Thursday, December 14, 2006
But is it an RPG?
I've decided to revise my musings about the nature of RPGs a little bit from my last stab at it. Coming of with taxonomic criteria is a tricky thing, as it often happens in reverse - you deliberately design them to exclude the games you don't want in a category, and to include the ones you do. And I'm going to admit that there's a little bit of subjectiveness in each of the criteria, and a lot in the new, fourth one.
Some of this was spurred on by some discussion going on concerning the 2006 Indie RPG awards. There are some folks (specifically the "controversial" but ever-so-fun-to-read Scorpia) who maintain that "hack-and-slash" style games no longer qualify as RPGs, especially if they are heavy on the action. Or at least they belong in their own category. And there are some who maintain that Diablo wasn't a "true" RPG, too.
Now, I'm not going to argue against RPGs being a broad enough category that it couldn't use some additional subdivision. If there were more indie RPGs coming out each year, I'm sure GameTunnel would be happy to break the category up a little more. After all, they had an entire category devoted to "Aquanoid Clones" a while back, because there were just so many of them. But I'm going to go for a more general, inclusive classification here. Here's my criteria for determining whether or not a game is worthy of the "RPG" label (even as a hybrid... a "slash-rpg?")
Note that when I say "Avatar" in the context of this discussion, this can actually mean a set of characters that fall under the player's control. So the Avatar may switch in mid-game (as in the Final Fantasy games), or it may be an entire party of characters (I'm thinking classic Eye of the Beholder / Wizardry / Bard's Tale stuff here, including the newer indie game Minions of Mirth).
Is This Game An RPG?
#1 - The success or failure of the player's actions are significantly influenced by (or modified by) the attributes of the player's avatar.
For example, even if the game makes you aim your bow manually (as in an action / RPG), whether or not you hit and / or the damage you do is based upon the avatar's attributes (a combination of inherent ability and the attributes of any active equipment or effects in use by the avatar).
Many games might pass this test, for very small values of the word "significantly." FPS games, for example, have attributes of your avatar - principally determined by power-ups and current health status. However, with such a small variety of changes to the attributes, and the fact that rocket launcher doesn't really vary from player to player (unless they have quad damage, but that's a small variant), I'd argue that it fails this rule.
#2 - Some non-determinism should influence the outcome of critical player actions.
This is something of an artifact of criterion #1. I have a tough time accepting a game as an RPG if attacking monster A with weapon B with a character with stats set C will ALWAYS hit for X points of damage. I'd start looking for Adventure or Strategy labels for the game.
I BELIEVE that the range of damage done by an attack in Oblivion was determined randomly (at least I couldn't perceive a deterministic pattern). There seemed to be some randomness in creatures detecting you when you were hidden too, but that might not be the case. And if you chose to let the game automatically handle lockpicking for you, it seemed to be a random determination of success or failure as well (depending upon your character's skill level). So Oblivion counts. Though it really walks near the edge between FPS and RPG.
This is one rule I could give some leeway on, as there are non-computer examples of RPGs with little randomness. The Amber "diceless" RPG comes to mind, as well as some Live Action Role Playing (LARP) games. But I'd be really, really suspicious in a computer / console game.
#3 - There is a strong correlation between the player's progress in the game, and the level of the player-avatar's attributes.
In other words, the longer you play, the better your avatar becomes. Generally. There can be exceptions here and there. For example, I can envision a Call of Cthulhu computer RPG where your character's sanity might drop during the course of the game, even though his other attributes improve.
If a game gives you a "level" that governs your in-game capabilities as a reward as you make progress, it easily qualifies under this rule.
And now here's the new one:
#4 - The Game Encourages the Player to Identify With the Avatar
This one is very subjective. But it helps rule out certain games that would apply under the previous criteria. For example, X-Com is a game which would fit under the other criteria. While most people would say it has RPG elements, it's really not an RPG. The game encourages you to take an omniscient role as a commander over your squaddies. Likewise, while Falcon 3.0 had a squadron of pilots with different abilities that you could control (and their ability to hit their target certainly FELT random), when you jumped into the cockpit you 'took over' as the pilot. Ditto for wargames.
Some legitimate RPGs are weak in this area, particularly early ones. They made no attempt to integrate your character (or your party) into the fiction of the game. But they still took on the conceit that the character (or party) were "you" in the game. If the last party member died, the game was over. You saw the game from their perspective. You "play" those characters, rather than just playing the game.
