Define what an ''RPG'' is

For some reason it irks me when people call games like Pokemon or Zelda RPG's. Hell, I'd argue most JRPG's aren't even RPG's.

This is not to say they are of lesser quality than traditional RPG's(Zelda is my favorite series ever) but more to say that they are poorly defined if they are labeled as RPG's.

First of, what is an RPG? Obviously an RPG stands for a Role Playing Game. Pretty vague isn't it? After all you play the role of Link in Zelda and you play the role of Master Chief in Halo but no one would call the latter example an RPG.

More specifically let's go back to the source of what constitutes a Role Playing Game. By that I do not mean a video game but literally a role playing game a la Dungeons & Dragons(complete with a game master, a book, pens and papers).

The basis of an old school role playing game was that you played a specific role. Be that of a rogue, a warrior or a mage(the most common archetypes). You had specific talents, powers, equipment and at times personality traits(but those were not restricted to class). In those games a Mage was really a Mage that is he would have a very specific and defined set of skills and abilities. He would mostly rely on his magical prowess to advance through the game. The games were frequently made up of parties so multiple people with different skills could overcome different situations like a knight bashing a door with his strength or a thief lockpicking a jail cell.

As per Wikipedia

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game^[1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.^[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

Role playing games are of course not limited to tabletop RPG's. Whodunit is even a form of role playing so is live-action role playing(you know, when people dress as knights and princesses and act out their characters). Still in all these possible scenarios the characters have a consistency and the players have a great deal of freedom over them and the way they are. No two characters are the same. They may share similarities but just like in real life they have their own uniqueness/quirks separating them from everyone else.

With that said games like Baldur's Gate or Fable are very much RPG's. In the latter example everyone plays the same character but said character is highly customizable to one's own play style to the point we can play a role. The Hero in Fable has very defined skills, can to a certain extent make his/her own decisions, have specific limits based on his choices and paths etc.

Video games games being video games and being limited, it is impossible to expect them to grant the same degree of freedom as real life role playing games. They can emulate them to a certain degree but not fully. There are too many variable to take into account.

-No, RPG's don't need to have stats. Stats are simply attributes/skills and other factors represented by a numeral value to give a better understanding of the mechanics and world to the player. We know a greatsword with 200 DMG will one-shot a rat with 20 HP by looking at the stats. We could remove the numbers and the same thing would occur but the player would have no way of knowing. Stats are there to let the player know where they stand in the world. Unlike real life you cannot feel yourself dying, you cannot know when a boss is about to fall down without a health bar. You need these numbers for a better understanding of the world around you.

-RPG's don't need a leveling system. That is there to give a sense of progression to the player. You could have the player choose a starting class with specific talents and not allow any upgrade after that. It would still be an RPG albeit an incredibly boring and unrewarding one to most but an RPG nonetheless.

-RPG's do need multiple ways to overcome obstacles. They need to allow different play styles different ways to progress.

-RPG's do need decision making. If you're gonna assume the role of an evil wizard, you should have the options to do ''evil things''. That is not to say you need to be able to influence every single point in the plot but you are supposed to be granted a certain level of control over how your character behaves and how they are perceived by the world around them.

-RPG's do need talents/skills/classes or whatever. They need ways to differentiate their characters whether through different talents, skills or powers. That is the very core of role playing. You should be able to create or at least choose certain things your character can and cannot do. There should be limitations, possibilities, consistency and above all else ways to use these elements so you can truly feel you are role playing.

I could go on and on and on but you get the general idea. In my mind most JRPG's aren't RPG's at all. Calling Pokemon an RPG is utterly ridiculous to me(because there are stats and level up) and Zelda has very shallow elements of role playing.

