What's an RPG? (Long article illiterates need not apply)

[Daria]

What Makes an RPGs? My criteria.

Just a few thoughts, on how I classify my games. Maybe this will draw a little pressure off Lendelin's thread, by providing a forum for the ongoing debate.

Introduction:
Most people probably picture tabletop roleplaying sessions as a party of uber-nerds sitting around the table in Vin Diesel's basement. Wearing novelty elf ears and wizards hats drinking mountain dew as they bewail over the death of their level 60 darkelf rangers. Is it any wonder that someone would naturally conclude that all fantasy themed videogames were RPGs? It's a dirty lie, and through the course of this thread I intend to propose a clearer explantion of the genre.

Roleplaying, in the real world is improvisation. The practice of actions and reactions. Business trainers frequantly use it as a tool to explore "real world" senarios. Couples may use it to explore their own sexual wants and desires under the guise of "being someone" else. As a game you can play it with a strict system of rules and limiations, or spontaneous session of practical make-believe. In all cases you're presented with a limitless number of variables and outcomes. Translated to videogame, the word ceases to make any sense. By it's very nature a video game can not be a "roleplaying" game. A programmer can only simulate the experience of roleplaying with a series of preprogrammed choices and a very limited number of outcomes. The games themselves are pale immitations of their big brother tabletop counterparts.

What Makes an RPG?
Stripped of any real freedom, you're left with a number of common characteristics that many RPGs share; an experience system, battle system, system of barter and trade, and exploration. A basic RPG should include these four charactertistics. Dragon Warrior, being the first console RPG ever created has the honor of being our example for the quisessential RPG. A first person perspective menu based battle system, a numerical experience system, shops, and a freeroaming overworld coupled with town-roaming in a populated universe. In addition there was an element of dungeon dwelving, a popular relic of the D&D era. This in a nutshell describes your basic traditional RPG.

For my next example I propose to use the RPG that everyone loves to debate doesn't exist. This game features a simple battle system, you press a button and the hero swings his sword, hopefully right into an oncomming monster. Experience is handled by life containers. The theory is simple, in Dragon Warrior you were presented with the illusion of limitless freedom. Save the main castle, there wasn't an area of the overworld that you couldn't physically walk to from the start of the game. However you also start off as a level 1 and are likely to get your ass kicked by wyverns the moment you cross a bridge. So you fight monsters and level grind to proceed. In this example the world map is again open to you from the start of the game, but again you're weak and will almost certainly die a merciless death should you stray too far off course. So you explore your environment, defeat dungeons and are awarded with more life for your accomplishments allowing the player acess to harder sections of the map. This I argue is a form of experience, it just isn't based on racking up numbers. In the end the same limit is achieved. Shop system? You kill enemies who may drop monies which can be spent on equipment and items ala Dragon Warrior. Exploration? The Legend of Zelda's central theme is exploration and discovery. And there you have it the classic module for the Action RPG.

This form of RPG can also be found on the famicom, but wasn't really available in the US until the 16bit glory days of the Genesis. Shining Force is best known for it's tactical battle system. Eliminating the crutch of the random battle, every skirmish in Shining Force is predetermined and presented directly on the overworld map. Characters are moved across a grid and suddenly it becomes important to consider placement and range. Experience is once again handled by killing bad guys and earning points towards that almighty level up. Shop system is again present, and enemies regularly drop gold and the occasional item. And now here comes the point that will seperate the Tactical RPGs from the plain old strategy games, exploration. In Shining Force there are real towns and environments to explore outside of battle. Most strategy games will replace this with menu based towns to purchase equipment, unlock quests, and usher you immediately into the next battle. They are not true RPGs. But they are fun to play, and chances are if you dig Shining Force you're probably into Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea. But for the sake of clarification they are strategy games as they contain no form of exploration.

This leaves us with our last form of RPG. Wizardry features a first person menu based battle system similar to the likes of Dragon Warrior. You will travel to towns and buy goods and equipment. You will gain levels by killing baddies, and you do little else besides explore a giant maze or series of mages while you kill shit. The Dungeon Crawler is the simplest RPG imaginable.

