Double post; Please delete.

As long as I can role-play and be immersed, that is good enough for me.

I like the Q'uarYak. Its like if that Pincer Pokemon and Bowser had a baby/maggot/abomination.

Also what happened to your DeathClaw sipping tea avatar? (I loved that one)

On topic: Are there actual quests? And would you be able to make choices through them. Or is that still unknown?

Voted for detailed interaction with NPCs, Persistence and for preferences FPV and character-based success.
Detailed interaction with NPCs is what lets CRPGs down and will do so for the forseeable future. Just can't match a good DM and players.

The most important thing for a RPG is that... it should be allowing role playing. It means it will allow the player to immerse in the world. Every element which moves in that direction is welcome.

Don't forget that some of the best RPG are not on computer but paper. A RPG must contain a coherent world, so persistance and realism is key.

I think the leveling/progression is not a key element of RPG. At the contrary, it is very much cliche. You leave a castle as a fragile teen and 2 months later, you can defeat the strongest warriors and monsters of 2-3 tons. It completly defeats its own aim, at least in computer RPG. This is an historical default. Before, worlds were very small and could be explored in less than 50 h. Quests were limited (although...). So give a feeling of achievement, there was a fast leveling system.

Now, we can have very large worlds and we should be able to get very progressive levelling.

All I can say is the world, and the npc interactions, are more important to me than the numbers that define characters progress. Sure I want to get stronger/better/learn more spells/whatever, but an awesome game system is nothing without the world and it's inhabitants.
I appreciate this might not be the core of rpgs, but it is the defining element of each individual rpg, imho.

1: Detailed Character Stats: I don't have to be able to improve the stats, although that is preferable, but there have to be detailed stats that define the character and what s/he can or can't do.

(I would vote for "Detailed Interactive Dialog with NPCs" but computer systems are always limited by whatever options occurred to the designers or writers at the time, and the more options there are the more jarring it is when the solution or response I came up with isn't available. If we ever get to the point when the came can respond dynamicaly and realisticaly to my actions I'd give this top spot.)

2: Persistence: There's no point having choices as to what to do and how to do it if the game pays no attention to those actions 5 minutes later.


I can take either combat system, as long as the outcome is determined by the caharacter's skills and not the timeliness of my button-presses.

3
Detailed User Interface: I prefer this, but as long as the information is easily available somewhere, like a character info screen, I can live with minimal.

Restricrtive realism with inventory space, and item weight: I like this, but it has to be well integrated.
If my inventory is limited I better not need to have it halfifull of plot-required items all the time.
While I wasn't a huge fan of the inventory in The Witcher I did like that plot items were kept in a different section where they didn't interfere with what else you carried.

Third Person View: Definitely prefer this over FP in RPGs. I can live with 1st person if I have to but properly designed and animated 3rd person would always be my choice.

Character based skill success; (meaning a weighted % chance of success): Definitely

An end ~where the game ends, and the credits roll, and you return to the main menu: Generally yes. I'm not completely opposed to the idea of continuing, but I've never seen a game that handled it well and made whatever huge accomplishment you just achieved on the main story seem meaningful when you're still wandering around afterward.

Story, and my character's motivation to do whatever he's doing.

I guess the only thing I'm truly finicky about is the flow of a game. If I'm just bouncing back and forth playing message delivery boy, my already low attention span is going to be completely non-existent. I don't really see the logic in being able to master magic yet not being able to actually communicate with someone. If it's kept short and sweet, it's not so big of a deal.

Otherwise, the menu list on the poll and other presented options are nice in theory but I prefer to see the game not so much from my own perspective of what I want but from the view of the creator's.

The first vote is too detailed. Some of those things figure into an RPG, some only partially, and some not at all. An RPG is about playing a role defined through statistics. The better I can let that character live their way, the better. So it's less about any of those things but about general choice, which some of those options offer.

I can do both in Rome: Total War, but I would not call it a role-playing game.

Gizmo thanks for not taking offense, and sorry for making an wrong assumption... I'm an ass.

Makandal on reading this topic and playing DA:2, an online pnp rpg and rereading old pnp books.
I have to say I think CRPG's are now on the wrong side of a schism.
It's as if the things that actually drove people into the creativity of rppg's has been replaced by behavioural patterns rewarding button pushing in the right order.

PnP I can play off another person and don't care if I win or lose.
I have options and can tweak and exploit loopholes and make it part of a characters role.
In more and more modern crpg's I'm getting shoved into a straight jacket and limited on creation by the system set up to "balance" everything.
As if I'm not an advlt capable of setting restrictions and limits to how powerful I should be.
They reward power gaming yet at the same time restrict it, creating a paradox of bland by the numbers "gaming".