Examples of pure RPG's: TES, Baldur's Gate, Legend of Grimrock, Divinity, Fallout, Kingdoms of Amalur, Planetscape Torment

Examples of games with heavy RPG elements: Mass Effect, Souls Series, Dragon's Dogma, Final Fantasy Tactics series

Examples of games with mild RPG elements: System Shock, The Witcher series, Golden Sun series

Examples of games with light RPG elements: Most JRPG's, Bioshock

Examples of games commonly misclassified as RPG's: Pokemon, Zelda

Thoughts? What is an RPG for you warriors?

Wait, now Pokemon isn't an RPG? Exactly what is it if it is not an RPG?

I understand an argument against Zelda, but Pokemon is one of the most RPG RPGs that there is.

So much bullshit in one post.

What kind of role playing is there in Pokemon? Pokemon to me is its very own genre. You collect monsters and make them fight. I don't see any kind of role playing involved though. The only difference between a Pokemon Trainer and the other would be the Pokemons they have.

Yes. Mass Effect is more of an RPG than the Witcher. There are many more variables to the way the world is handled, and although you are forced to play as Commander Shepard, Shepard is a lot more customizable than Geralt. He can have a different background and one Shepard can be completely different from the other whereas Geralt is still Geralt no matter how you play the game. I placed Mass Effect higher because the role playing elements are a lot more involved and pronounced.

Golden Sun has mild RPG element. To me pure RPG's are games where you almost start as a blank slate and have a very large amount of freedom over your character. Golden Sun doesn't qualify. You can customize your classes, weapons and equipment but there is very little decision making involved and your characters are largely the same from one game to the other aside from combat abilities.

No most JRPG's are not RPG's. Games like Chrono Trigger, The Tales Series, Secret of Mana and plenty others aren't really RPG's. They have stats and party members and that's usually as far as the role playing goes. It changed recently but to me they are largely not RPG's. I wanted to create a category between mild and light and wanted to put most JRPG's there but didn't know how to name it. Bioshock would be a notch below.

No. Pokemon isn't an RPG. Where is the role playing in Pokemon exactly?

So that's it? All Pokemon is is collecting and fighting and nothing else?

It's like you are ignoring all the actual hardcore, MULTIPLE roleplaying mechanics that go into Pokemon in some pedantic attempt to pick the genre apart based on its nomenclature.

But I'll bite: what roleplaying is in Pokemon? idk, I'm roleplaying a Pokemon trainer or whatever, I guess.

What else do you want me to say? You can have secret bases? Buy furniture or log in to a PC to store items? These elements are all irrelevant to RPG'ing. I wanted to keep it short and sweet. It is Pokemon in a nutshell.

I addressed that point already. In pretty much all games you ''role play'' as something. Is Halo an RPG? I role play as Master Chief. Pokemon is much closer to a kind of trading card game with adventure involved.

What are the most basic elements of a RPG? Isn't it progression and advancement of the character?

Advancement of your characters is the most fundamental aspect of Pokemon.

I hate the term rpg for a specific type of game. Every freaking game is rpg since you are playing the role of someone or something. Even in Tetris you are playing the role of suicidal blocks

An RPG is basically a table top game where you have a specific role and job. As time passes by, the term RPG had become complete pointless and anything could be an RPG now.

And yes, Pokemon is an RPG because it still had a "role" or a "job/class". Example: a famous electric type pokemon called Pikachu has a role to dish out and paralyze your enemies and deal more damage to water and flying type while being weak to useless when againsts to ground and rock type. Pikachu's "electric type" is basically the pokemon's role/job/class which had its strengths and weaknesses.

Battlefield 1942 is also an RPG because when you play as a Mechanic. Your role is to repair tanks and resupply others.

You see what I meant?

P.S. Bu-bu-but Battlefield is an FPS. Well, duh, Skyrim and Ultima Underworld is also an FPS. You can shoot someone using magic and/or a bow.

To me it's role playing. With your character you would need to be able to project yourself(or whatever you want to be) inside the game. That is done by choosing skills, talents, making decisions and playing a style you want to play. You should have multiple approaches of handling different challenges. Your abilities should play a large role on how you progress through the game. There should be limitations on the things you can and cannot do. I see almost none of that in Pokemon.

