RPG... We see the term bandied about everywhere and applied to almost everything in the gaming industry that either involves fantasy, or does not involve pure RTS gameplay.
Its used so much that people regularly accept that it means 'whatever'; or has different meanings to different people. IMO that's an awful state.

My view of it is pretty clear cut and simple. IMO an RPG is where the player is playing one or more individuals that are separate from themselves (the player), and each character has their own (personal) ethics, goals, and behaviors. A good RPG... Is all that I just mentioned with the addition of a reactive world that takes those character qualities into account, and reshapes the events in response to them. The object of an RPG [for me], is to play out those roles and see if a person with those qualities (and attitude) can succeed or fail in the various scenarios presented. So (in Fallout 1, for example), I get to see that my pure diplomat has many advantages in conversation and non combat situations, but when things turn hostile he can't directly compete with a combat oriented NPC, and needs help to survive. I also get to see that my pure warrior can handle his own fights, but is ill equipped for diplomacy and gets ripped off in the stores as an easy mark.

The object [for me] is not to win the game, but to see who wins (if any), or at least how far they get. In Pen & Paper RPGs there are no winners, unless you count being able to play in the next session using the same character.
In Fallout I can see that my Diplomat leaves the vault, ventures East, and gets murdered by Khans, and the overseer sends out someone else (my next PC). :shrug:

I don't take it personally when they die in a fair fight (and by that I mean fair [double edged] game mechanics, not that its "unfair" that they were outnumbered 5 to 2, or "unfair" that they died because their gun jammed and they were out of APs).
I watch them do their best, and pick the choices most in keeping with my current character, and the chips fall where they may. :shrug:
That's an RPG to me.
Fallout and Planescape:Torment are exemplary RPGs in my opinion.

Now consider Halflife, Duke Nukem, and NOLF. Each has a prominent character. Gordon says nothing, Duke says a lot, and talks outside of the "4th wall" sometimes; and Cate Archer is more of a narrative tool than anything else. In recent games Duke Nukem has included the the notion of "duke-like" activities (for reward) in the game play. None of these qualify as an RPG in my opinion; (Though Nolf comes closest of the three with its skills & stats, and Duke is close 2nd with character actions).

Generally in shooters the character you play is the "any-man" ~might even be the "any-recruit", or the "any-elite-ops-graduate", but basically they are generic Mc-fighter types that the player is expected to forget as they imagine themselves the protagonist in the environment. These are basically adventure games IMO, as the goal is not to enact a personality, and see the results, but rather to score, or otherwise achieve a mission goal (which may just be to kill everything else with gun).

In every Duke Nukem its all about getting to the next area. With Nolf it might be getting into and out of an area, or perform an action in an area, but its usually the same "get past here to there" kind of goal based gameplay.

With these 'adventure' games, its like playing an obstacle course, while with RPGs (my perception of them), its like playing in a maze with traps and psychological challenges along the way ~and some shift shift the walls around depending on your answers; and you might never get out, or survive the traps.

---

What I don't like about modern RPGs is this fear of dead-ends and the compulsive mandate of "viable" characters at the expense of variety, and novelty in character design. We see this in streamlined "vanilla, chocolate or strawberry" gameplay ~gameplay that excludes Pineapple-lime, and cherry-almond-marshmallow fudge (or even marmite-apple- meringue if that's what you really want).


I enjoy being able to throw oddball characters at the game and see how it affects the outcome.
It really is a feather in their cap in my book when the game reacts well to extremes. Lets face it... When a player maxes out one stat at the cost of crippling three others... they want to see a result for it in various parts of the game, and its a real let-down if the game ignores it.

**** :facepalm: [trying to preview it] I accidentally posted this and its only half finished; :laugh: ****
I hadn't actually decided if I was going to post it at all yet.

I feel there are some good points made here.

RPG to me is, (being on the gamesas forums, how could I not?) elder scrolls-ish.

Fable is an RPG.

WoW *can* be an RPG.

Call of Duty is not an RPG, I wouldn't even call the 'class customization' an RPG-ish feature.


I like skills, and stats. I like my numbers. They represent my character and who they are, what they've done, and what they can still become. It seems that alot of people consider stats to be archaic these days, which makes me sad.

On the other hand, like fable (let's ignore the fact that the game has actual levelable stats/skills) where you have an adventure, you get to define your character through your actions (instead of using an axe instead of a bow or a sword) and experience the world in a different way than if your actions had been different.

I roleplay'd my character ridiculously much in Fable, spending probably an hour between quests by just beating the snot out of every living thing I come across (poor Oakvale, slaughtered again). But that was my bad guy, on the good guy (this is where the game lacked) I killed monsters/bandits/zombies and donated to the Temple of Avo.

You can roleplay in anygame just by using your imagination, but when the game encourages and supports it like Fable does, or Elder Scrolls (to some extent) that's when you become proud of being an avid fan RPG's.