Some False Criteria
So if all these tests come up positive, I'd be hard-pressed NOT to call the game an RPG. If you have an example of a false positive or false negative, I'd like to hear it. We can create a new rules or modify the old ones. In fact, I'd love to hear some arguments.
Okay, now here are some false criteria that I often see applied, and why I think they are false:
Roleplaying Games Are Fantasy Games
Nope, nope, nope. Twilight: 2000 is an old RPG that took on a gritty 'realistic' view of a post-apocalyptic speculative fiction. In fact, there wasn't anything really "sci-fi" about it. It was a fun dice-and-paper RPG, too. Fallout has some really fantastic elements, but it's not what most people think of when they think "fantasy." And it's considered by many to be the best computer RPG of all time.
Literary genre has nothing to do with it. Fantasy RPGs are certainly among the best-selling computer and console RPGs, but in the tabletop realm there is a plethora of different genres. Pulp detective / adventure fiction, westerns, science fiction, martial arts, cyberpunk (also science fiction), even classic Saturday-morning cartoons... these have all been fodder for pen-and-paper.
An RPG Must Have a Story
Yes, RPGs are a form of cooperative storytelling. I think this is a false requirement because a story can be a simple one-sentence premise next to the controls of an arcade machine. It can even be implied. "These heroes are seeking fame and fortune by exploring a dangerous dungeon" is a story. Not a very compelling one, no, but then we're getting into qualitative measures.
This doesn't mean an RPG can't be judged by the quality of its story (or by its ability to let the player create his own story). I just don't think there is a binary answer to the question of whether or not a game has a story. Only the most abstract of games have no story whatsoever that the player can't infer from the action.
An RPG is Combat-Oriented
Oooh, oooh! I've got this one! My answer is "no, not necessarily" only because it shouldn't have to be. But I don't think anybody has taken on the challenge of making a non-combat RPG. I have fuzzy little desired to take on the challenge someday.
An RPG Must Have A Conversation / Equipment / Quest System
Nope! Like combat systems, these are common but not defining or necessary features of an RPG. I can imagine an RPG without them. I have a very tough time imagining a GOOD modern RPG without any of these systems, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe you play a some mute kung-fu master who wanders from town to town without possessions, trying to avenge your master's death or something.
So.... there's my latest attempt at defining the genre. Please feel free to challenge this... I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out. Let me hear your own ideas! Especially if you have counter-examples.
(Vaguely) Related Cranial Seepage:
* The Rules of Roleplaying Games
* Are Hybrid RPGs Just The Poor Man's RPG?
* Non-Combat RPG: A Fool's Errand?
* RPG Design Seed Challenge
Labels: Game Design, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:50 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
But I don't think anybody has taken on the challenge of making a non-combat RPG.
Cute Knight seems to meet all the criteria...
Cute Knight seems to meet all the criteria...
True. I wasn't thinking about Cute Knight because it does have a significant combat element in the hack-and-slash dungeon exploration. But it's certainly possible (I've done it!) to play through the entire game without setting foot in the dungeon or fighting anyone - you are correct!
Sam and Cute Knight FTW!
Sam and Cute Knight FTW!
I always seem to come back to this game, but what about Deus Ex? It's a game I think most people would identify as an FPS/shooter game, but it has lots of elements of RPG as well. But it certainly seems to meet your four criteria.
By the way, if you're looking for a good word instead of "non-determinism", you could try "stochasticism"...
By the way, if you're looking for a good word instead of "non-determinism", you could try "stochasticism"...
Now there's a word I haven't used since college!
I think Eidos (& Ion Storm / Warren Spector) actually called Deus Ex an RPG (or used the buzzword "RPG elements") when they released the original game. So yeah, I think it probably counts.
Gamespot lists it as a "sci-fi adventure," which is pretty meaningless.
I think Eidos (& Ion Storm / Warren Spector) actually called Deus Ex an RPG (or used the buzzword "RPG elements") when they released the original game. So yeah, I think it probably counts.
Gamespot lists it as a "sci-fi adventure," which is pretty meaningless.
Not necessarily counter-examples, just grey areas/comments.