So there we have it:
(Traditional) RPG
Action RPG
Tactical RPG
Dungeon Crawler

these are your four basic RPGs and there are plenty of games that will mix and match these categories to create hybrid titles like Oblivion (action RPG/Dungeon Crawler), Ultima Exodus (Tactical RPG/Traditional).

What doesn't make an RPG?
This is the part of my article where we enter the realm of subjective classification. It's what stops us from lumping in the GTAs of the world with the Dragon Warriors. Sandbox games are a relatively new genre and I don't think they should be lumped in with Role-playing games. Without getting into what's a sandbox game, let’s just say if it's something other than an RPG then it can't also be an RPG. I think this also takes care of our dirty little imposter the Castlevania/Metroid type platformer with experience points. If it's a Castlevania game then it can not also be an RPG. This doesn't include spin-off titles such as Super Mario RPG which changes everything about the classic Mario game to make it an RPG, as Castlevania with experience points is exactly like Castlevania without experience points.

[James8BitStar]

Yep. you've pretty much wrote the perfect "Definition of an RPG" article. You should submit it to RPGFan.

I don't get one thing... what fool has debated that that particular type of RPG "doesn't exist"?

[Daria]

Yep. you've pretty much wrote the perfect "Definition of an RPG" article. You should submit it to RPGFan.

I don't get one thing... what fool has debated that that particular type of RPG "doesn't exist"?

Hmmm... maybe I worded that wrong. But many people feel that Action RPGs and Zelda clones are two different genres. And that Zelda in particular isn't an RPG.

[lendelin]

Holy Schmoly, Daria! Do you know what you get yourself into with this? debates, debates, debates...

I have to look very carefully at your article before I might respond.

This is actually a good undertaking, at one point we have to make more clarifications about the definitions of a RPG. Compliments.

Damn, girl, you have some guts!

[Skelix]

Ooh Ooh I'll be the first to attack, by what you said. Why wouldn't Castlvania: Symphony of the Night be an RPG?

By how I understood you justifying Zelda, Castlevania is just a side view action as opposed to top down.

Kill enemies for experience, if you don't grind enough you will most surely die.
Pick up objects/monies and trade them for stuff
Explore a map
And battle with various weapons (by punching buttons)

Not so much defending Castlevania, I don't know if I call it an RPG either.

I personally enjoy the more American-ized RPG's. The AD&D make a party of sword wielding fighters magic-users, clerics etc. But the graphics in the more anime RPG's are just awesome.

I think I'm more into the turn based RPG's.

Edit: Well I guess Zelda isn't really top down, but you know what I mean top down would be more PS2/Xbox Baldur Gate-ish.

[lendelin]

Stripped of any real freedom, you're left with a number of common characteristics that many RPGs share; an experience system, battle system, system of barter and trade, and exploration.
...
So you explore your environment, defeat dungeons and are awarded with more life for your accomplishments allowing the player acess to harder sections of the map. This I argue is a form of experience, it just isn't based on racking up numbers. In the end the same limit is achieved. Shop system? You kill enemies who may drop monies which can be spent on equipment and items ala Dragon Warrior. Exploration? The Legend of Zelda's central theme is exploration and discovery. And there you have it the classic module for the Action RPG.

The category 'exploration' is a dangerous one, I think, in particular with the broad definition of 'experience' in the case of action RPGs.

The simple increase of life units like in your prime example for an action RPG (Zelda) would open the door for the Onimushas and all the games of Devil May Cry. It is coupled with another broad requirement -- the combat system. As soon as you define it simply as one button-hit technique (one action with no delay) instead of a menu-driven combat system all action games with this sort of combat which fullfill the other categories fall in your definition of an RPG. The advantage: Alundra and Zelda are in the RPG genre, the disadvantage: the Onimushas and Devil May Cry games are in, too.

They have an increase in life and MPoints and strenght (weaponry) the more enemies you defeat, they have shops and a barter system (granted on screen, but Onimusha 2 even has a barter system located in towns where you can exchange items with certain characters, gain new ones, and combine them), and they fullfill all the other general categories.

I can't see the separation line to these kind of games which would also open the door for FF Dirge of Cerberus. Unless you'd argue that these games should be regarded as action/RPGs, of course.

