game I don't like = not an RPG
This is the definition most often used on this board
The contention mainly comes from butthole crpg snobs.
RPG predates modern video gaming. An RPG is a game where you take the role of a character embedded within the context of a fictional world, with various constraints, and various options for free-form progression and expression. This description generally fits many video games today. Calling something like Zelda an RPG has more to do with historical trends and bunching up similar things together, especially Japanese things. There was this trend in the West where all "Japanesey" things were conflated and all fandoms occupied the same space. The American anime con is an example of this, a sort of variety of everything remotely related to Japanese cultural exports, all bunched up together. It's very different from the specific conventions and markets that are held in Japan. In a similar way, certain styles of games were historically conflated and bunched up together. But make no mistake, Final Fantasy 1 is a D&D clone, albeit heavily simplified and customized. Other influences like Wizardly had a big impact on people that would go on to create games like Dragon Quest which was simplified for a general public audience and lower hardware specs. While the definition has also changed historically in the west, it's still difficult to argue that a game is an RPG without significant methods for expression and agency of a character in a fictional world.
this is probably the best answer I'll get on this board. thanks mate.
>best western rpgs for nes
>the legend of zelda
we wuz king moment but for the japanese game developer
Something plebs will never understand.
An RPG is what you get when youtake tactical wargame and play as a unit on the ground and go on PvE adventures in a high-verisimilitude world instead of playing PvP against rival troop commanders on battlefields. Everything else that people associate with RPGs is downstream of this. Fringe examples like Disco Elysium are what you get when distort the original concept as far as it can possibly go, almost to the point of not being the same genre anymore.
This is the best definition I have been able to determine from over 30 years playing RPGs and related genres. It sees edge cases as edge cases, rules out dumb normalgay marketing takes claiming anything fantasy or having dialog options or stats as RPGs, and makes morons seethe because it includes both jrpgs and wrpgs, while accepting arpgs as hybrids so long as there's a sufficiently wargame-like approach to combat and adventuring with lots of stat-driven and risk-oriented decisions. So Wizardry, Final Fantasy, Skyrim, and Fallout all qualify while Zelda does not.
I never thought of it that way, but d&d was inspired by tabletop war games and then added all the stuff you mentioned so it makes sense.
Truth.
It's how your stats interact with the world, no matter how expansive or limited that can be. Some RPGs are combat focused thus stats are yours tested versus the enemies. Other RPGs might be more expansive thus you can have stat checks picking a lock or forcing a lock open with brute force, and so on. You input the decisions on what the character does and then the characters stats versus the tasks stats are tested.
So that in turn references this post: that they derive from war games.
Essentially not true. Look at how Dave Arnesson was inspired by playing Wesely's Braunstein, and how the PvP was formative along with the role of the referee. There is a strong dislike of some elements such as PvP in the RPG scene since the early days, but they are still legitimate elements of RPG design and are still formative to the development of the early RPG up into the modern RPG.
Expanding on this
With D&D as the combined effort of Gygax and Arnesson, and Gygax largely understood as more of an editor that brought disparate elements into a cohesive whole, the creative lineage becomes clear. As such, Arnesson credits Wesely for the concepts of formative elements such as playing the role of a single unit, which is the foundation of the RPG. Early PvP in D&D can therefore directly draw its lineage to PvP in Braunstein, and all attempts of designers throughout D&D history to de-emphasize PvP have never been able to eliminate it. Another interesting thing to consider is the format of the tournament in D&D history, where players and groups would compete on achieving the highest ranking for adventure completion. Tournament play for D&D has also been discontinued, which is another way that the idea of the game has been changed towards "collaborative story-telling" by revisionist narrative-focused groups that started to appear during the 90s.
>claims something is not true
>proceeds to blather on about tangential interpretations of tabletop history, never giving his initial claim any basis
If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise I'll just write you off as another disingenious revisionist.
There have always been attempts to de-emphasize PvP and even de-legitimize it. You can do a quick search and find that there are countless discussions, debates, and complaints about PvP in D&D today. There are people that would love nothing more to expunge it from RPG design history, but whether or not you empathize with them, it's clear that they have consistently failed. Much in the same way that narrative revisionists have failed to transform the RPG into a purely collaborative story telling game by discrediting any importance of winning/competitive play and mechanical depth.
