Print

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

[Sowelu]

Yanlin:  When someone says "This is a first-person shooter, with RPG elements", what do they mean?

I'm pretty sure they mean "stats and inventory", ten times out of ten.

[Rhodan]

Definition

A role-playing game is a computer or video game where the player controls one or several characters, and achieves victory by completing a series of quests. A key feature of the genre is that characters grow in power and abilities, and characters are typically designed by the player. Players explore a game world, while solving puzzles and engaging in tactical combat. RPGs rarely challenge a player's physical coordination, with the exception of action role-playing games.[1]

[edit] Relationship to other genres

Unlike action games, RPGs seldom test a player's physical skill. Combat is typically a tactical challenge rather than a physical one, and games involve other non-action gameplay such as choosing dialog options, inventory management, or buying and selling items.[1]

Although RPGs share some combat rules with wargames, RPGs are about a small group of individual characters. Wargames tend to have large groups of identical units, as well as non-humanoid units such as tanks and airplanes. Role-playing games don't normally allow the player to produce more units. However, the Heroes of Might and Magic series crosses these genres by combining individual heros with large amounts of troops in large battles.[1]

RPGs rival adventure games in terms of their rich storylines, in contrast to genres that do not rely upon storytelling such as sports games or puzzle games.[1] Both genres also feature highly detailed characters, and a great deal of exploration. However, adventure games usually have a well-defined character, whereas RPGs allow the player to design their characters. Adventure games usually focus on one character, whereas RPGs often feature an entire party. RPGs also feature a combat system, which adventure games usually lack. Whereas adventure games may focus on the personal or psychological growth of characters, RPGs emphasize a complex eternal economy where characters are defined by increasing numerical attributes. Arguably, role-playing games such as the Final Fantasy series could be considered a hybrid of RPG and adventure game, because of their vivid stories and highly personal characters.[1]

Gameplay elements strongly associated with this genre, such as statistical character development, have been widely adapted to other video game genres. For example, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, an action game, uses resource statistics (abbreviated as "stats") to define a wide range of attributes including stamina, weapon proficiency, driving, lung capacity, and muscle tone, and uses numerous cutscenes and quests to advance the story. Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, a real-time strategy game, features heroes that can complete quests, obtain new equipment, and "learn" new abilities as they advance in level.[citation needed]

This is from the Wikipedia article on RPGs as defined in video gaming.  Most of this information seems to be from a book called "Fundamentals of Game Design.", I'm pretty sure it accurately conveys widely accepted views on RPGs by both the industry and most knowledgeable RPG gamers.  I also underlined some stuff.

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters.[1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization,[1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.[2]

Most role-playing games are conducted like radio drama: only the spoken component is acted. In most games, one specially designated player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which each player plays the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2] There is a variety of role-playing game in which players do perform their characters' physical actions, known as live action role-playing games (LARP).[3]

A genre of video game is also referred to as role-playing games. Although these games do not involve the playing of roles,[1] they take their name from the settings and game mechanics which they inherit from early role-playing games.[4] Due to the popularity of video games, the terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" have both to some degree been co-opted by the video gaming industry; as a result, games in which players play the roles of characters are sometimes referred to as "pen and paper" or "tabletop" role-playing games,[2] though neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary.[2]

You've probably seen this quote before.  If you follow the link it gives for characterization, it details about character depth from a narrative point of view, then links you through to a page about "Character Creation" which is about characterization in RPGs, using stats and numbers.

All I can conclude from the discussion is that you're unwilling to accept the definition of RPGs as it has been ever since RPGs have been around, and are determined to define it as a "Game in which you roleplay" despite all evidence on the contrary.
There's no point in arguing any further over this I suppose.  Despite Wikipedia's editability I doubt it would actually reflect wrong information about this subject, there are far too many roleplay enthusiasts that would immediately correct any mistake.

So unless you can give the name of an RPG that's an actual RPG that supports your claims of not having prevalent stats, or can show me a system that can decide your chance of success while not using a measure of your character's abilities to compare against certain rules, any further arguments probably won't help at all.