...and if you use all of the above criterias, then...

Without getting into what's a sandbox game, let’s just say if it's something other than an RPG then it can't also be an RPG. I think this also takes care of our dirty little imposter the Castlevania/Metroid type platformer with experience points. If it's a Castlevania game then it can not also be an RPG. This doesn't include spin-off titles such as Super Mario RPG which changes everything about the classic Mario game to make it an RPG, as Castlevania with experience points is exactly like Castlevania without experience points.

...it is unclear how you can argue that Castlevania SOTN isn't an action RPG. Same goes for Castlevania II Simon's Quest. They have all of your required standards of an RPG. Why they should be excluded remains unclear. Again, the introduction of one-hit battle system with no delay instead of a menu-driven combat system makes them necessarily RPGs.

I think your gameplay standards for an action RPG are too broad. I knew why you did it, Zelda was and is a controversial case, and you like to include it.

My comments are not rhetorical or sharp disagrements, I just want to point to some potential weaknesses or clarifications. There are other points I want to make after I read it a second time more thoroughly.

Great attempt, Daria. The introduction is really nice and important. It makes clear why the often heard "if you play a role in a game it is an RPG" makes no sense and takes care of that.

I see the danger of too much inclusion of certain games because the four general necessary gameplay techniques are too broad, but it is a great start for a discussion.

At the end of the discussion with constructive criticism and improvements you could indeed think about to do something with this article. That isn't patronizing. Writing is re-writing. The smartest guys with the best articles go through a lot of revisisons until they get it right.

[Skelix]

So here's the real question, which I'm sure has been asked before is Link a RPG?




Edit: Sitting here, thinking about it I would say no. I'm going to cause trouble here, but I'd have to say I don't even believe the hack slash action games are RPG's. This would even throw out Diablo and clones (blasphemy you say).

I would say to be an RPG it needs to be turned based, if it has real time action it needs to be able to be paused to input commands. The only exceptions I can think of would be like Final Fantasy VII where even though it's kinda turn-ish if you don't enter a command the monsters will kill you.

I would call the non pause ones more Adventures than RPGs. Like Zelda would be a "fantasy action adventure" or something to that line.

[blissfulnoise]

So here's the real question, which I'm sure has been asked before is Link a RPG?

No, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

The Zelda series is firmly entrenched in Action/Adventure. Not Adventure, not action, not action/rpg, but Action/Adventure.

Like Super Mario Galaxy getting "Adventure Game of the Year" on these boards. SMG is clearly an action game; platformer to be more specific.

If I'm feeling bold enough I may try to do an article just like this for "Adventure" games as it's long past due.

[Skelix]

Yep Bliss, I was editing my post when you responded. Action Adventure I agree. What about the Diablo-ish games? Sure you pick up items and equip cast spells, have skills, get xp. But I think it's more action/adventure over all.

Bah what a complicated world we live in!

[Poofta!]

ill read this later, as its like 3 am, but ive always been interested in developing an actual criteria for whats an rpg and what is not.

daria and i are probably the biggest RPG collectors on this forum, i cannot speak for her collection, but i am sure it is vast, even may be larger than my own (over 300 easy, yet unnacounted).

so id like to say thanks. ill read and see what, if anything, i can add on.


for the record, i consider Zelda an action/adventure rpg... with no specific guidelines as to how i came to that conclusion. it just "feels" like an action adventure game with so many rpg elements that its closer to rpg than pure action/adventure.

castlevania games, to me are side scrollers action/adventure games with some rpg sprinkles...

a huge criteria for what can even be considered an rpg to me, was always the viewpoint. rpg *must* be isometric/bird's eye style... however i do leave room for FPRPGs (first person rpg)... although lately the line has been difficult to see with games like hellgate: london and even oblivion which seem and play more like shooters...
anyway, to me, a side scroller can never be an rpg... it can only have rpg elements.

[roushimsx]

(snip)

What Makes an RPG?
Stripped of any real freedom, you're left with a number of common characteristics that many RPGs share; an experience system, battle system, system of barter and trade, and exploration.