This history has also been replayed in the MMO genre. Where PK went from the norm to rare and stigmatized, and mechanical depth was replaced with treadmills, character uniformity, and emphasis on story. Whether or not someone thinks these elements are undesirable, it would be a misrepresentation of the truth to eliminate them from the record.
Oh you went for the PvE vs PvP angle. I don't think that's really where the "crpg"-term (or rpg even) gets tangled up on as for crpgs PvP has always been an afterthought for obvious logisticical reasons.
The original post you claimed was "essentially not true" is actually very much essentially true, with the PvE/PvP being really just a tangential issue. If we're talking about game mechanics (with computers especially) it doesn't even have to care if you're doing PvP or PvE, the same (combat or otherwise) rules can apply to everyone.
The big point about the lineage of crpgs is still the fact that they are downstream from wargames.
>is a revisionist
>gets told
>claims the one correcting them is the revisionist
The post literally just asked for a more concise point, it didn't make any claims.
Jesus frick
>history doesn't matter if it disagrees with my definition REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>if anyone wants to scrutinize broad claims more thorougly that must mean they are mad
The historical context informs the modern definition but does not define it. My definition is based on what the genre actually has become not merely what it may or may not have been intended to be. It's meant to be practical and useful for classifying games or designing them, not being faithful to an obsolete vision. And, this definition is meant for use in videogames not tabletop.
The part about "not PvP" is specifically about not being rival army commanders. PvP between characters is just one of many possibilities downstream of the original idea. If the game is exclusively focused on PvP, though, it may be too far removed to be recognized as an RPG. MOBAs are nor RPGs.
>An RPG is what you get when youtake tactical wargame and play as a unit on the ground and go on PvE adventures in a high-verisimilitude world instead of playing PvP against rival troop commanders on battlefields.
I think what encapsulates the main difference a war game and an RPG is the concept of "Quests". If we can breakdown idea of a "quest", we can write a definition of an RPG.
Also, I am excluding ARPGs because people don't say that lions can have stripes just because ligers exist. MMOs don't play by the same rules because it has a different set of tech limitations just like how CRPGs aren't P&P RPGs.
>quests
There are plenty of rpgs that don't have/need quests, especially on the tabletop. Hell, I've even played and DM:d some pnp rpgs where there was never any real "quest" present, just players doing things they felt their characters wanted to do. Unless we broaden the definition to meaninglessness, "whateverr the players aim to do is a quest".
>Hell, I've even played and DM:d some pnp rpgs where there was never any real "quest" present, just players doing things they felt their characters wanted to do. Unless we broaden the definition to meaninglessness, "whateverr the players aim to do is a quest".
What so you played a tabletop version of the Sims or something? I mean there are plothooks and stuff right?
one game example, was some homebrewed gurps thing iirc:
start off as poor soldiers -> get the idea to do banditry and rob people -> become mercenary leaders -> political power and move into the big boys tables -> fight and plot for becoming the rulers
this is where this particular game fizzled off for real world reasons (moving away etc.), great fun all around and would've probably remained so for a while
rpgs really don't need overdone plothooks and overarching campaigns, they can obviously be awesome too, but I think the "Buy The Readymade Product, Consume The Readymade Product"-mindset that comes from modern dnd (fight me) has really dulled the imaginations of players. More free-form play obviously requires a lot more from your players and especially the DM, but it can also have it's own very unique perks readymade stuff might discourage people from even trying. Freeform cyberpunk has also been a blast to play on pnp.
I probably used the term "freeform" somewhat incorrectly, I didn't mean it being that freeform rules-wise as is usually meant, but just that the narrative is pretty freely flowing without tons of preplanning. Requires a DM that can think on his feet, knows the system well and can come up with some kind of simple game mechanics (read: dice checks) on the fly when needed.
Some of the npcs that ended up the most memorable and recurring were originally though up on the spot with some very vague idea of a personality, role and how they communicated.
The definition of quest was traditionally a search for some kind of item, usually a powerful artifact. It wouldn't be broadening any definitions to say that players go dungeon crawling for powerful treasure. But it's not necessary.