I mean in PnP I got restricted in not being able to kill any other player.. so I shoved explosives up a pet parrot of a player and turned it into a firework.
If you get restricted in a computer game you have no options, other than power game or difficulty.
As Gizmo has pointed out many times player skill is being used far too much, while we all have different levels of aptitude our characters only do if we desire it.
If I make a rogue I want it to be able to do things I or other npc's can not, if a mage likewise.
I want every option to be "balanced" and thought out, if a pacifist healer or mind controller let me be as powerful as a damager... but only against those that my spells can effect.

Immersion........Escapism.

I think attempts to distill a genre down in two one (or even a few) core aspects does a disservice to games under that interactive entertainment umbrella. The answer is all of those make an RPG. And none of them. The question should be: What kind of game are we making? Is it a a tactical combat simulator? Is it interactive fiction? Once we've established what we are trying to create, we can begin implementing different systems that most effectively engender that type of experience.

Too often designers try to boil an entire concept down into core gameplay pillars. This misses the point. Take Deus Ex, for example. It had skill trees, multi-path levels, non-violent solutions, choices and consequences, near complete environmental interaction. But not one of these (or even most) is "what Deus Ex is about." Deus Ex was an immersive, simulative science fiction story. Any gameplay systems are directly related to attempts to achieve that goal. Multiple solutions to objectives makes sense because most things in reality have multiple solutions. I should be able to pick up ma stapler because I can in real life. Stats are valuable because it's an easy way to differentiate between different types of people. These things shouldn't be ends in and of themselves. Players should feel like the choice they make is the one the game intended all along, not like they are choosing from a laundry list of "choice-no-consequence" options. That's not immersive, responsive design.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not really interested in genres, I'm interested in experiences. An RPG simply denotes one method of achieving a particular type of interactive experience, but I don't think there is anything inherently worth preserving about the concept or the systems it's traditionally employed.

Well, technically you are playing the role of a leader. :shrug:

A lot of games are considered role-playing games in my book, but they are separated by gameplay.

I would put to you that a stat based game where the PC is trapped in a 10'x10' jail cell with no windows
~and no lights... qualifies as an RPG. [Not necessarily a fun one, but an RPG none the less.]

Any experienced RPG player could roleplay the PC with no difficulty; all that matters is that they know the PC's limitations. He's not skilled enough to pick the lock, and not strong enough to break the door. One personality would spend the time exercising, another might spend it moping, or wailing. Even if the main character were entirely predetermined, and history pre-defined, the game would still qualify as an RPG in my opinion.

**If the PC were in the cell for the crime of murder, and they were guilty, and they felt honest remorse.... then at least one personality would choose not to attempt to escape. That's playing in character. :shrug: ~dull to be sure, but still a qualified RPG IMO.

You got the Role Playing, but where's the Game?

That's a really good question; and not easy for me to answer at first.

[IMO] The game is always in the Skills & Stats and their affect on the overall experience of the story. In this case the story is the PC in a cell.

Every game needs a goal... In this case the goal could be not to be broken by imprisonment. To follow a regimen each day; to improve (or maintain) skill by practicing.
To ultimately leave the prison in as good or in better shape that they were when they went in.

Several times I've wondered why TES did not allow for long term imprisonment for heinous crimes; Crimes that would land the PC in jail for years. In practice, the Player could play out the sentence (as a maintenance game), or use the Wait menu to bypass the years; Signifying apathy and sloth during the term, and suffering debilitating atrophy in the process. In actuality, I would think such a sentence should signal the end of that PC's adventures... but you're free to keep playing ; still it would be very neat if the PC could actually serve the time and be released (though all of the past quests would be long over with).

You could have an RPG with any theme. You could have an RPG like Gizmo said with a guy in solitary confinement and it would be great. I'm pissed that so many other settings are never used for RPGs. I guess its because it would be a gamble for a new IP, but as long as its done right, it could be as excellent as a ES title.

I recognize that the genre is different things to different people, so I don't really have a definition in mind and I don't think I'd be able to come up with one that I agree with. Instead, my ideal RPG is along these lines (straying a bit from the poll options):

Experience points, levels, HP/MP pools, etc. I like numerical representations and goals, however pointless they may be at times.