(snip)

What doesn't make an RPG?
This is the part of my article where we enter the realm of subjective classification. It's what stops us from lumping in the GTAs of the world with the Dragon Warriors. Sandbox games are a relatively new genre and I don't think they should be lumped in with Role-playing games. Without getting into what's a sandbox game, let’s just say if it's something other than an RPG then it can't also be an RPG. I think this also takes care of our dirty little imposter the Castlevania/Metroid type platformer with experience points. If it's a Castlevania game then it can not also be an RPG. This doesn't include spin-off titles such as Super Mario RPG which changes everything about the classic Mario game to make it an RPG, as Castlevania with experience points is exactly like Castlevania without experience points.

I find the justification behind the experience system in Zelda to be pretty weak and I do not find hearts to be a valid substitution for experience. When you go out of your way to say that, "hey, hearts are a form of experience because you get them from completing levels" then you're opening the door for shit like, "Super C is an RPG because additional lives are a valid form of experience".

Also, it's odd that you elimitate games that do meet your four criteria for what makes an RPG simply because they incorporate additional elements into the gameplay. How can a Castlevania game not be an RPG if it includes:
A) Experience System
B) Battle System
C) System of barter and trade
D) Exploration

Simply because it's Castlevania and the first game was a side scrolling action game? What about Ys III, Exile, Sorcerian, or any number of other side scrolling RPGs? Why can't a game fall under the RPG umbrella along with other umbrellas? Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are both perfect marriages of first person shooters and RPGs with very little division between the two. They appeal just as well to anyone who wants an RPG with a bit more in the way of action as they do to someone who wants a first person shooter with a bit more in the way of depth and story.

When you say that something can't be an RPG along with being something else, then you're effectively saying "nothing can be an RPG". Everything is an RPG and something else. They're simply other games with additional depth through the addition of emphasis on statistics and experience.

For reference, here's some games that I feel meet the established criteria and some that I feel do not:

Meets
- Grand Theft Auto San Andreas: Open area for exploration, barter with NPCs for items or to obtain missions, third person combat engine, and the biggest addition to the series since going 3D: experience points.
- Deus Ex: Level up individual abilities, barter with NPCs, first person combat engine, freedom to accomplish missions in a variety of ways (the first mission alone has a minimum of three distinct paths depending on play style).
- Puzzle Quest: Experience point based character growth, shops, a world map to explore (though a bit less conventional than, say Final Fantasy), and a unique puzzle based combat engine
- Baten Kaitos: Experience points, shops/npcs, world map, card based combat engine. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
- Yakuza: Experience point based character growth, exploration throughout a detailed city, bartering with NPCs, and a separate realtime combat engine.

Does not meet
- Drakan: Does not have experience points and lacks shops or NPCs to barter with.
- Giants Citizen Kabuto: Lacks a barter system or experience point system
- Advance Wards: Lacks any experience system or barter system
- Heroes of Might and Magic: Lacks experience points or bartering. Strictly turn based strategy in a fantasy realm.
- Ghost Recon / Sum of All Fears / Rainbow Six: Sense of exploration on expansive maps, party management, experience/promotion/award system and real time combat, but lacks any sort of barter system.

[Gabriel]

I find the justification behind the experience system in Zelda to be pretty weak and I do not find hearts to be a valid substitution for experience. When you go out of your way to say that, "hey, hearts are a form of experience because you get them from completing levels" then you're opening the door for shit like, "Super C is an RPG because additional lives are a valid form of experience".

Like you, the main thing about the hearts in Zelda which strikes me as NOT being an experience system is because they are handled as items in the game.

Hit Points and Zelda hearts are the same mechanic, but look at how they are different.

In Zelda, hearts are either found in the countryside or as a specific reward for defeating a boss monster.

In RPGs, hit points are often awarded for gaining enough experience through any kind of battle to increase them. You don't need to find them in the countryside. You don't need to beat a specific monster in order to get them.

In Zelda, hearts are a powerup, not an experience system. If they are considered an experience system, then any game which has items which can be picked up for increased capabilities would be an RPG. Mario 3 would be an RPG. And that is clearly not the case.

[blissfulnoise]

I'm not entirely sure if you were actually making a case for the below games to be allowed into the RPG pantheon but I'll treat it as such and respond in kind.