[Yanlin]

Didn't I already provide an RPG to support my claims? Rise of the Argonauts. No such stats or character development. You just buy powers. But strip away the power buying mechanic and it's still an RPG. Hell even if you just gained them over time as you complete the story instead of having you decide what to buy and when. Point being, no such stats. If there was anything resembling the stats you said, it's the amount of favor you had with each of the 4 main gods. But again, it did not decide success chances for everything. The powers were purely for the combat. The combat was button masher with combos. The powers were an extra layer. Increase attack strength... Heal allies... Stuff like that.

You just called in an adventure game.

I looked it up on wikipedia and it apparently labels it as "Action adventure". Funny how that works. But we all know you can't trust Wikipedia on everything.

http://pc.ign.com/objects/901/901022.html Action RPG.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/riseoftheargonauts/index.html Action RPG.

Best of all, official website: http://www.rise-of-the-argonauts.com

Guess what it says.

So there you have it.

Now what do you call SS13? It's also an RPG without such stats. Bonus points? It has no such powers either. It's pure player skill and roleplay.

[Sowelu]

Rise of the Argonauts sounds more like a dating sim to me.

>_>

Soul Calibur 3 had a couple play modes that verged on RPG-esque, one by your definition and one by mine.

The first one is Tales of Souls--single player, you pick your fighter, and then after each round you get to pick one of two possible paths, which determine which way the story goes.  "Do I search for more information about the sword, or about the man who wielded it?  Do I go east or west?  Travel by boat or by land?" etc.  Story changes, you fight a different opponent, get different bonus stages.  No stats.

Yes, you can get really into your character's head and have fun with the story.  You're really deciding the path it takes, figuring "What would Kilik do?", even though you know that in eight battles you're going to be at the same cathedral at the end and fighting your destined opponent, then Siegfried or Nightmare, then the big bad.  (And if you're lucky, you won't run into Setsuka on the way).  I can enjoy MORE "What would my character do?" in this, than I can in Final Fantasy games...because it's trivial, really, I know I can't hurt myself with a bad decision, it's all just for kicks.  But I REALLY don't consider it an RPG, even if there are minor roleplaying/story elements.  It's not a Fighting Game/RPG.  It's just a Fighting Game.

The other one is Chronicles of the Sword.  It's this weird Ogre Battle-like strategic thing, where you send out units along paths on this strategic map, and try to take castles etc.  When your units meet the enemy, you can let them auto-fight, or you can step in and fight it out in a standard fighting game thing.  The game has a story, but you have NO decision-making power and the story has no real connection to you (there's a couple times where you can save some guys from the enemy, but it doesn't change the plot meaningfully).  The RPG-ish elements come in where your units gain levels by fighting battles, and have stats that are different based on their "class" (even if they are transparent to the user, really--just that higher levels are better in a fight).  Your units persist through different maps, and you can even grind for exp by losing a battle over and over.  This is KIND of a Strategy/Fighting/RPG (what a weird damn combination), right on the verge between that and Strategy/Fighting.

You'll notice that these game modes are generally billed in the same way I describe them--ToS is never called an RPG, but CotS often is.  Kind of funny how ToS has better story and actually allows decision making and getting into your character's head, but CotS totally doesn't.  Yes, usually RPGs are more about making strategic decisions and building characters over time.

Diablo is an RPG.  The only time I ever found myself thinking as my CHARACTER, instead of as a PLAYER, is when I did weird challenge runs (like some lycanthropy-based thing in Diablo 1 where you have all these play restrictions and player-instituted quests, like having to fight bare-handed and weaponless until you die at which point you can go start learning magic as a way to 'cure' yourself, but you can still only use very specific gear)...  In that case, I was definitely playing in a pre-defined role, not one I created myself, not even with my own rules (I used ones I found online), but it still felt like actual roleplaying, especially when you interacted with other players online.  Note, again, the big difference between roleplaying and RPG.  Only rarely do people actually roleplay in what is commonly described as an RPG.  Hell, look at half the online RPGs out there, people don't roleplay on those, they just grind their characters--you have to look for specific roleplaying servers.  If "MMORPG" implied roleplaying, for example, why are only some of the servers "roleplay" servers?

[Yanlin]

Rise of the Argonauts sounds more like a dating sim to me.

So did you dismiss my whole argument because you falsely think it's a dating sim?