:foodndrink:

Ah well... The topic is open to all. I've lost my train of thought on it, so I'm going to leave the OP incomplete.

I'd love to read various differing and similar opinions on this if they turn up. :tops:

Gizmo, we have had this conversation before, and as I recall it was enlightening.

An RPG to me, as you have simalirly defined, is something that can allow me to play a "role." What that "role" is generally depends on the game. I also enjoy rolling oddball characters.

For example:
My most recent F:NV character has the tagged skills of Science, Medicine, and Repair. He is not allowed to have any points in any combat related skill, and he cannot wear armor. He is a general do gooder, who is attempting to do his best to further mankind in the mojave. He's currently in a moral dilema, as he doesn't exactly trust Mr. House, but his own bad experiences have led him to a strong disliking of the NCR. This is his "role."

There are many great games that allow you to Role play a character in this regard, some better than others. I have found that TES games are probably my favorite in this regard. Fallout is a close second, followed by the Eschalon series. I really wish someone would create a truly sandbox game though. Imagine an Elder Scrolls game with no main quest. No impending doom on the land. Or at least a TES game where the MQ doesn't have to be started. This is what I liked about Morrowind. Sometimes I just sold the "package for Caius Cosades", and said [censored] it, this character doesn't care why he was set free. He just wants to do his own thing. Sometimes I really wish this was an option in the newer TES games.

Any game, IMO, that allows you to play a role can be considered an RPG. Or at least have RPG elements.



I would have to disagree with this. Call of Duty is not an RPG, by any stretch of the imagination. Not even close. But I do feel that the class customization is an "RPG-ish" feature. Doesn't make it an RPG though.

Does this post make sense? I wrote it kind of fast. I will probably edit this.

I split RPGs into two categories: Ones that are driven by choice and allow the player control over the "destiny" of their character(s), and ones that set the player onto a pre-determined quest with character interactions and development happening more out of the player's control. I like them both, but for different reasons.

The former usually does not have a good story, and has minimal character development outside of the one(s) you create. Thus, I believe the story and game world suffer in such games, but not always. However, in such games, the world is much more open, you're free to interpret things from your character's point of view, and it's a more personal experience.

The latter usually provides a better narrative, because its focus is centered around that, and the characters are strangers to you who develop over the course of time. Whether or not you like how they develop is essentially up to how the game does it, or you just may not like their personalities. Also, this type of RPG tends to have better combat systems, which, IMO, makes up for the lack of player involvement in everything else.

Like I said, I enjoy both; they each contain their perks and their faults, and I like games from each side of the RPG coin. However, I am more biased towards the linear type. Not only do I find it hard to commit so much time into roleplaying these days, but I value a well written plot and characters and a great battle system over freedom of choice. Now, if a team came together and freakin' combined all of the qualities together, that would be fantastic, and some games have done that in the past (Deus Ex, Planescape).

Here's to hoping the developers do not forget that RPGs are NOT just about the numbers. They're also about choice, about character development and a fully realized game world wrought with lore and intrigue. Calling some of these modern games RPGs just because "You can level up" is ridiculous and quite frankly pisses me off.

Its true, but usually I want a game labeled "RPG" to acknowledge, and react upon those RPG elements. I can pretend that my PC is a guard in Oblivion, hang out in the guard room, and even stand a post for the entire shift; but the game is completely unaffected by it, and no citizen will ever run up to my PC at his post and report a crime.

When you imagine/daydream, or play a PnP rpg... You can have that occur, because it makes sense that it would happen; but we know that Oblivion is not designed to support that (without heavy modding). In this situation, with cRPGs in general, that kind of non-reaction is the real "Immursion" killer IMO; and is why I would not 'role-pretend' as a guard, when it is unsupported.

You say (above), "allows you to play a role", but [to me at least] that is not what controlling an avatar is. That is IMO, the opposite. That is... ah, that is rather a lot like the film "Being John Malkovich". Where a man finds a way to crawl into Malkovich's head and control him like a puppet; but... in the film, whenever he's in control, Malkovich no longer acts like himself. In this example, Role playing would be if the man in control were to put concerted effort into acting exactly as Malkovich would to the best of his ability to understand him ( :whistling: This is where character skills & stats, and a character profile/back-story usually come into play in an RPG).

In this example... Malkovich is the role... Not living his life as one's own in his world. This is the distinction I look for, but that I don't notice often here. What I see is the mention of incidentals like: omitting fast travel as a way to 'enhance the role play', but that has nothing to do with the role :shrug:, that has only to do with living the character's life as ones own.

One can role-play/pretend in a game like Halo, or Robocop; but those offerings cannot offer the roleplaying challenge and experience of playing a 'man apart' cyborg, who has lost his link and kinship with humanity. The games just don't support it, all you get is a particularly durable avatar to control (and get to shoot at stuff). That's just not an RPG to me.