Grand Theft Auto San Andreas: Open area for exploration, barter with NPCs for items or to obtain missions, third person combat engine, and the biggest addition to the series since going 3D: experience points.

The modern GTA series are anomalies as they spawned off a whole new type of game: the Sandbox game. While there are many RPG elements involved, each game ultimately divulges into a third person action game. The core of the game play experience is based around driving and shooting; not leveling up, acquiring equipment, and forming a party.

While there is probably a case to be made in there, objectively speaking, GTA:SA is not, primarily, an RPG.

Deus Ex: Level up individual abilities, barter with NPCs, first person combat engine, freedom to accomplish missions in a variety of ways (the first mission alone has a minimum of three distinct paths depending on play style).

Deus Ex (and Thief and BioShock) is a shooter first, adventure game second. The definition of "adventure games" has been broadened beyond Zork to encompass playstyles that fall between that of a standard action game and an RPG. While pure "Adventure" game definitions will always under the domain of Infocom, Sierra On-Line, and LucasArts; the hybridization of the genre allows us to lump a great number of games that contain action elements.

Cases in point: Snatcher on the Sega CD or Indigo Prophecy on the PS2/Xbox/PC.

Puzzle Quest: Experience point based character growth, shops, a world map to explore (though a bit less conventional than, say Final Fantasy), and a unique puzzle based combat engine

Tackled above.

Baten Kaitos: Experience points, shops/npcs, world map, card based combat engine. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Baten Kaitos would be an RPG in my book. Cards are just substitutes for die rolls and equipment. Similarly, Phantasy Star Online Episode III.

Now a games like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories and Culdcept Saga fall elsewhere due to play mechanics. CoM is an Action/Card game, and is pretty damn unique in the world of video games. Culdcept Saga is nothing more than a board game.

Yakuza: Experience point based character growth, exploration throughout a detailed city, bartering with NPCs, and a separate realtime combat engine.

See my above account of hybrid adventure games.

[Skelix]

I like Gabriel's breakdown. And yeah after thinking about it more I'm flip flopping back into the Action-RPG games are legit, so the Diablos, Elder Scrolls etc.

Because who cares if you're clicking the "fight" button, or pressing a mouse button to swing your sword. Combat rolls/stats/modifiers etc still happen and damage/outcomes are varied depending on skills stats.

OK how about this, most of the games we run it through a series of judgement calls, and form an opinion if its an RPG or not.

What of this, any game that fits most of the criteria given aboves (like in Gabriel's post). But is a game that was complex enough where you've gotten pen and paper out to map out skill points, character advancement etc.

And pen and paper don't count for making maps or writing down secret locations. You guys know what I mean, everyone has written down #'s to make their ultimate characters etc, that game then would be a RPG.

And to justify Enchanted Arms being an RPG, the Golems. Constantly figuring out which one to use in which situation etc.

Here's a game for you, Heroes Quest (Quest for Glory). I would call it strictly adventure, even though it has RPGish the RPG aspects aren't strong enough to allow it in the genre.

[roushimsx]

The modern GTA series are anomalies as they spawned off a whole new type of game: the Sandbox game. While there are many RPG elements involved, each game ultimately divulges into a third person action game.

Sandbox games are nothing new, with pen and paper RPGs being very much sandbox games. Plenty of PC RPGs, including Ultima 7, have been highly sandbox in nature. The Grand Theft Auto games might have originated as sandbox style third person action games, but they've been evolving back into RPGs, especially with the leaps that San Andreas made. While the previous games in the series might have been sandboxy action/adventure games, San Andreas "bridged the gap".

Deus Ex (and Thief and BioShock) is a shooter first, adventure game second.

Thief is different from Deus Ex and System Shock 2 in that it lacks the experience point and growth concept. I agree that it's a sealth-based action game above all else (and pretty much one of the highlights of the entire stealth action genre). Bioshock takes the System Shock 2 design and watered it down, but the core RPG elements are still there, all mish mashed with the action elements.

By your criteria, Diablo, Nox, Divine Divinity, and Sacred are all point and click action games first, adventure games second, and not RPGs at all.

The definition of "adventure games" has been broadened beyond Zork to encompass playstyles that fall between that of a standard action game and an RPG.