Well I played it. I can honestly say it's NOT a dating sim. Mostly because there is no romantic tension throughout the whole game.

Spoiler: The only romance in the game (click to show/hide)

You start at your wedding. An asssassin kills your wife. You spend the rest of the game on a massive quest to kill the assassin and all of his other assassin friends and reviving your wife. That's it.

As for the rest of your post, you must remember not everyone RPGs the same. Generally, in first person games, RPG is a little easier. Think Half Life 2. Many people claimed how awesome it was to "talk" instead of Gordon Freeman. In fact, there's a little machinema about it.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=49C3B7EDD1624C55&search_query=Series+freeman%27s+mind

But it's not an RPG.



But, while playing Rise of the Argonauts, I noticed something. The dialog choices may be a tad restrictive, but I was able to apply my own reasoning on it and use it. I was roleplaying my own opinions. You have no idea how immersive that is. To pick the option which you think is best and have the character you're roleplaying seamlessly say it and act appropriately.

Over all, it's a great RPG.

[Rhodan]

You do realize the only reason Rise of the Argonauts classifies as an Action-RPG is because of the power and ability buying mechanic, right?  It's because of the power and ability buying mechanic that the creators and some gaming websites say it's an RPG.

But, while playing Rise of the Argonauts, I noticed something. The dialog choices may be a tad restrictive, but I was able to apply my own reasoning on it and use it. I was roleplaying my own opinions. You have no idea how immersive that is. To pick the option which you think is best and have the character you're roleplaying seamlessly say it and act appropriately.
Over all, it's a great RPG.

Nope, it's not.  Not even close going by this quote.  You're adding the RP part yourself, that's like buying some bread, adding your own cheese and saying you bought a cheese sandwich.  You're also singling out a very small part of the game mechanics. (big part of the story though)  The main meat of the game is still mashing buttons, which is player skill replacing the character's skill.

As for the rest of your post, you must remember not everyone RPGs the same.

"Not everyone RPGs the same."?  "RPG" is a genre of games, not a verb.  You probably mean RP, which is the very thing you continue to be confused about.  RP != RPG

It's pure player skill and roleplay.

  That's exactly why Space Station 13 shouldn't be in the RPG department.  If your skill at engineering determines the character's success at engineering, it's not an RPG.  Where's the character depth if all characters are the same except for their player? "Oh, but we RP that."  Great!  But then you don't have an RPG, just an RP.

In an RPG, character depth and development is provided by the game in the form of stats, abilities and powers, and you, the player, can mask these with RP.  If the player has to provide character depth, by for example doing the button mashing, RP'ing the character's strength without having it defined in the game and so on, it's not an RPG.  It's just another game with RP.

Rise of the Argonaut is not a pure RPG because the main character is only as good at fighting as the player is at mashing buttons.  The powerups are an element borrowed from the RPG genre, making this game an action game with RPG elements, which for publishers is enough reason to claim it to be an action-RPG.
Space Station 13 is not a pure RPG because the characters are all the same, while the players have to create the depth using RP, and have to use their own skill at the interfaces of the station to do stuff.  SS13 even has lots of RP, but this does not make it an RPG.  RP != RPG SS13 might be an RPG if you account for the various body slots, DNA stuff, damage types, health, monkeys with different abilities from humans and all that jazz that is controlled by the game and not RP or player skills.  The player skill element stil breaks this, though.

The above games all have RPG elements, but are not RPGs.  Button mashing makes it no longer an RPG, not having character abilities defined by the game makes it no longer an RPG.

So both these games fail to be actual RPGs, or are so borderline they aren't very good arguments.
And I'm still waiting for a system that can decide your chance of success while not using a measure of your character's abilities to compare against certain rules.

[Yanlin]

Rhodan: "Roleplay is not what makes an RPG. It's stats."

[Rhodan]

Yup, very true.  Stats, stats, stats.  Your character has to be defined by a set of statistics and abilities in order to interact with the world and other characters in a way that is based on the skill of the character and not the skill of the player.  If the player's skill is involved, it's not an RPG, an action RPG at most.
If the character cannot be customized, or results of actions are determined purely by storyline progression, it's not an RPG, it's an adventure game.