If you focus on the main story arc then Pokemon falls in line with conventional jrpg logic but when looking at the options for teambuilding, stat manipulation, creativity and expression Pokemon is as pure as it gets.

Pokemon is pretty much like a trading card game. I wouldn't call that an RPG at all. The entire focus is on the battle system and the Pokemon. The ''role playing'' part takes a backseat to the mechanics of weakness/strentgh, stats, typing and the like. Pokemon to me is its very own genre and nothing out there is really like it.

So Pokemon weakness and strengths aren't choices and aren't classified as limitations that need to be overcome?

Trainers and Gym Leaders who implement varying and advancing tactics as the game progress don't force choice and problem solving throughout the game?

Breeding isn't classified as a different approach to the same situation?

As @charizard1605_ said, Pokemon is one of the most RPG RPGs that there is.

Baldur's Gate, Divinity: Original Sin, Ultima, Underworld: RPGs

Diablo, Witcher 3, Mass Effect: Action RPGs

Deus Ex, System Shock 2, STALKER, Mass Effect 2: FPS/TPS-RPG hybrids

Souls franchise: Hardcore hack n slash with RPG elements.

Zelda franchise (in today's era): Action Adventure with RPG elements.

The strength and weakness aren't choices because you have no control over them. You have very little if any freedom over the development of the plot. What separates one Pokemon trainer from the others are his Pokemon and nothing else. They make the same decisions, are the exact same character, have the same limitations and will go through pretty much the same things with the exact same outcomes. The battle system is intricate, deep and complex but that alone doesn't make it an RPG. Again, I see no role playing involved. You take the role of a Pokemon trainer, that's where the role playing stops.

@Juub1990: Are you aware of the existence of EV/IV training, breeding and the ever-changing metagame surrounding the competitive scene? If you're looking for freedom of choice to engage the game's core mechanics you won't find many other games that rival Pokemon.

Edit: Your comment regarding Pokemon being the same confirms your ignorance.

You play the role of a character and the decisions the player character makes results in nonlinear storylines.

@Juub1990: Whatever dude. Your mind is made up which is weird considering you made a thread that comes off as you asking a question but answered the question and then refute anyone who attempts to say otherwise.

So...nice blog

Yes I am very much aware of all of this. Just because there are lots of stats and variable doesn't make it an RPG. It's no knock on Pokemon. I love the games. I'm just saying I don't see where the ''role playing'' is involved. If that's all that mattered, then Chrono Trigger would be as RPG as it gets because there is a system of strenght/weakness, stats and party building. The problem is in either game everything else is the same. Only the battle system allows such freedom. Nothing will really prevent you from advancing, what you choose during the course of the story will have little to no impact later on, there is very little player agency outside the battles(something crucial in a proper RPG).

As I said, the game is very intricate and complex. Still I stress the ''role playing'' part because I simply do not see it.

I gave my definition and asked you guys to give yours. What I got instead was a bunch of replies disagreeing with my view on Pokemon. You're very much welcomed to give your own definition of what an RPG is. That's mainly what the thread is for.

Thing is, short of old school Pencil and Paper, role-playing as a genre is always too vague to really have any kind of concrete definition. Nothing in video games even comes close to the complexity of a classic RPG, because real role-playing isn't just about being better or worse at certain tasks, it's about motivation, personal goals, and character study.

Sure the fighter can kick down a door, or fight and kill a person, but does he want to? It isn't always a yes or no question defined by reaching the qualifying stats like in video games. Personality characterization is just as important as the statistics on the page. Maybe you're concerned with your image, or a party member is against certain actions and you have to consider their opinions, or the potential risks outweigh the reward.

Video games can dabble in these ideas a tiny bit, but they are still miles away from the freedom and individuality of a genuine role-playing experience.

More on to the subject, defining video games as RPGs or not RPGs is like trying to objectively identify a Rorschach test. It can't happen.