Well that's somewhat of a different topic, though. Sure, there's text adventures (Zork!), point and click adventures (Sam & Max!), parser-based adventures (King's Quest), and then the broadened action/adventure category (Little Big Adventure! Legend of Zelda!), but I think that it'd be incorrect to throw in games that clearly meet the criteria for inclusion under the RPG umbrella into the adventure bucket just because they have more action.

Now a games like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories and Culdcept Saga fall elsewhere due to play mechanics. CoM is an Action/Card game, and is pretty damn unique in the world of video games. Culdcept Saga is nothing more than a board game.

Won't get any argument out of me on either of these. But by the same token, I wouldn't exclude Phantasy Star Online III or Baten Kaitos from a list of "Card games" just because they happen to also be RPGs.

[blissfulnoise]

By your criteria, Diablo, Nox, Divine Divinity, and Sacred are all point and click action games first, adventure games second, and not RPGs at all.

All of those games rely on stats above all else in the game play experience. By that token, they do qualify as RPGs.

A Role-Playing game, in a video game sense, isn't necessarily incumbent on how it tells a story, or indeed the depth of the story at all. Instead, it's based around a numbers game mechanic where gradual stat growth/manipulation (normally identified through the process of "grinding") supersedes any sort of twitch based game play.

Thus, I categorize Diablo (et all) as an Action/RPG. Action being first (clicky, clicky, clicky), RPG second (minimize/maximize character growth EXCLUSIVELY through gear and skills).

And regarding sandbox games, yes, pen and paper RPGs are defined as the original "sandbox" games. But when translated into video-game form you can't draw the line quite so straight between the two.

The difference in a Grand Theft Auto III verses a game like Ultima is the nature of the game itself. Leveling up, party balance, and gear are the most important measures of success in Ultima. In GTAIII it's stocking up ammunition, driving fast, and shooting straight.

Clearly success in GTA is based around your ability to play a "twitch" style game. In Ultima it's about balancing out your characters properly and understanding where and what you can investigate based on your characters level. The differences between the two are clear.

RPGs/Sandbox games do typically offer an "open world" for you to explore but the difference is in how you explore said world. The similarities in Ultima and San Andreas pretty much begin and end there.

[HappehLemons]

I've always been confused about this.
Is there any universally agreed definition of an RPG? I understand that it is a "Role Playing Game" but if that was truly the definition every game would be a RPG.

This probably seems like a dumb question, but I see a lot of games classified into the RPG genres with no clue why.

[Arkhan]

RPG is mostly games where you build your character up with a system of stats.
and battles take place similar to a D&D setting

Character development, story, and towns are emphasized....

theres dungeon-->town--->exploration afoot....

Its often menu driven. Only in rare cases (action RPGs) is it not totally "menu driven"

Basically its games similar to an electronic implementation of D&D or other pen/paper RPGs.

Yes you're playing a role in say, Halo, but it doesn't contain the same immersive story/world elements that make it a deeper game than a normal FPS...

Some games COULD be said to be RPGs, but often have a more predominant genre... like Zelda, it is more action/adventure than action RPG.

somethin' like that.

[Zoltor]

RPG is mostly games where you build your character up with a system of stats.
and battles take place similar to a D&D setting

Character development, story, and towns are emphasized....

theres dungeon-->town--->exploration afoot....

Its often menu driven. Only in rare cases (action RPGs) is it not totally "menu driven"

Basically its games similar to an electronic implementation of D&D or other pen/paper RPGs.

Yes you're playing a role in say, Halo, but it doesn't contain the same immersive story/world elements that make it a deeper game than a normal FPS...

Some games COULD be said to be RPGs, but often have a more predominant genre... like Zelda, it is more action/adventure than action RPG.

somethin' like that.

Damn, he beat me to it(I had to go and get something to eat). Well that pretty much says it all.

[MASTERWEEDO]

I've always been confused about this.
Is there any universally agreed definition of an RPG? I understand that it is a "Role Playing Game" but if that was truly the definition every game would be a RPG.

This probably seems like a dumb question, but I see a lot of games classified into the RPG genres with no clue why.

I have always had the same question.