City of Heroes powers do the same amount of damage with each attack, and hit with an established frequency (the formulas are readily available, and in certain circumstances, there is a detectable pattern). However, the system "feels" random, so I don't see it as a counter-example per se.
Let me just mention A Tale in the Desert, the everpresent "exception to the rule" in terms of combat...
I personally think the story criteria would be better as one of the "sub-category" criteria: the "focus" as it were: action RPG, storyteller RPG, "builder" RPG you get the idea.
However, the previous comment notwithstanding, you could maybe play with (or shoot down) the alternative wording of "An RPG must encourage the player to build/tell a story." It's really no more subjective than the avatar identification rule...
Does anyone else think that Myst and it's sequels fail the "advancement" criteria? Is that problematic? What category do they fall in: FPS, as odd as that may seem?
Random musings...
City of Heroes powers do the same amount of damage with each attack, and hit with an established frequency (the formulas are readily available, and in certain circumstances, there is a detectable pattern). However, the system "feels" random, so I don't see it as a counter-example per se.
Let me just mention A Tale in the Desert, the everpresent "exception to the rule" in terms of combat...
I personally think the story criteria would be better as one of the "sub-category" criteria: the "focus" as it were: action RPG, storyteller RPG, "builder" RPG you get the idea.
However, the previous comment notwithstanding, you could maybe play with (or shoot down) the alternative wording of "An RPG must encourage the player to build/tell a story." It's really no more subjective than the avatar identification rule...
Does anyone else think that Myst and it's sequels fail the "advancement" criteria? Is that problematic? What category do they fall in: FPS, as odd as that may seem?
Random musings...
Re: City of Heroes -
I was unaware of the hit pattern. I guess it comes down to this: Can the player predict whether or not his attack will hit, and if it will do critical damage? (This includes non-damaging effects like sleep / stun etc.)
If not, then it's probably sufficiently non-deterministic. I mean, really, any purely internal random-number generator is algorithmically processed, so if you knew the seeds AND the order of all calls to it, you could predict the outcome. But it's "sufficiently random" for most purposes, except maybe high-priority cryptography.
I'd call Myst an adventure game.
I haven't played A Tale in the Desert myself, but I've heard a bit about it. I'll have to defer to someone else's judgement on that one.
"An RPG must encourage the player to build/tell a story." - Right, it's no more subjective than the fourth criterion.
But then it introduces another question of, "What constitutes a story?" The whole point of story in the interactive medium is (in MY mind, some people may disagree with me) to allow the player to participate in the storytelling - as your definition suggests. In my mind, only the most abstract of games (I'm thinking Tetris, Bejewelled, Zuma, etc. here) actively avoid trying to encourage this.
Maybe I've just got too active an imagination, and so it doesn't take much to engage me. But in my mind, even Space Invaders had a story. It's suggested by the name, the artwork, and the gameplay, but it's there. There are these aliens from space, and they are invading, and you are trying to stop them from landing. It has a beginning, a middle, and an inevitable end (you fail).
The story is so lame that many people might not consider it a story. But consider this a moment: What if the game had only been colored geometric shapes, the enemy missiles raindrops, and the player missiles... I dunno, guitar picks or something. Purely abstract. No story encouraged. Would the game have become as popular? Maybe, maybe not. But I think it was the theming, the suggested story (lame as it was) that helped engage players. People respond better to context and concreteness over abstraction.
I'm not considering the context of Space Invaders to be in any way equal to War And Peace. But I do see "story" as an extremely broad spectrum. So again - unless you provide a more robust minimum value for "story," I'd be hesitant to add that as a criteria. I think games have to go out of their way NOT to encourage some kind of storytelling in the mind of the player.
Okay, so there's me hitting the ball back. I'm definitely not married to this idea, but that's the part I keep getting hung up on.
I was unaware of the hit pattern. I guess it comes down to this: Can the player predict whether or not his attack will hit, and if it will do critical damage? (This includes non-damaging effects like sleep / stun etc.)
If not, then it's probably sufficiently non-deterministic. I mean, really, any purely internal random-number generator is algorithmically processed, so if you knew the seeds AND the order of all calls to it, you could predict the outcome. But it's "sufficiently random" for most purposes, except maybe high-priority cryptography.
I'd call Myst an adventure game.
I haven't played A Tale in the Desert myself, but I've heard a bit about it. I'll have to defer to someone else's judgement on that one.
