Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[noodle0117]

Hello Bay12,

What feature defines an RPG (Role Playing Game)?

I've been thinking about this question for quite a bit, but I haven't come to any conclusion clearer than "it's a game where you play as a main character" and that definition applies for a huge number of games out there. What makes a game such as Skyrim an RPG while a game such as Call of Duty/Battlefield a shooter?

In other words, I only have 12 hours to make an RPG game in an upcoming competition. What should I focus on given my passable but relatively basic game programming experience?

[kaijyuu]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RolePlayingGame

Probably the best description of all the things under the "role-playing game" umbrella.



Also making an actual RPG in 12 hours is probably impossible unless you make something like a really damn simple roguelike.

[freeformschooler]

This goes in Other Games.

[Frumple]

S'come up in other games and GD multiple times, iirc. Probably elsewhere on the forum, too. Wish I could remember the names/subjects of a few of the threads the question popped up in. There's been a good chunk of discussion on the subject around 'ere.

E: Like this thread! S'come up a few other times over the years, too.

[Criptfeind]

In my mind a Role playing game is where you actually play your character as you think the character would act based in the world. Which basically comes down to making choices. (And incidentally means I wouldn't classify D&D as a RPG under some GMs. A technicality that I am fine with.)

So yeah. If you are making a RPG in my mind choices are what defines it. (Maybe not the most important part. That might be mechanics. But without choices it would be a tactical turn based strategy. Or Platformed or whatever I guess. RPGS don't need to be TBS...)

[Max White]

I think the term is a little misleading. In the vast majority of games you play the role of a character, so in name alone most games are 'RPGs', but there is more to it.
I would say any real RPG lets you define your character. It lets you choose what sort of abilities and attributes they will have. For for example, if I am playing an Elder Scrolls game, I choose what weapon types I want to use, what armor will suit me, what levels I want to raise. I would also say one of the important qualifiers is that your choices are exclusive. You can't have it all. You need to choose between getting more health or more mana, for example, and make peace with this choice. This is a bit of a controversial definition, as it would mean like The Legend of Zelda series is not, in fact, a true RPG, but I'm ok with that.

[Darvi]

Pretty sure the LoZ series falls under the Action Adventure genre.

[Sinistar]

I'd like to add that it's also important a world any true RPG is based in should allow your role-playing to even matter.

Take TES4: Oblivion for example. At least in vanilla  experience, you can design your character any way you want. No skill limitations. At first look, this makes starting "classes" redundant and the whole system not very "role-playing" like, right?
Until you figure it out that in this system it is YOU who puts limitations on your character, not like in other games, where pre-defined classes are set in stone and a warrior can never use spells, wizard can never learn how to sneak etc.
And a system where only your imagination is the limit when role-playing, well, I think this is the best kind of RPG system.

BUT.

With all that being said, Oblivion is a very crappy RPG. Why, you ask? Because no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you role-play, no matter what kind of limitations you put on your character - it doesn't matter the the world. Oblivion is, in all it's openness, extremely limited when it comes to choosing possibilities. You can RP witty, god-fearing pilgrim all you want, combat will feel very similar to that of a warrior and after all only in very little cases you can actually use your tongue to prevent combat. Of course, making a truly open RPG you could just ANY way you wanted, well, that would probably impossible. But Oblivion does sadly just boil down to go-there-kill-stuff-talk-meaningful-sometimes-maybe.

Sorry if this sounded like a rant against Oblivion. It really isn't, but this game is just such a good example when it comes to "what is RPG" question I thought I should include it in discussion. But you know, IMHO and all that.

edit: maybe I wasn't really clear with what I meant right at the beginning of the post. I think other game mechanics should be at least as fluid as the "RP potential" mechanics of said game. If that makes any more sense.

[Jelle]

[sarcasm]RPG need to have levels, monsters that give experience points and loot. Lots and lots of random shiny loot.[/sarcasm]

Yeah it saddens me how the term is sometimes used.
In my opinion I guess in essense an RPG is a game that puts heavy emphasis on experiencing the story through a character you may or may not customize to your choosing. They'll usually have some degree of free will to make choices regarding how the story goes. The game mechanics serve as the tool to tell the story first and foremost, while say in an action game the story comes second to the gameplay. That isn't to say an rpg needs to have subpar gameplay.

[martinuzz]

Strictly to the name, a role playing game is any playful activity (paid jobs, like theater actor, do not fall into this category) where you assume a role, that is not yourself, but rather, a character, or even a group of characters in the play.
So technically, not only dungeons and dragons-like adventuring games, but also, first/third person shooters, god-games, and sadomasochistic leather costume sex, could be considered RPG.

[GlyphGryph]

I would say any real RPG lets you define your character.

I think this is important, but I want to specify that I don't think it's important that this definition be mechnical. It just needs to be there.