If it's not a specific object but instead just "whatever loot happens to be there" then yes it is broadening the definition.
I never played d&d quite so loosely but it sounds fun. Like improv but for gaming
probably works better with simpler/faster systems, I can imagine high-level dnd being horrible for it if you try to go strictly by the rules as written, if only for balance purposes, but even that would be doable with some homebrewing (=simplifying). I guess with a godlike GM anything could be done though.
I for one welcome our new AI overlords.
NTA but quests are not necessary. The core element is controlling a single unit with a defined role in the world.
Some morons would cling to that claiming party-based rpgs (or multiple actors in general) cannot be rpgs because they won't accept "party" as a single unit.
I don't think you can really make a strict definition some bad faith morons won't willfully misinterpret. I think the best guideline is really pretty much "downstream from tabletop wargames", which is obviously also open to bad faith bullshit, but at least you won't be painting yourself in a corner with a needlessly strict definition.
The role of the player in a party-based CRPG is most like that of a caller. But you should understand that controlling the entire group is an element that came about as a result of lacking decent multiplayer options. You're still controlling single units but in parallel.
I don't think your start-of-a-definition is a bad one because I think I see what you're going for, just that I think it's needlessly specific while simultaneously not really narrowing down the gameplay-side of it.
But effectively if you control groups then it's more of a wargame too. The link between RTS and 90s CRPGs is well defined, but you still have DRPGs/blobbers and text RPGs with parties. The role of the DM/GM gets neglected too, but the story and scripting is in lieu of a real person. These video game elements are never exclusions of core table top elements, but automated references to those elements.
Not the guy your are directly responding to, I'm this one
And fwiw that is the opposite of a start-of-definition. It's the most succinct summary I have been able to distill and refine from much longer and more elaborate attempts to describe what rpgs really are, in the context of video games.
You can't guard against bad faith and moronic takes. It's not reality's job to conform to the lowest common denominator's ability to describe it. Most people will act as if they understand even if they cannot put it into words. Autists who can't handle this aren't relevant.
I used the term "adventure" instead of quest. You don't necessarily need the major goal or narrative of a quest but you can't just be puttering around town doing everyday chores. There needs to be an element of risk, danger, and going outside the norm. But it doesn't necessarily need to be a "quest."
>what makes an rpg an rpg
You, the player
>what makes an rpg an rpg
If your game doesn't have bikini armor its not an RPG
If it has gay sex its a CRPG but may or may not be an RPG
It's not wrong. Legend of Zelda completely aped Ultima's exploration style.
The only disagreement comes from trolls and shitposters. God this is one of the worst boards on this site.
Just ask what are the typical mechanics of a character attacking an enemy.
If there's some complicated formula that uses player stats, enemy stats, and random numbers, to determine hit/miss rate and damage done on a hit, that game is an RPG.*
If it's like "the blue octopus thingy takes 2 sword attacks to kill" then that game is NOT an RPG.
*unless the player characters are numerous and disposable, in which case it's a strategy game
It's impossible to define because any time you try someone goes "WELL YOU CAN DO THAT IN THIS GAME, SO DOES THAT MEAN ITS AN RPG?" knowing full well that they are not referring to an RPG because if they were then they wouldn't be asking the question.
It's not really "impossible to define" per say, it's just that for some odd reason rpgs are somehow perceived to be elevated from "simpler" game genres and people will bullheadedly go through any definition for a game they personally like.
People still get butt-flustered when they get checked on the fact that Disco Elysium has more in common with classic point&click adventure games than classic crpgs, because for some reason DE *has* to be an rpg or it will somehow be a lesser game if it isn't.
Because it is, just like how barbarians wished they were Romans.
Able to change the story.
And having an actual game build around it.
Most of what people call RPGs are not, simply because you control more than one character, thus any "role"(singular) playing is nonexistent. Zelda is actually more of an RPG than final fantasy or baldur's gate.
>reality should conform to the limits of my ability to describe it: the post
If your overly simplistic definition weirdly eliminates lots of obvious RPGs and fails to include other obvious RPGs then maybe it's your definition that is wrong.
You don't even deserve a (You) for such low quality bait.