"An RPG must encourage the player to build/tell a story." - Right, it's no more subjective than the fourth criterion.
But then it introduces another question of, "What constitutes a story?" The whole point of story in the interactive medium is (in MY mind, some people may disagree with me) to allow the player to participate in the storytelling - as your definition suggests. In my mind, only the most abstract of games (I'm thinking Tetris, Bejewelled, Zuma, etc. here) actively avoid trying to encourage this.
Maybe I've just got too active an imagination, and so it doesn't take much to engage me. But in my mind, even Space Invaders had a story. It's suggested by the name, the artwork, and the gameplay, but it's there. There are these aliens from space, and they are invading, and you are trying to stop them from landing. It has a beginning, a middle, and an inevitable end (you fail).
The story is so lame that many people might not consider it a story. But consider this a moment: What if the game had only been colored geometric shapes, the enemy missiles raindrops, and the player missiles... I dunno, guitar picks or something. Purely abstract. No story encouraged. Would the game have become as popular? Maybe, maybe not. But I think it was the theming, the suggested story (lame as it was) that helped engage players. People respond better to context and concreteness over abstraction.
I'm not considering the context of Space Invaders to be in any way equal to War And Peace. But I do see "story" as an extremely broad spectrum. So again - unless you provide a more robust minimum value for "story," I'd be hesitant to add that as a criteria. I think games have to go out of their way NOT to encourage some kind of storytelling in the mind of the player.
Okay, so there's me hitting the ball back. I'm definitely not married to this idea, but that's the part I keep getting hung up on.
FPS...whether it is a First Person Shooter or what I have lately called a First Person Slasher does not alter a games placement in the RPG category.
FPS(Shooter or Slasher) is just the interface. The delivery mechanism for connecting the player and the story.
I like your definitions of what an RPG is. I would take it further...and not mince words. An RPG has to have character developement, character advancement, a connection with that character, and a story in which to assert the players decisions into.
Of course none of those requirements have a quantifiable value. The story can be small...it can simple...it can be complex. Character development can be light...it can be intense.
As long as at the end of the day (or the game), the player gets to decide how the player interacts with the world, how to advance the character, and his place in a story...it is an RPG.
FPS...shooter or slashing, combat or none, castles or no castles, dragons or drug lords...doesn't matter...
cl
FPS(Shooter or Slasher) is just the interface. The delivery mechanism for connecting the player and the story.
I like your definitions of what an RPG is. I would take it further...and not mince words. An RPG has to have character developement, character advancement, a connection with that character, and a story in which to assert the players decisions into.
Of course none of those requirements have a quantifiable value. The story can be small...it can simple...it can be complex. Character development can be light...it can be intense.
As long as at the end of the day (or the game), the player gets to decide how the player interacts with the world, how to advance the character, and his place in a story...it is an RPG.
FPS...shooter or slashing, combat or none, castles or no castles, dragons or drug lords...doesn't matter...
cl
Player *choice* needs to factor into character attributes as well, IMO. I've seen games that featured character stats but with predefined characters that were automatically leveled up after every battle. One play through the game was the same as any other play through the game, you couldn't deviate. You would ALWAYS be level 10 and wielding the Axe when facing the Ogres.
In that way the numbers became completely meaningless. They were just a way of representing progress through the game - like the 'Level Up!' in a lot of the PopCap games.
In that way the numbers became completely meaningless. They were just a way of representing progress through the game - like the 'Level Up!' in a lot of the PopCap games.
As they say in Japanese RPGs:
"..."
I think you are right, Gegi. I'm not sure if that disqualifies anything I've been thinking of as an RPG. I think it comes perilously close to eliminating a game like Empires & Dungeons, but at least that game does give you some choice in equipment (and building your army).
The earlier Final Fantasy games didn't give you much choice over the character's inherent abilities, but they did give you the choice of customizing your equipment to tailor your character in a particular direction.
Telengard (an old-school roguelike) didn't give you much choice in gear or how you leveled up --- you pretty much took what you could find - but it DID give you a choice of stats right at the beginning (much like old-school D&D). So I think it would count.
So yeah. I'm gonna have to mull this over a bit. But "customizing one's avatar" in terms of actual game-mechanic-affecting ways does sound like a solid requirement.
Good idea!
"..."
