Immersion is an interesting word. It is often used whenever a situation pop ups that is or is not to one's liking. Sorry, but the above doesn't mean a thing to me.

Immersion is the state of consciousness where an immersant's awareness of physical self is diminished or lost by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment; often artificial. This mental state is frequently accompanied with spatial excess, intense focus, a distorted sense of time, and effortless action. The term is widely used for describing immersive virtual reality, installation art and video games, but it is not clear if people are using the same word consistently. The term is also cited as a frequently-used buzzword, in which case its meaning is intentionally vague, but carries the connotation of being particularly engrossing; it is also used to describe suspension of disbelief.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_%28virtual_reality%29.

A lot of RPGs don't have storylines though. Mount & Blade doesn't have one, yet it allows the player to assume various roles and essentially tell their own story.

A good storyline can certainly enhance the roleplaying experience... but I just don't see it as being that important or essential for the genre.

No one here can define what constitutes an RPG. The task is equivalent to defining art, and no one has done that successfully yet either.

The problem is that different people intend different experiences when they RP, so people with different intentions have different definitions that will never be compatible. For a long time I thought that the goal of RP was to adopt a role and live vicariously through that role. In this sense, any element which helps me to maintain focus and increase the feeling of "reality" of that character assisted RP. Many people don't intend this when they RP and they will disagree with that characterization. The fact that they have different intentions and different definitions does not make them right, just as my definition is not right. Anyone who argues that there is one single defintion is just being pig-headed or naive.

The lockpicking mini-game is a good example that illustrates one of these conflicts: as a role-player, I like that I can further immerse myself in my character's experience by playing the mini-game. It serves as an aid that intensifies the experience of being my character. It brings me closer to my character. It also introduces an element of "player subversion", where my own skill interferes with the "purity" of my character's skill. Since I am already interfering with my character's skill massively all the time through my conscious involvement (my character has no intelligence, wisdom, will power, or social skills, all of which have to be supplied by the player), it seems like a fair trade off to introduce a little manual dexterity in the mix. Since the lockpicking mini-game is already orders of magnitude easier than real lockpicking would be, I see any argument that it is "contaminating" the character's skill to be overly pedantic. In any case, when I'm role-playing, if I'm role-playing a character who doesn't know how to pick locks I don't even try to pick them, so I don't see it as an issue. The only characters who try to pick locks when I play are people whom I assume already know how to pick locks. The entire argument is a non-issue and just seems like pedantry to me because it never arises in normal RP (as I define it). That's why the lockpicking mini-game can be seen as a tool that improves RP. Of course, your goal has to align with being immersed in the game world as your character. If your goal is to adopt a detached attitude toward your character and guide them from a position of omniscience from afar, then the lockpicking mini-game will seem like an intrusion that breaks immersion and ruins RP. One view is not superior to another. They are just different approaches with different goals and different ways to measure the success of a game as an RPG.

I think I'd say.... a tabletop and a GM. To really be able to "roleplay" with all that this entails, you need to be able to freeform everything. CRPG can't, no matter how "branching" or "sandbox" you make your system.

(Of course, not even every tabletop RPG'er plays at that level. There are plenty of folks who just play "by the numbers" and don't try to push any limits. Follow the given adventure model from key point to key point, etc. )

Ok an example, in fallout 3 this is from a computer game RPG perspective, at the end suddenly these slide appear and it tells me how my mission ended, oh and the lone wanderer was male, mine was female, in my head that wasnt how it ended, there was no walking off into the sunset, same with new vegas that wasnt the ending that happened in my game, but its how computer games lack that imagination. In skyrim what id do in a role play sense is different to the way the game is structured, as ive mentioned on the skyrim forums, im sick of the guards calling me by the male gender, im female, all of them would be doubled over, or have a bad case of steel poisoning, and its not as though i can point out to them.

Its like in hunted the demon forge, people keep popping and saying, oh thankfully your human, and e'lara the elf says im an elf, or later one says doesnt anyone notice the ears, its just things like that, that you cant do because you cant interact, plus you cant set your own life path you have a few limited ones set for you.

