Proof that the mainstream thinks that RPG means stats system

[deuxhero]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/658/658710p1.html
http://cube.gamespy.com/gamecube/fire-e ... 642p1.html
http://www.gamepro.com/nintendo/gamecub ... 9470.shtml
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3144841&did=1


Look at the genre in the links above, outside of a stats sytem the Fire Emblem series is about as far from RPGs as one can get, given that the player has no representation in the series at all (excluding a bit part in The Blazing Sword/7/"Fire Emblem") and exists as nothing more then a disembodied entity that gives orders with an invisible hand.

This is an example of the misdefinition of RPGs so bold that the "Doom is an RPG because you play the role of the Doomguy" argument doesn't hold water (not that it did in the first place).

 

[dagorkan]

Yeah, seems like nobody knows what role-playing is. I blame it on the lack of 'fans' having a P&P background. Seems like there are only four 'genres' the mainstream really understands:

Action (fps, jumping around games, racing whatever)
Strategy (anything where you command more than one unit or which has turns and/or numbers)
Simulation (basically sandboxes, Sims-stuff, casual gamer flight sims/sports games)
Adventure (practically dead as a genre in itself, in combo with other genres called "exploring another world")

Every game made in the last decade can be described as some combination of those four.

Oblivion was a combination of Action and Simulation and a bit of Adventure.

Typical Action-RPG = Action + Adventure)
'Hard-core' RPG = Same with a tiny bit of 'Strategy'

 

[pkt-zer0]

What the heck. With that definition, would it be even possible to have a game be a strategy game that's not a strategy-RPG? I mean, short of units having a stat-based representation no more complex than that of chess (i.e. available moves)

 

[Sarvis]

RPG pretty much does mean stat system. You see, stat systems are what allow for all the things Codexers believe make up an RPG.

 

[Calis]

I believe the genre to be impossible to define. Don't give me the p&p crock either, seeing the plethora of different gaming styles in p&p make that useless, as well. Going with advanceable stats as the defining quality to call something an RPG is as justifiable as using meaningful choices & consequences.

 

[dagorkan]

Sarvis thinks the only kind of role-playing is LARPing.

Seriously though, I think it's a mixture of both. There's the acting/psychological side (given this and that, what would this character do in this situation?) which is downplayed in CRPGers and on the Codex (too many Codexers are gamists). There's also the choice and consequence side. Acting is not what it's all about otherwise it wouldn't be a Role-playing Game it would just be role-playing in the more ordinary sense (what professional actors do).

So you have to have some limitations which come from a/ the game 'world', as defined by the GM/designers, and b/ limitations based on the game system/mechanics, attributes, abilities etc.

These should be set up to maximize choice and consequence (C&Cs) aka decision-making, strategy, if only because a story/plot/game with no decisions/issues is a boring one not worth telling/playing.

Finally there ought to be an element of luck and randomness. Nothing should be pre-determined, there should always be a chance, however small, of (almost) anything happening, and the game system and GM/designers should be prepared and allow for alternative paths/outcomes as much as possible.

 

[Jasede]

I believe the genre to be impossible to define. Don't give me the p&p crock either, seeing the plethora of different gaming styles in p&p make that useless, as well. Going with advanceable stats as the defining quality to call something an RPG is as justifiable as using meaningful choices & consequences.

Thanks. I was just going to go on my good old "Goldbox games are RPGs too, oh noez" rant, but you saved me precious time. Now off to the cinema.

 

[dagorkan]

What the heck. With that definition, would it be even possible to have a game be a strategy game that's not a strategy-RPG? I mean, short of units having a stat-based representation no more complex than that of chess (i.e. available moves)

What I'm saying is that there are only four genres people understand though they'll talk about dozens of genres, but most of these are just arbitrary. People make up labels without any coherent reasoning, simply based on what they like, what they want to be seen/think of themselves as liking and what some ignorant faggot on IGN once said.

 

[Calis]

So you have to have some limitations which come from a/ the game 'world', as defined by the GM/designers, and b/ limitations based on the game system/mechanics, attributes, abilities etc.

These should be set up to maximize choice and consequence (C&Cs) aka decision-making, strategy, if only because a story/plot/game with no decisions/issues is a boring one not worth telling/playing.

C&C is a much-appreciated design element, for sure, but not a defining quality of an RPG.