I think you are right, Gegi. I'm not sure if that disqualifies anything I've been thinking of as an RPG. I think it comes perilously close to eliminating a game like Empires & Dungeons, but at least that game does give you some choice in equipment (and building your army).
The earlier Final Fantasy games didn't give you much choice over the character's inherent abilities, but they did give you the choice of customizing your equipment to tailor your character in a particular direction.
Telengard (an old-school roguelike) didn't give you much choice in gear or how you leveled up --- you pretty much took what you could find - but it DID give you a choice of stats right at the beginning (much like old-school D&D). So I think it would count.
So yeah. I'm gonna have to mull this over a bit. But "customizing one's avatar" in terms of actual game-mechanic-affecting ways does sound like a solid requirement.
Good idea!
The fundamental idea behind a "role-playing game" is that you get to play a role.
Anything else is semantics, added mechanics, and flash and eye/ear candy.
I've always found this kind of funny that we adhere so closely to this genre definition. What exactly are you getting at, Coyote? Do you want a dynamic world that changes with the player's actions? A game world of complete and total freedom where the only limitations are the flexible and improvable statistics and skills of the avatar?
Can that then be called playing a role, or defining one?
-
I've always been amused by the fact that the RPG games up to now, and the pen-and-paper games that spawned them, have always been scripted play-acts.
So yeah, you play a role. One that's been designed for you and one that you have to act out according to a pre-written script that will take you to a pre-determined ending that is not of your own, the player's, design.
Anything else is semantics, added mechanics, and flash and eye/ear candy.
I've always found this kind of funny that we adhere so closely to this genre definition. What exactly are you getting at, Coyote? Do you want a dynamic world that changes with the player's actions? A game world of complete and total freedom where the only limitations are the flexible and improvable statistics and skills of the avatar?
Can that then be called playing a role, or defining one?
-
I've always been amused by the fact that the RPG games up to now, and the pen-and-paper games that spawned them, have always been scripted play-acts.
So yeah, you play a role. One that's been designed for you and one that you have to act out according to a pre-written script that will take you to a pre-determined ending that is not of your own, the player's, design.
Primarily, I'm driving at hacking out some kind of definition that is broad enough to include pretty much everything already out that we generally consider to be an "RPG" --- and broad enough to include (hopefully) new ideas and continual exploration of the genre.
I think this definition includes everything from the linearly-plotted Japanese-style RPGs, to the open-ended worlds of the Elder Scrolls series, and (yeah, some folks disagree with me here) the old-school style "hack-and-slash" RPGs. And a whole lot more. I think it would include the wonderful dynamic worlds of future games, as well.
There are two problems with appealing to the term "role-playing games." That became really popular during the 90's as more story-heavy, less mechanically-focused pen-and-paper RPGs hit the market (specifically, the World of Darkness games, which I really enjoyed!).
The first is that the games predate the term. The term "role-playing game" didn't hit common usage until 1978 or 1979 or so, about half a decade after this type of game become popular. Before then, it was called all kinds of names, including "Fantasy Gaming," and "Adventure Gaming." Role-Playing Games seemed to be the best fit.
Secondly, there are many, many types of games out there that let you play a role, and put you in the virtual shoes of somebody else. In fact, that's practically a central theme of most core games.
The top priority of the developers of Falcon 4.0 was to give the player the "feeling" of being a fighter pilot (minus the boring parts). Does that make it an RPG? Thief probably made me feel more like I was a medieval burglar than any fantasy RPG where I rolled up a thief (though a couple of games - mainly the Elder Scrolls games - came close). Does that make it an RPG?
Some designers, most notably Richard "Lord Garriott" himself - apparently think so. And there are some sales portals out there that will slap "RPG" on anything (including fighting games) that have fantasy elements.
While I'm all for being flexible and pushing the boundaries,I also don't want to see a genre I care about get so blurry that all meaning drains from the term. So I just wanted to point out the key tags that make a game, in my mind, an RPG --- something very broad but also fairly clear.
And I'm just kinda geeky this way, poking around with definitions like this as an intellectual exercise.
I think this definition includes everything from the linearly-plotted Japanese-style RPGs, to the open-ended worlds of the Elder Scrolls series, and (yeah, some folks disagree with me here) the old-school style "hack-and-slash" RPGs. And a whole lot more. I think it would include the wonderful dynamic worlds of future games, as well.