Finally letting you actually create your character, name, looks racial type, gender is a good start, mass effect lets you choose from 3 backgrounds, and as lots of excellent options during gameplay, it could still be better, but computer games still limit your real interaction, not the sort of interaction or use of imagination that you get from a pen and paper RPG. You cn use your imagination as much as you want with a computer game, but your imagination still doesnt affect the outcome, or actions during the game, most of it is pre set during the programming, if x does y then z happens, id love to be able to finish my versions of fallout, instead of those damned slides.

All these answers about immersion, story, dialogue, etc. are just wrong. Plenty of games that are not RPGs have those traits. What makes an RPG an RPG is the fact that you build a character whose passive attributes, active abilities, and equipment determine his effectiveness in combat. That's it.

Can't be a true RPG unless nobody likes it. As soon as someone does like it, someone else is there to pick it apart.

The more the game relies on the Character, the more of an RPG it is.

Oblivion did not rely on the Character very much at all and it is therefore only called an RPG by the marketing department and the general masses who parrot what they are told by the marketing department.

I have no idea about Skyrim.

My opinion, obviously!

It would seem you two are at odds:


For Khamsin, choice doesn't matter. For mt_pelion, character development doesn't matter.

When I think of an rpg, I think depth. The less depth, the less a "true rpg", I feel it is.

That is correct. Development is a wonderful feature and it adds significant depth to the game but it is not an RPG aspect in and of itself.

Anyone who's actually role played in a role playing game such as Dungeons and dragons, not the computer game, and has actually created a character with a background a purpose, and played that character for years, from module to module and levellled it and built up a life for it, and make it come to life, knows what role playing a character is. Another good example of Role playing are things like hypotheticals, there was a show only in Australia sorry, where a group of well known people were set a hypothetical situation by a guy name geoffrey robertson QC, queens council or a lawyer to you, basically they were all told who they were and set a situation and they had to play out their roles, he would respond to their answers and adjust the actions and events per their actions, that is role playing.

During the cold war, they held sessions like this, to train and to get responces from people who were told this is a real life situation and respond as though it is, they played a part and interacted to the events given to them, role playing isnt (build a character whose passive attributes, active abilities, and equipment determine his effectiveness in combat. That's it.), thats a generic hack and slash game, in role playing you can be fred the gardener, george the plumber, you can play anything because they stick a label on a combat game and add some scarce RPG elements to it they base it an RPG, basically if it was truth in advertising it would say this game is a dungeon hack and slash with some rpg elements in it or a shooter with some some rpg elements in it.

Its like i say about the current dungeons and dragons, theres to much roll not enough role, same with computer rpg's theres alot of mechanics and killing and very little role.

I didn't know Mount & Blade was an RPG (at least I certainly didn't consider it one previously, but more a medieval combat sim).

A good storyline is not essential, that's true. But for a role to exist, there needs to be (at least) a certain framework of a narrative in which supports the role and makes if count for something - otherwise you merely have a dicerollbased simulation (this obviously doesn't count for PnP where the options and possibilities to "make a difference" are limitless).

If the game had no character development / progression, and far less structure to it's gameworld (no factions, no named NPCs, no dialogue options, etc) then i'd call it a medieval combat sim as all you'd be doing is fighting in semi-realistic battles with a fairly generic character defined only by the weapon in their hand. With those elements though, it's most definitely an RPG.

If I start out as a lowly peasant, work my way up in the world taking care of thieves and bandits for gold while specialising in horse archery and tracking, then eventually join the Kingdom of Swadia and assist them in a war with the Nords... to me, that's roleplaying. There's no set story in place, but my own character's story unfolds as I play the game. With another character, I might become a tyrant... looting villages, insulting every NPC I speak with, or trying to conquer the gameworld as the leader of my own faction.

Character development makes it more than just a medieval combat sim.

Quoting myself so you read it again. If you examine every game that is considered an RPG, this is primary determinant of whether a game is classified as an RPG or not. You can check for yourself, or you can accept that this is the truth of it.

