What really is a Role-Playing Game (RPG)? What are the necessary components of a RPG? According to this editorial the following are three necessities: 1. A statistical setup for player characters which describes skills and other aspects. 2. A method of increasing those statistics usually via an experience/level system. 3. A menu-driven combat system which utilizes character skills/aspects. In addition those, I'd add: 0a. A storyline which complements the player and non-player characters, character skills and aspects. 0b. A cast of story-supporting non-player characters.

I would like to address point 3 here. While it is the general perception that a system described there is true for all RPGs, I would like to give the example of Revenant ,Gothic, or Morrowind where the combat is handled exclusively by the player. Sure, a better sword/skill helps, but there's nothing really menu driven here. There's only the player (as in human, not character) skill. You couldn't put these games into the action genre, no matter what that editorial says. The combat is irrelevant to the genre, as long as the game IS ABOUT PLAYING A ROLE and FOCUSES on that . And that's what makes it a role-playing game.

You could try playing any of the above games quake style, only shooting and killing around, fighting, etc, but I doubt that will turn them into an unreal with stats :)

Actually looking at the original article it seems to show an extreme bias towards console style rpgs anyway, in fact it pretty much out and out says no PC rpg actually counts as an rpg, mostly because of the strategy type interface (baldurs gate or even fallout fall under this) and the real time right click to attack which counts as action?!? which a lot of conventionally recognised PC rpgs use for basic attacks.

actually id pretty much say that whole 3rd definition should be thrown out, especially in the way he uses it

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus What really is a Role-Playing Game (RPG)? What are the necessary components of a RPG?

Aaargh! Flamebait!!!

Actually, this crops up quite often. I don't think it's ever possible to pin down any specific requirements. Instead, you look at general features and think, "the more of these features it has, the more RPG-like it is".

Here are some of the ones that come to mind:

- Character skill emphasised over player skill
- Involved storyline
- Party of player characters working together
- Combat resolution similar to or based upon pen and paper roleplaying games
- Progressive improvement of player ability through game mechanics
- Epic sense of direction, often with many optional tasks
- Detailed non-violent interaction with NPCs

Here are some of my opinions and some of you may disagree but don't get too upset, please ;)

Quote:

Original post by Wildwind Actually looking at the original article it seems to show an extreme bias towards console style rpgs anyway, in fact it pretty much out and out says no PC rpg actually counts as an rpg, mostly because of the strategy type interface (baldurs gate or even fallout fall under this) [...] actually id pretty much say that whole 3rd definition should be thrown out, especially in the way he uses it

I'm probably one of those people who think that most console-style rpgs aren't "real" rpgs anyway.. The one's that I've played were more like simple adventure/puzzle games with upgradable items. IMHO the best examples of (computer) roleplaying games are Baldur's Gate series and especially Fallout 1/2 and Arcanum.

Some features a good roleplaying game (imho):
* you create your own character and can customize it in a lot of different ways
* you can play the game in many different ways: as a sneaky thief, a warrior or an intelligent mage/scientist.. the list goes on
* "dynamic world" - your actions affect the world
* can solve quests in a number of different ways, depends on what kind of character you're playing
* not-very-linear game play

Good roleplaying games have a high replayablity value. For example, I've completed the Fallouts 3-5 times and I think a friend of mine has completed them probably 10 times. Thanks to non-linearity and character customizability..

Quote:

Original post by: Vaipa- The combat is irrelevant to the genre, as long as the game IS ABOUT PLAYING A ROLE and FOCUSES on that . And that's what makes it a role-playing game.

Yes, the combat interface is irrelevant and the combat should be based on the game character's abilities and not how fast the player can click around with his mouse :)

I personnally believe the following are necessary to a roleplaying game:

- Possibility to choose the name/gender/race/age/stats/abilities of your character (should not be mandatory).
- Your character's mental stats (wisdom, intelligence, charisma, perception, science and the like) actually affect more than your spellcasting power.
- The behavior of your character (alignment, previous actions, theft, inactivity, lack of results on a quest) affects NPC reactions.
- Possibility to initiate an attack against anyone or anything.
- Answer choices during most conversations, with the different courses having different outcomes.
- Actually decide what my character or pary does (I don't WANT to escort the princess to Lindblum, OK?)