There are two problems with appealing to the term "role-playing games." That became really popular during the 90's as more story-heavy, less mechanically-focused pen-and-paper RPGs hit the market (specifically, the World of Darkness games, which I really enjoyed!).
The first is that the games predate the term. The term "role-playing game" didn't hit common usage until 1978 or 1979 or so, about half a decade after this type of game become popular. Before then, it was called all kinds of names, including "Fantasy Gaming," and "Adventure Gaming." Role-Playing Games seemed to be the best fit.
Secondly, there are many, many types of games out there that let you play a role, and put you in the virtual shoes of somebody else. In fact, that's practically a central theme of most core games.
The top priority of the developers of Falcon 4.0 was to give the player the "feeling" of being a fighter pilot (minus the boring parts). Does that make it an RPG? Thief probably made me feel more like I was a medieval burglar than any fantasy RPG where I rolled up a thief (though a couple of games - mainly the Elder Scrolls games - came close). Does that make it an RPG?
Some designers, most notably Richard "Lord Garriott" himself - apparently think so. And there are some sales portals out there that will slap "RPG" on anything (including fighting games) that have fantasy elements.
While I'm all for being flexible and pushing the boundaries,I also don't want to see a genre I care about get so blurry that all meaning drains from the term. So I just wanted to point out the key tags that make a game, in my mind, an RPG --- something very broad but also fairly clear.
And I'm just kinda geeky this way, poking around with definitions like this as an intellectual exercise.
Nintendo's "Paper Mario" games are considered RPGs (esp. the first two), though the fighting is largely deterministic. A monster's choice of actions may be random, but the result of each is always the same. Also, the stochastic attack choices seem more a mechanism to add variety to play in order to prevent boredom rather than to simulate more realistic combat. Melee moves do include some arcade-style button mashing, required to add greater effect to your attack/defense, but the result of the user's input is also deterministic.
I'm a little iffy about posting comments on your old stuff, but you linked to this just recently, so I'm guessing that it's still canonical.
I disagree with you on the non-determinism thing, but I'm having trouble describing why this is, exactly. I think that if you account for all the right variables - that is, so long as you have the right attributes, you should be able to beat encounters without rolling a die - and if you don't have the right bits, you should fail.
I'm kind of convinced that randomness is so common because dice are ubiqitous for pen and paper rpgs, not because it's a neccessary thing - that, with a computer available, encounters can be carefully played out, determined, and that that shouldn't disqualify a game from getting the 'RPG' label.
That kind of opens the gates on other games, though - is Zelda an RPG? I'd say probably not, but for a different reason.
Zelda's progression is totally determined by what items you pick up, what attributes you have - and you certainly become more powerful as you progress - and certainly you are encouraged to identify with a given avatar.
But that's a weird point - in Zelda, the avatar is provided for you. All of his attributes, the full attribute progression are provided for you. You don't get to chose how you get to be more powerful. So it isn't an RPG.
I think that's the essential point - that in an RPG, you get to choose who you become. In terms of game mechanics, this essentially means you get to choose between attributes, choose one over another.
That gets kind of divisive, though. It means that the game can't be truly linear - It has to accomodate the branching paths brought on by different attribute configurations. And I think that disqualifies some games that would usually be counted as RPGs.
I disagree with you on the non-determinism thing, but I'm having trouble describing why this is, exactly. I think that if you account for all the right variables - that is, so long as you have the right attributes, you should be able to beat encounters without rolling a die - and if you don't have the right bits, you should fail.
I'm kind of convinced that randomness is so common because dice are ubiqitous for pen and paper rpgs, not because it's a neccessary thing - that, with a computer available, encounters can be carefully played out, determined, and that that shouldn't disqualify a game from getting the 'RPG' label.
That kind of opens the gates on other games, though - is Zelda an RPG? I'd say probably not, but for a different reason.
Zelda's progression is totally determined by what items you pick up, what attributes you have - and you certainly become more powerful as you progress - and certainly you are encouraged to identify with a given avatar.
But that's a weird point - in Zelda, the avatar is provided for you. All of his attributes, the full attribute progression are provided for you. You don't get to chose how you get to be more powerful. So it isn't an RPG.
I think that's the essential point - that in an RPG, you get to choose who you become. In terms of game mechanics, this essentially means you get to choose between attributes, choose one over another.