Finally there ought to be an element of luck and randomness. Nothing should be pre-determined, there should always be a chance, however small, of (almost) anything happening, and the game system and GM/designers should be prepared and allow for alternative paths/outcomes as much as possible.

If you mean "random" as in "dice", then I beg to differ (again from the p&p roots)

I still think that - especially in a single-player computer game context - defining this genre is an exercise in futility. Might as well go with "if the publisher claims it's an RPG, it's an RPG" definition and comment on the design merits (and weaknesses) of a game instead.

 

[Calis]

What I'm saying is that there are only four genres people understand though they'll talk about dozens of genres, but most of these are just arbitrary. People make up labels without any coherent reasoning, simply based on what they like, what they want to be seen/think of themselves as liking and what some ignorant faggot on IGN once said.

And MY point is that going on a genre-semantics-holy-war is stupid, *especially* when it comes to CRPG's.

 

[dagorkan]

So you have to have some limitations which come from a/ the game 'world', as defined by the GM/designers, and b/ limitations based on the game system/mechanics, attributes, abilities etc.

These should be set up to maximize choice and consequence (C&Cs) aka decision-making, strategy, if only because a story/plot/game with no decisions/issues is a boring one not worth telling/playing.

C&C is a much-appreciated design element, for sure, but not a defining quality of an RPG.

It doesn't on it's own make an RPG, it's part of a whole. Without any C&Cs at all you don't have a game, you have a movie... or you're daydreaming.

Finally there ought to be an element of luck and randomness. Nothing should be pre-determined, there should always be a chance, however small, of (almost) anything happening, and the game system and GM/designers should be prepared and allow for alternative paths/outcomes as much as possible.

If you mean "random" as in "dice", then I beg to differ (again from the p&p roots)

I still think that - especially in a single-player computer game context - defining this genre is an exercise in futility. Might as well go with "if the publisher claims it's an RPG, it's an RPG" definition and comment on the design merits (and weaknesses) of a game instead.

Sure, it doesn't have to be dice. But you do need randomness, otherwise it's an interactive movie or straight forward adventure game... You can determine every outcome from the start. Just try out every combination and you'll have experienced everything.

 

[Calis]

It doesn't on it's own make an RPG, it's part of a whole. Without any C&Cs at all you don't have a game, you have a movie... or you're daydreaming.

Well, sure, if you want to take the trivial definition of C&C and interpret it as "each and every way the player interacts with a game"...

Sure, it doesn't have to be dice. But you do need randomness, otherwise it's an interactive movie or straight forward adventure game...

If determinism still allows for a gazillion slightly-different paths, I don't see the difference. Randomness has less to do with it than you imply.

 

[Sarvis]

Sarvis thinks the only kind of role-playing is LARPing.

Exactly the opposite, actually. I don't think it's roleplaying when success depends on the players' skill. That's what LARPing would be, I'd be trying to convince someone of something using my own debate skills. In an RPG I'd have a Debate stat/skill which I'd roll against and if high enough I'd convince the NPC.

Whenever you add action based combat you're moving towards player skill. Same thing if you add stealth but the player has to control jumping from shadow to shadow. Same thing with dialog if there were a way to analyze what the player says and rate it.

None of that creates roleplaying, it creates tests of the players' abilities.

When you have stats, and the player is deciding what actions to take based on those stats you have roleplaying.

To make matters worse (for you guys, anyway) the only actions which can be reasonably mapped out on a computer system are combat actions. You can create an engaging situation using combat, where you can't with most other options. Adding another tactic to combat is thousands of times easier than adding another storyline path. We can reasonably model everything that would happen in combat, while we cannot reasonably model the thoughts/feelings/reactions of many different types of players and npcs.

 

[Raapys]

Nah, the 'randomness' aspect is just there to simulate factors that would be far too complicated to implement in computer or PnP games. The real world is the ultimate RPG, yet there's not a single case of randomness anywhere.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

When you have stats, and the player is deciding what actions to take based on those stats you have roleplaying.

Actually, you have players crunching numbers and making strategic decisions based on digits :D

 

[dagorkan]

Exactly the opposite, actually. I don't think it's roleplaying when success depends on the players' skill. That's what LARPing would be, I'd be trying to convince someone of something using my own debate skills. In an RPG I'd have a Debate stat/skill which I'd roll against and if high enough I'd convince the NPC.