My best moment in any computer roleplaying game was Fallout2, in the Gecko power plant, when I contacted the Enclave soldier from the control room.

I merely glimpsed at the article, but it seemed to just try to give a definition to the term role playing game by enforcing certain game mechanics. Ugh. I'd say this is a better definition:

Quote:

Original post by Vaipa- the game IS ABOUT PLAYING A ROLE and FOCUSES on that

Unfortunately, this is the very problem. What does "playing a role" mean? As I have suggested before in this forum, you can find basically two orthogonal interpretations for the concept of role-playing:

1. Playing the role as in like an actor in a play — listening to a story, in a sense. In this case you would have a (mostly) pre-written story according to which you must act to some degree or another. The major interest of the player here is to live the story. It is one thing to read a story or watch it on tv, but actually being the one (or rather controlling the one) that actually does the things is more immersive.

2. Playing the role as in making choices according to a mentality of a (given) character — telling a story, in a sense. The story is defined by the actions you make. The game doesn't even have to emphasize that there is a story (with cinematic sequences and all that stuff); after all, the characters of the story don't (usually) know that they are just characters of a story. The story is something that happens in the players brain. The major interest of the player is to explore the world, evolve, and have meaningful interactions with the world.

Having stats, skills, character classes, whatever is irrelevant. The main point is that the game provides you with either an immersive story (as in the former interpretation) or an immersive environment in which you can create your own story (as in the former interpretation). Stats, skills, and what have you can add to the system, but I wouldn't list them as critical components. They're just game mechanics. Role playing is not about focusing on game mechanics, that'd be optimatization. Role playing is more like a state of mind. A good role playing game is one that allows you to break free from conventional thinking and allows you to live (virtually, of course) in an alternate world and to exercise your imagination. It is a modern way to tell stories (and the different interpretations just change who is the storyteller).

Also, I consider the separation of the player from the character important. I'm not saying this separation must be of the extreme kind, because then you'll just end up with Progress Quest, where everything is based on character skill, but I am saying this separation should exist to some degree. While it is not strictly required for storytelling, character skills should be preferred to player skills as rpg is about storytelling, not about testing your relfexes, motoric skills etc.

Some people like playing games that represent the former interpretation. While I do like the game mechanics of many such games, such as Neverwinter Nights, I dislike the fact that it is too strictly tied with the pre-written story. I'm tired of saving worlds, curing plagues, finding out who I am after that mysterious amnesia etc. It's all too epic for me. People do like it though, so why take it away from them? I like the second interpretation myself, as it allows you much more freedom in using your imagination. Not everything has to happen on-screen, if you want to have conversations with npcs and the game mechanics don't allow it, just use your imagination. A pre-written story can be nice, but it's not your story.

Of course you can have components of both the interpretations in your game as much as you want. They are not mutually exclusive. You can have a main story in the game and then some more or less random side quests. Or you can have pre-written longish quests in the game but not connect them together by some major plan behind it all.

Personally, I like polyhedral dice.

If you can't include those, then I'd probably have to go with Grim's #2 (paraphrased) : An RPG is about making meaningful choices according to the mentality of your character.

Game mechanics are only required when you want to enforce fairness - it is entirely possible to play without specific, well defined rules. Having rules helps keep things consistent, and they help resolve situations more efficiently, but they aren't a requirement of the genre.

I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned, though I did see references to spellcasting:

#1. An RPG MUST have a swords and sorcery (preferably medieval) setting!!!!

(Or is this so obvious that it needn't be stated?)

[grin]

Actually (to be more helpful here), I like Warren Spector's idea that all RPGs include some form of shopping.

Extrarius, Grim: The problem with defining "RPG" simplistically is that most games would accordingly become Role-Playing Games. Using such a definition eliminates more than 80% of the genre names unless, of course, "Role-Playing Game" was used as a parent category which encompasses Action Role-Playing, Adventure Role-Playing, Strategic Role-Playing, etc. Common usage demonstrates that is not the case.

Games are classified by their innards. There's no getting around that.

Now, the questions were and remain, "What really is a Role-Playing Game (RPG)? What are the necessary components of a RPG?" What makes a RPG good is irrelevant. What are the necessary components of a game required to classify a game as a Role-Playing Game? Merely roleplay doesn't cut it.

By the way, Extrarius, a game without rules is neither a game nor a reality.