Predefined characters, appearances, story and (some) linearity. Pretty much puts to rest any literal roleplaying, but it's not something I've ever enjoyed. Unique character designs, in-depth characterization and a story whose progression is fine-tuned. Exploration is a bonus, assuming there actual sights to see, treasure to find. Exploring nothingness is boring.

Third-person, turn-based combat. First-person views are almost pointless for me. I don't roleplay so I don't have to fill the in-game shoes of my characters nor do I find many game worlds all that immersive. In fact, it detracts from the experience as I feel like a floating camera. As for combat, turn-based adds a degree of strategy. I also like having the time to breathe and plan ahead at my leisure.

As I like predefined everything, I also like there to be an end. I've probably done all the side content the game has to offer, so let those credits roll. A nice conclusion to the story, characters' fates are all covered, etc.

This is pretty much a classic JRPG. It hardly applies to even modern JRPGs, so like I said it's just a preference rather than a general definition that I go by.

To define an RPG, you do not have to ask "what is an RPG?" Rather "Why is an RPG".

Why were RPGs created?

In the beginning there were stats. RPGs came from the board wargames, like the Avalon games, that had all the stats and just needed stories and defined missions and objectives other than the predefined outcomes in the rules to complete their inevitable transition into the standard RPG definition. This is where D&D came from, the first commercial RPG. It was a game that you roleplayed in, but it goes deeper than that. Instead of a linear game space, like a racing or sports board game, the RPGs were by default deep settings that tried to represent a world/alternate reality. This is based on numbers.

I will not comment on whether JRPGs are RPGs becasue thats like debating vanilla verses chocolate. Usually that argument boils down to whether an RPG is a character given, or a character created.

The Witcher and Planescape come to mind

to me at the core an RPG should have deep character customization both stat wise and visually. I really like RPGs that let you specialize in a certain style and you become powerful in that style.

For example, if I play a mage, I want to become a powerful mage, and I want the mage to be distinct, and I'd even like to have subclasses of Mages. Let's say I want to be a Frost Mage, that comes with it's own collection of abilities that are distinct from say a Fire Mage. But, I can become a powerful mage none the less but it won't be like being a warrior. At the end of a leveling session, the Warrior and Mage may be equal in power, but that power will be different from one another giving the classes a uniqueness.
The original Dragon Age handled this quite well I felt.

I like RPGs that give you not just stat customization, but also visual, I like to envision myself in these settings so I often try to make a player character as close to me as possible. I like the color blue, I like for my character to have a consistent outfit rather than a mash of multi-colored armor pieces.

I like the idea of distinct characters, my Frost Mage having all these nice offensive, defensive and utility spells special to a frost mage, with fancy states showing just what part of Frost magic I've specialized in, could be healing, could be summoning blizzards could be a spell that freezes the lock off a door bypassing the need for a lockpick. I like making my character look like the school of magic he's in, I'm not going to be a frost mage walking around in a bright red robe with a wooden pulsating staff. I'm gonna dress in blue and silver with a staff that has a blue flame or Sapphire gem. If I pit my frost mage against someone elses fire mage, I would want it to be a challenge as they are distinct traits that can equal in power but in different ways.

I think an RPG should also have, at least a semi-open world. I should be able to travel where I want, and gain powers and traits through XP that comes based on the effort I put into my character. To me a game that makes you run down a linear path and only lets you level up when the game's plot calls for it really seems to rob the genre of it's core. This is why I really cannot get into JRPGs.

the idea of a persistent world based on your choices is really nice, I like that and the Mass Effect series, and Fable series did a great job of this, but it's not crucial, I would like it and would hope other RPGs would use such a feature.

I didn't like the options in the poll so:

For me it's about allowing me to as much as possible define what kind of a role I've created.
Choices in quests, dialogue, lots of skills, lots of stats, a high emphasis on action and consequence.
All of these are required for an RPG to be good to me.
It doesn't matter what gameplay it has or what the graphics are or whether or not it has good voice acting or voice acting at all.
What matters to me is choices, tons and tons and tons of choices.
With skills, stats, dialogue, characters, orginazations/factions/guilds/groups, quests.
That is what is the core aspect of a "true RPG", be it halfassed or brilliant if it has these things then it's a true RPG, IMO.

As to what is the core aspect of "any" RPG; Level up and kill [censored].
I don't like it (I hate it) but that's what RPG's has turned into; get god like powers and kill crap with the finger of death.

OK, play FF8, THEN play FFX.

Or here's an even better example: Play Legend of Legaia, then play Legaia 2.

I don't know about you, but a game feels even more empty when the plot is rushed AND you're on a point and click(or in this case, a point to point)map.