What defines the RPG genre?

[drunken monk]

I guess Id like to start this off because it seems like Im the only one who is opposed to the conversation and I think that makes it interesting. In all honesty though, I dont see why this needs to be talked about. Is it really that hard to figure out what defines the RPG genre?

Can you define it by title? Not really. Technically every game ever made has you playing a role so thats pointless.

Can you define it by story? You could 15-20 years ago when rpgs were the only genre that featured in depth storylines, but thats obviously not the case anymore. And if a game has an in depth storyline where player choice can affect the story, does that make it an RPG element? No. Thats the natural progression of the medium. RPGs cant lay claim to that.

Can you define it by setting? Not at all. Everything from action games and even some sports games take place in a fantasy enviorment.

So what defines the genre? What defines every genre? Gameplay. And what sets RPGs apart? Statistics. I know that people dont want to think that the numbers game is the only thing that sets RPGs apart, but it is. It started with D&D and continued on with not only WRPGs but JRPGs as well.

Love it or hate it, you have to admit that Fallout 3 is one of the purest RPG experiences you can possibly have. Every action you take, from talking to an npc, or shooting a gun, is defined by the statistics of your character. And those actions directly affect the growth of your character. Thats what defines the genre. Character growth through action. Obviously not every RPG is as in depth as Fallout 3 but you can always find those features, to some extent, in every RPG.

If your playing a game where all of your characters progression comes from buying upgrades from a shop, your not playing an RPG. And thats why Bioshock isnt an RPG. When you kill something you dont get stronger. Theres no character progression through action at all. Everything you gain in that game comes from exploration. What would that make it? An action adventure just the same as a game like Metroid Prime.

And what if some RPG systems are in place but they dont directly affect all your actions in game? What are you left with? Sub genres. Action RPGs like Fable and Mass Effect 2 where reflex takes the place of an invisible die being rolled in the backround. But its still an RPG because it features character growth through action.

Debates like this arent exactly new. 15 years ago people were arguing about whether or not Zelda was an RPG. Its obviously not, but some people wanted to believe that it was. And thats where these debates really stem from. RPG fanboyism. When a great game comes out that contains even light RPG elements people want to believe that its an RPG because of what the genre means to them. Im not accusing everyone of that but its something I believe and its really harmless for the most part. All we're really talking about here is what title to give a game.

[Indigo]

To take a genre such as the RPG, analyse it, and list its principle characteristics it to beg the question that we first isolate the body of the games which are RPGs. But they can only be isolated on the basis of what the principle characteristics, which can only be discovered from the games themselves after they have been isolated(adapted from a quote by Andrew Tudor). This is true with any genre, be it of a game, a film or a book.

When defining the genre of anything you have to point out the media's iconography and it's themes. Although I find that games are more complex than other narrated media when it comes to genre because the gameplay is also a very important factor.

The reason why a game like Zelda is considered to be an RPG by some is its obvious display of the classic RPG iconography and theme, the only thing it lacks is the genre's traditional gameplay. To some the latter aspect may have less of an impact to what defines a game's genre. But gameplay tends to be the primary decider of what makes a game fall under a certain genre. This is probably due to the fact that the thematic and iconographic aspects of games have become so diverse when retaining similar gameplay. So to make it simpler, you define a game as you would any other narrative that relates to it, for example, a Sci-Fi RPG and a Sci-Fi shooter are both familiar to a Sci-Fi film or book. Setting apart the thematic and iconographic aspects of the game and simplifying genre definition by gameplay.

Traditionally, as you said, for a game to be an RPG its gameplay must emulate some form of character growth, and that's what I tend to stick by. I say this because character growth is what attracts me to RPG's the most. Of course this is a definition by personal taste, but it's the best definition I can conjure up. I'm of the opinion that(like most things) the definition of genre is hugely subjective.

[CoolOtaku]

Ugh... just lost my post when I was almost done writing it. I don't have the motivation to redo the whole thing... Here's the short version.