Look at one of the simplest roleplaying games, not a video game but a verbal one - The Balcony. The game is simple - you are given a character, a name, a setting, a beginning, AND an ending. None of these things can be changed. All you can do is change the things you say, your character says - you fill the role, but you make it your own. You don't decide where you end up - but you decide who you are when you get there.

Most traditional RPGs are the same way - the beginning is set. Often times your character is set, in JRPGs especially, but sometimes it's simply your role and goal that is set. The ending is also, usually, set in stone - you have a lot of leeway on how to get there, but ultimately you end up in the same place.

What matter is the choices you make along the way, the way you decide to react tot he world, the individual decisions you've made about who your character is, how they develop.

Personally, I'd consider games like The Walking Dead an RPG, in the truest meaning of the word. Your role is fixed - the beginning, the end, all fixed. What you do, the way you play the game, is interpret that role - choose who your character is, what sort of person he's like.

Games like Final Fantasy are the same - the ending is always set in stone. All the major events are. The game is in your individual choices defining your character - what equipment they use, what they focus on, what they learn.

This is something that a shooter like Halo, for example, doesn't happen - there's no history, no progression. You, the player, don't make choices about how your character develops... and when you DO, like those shooters where you can choose to upgrade equipment and stuff, these are often considered to be "shooters with rpg elements".

[Arx]

I've always felt that the only RPG's where you really get to play your role are tabletop games, but I think GlyphGryph is right about computer RPGs.

As for making one in 12 hours, sure, if you have it plotted out (or have a decent plot idea and extrapolate fast), use a game library that lays a lot of ground work, and work solid for those 12 hours. You could make quite a decent game!

[Max White]

I will point out that character, not just a collection of numbers, but actual character and story are not separate entities. Your character is part of the story, so if you get to define your character, you get to define a part of the story, and a good story should react to that in some way, even if the end is the same... Then again "what is an RPG" and "what is a good RPG" are not the same question. We could talk all day about what is and is not an RPG without ever touching on what makes one good.

[tompliss]

Personally, I'd consider games like The Walking Dead an RPG, in the truest meaning of the word. Your role is fixed - the beginning, the end, all fixed. What you do, the way you play the game, is interpret that role - choose who your character is, what sort of person he's like.
[...]
This is something that a shooter like Halo, for example, doesn't happen - there's no history, no progression. You, the player, don't make choices about how your character develops... and when you DO, like those shooters where you can choose to upgrade equipment and stuff, these are often considered to be "shooters with rpg elements".

you gave "Spec Ops: The Line" a try ?
It's pretty much a FPS and a RPG, if I follow how you define those, as you get the most choices in it, even if your global role already is defined.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

In my mind a Role playing game is where you actually play your character as you think the character would act based in the world. Which basically comes down to making choices. (And incidentally means I wouldn't classify D&D as a RPG under some GMs. A technicality that I am fine with.)

So yeah. If you are making a RPG in my mind choices are what defines it. (Maybe not the most important part. That might be mechanics. But without choices it would be a tactical turn based strategy. Or Platformed or whatever I guess. RPGS don't need to be TBS...)

+1

I'd add: meaningful choices. If you can go down Hallway A or Hallway B but they both go to the same place, that's not very meaningful. If you can choose whether to spend time in side quests to retrieve a key to an easy shortcut, or blaze through the hardmode path instead, that's more meaningful. Add an option to refuse entirely and another to find some other way in (secret passage, climbing route, difficult swimming challenge, sneaking into the palace to get in through the prison), and you're better off than most "RPGs" out there.

I came across a term "Story Completion Games" for games that look like RPGs but are very linear. Final Fantasy is a traditional SCG, but a lot of RPGs do the same thing. Fallout 2 for example has a variety of ways to complete each challenge and you can finish the game while skipping or doing things "wrong".  The ending cinematic is altered depending on your choices. It's pretty decent.

Consider a game where there's a prison atop a mountain, run by religious zealots. You can try to sweet talk your way in, or disguise yourself as a zealot, or sneak in through the haunted caves, or just plain attack the place - which is very difficult. But that's a strategy choice. Why are you even going in there? Oh, right, you need to rescue Jimbob who knows where the Heart of the Mountain is hidden. A good RPG would include other ways to get that information, so you can decide that rescuing Jimbob is just not what you want to do.

Secondly, what you do is only part of you playing a role. How you communicate with other people is important too. Do you rest and recuperate in town, or are you a loner mountain-man? When you come upon some pilgrims traveling to a shrine do you treat them with respect, avoid them, antagonize them?

Thirdly, your choices and how to make those choices should be reflected in how the world behaves. If you attack travelers you should become known as a bandit. Guards will treat you with hostility, travelers with fear, other bandits as an ally or competitor. If you cut down all the trees, the game should understand that you want there to be fewer trees.