Seriously, when people say that JRPGs, which other than Dungeons and Dragons pretty much defined the RPG genre, aren't RPGS, I laugh hard. It makes you look extremely stupid.

I actually wrote an article about the http://j-u-i-c-e.hubpages.com/_esforum/hub/good-rpg a couple of weeks ago. It's not meant to be a serious attempt at a definition, but more along the lines of a general introduction. It has plenty of pictures.

The reason why you don't need a strong narrative for a game to be an RPG is because as you role-play, you create your own narrative by talking to yourself about your character's decisions. When I play DA:O, my personal narrative isn't as strong, because so much of it is determined by the narrative in the game. When I play Skyrim, most of the narrative is constructed from my thoughts about my character and her goals while I wander around the wilderness. Skyrim's narrative doesn't need to be as deep because most of my mental energy is invested in my character.

More freedom to design a character the way you want to = more detailed private narrative = less need for external narrative provided by developer. At least, that's the way it seems to me.

But RPG's are not solely about combat. You can have an RPG with no combat at all.

Actually, I find that people who are inflexible in their opinions generally seem fairly stupid. No flexibilty = no more learning.

I agree that character progression mechanics tend to be the defining characteristic of the genre, but I think it's incorrect to say that other elements are unimportant. Non-rpgs have plenty of rules to define what characters can and cannot do, so just because you can build different character types and give them different gear that doesn't automatically make a game an RPG. Also, there's no reason why an RPG couldn't be based around something other than combat. Part of "defining your character" includes defining his personality and moral outlook. It's arbitrary to divide combat effectiveness from other defining character traits.

Game definitions tend to be about as elusive as definitions of art, but "role playing" is pretty straightforward English.

When a developer labels his game an RPG, he is making a statement of his game's purpose. It does not matter what you can do in the game, or how you do things in the game, or even what you do in the game, but only what you are overall meant to do in the game. He is declaring his game's point. All kinds of things can constitute a particular RPG, but it is the objective of the game, not its constituent parts, that defines its purpose.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. You are attempting to define a genre that is only defined by the person who engages in their own game. And it is that, my small minded friend, that makes an RPG an RPG; The players ability to determine the syle of play and character with the open parameters given by the developer.

Role-Playing Games are games where you assume the role of another character. The character will always be as good or as bad as the character hirself is.

Action Games are games where you take over the role of another character. The character becomes as good or as bad as you are.

Games are defined as RPG, sort of RPG, or not RPG by the mainstream video gaming world. The criterion I laid out is likely the only criterion that contains within all games that are considered "Not Not RPG" without including an excessive amount of games that are only sort of RPG.

I agree. Intention is very important for defining RPGs. For example, if it is my intention to RP a character, and the mechanics of the game support my intention, then I consider it an RPG. If it is my intention to RP a linear action game, I will be disappointed because none of the RPG elements will be there to support my play, therefore, I will define it as not an RPG. I have intended to play Skyrim as an RPG and I have now played well over 100 hours and have found that my intention has been supported by the game mechanics, therefore, Skyrim is an RPG. Regardless of what the pedants say.

Your definition of RPGs suffers from a flaw, of course, in that it is not specific enough. Since every RPG character is actually only as good as the player's ability to meta-game, there is no such thing as an RPG in which the character is "only as good" as the character. The character may only be as good as the character in a circumscribed area of play, but overall, it is the player's native intelligence, wisdom, will power, and social graces that define his or her success, not the characters. The fact that my character can't pick a lock because his lockpicking skill isn't high enough is an area where your argument works. The fact that my character can suddenly devise combat strategies based on an intricate knowledge of statistsics and game mechanics that he should have absolutely no awareness of is an area where your argument fails. You can't ignore one half of the equation and call the argument finished. A good argument has to take into consideration every element, even the ones that disagree with your hypotheses.

Those things are solvable:

Randomise the statistics, game mechanics and rules and make the current ones known to the player based on the character's knowledge and intelligence and whatnot.

Base the execution of any plans (precision, delay in communication and execution) depend on character's characteristics too, not on how precise or quickly the player can do something or react to something.