You both have some very interesting points that I really enjoyed reading.
Numbers make me think of sports games these days. They're kind of RPG-ish sometimes from what I've seen of them.

RPG's used to be pretty much either turn-based or dungeon crawler style. Now we have a blend of pretty much anything and everything. For me, the question is where to draw the line. If I think technically about it, I could never call Bioshock an RPG. But what do I want to do? Call it an RPG. It just has that feel to me.

I think that covers most of what I had written. Hate it when that happens... >_>

[Sushi_b]

I like the term "character growth through action". That's a pretty solid interpretation of what is the basic form of RPG definition. What does that mean exactly though? Growth with statistical numbers only? Why can't character development through interaction be classified as an RPG element? Does this make it more of an adventure game element?

I was thinking about the statistic aspect as if it is unrelated to the character but perhaps to weapons or items. Would that by characterized as an RPG element? I would suggest so. Perhaps the character doesn't have stats affect anything in the end besides things that can be used. God of War and the latest Castlevania game, focus more on using a point system to unlock abilities later on, but this still gives an RPG flavour to the action as I feel. Yes they are primarily Action games, but there is a character growth of sorts.

[drunken monk]

I like the term "character growth through action". That's a pretty solid interpretation of what is the basic form of RPG definition. What does that mean exactly though? Growth with statistical numbers only? Why can't character development through interaction be classified as an RPG element? Does this make it more of an adventure game element?

Ill answer the statistical question first. Yes. I say that because statistics represent more then just your character. They represent the RPG rules that are in place. They could be in your face or hidden away in the backround, but they are there in every RPG. And if you take away that framework your taking away what makes the game an RPG.

"Why can't character development through interaction be classified as an RPG element?"

Because then almost every game ever made would be considered an RPG. For example: Im currently replaying Doom 3. There was a part in the game where I killed an enemy and I picked up a BFG that he dropped. Now technically thats character development through interaction right? I now have a BFG and I can one shot just about any enemy in the game so Doomguy has just become more powerful. Do you see how ridiculous this is starting to sound? I could apply that to just about any action game thats not even remotely RPG.

There is character development through interaction in RPGs but it didnt start with RPGs and it has never defined RPGs.

I was thinking about the statistic aspect as if it is unrelated to the character but perhaps to weapons or items. Would that by characterized as an RPG element? I would suggest so. Perhaps the character doesn't have stats affect anything in the end besides things that can be used. God of War and the latest Castlevania game, focus more on using a point system to unlock abilities later on, but this still gives an RPG flavour to the action as I feel. Yes they are primarily Action games, but there is a character growth of sorts.

Your right about that but I dont pay attention to it. Character customization has become standard in the industry and I dont look at it as an RPG element anymore then I do classes in Modern Warfare. Which is not at all.

[Luisfe]

The main things for me would be separation between the player's ability and the character being played's ability. Afterwards, character growth, be it storyline, statwise, or in other ways. Choice to direct such growth or developement as well.

Though, with the first two, even goddamn Killing Floor would fall into it, since different actions at different classes (or different levelling in the class) would lead to different reactions. I don't think you can make the head of a scrake blow up with a crossbow headshot as a level 1 sharpshooter (or a medic), but you definitely can at level 4.

Or maybe you can, I wouldn't know, I mainly play Medic and Support in that game.

[drunken monk]

The main things for me would be separation between the player's ability and the character being played's ability. Afterwards, character growth, be it storyline, statwise, or in other ways. Choice to direct such growth or developement as well.

Though, with the first two, even goddamn Killing Floor would fall into it, since different actions at different classes (or different levelling in the class) would lead to different reactions. I don't think you can make the head of a scrake blow up with a crossbow headshot as a level 1 sharpshooter (or a medic), but you definitely can at level 4.

Or maybe you can, I wouldn't know, I mainly play Medic and Support in that game.

Killing Floor is actually a great game to bring up because how do you argue that its not an RPG? I mean it has classes, you gain xp and lvl up so why isnt it an RPG?