Roleplay is when you play a character's role.  You can act like the character, you can have the character make decisions based on what that character would do, and so on.  RPG games often allow this to a great extent, many other games allow this as well.
Roleplay just can make an RPG more fun.

If a game requires players to roleplay, it's an RP-enforced game.  This does not necessarily make it an RPG.  (though it most often is)  Imagine a Counterstrike server where you have to talk like actual soldiers or terrorists if you don't want to get banned.

Any other stuff I said you'd like to quote?  I learned a lot about what makes an RPG during this discussion, by talking to people and reading around on various forums and articles, so parts of my previous arguments might have changed.
The bottom line remains though.  A sandbox where everyone has equal powers and roleplays is not an MMORPG, it's an MMORP.

[Yanlin]

So you're saying that a game where you roleplay with no stats is just a roleplaying... Nothing?

[Rhodan]

Well, it has to be something.  It can be another kind of game in which you are roleplaying, or it can be a roleplay environment like a chatbox, an organized event, a virtual world (Like Second Life), a sandbox and more.  Imagine people RP'ing in Minecraft.  Perfectly possible, loads of fun, but Minecraft is still a sandbox. (until survival mode arrives)  Or the people roleplaying in Half-Life, it's still an FPS but they're indeed roleplaying, but not playing a roleplaying game.
Roleplaying in a game just doesn't make that game itself a "roleplaying game", as a roleplaying game is a known genre of games that has more than just roleplay, sometimes even little or no roleplay.

[Yanlin]

But you're saying that stats make it an RPG. That is false. Stats are a tool. A method. Characterizing facts don't have to come from stats. You don't have to develop the character. It can still be an RPG. The word has been defamed pretty horribly.

[Rhodan]

Then where else do characterizing facts come from?  How do you define a character without attaching certain values to certain attributes?  Example please.
Stats in the numerical sense are indeed a tool, and they're the only tool a ruleset (be it a computer code or a D&D rulebook or whatever) can possibly use to apply their rules to characters to resolve combat, skillchecks and similar.  If player's work these out amongst themselves without a ruleset, it's just plain freeform RP and not an RPG.  The game itself has to be part of the roleplay, not by just providing the world, but also by providing character interaction with the world and each other.

How can the word RPG be defamed if the first occurrence of the term "RPG" applied to Pen & Paper RPGs, which were quite heavy on the stats?  There were probably less stats back then, but they were still the core of the game.  Just check out the time-line of roleplaying games on Wikipedia, do a few Google search on "RPG without stats" or "RPG without numbers".  You get even less results when you search "RPG with stats" because, well, RPG implies stats for just about everyone.

[Yanlin]

Here's how. The player is the character. The player's stats are the character's stats. Does this make sense to you?

[Rhodan]

The player's stats are the character's stats.

So then you'd still have stats?  If you were to write down all your skills and traits, wouldn't you write "good at riding bikes, excellent at climbing trees, very intelligent, moderately strong,..."? (not to be taken personally, of course) How else can you define a character, even if it is yourself?

In order to roleplay like this in an RPG, you'd still have to define your character to be understood by the ruleset.  The game has to know how strong you are, how good you are at certain things and more.  If this is decided by player skill at pressing buttons quickly, it's not an RPG, it's an action game in which you roleplay.  Your character wouldn't be "in" the game, it'd be outside the game, as the player.

[Vahan]

So then you'd still have stats?  If you were to write down all your skills and traits, wouldn't you write "good at riding bikes, excellent at climbing trees, very intelligent, moderately strong,..."? (not to be taken personally, of course) How else can you define a character, even if it is yourself?

In order to roleplay like this in an RPG, you'd still have to define your character to be understood by the ruleset.  The game has to know how strong you are, how good you are at certain things and more.  If this is decided by player skill at pressing buttons quickly, it's not an RPG, it's an action game in which you roleplay.  Your character wouldn't be "in" the game, it'd be outside the game, as the player.

Your Pedanticism skill must be at 100%.

Really, just give up, already. Your whole argument is stats = RPG, but that's been refuted repeatedly, as ANY game has to have stats of some sort, but it's the roleplaying aspect of roleplaying games that defines them.