That gets kind of divisive, though. It means that the game can't be truly linear - It has to accomodate the branching paths brought on by different attribute configurations. And I think that disqualifies some games that would usually be counted as RPGs.
My disagreement on the create / choose development of your character thing comes mainly from an appeal to tradition: pen & paper D&D. In tournament and other convention games, they often had pre-generated characters that you'd use for the purpose of the game. Did D&D cease to be an RPG when they did that?
I guess some people might argue that D&D wasn't "really" an RPG in the first place, but again - I appeal to tradition.
As to the non-determinism thing... I'll admit that's a weaker one to defend. My FEELING is that when the results of actions are a forgone conclusion, it ceases to be an RPG and is actually a puzzle game. The "risk" aspect is largely removed (other than the risk associated with what lay beyond the current challenge that you expended so many resources on).
I guess some people might argue that D&D wasn't "really" an RPG in the first place, but again - I appeal to tradition.
As to the non-determinism thing... I'll admit that's a weaker one to defend. My FEELING is that when the results of actions are a forgone conclusion, it ceases to be an RPG and is actually a puzzle game. The "risk" aspect is largely removed (other than the risk associated with what lay beyond the current challenge that you expended so many resources on).
Man, I wouldn't know where to start if we decided D&D isn't an RPG.
I'm not sure what a D&D tournament game looks like.
I'm not sure what a D&D tournament game looks like.
Here's a tiny peek.
Pre-genned characters aren't alien to dice & paper RPGs. And when I was "roleplaying" for a theater class they always assigned me a role. :) But --- even there --- there was always some level of customization - either from your selection of equipment or just how you played the character.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Gegi makes a similar point. If you don't get any choice in the matter, then you are kinda back to the same problem as having a wholly deterministic system - it becomes a puzzle game rather than an RPG, in my mind.
But that's my counter-argument I bring up when people claim that you have to be able to create your own character from scratch for it to "count" as an RPG - which would leave out almost every modern jRPG there is.
Pre-genned characters aren't alien to dice & paper RPGs. And when I was "roleplaying" for a theater class they always assigned me a role. :) But --- even there --- there was always some level of customization - either from your selection of equipment or just how you played the character.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Gegi makes a similar point. If you don't get any choice in the matter, then you are kinda back to the same problem as having a wholly deterministic system - it becomes a puzzle game rather than an RPG, in my mind.
But that's my counter-argument I bring up when people claim that you have to be able to create your own character from scratch for it to "count" as an RPG - which would leave out almost every modern jRPG there is.
I guess I wouldn't argue that you need to be able to create a character from scratch, only that there needs to be different kinds of characters you can play.
I have to admit, I prefer being able to generate my own dudes. But that's more for metagame reasons - I want to have what is at least nominally a different character that other people playing the same game have, and I want to be able to think of myself as a different character on successive playthroughs, etc.
I have to admit, I prefer being able to generate my own dudes. But that's more for metagame reasons - I want to have what is at least nominally a different character that other people playing the same game have, and I want to be able to think of myself as a different character on successive playthroughs, etc.
Also, I know that you are currently developing an RPG with premade characters, and I should have thought of that before just now. I didn't mean to come here and bug you about whether your game is an RPG or not.
Spiderweb Software claims their Geneforge games (at least the fifth) can be finished without combat.
I personally don't know this to be true, but I can see where they're coming from
I personally don't know this to be true, but I can see where they're coming from
# posted by 
: March 21, 2009 10:43 AM
: March 21, 2009 10:43 AM
Mass Effect 2 just took out dice rolls, and the game is better for it. Random chances are an artifact of D&D, not crucial to the definition of an RPG.
Sanity check: Is Virtua Fighter an RPG? You gain levels, you have an avatar who is "you", and there's lots of customization - but it fails "Your avatar's stats affect your performance", as the combat system is just an instance of the Virtua Fighter arcade game, unaffected by your level. I guess that means these rules work :)
Post a Comment
Sanity check: Is Virtua Fighter an RPG? You gain levels, you have an avatar who is "you", and there's lots of customization - but it fails "Your avatar's stats affect your performance", as the combat system is just an instance of the Virtua Fighter arcade game, unaffected by your level. I guess that means these rules work :)
Links to this post:
<< Home