Because at its core its a team based shooter. The RPG elements dont define the experience, they add depth to it. I think thats the best way to define a game. By looking at the core elements.

If you look at Final Fantasy 7, what is the core element to that game, aside from story? Leveling up. The RPG framework is what defines that game. Its the core experience.

[Priest4hire]

Can you define it by title? Not really. Technically every game ever made has you playing a role so thats pointless.

You could loosely claim that most games involve playing a role. But that's not role playing. The title isn't irrelevant, but current technology simply cannot facilitate role playing in video games.

Can you define it by story? You could 15-20 years ago when rpgs were the only genre that featured in depth storylines, but thats obviously not the case anymore.

No, it wasn't. Adventure games had strong storylines before RPGs did, and were hitting their peak around that time. Besides, 'has a story' would never be a good genre definition at any time.

Interestingly, the idea of stat based character growth doesn't come from RPGs. It started with strategy games as a way for one's troops to evolve from battle to battle. This probably explains why 'turn-based strategy' and 'SRPG' is mostly interchangeable.

Getting to the topic, RPGs get their name because they are modeled on paper & pencil RPGs. The genre's origin was in collages with games written for the PLATO system. Considering this is where Dungeons & Dragons got its start, it makes sense. Pedit 5 and dnd are two of those games, and the two oldest RPGs to still exist. They are attempts at adapting a game of Dungeons & Dragons into the computer game realm.

These games in turn inspired games like Rogue, Wizardry and Ultima. In turn Japanese developers would be inspired by these games to develop the console RPG.

What I'm getting at with the short history lesson is that what makes a game an RPG is its relationship to the previous games in the genre. It's much like a tree that grows larger more complex over time. Yet there's a line that runs all the way from the earliest RPGs to a modern game like Fallout: New Vegas.

The most common approach to identifying the elements that make up an RPG might be called the universal property approach. As in you look for something that all RPGs have and which is particular to the genre. I'd like to suggest another approach known as family resemblance. The idea is that rather than very few universal properties, it's a larger pool of properties of which any single game might only have a few. Just as with a family, one person might have the nose while another has the ears, yet they are all visibly related.

So then, some things that RPGs tend to have: A mentioned, they tend to have character building and stat based world interaction. This is linked to the basic notion of pretending you're someone else. They tend to feature exploration and wide range of items. RPGs often feature parties of adventures with a range of character types. World interaction is big in WRPGs at least, as are multiple paths in gameplay and/or story. In terms of story, RPGs often favour epic stories involving the whole world or at least a good chunk of it. And of course dungeon crawling is a classic RPG activity.

There was a part in the game where I killed an enemy and I picked up a BFG that he dropped. Now technically thats character development through interaction right?

No. Firstly, character development refers to the character's growth as a person, i.e. the way his personality changes. But it's not even character growth. If I trade in my beater car for a new BMW, no one would claim I became more capable as a person because of it. Although this line is blurred by games, such as MMORPGs, which integrate character stats into weapons.

[drunken monk]

No. Firstly, character development refers to the character's growth as a person, i.e. the way his personality changes. But it's not even character growth. If I trade in my beater car for a new BMW, no one would claim I became more capable as a person because of it. Although this line is blurred by games, such as MMORPGs, which integrate character stats into weapons.

Your of course right but I didnt think for a second that we were talking about a characters growth as a person... obviously. I dont ever remember that coming up into the conversation at all. The only character development Ive referred to had to do with ability and Im lead to believe thats what we were talking about. A character gaining greater ability through interaction as opposed to a stat being raised after you kill an enemy.

Good post anyway. I enjoyed reading it.

Edit: Technically, owning a BMW would make you more capable at somethings.

[Priest4hire]

I just meant to say that the term 'character development' has a story meaning, and since RPGs typically feature stories it's good to refer to stat improvements as something else such as character building or growth. Building is probably best.

Of course, any number of games have featured character building via non combat interaction. For example, in the Quest for Glory series, you develop skills by doing them. So if you want to get better at climbing, combat isn't the way to go.