I see what you're saying, sorry for mischaracterizing you.

 

[Joe Krow]

It is intellectually dishonest to claim some games, claiming to be rpgs, are not, without offering at least a cursory definition what an rpg is. It amounts to you saying "this game does not meet a criteria that I don't think exists." It's flawed logic.

 

[sabishii]

I agree with you Sarvis, but I think the OP's point is that the mainstream thinks ANY stats means RPG. As in, my character has HP, attack, and experience? Kewl - RPG! You're right that RPG means stat system, but an RPG also includes many different stats that encompass the whole character, for example when you mentioned the Debate skill.

 

[dagorkan]

Thinking it over there's an obvious problem with that approach. Ideally (?), continuing with your logic, you could have absolutely everything about the character, attributes, skills, psychology, motivations down as numbers. In that case everything in the game could be checked/rolled against. Approach in conversation, but also where you travel, whether you use this weapon, or that weapon. There would be no decision making left at all.

You need some kind of division between determinism and choice. For me, it's obvious that things like what you say or where you go should be left to to the player, and is completely different to whether you hit in combat. There's the physical (not directly determinable by the player) and the mental where you have free choice.

I would be OK though with having some mental/psychological aspects of your character being rolled against. Eg, bravery/cowardice, greed, etc, restricting your choices in the game. But, I think they should be rolled against. A greedy, anti-social, thief-type coming across a vulnerable, rich citizen in a dark alley could be forced to roll against his stats or be forced to try to rob the citizen.

However there should always be an opportunity for you to over-ride your instincts and act against your nature occasionally. First because it would be boring not to, second because contradictions and change are a fundamental part of human nature.

 

[Sarvis]

When you have stats, and the player is deciding what actions to take based on those stats you have roleplaying.

Actually, you have players crunching numbers and making strategic decisions based on digits :D

True, but there's a difference between deciding what your character would do in a situation and having to perform those actions yourself.

Back to the old mantra: Player decides, character does.

 

[Human Shield]

It isn't always just stats, RPGs are more precisely defined by system (rules). Rules that rely on decision making instead of reflexes.

That Sarvis misses is that the system exists to accomplish a agenda. A good system is one that satisfies what the players' want to get out of the game. There is more then one agenda, being able to free roam in a randomly generated world mite please someone that wants to explore but wouldn't please someone looking for challenging gameplay or interacting with a story. More on the three possible agendas here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/. And to get some agenda's metagame stats and conflicts are more important, that means abstract resources and generating game consistency at the table instead of beforehand (rolling dice to create something in the safe not just to open the safe).

Computer RPG design hasn't moved much at all for 10 years, more action and FPS elements have been mixed in the system has degraded with new releases. Elder Scrolls reduced interactions and skills and focuses more on FPS action. D&D games break the rules and don't design interesting or challenging dungeons and encounters. Wizardry 8 and maybe ToEE was probably the last pure Gamist RPG, even Arcanum broke down with a weak character system and forced, boring combat.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Well....the mainstream believes Civilization is a Real Time Strategy game....

Furthermore, I think the lack of structure as to what exactly an RPG is supposed to be is killing the genre. I'd love to expound on it a bit more, but I'll save it for later. Suffice to say, it let's designers just claim their game is one sub-genre to ward off complaints about serious design flaws.

 

[Sarvis]

It isn't always just stats, RPGs are more precisely defined by system (rules). Rules that rely on decision making instead of reflexes.

That Sarvis misses is that the system exists to accomplish a agenda.

No, I never missed that.

A good system is one that satisfies what the players' want to get out of the game. There is more then one agenda,

This is what the Codex at large misses. If all the players want out of the game is a dungeon crawl with linear story, and the system provides stats that allow this scenario to play out, it is an RPG.

 

[Müg]

Well....the mainstream believes Civilization is a Real Time Strategy game....

Well 4X isn't a well known term to the strategy layman, and TBS isn't used (to my knowledge) at all, including things like Final Fantasy Tactics, where it should apply.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Well 4X isn't a well known term to the strategy layman, and TBS isn't used (to my knowledge) at all, including things like Final Fantasy Tactics, where it should apply.

Still....how hard is it to write out "strategy" as opposed to "RTS"? Do people even know what these genre acronyms stand for nowadays?