To me, the real defining factor of an RPG or not in video games has always been about having a certain degree of meaningful statistical character progression. To the point where certain obstacles are impossible or very nearly impossible at certain levels, or with certain progression paths. I don't consider Zelda part of that because your stats are always hidden except health, and every goal you achieve is beaten purely by puzzle solving, and the items you find therein. Pokemon on the other hand is most certainly an RPG by those standards.

Don't know what you are on about. I played all the Pokemon games up until Diamond/Pearl. And what do you mean my comment on Pokemon being the same?

Skyrim the witcher 3 xenoblade chronicles fallout4 bloodborne dark souls tales series diablo 3 final fantasy series mass effect series

Leveling, build variety, exploration, non linearity, some complexity, character creation (not important for me, tho). That's an rpg for me.

@Juub1990: And herein we fall into the general hubbub and snoozefest of circular logic and trite personal opinion. It's odd that Pokemon doesn't make your cutoff for role-playing due to lack of choice in the narrative contrary to having complete player agency on all other matters.

Pokemon aside my views on what makes a RPG aren't complete. Its irrelevance as a topic is only outpaced by the century old back and forth argument of "Is Dark Souls a jrpg or wrpg?"

So you were basically here to argue that Pokemon is an RPG even without any kind of role playing elements? Carry on then.

I've stopped to care if a game is an RPG or not and mostly see it as a convenient term for consumers to better find what they want in a game.

Being an "RPG" doesnt factor in whether or not I'd enjoy a game, at times, a game being an RPG can even be a deterrent. But I can still acknowledge what an RPG is in a traditional sense, with the best modern example being Divinity: Original Sin, which uses stats and mechanics to tackle gameplay goals via different means that you have specifically defined for you--or your character.

I think It's perfectly fine to define a game being an RPG if it has stats, despite that being incredibly broad.

A developer is a creator of something. If they say what they are making is an RPG, who am I to say different.

Couldn't care less what a game is defined as since it doesn't change how the game actually plays.

Your understand of what an RPG is is terrible.

Shit, I don't even know where to start.

So if a dev calls a shooting game a fighting game you'd agree?

Shut up.

Oh, okay.

Dude ?

So just because you can change Shepard's background and past and not Geralt's, makes it a game with heavier RPG elements ?

To me in The Witcher, you role play as a witcher. Role-playing doesn't necessarily mean you get more choices of past to your character and how different your character is from the previous play through.... Role playing is a lot about what you do throughout the progression of the game....The Witcher gives you choice, multiple outcomes and lots of different gear, more so than in Mass Effect.... What are you actually saying ? That RPG's consist solely of character creation.

@acp_45: Role playing in Mass Effect is more involved in the sense that a player can project himself much more in Shepard than in Geralt from appearance to abilities and decisions. Shepard is a lot more customizable than Geralt and as such there can be more role playing as there are more options. You can play a Renegade Inflitrator specialized in robotics who treat his crew members like shit or you can play a valliant soldier who is selfless. The options in Witcher are a lot more limited and role playing is largely restricted to the skill trees and taking decisions in several quests.

I would argue that, nowadays, "RPG" has become an almost useless genre label. All it tells us is that a game uses RPG elements, but it doesn't tell us much about the actual moment-to-moment gameplay. An action RPG is basically an an action-adventure with RPG elements, a tactical RPG is basically a strategy game with RPG elements, an open-world RPG is basically an open-world game with RPG elements, a role-playing shooter is a shooter with RPG elements, etc. These are different genres lumped together under a single "RPG" genre label just because they use RPG elements.

I think the issue with the term RPG is that RPG wasn't originally a video game genre, it was table top game genre where people made their own characters, and dm's made their own stories for those characters to be involved in. With a video game, RPG's were more limited. The game designers were pretty much dm's making a single story for mass production that could be fully enjoyed with only one person. This plus the limited tech at the the time meant that a lot of early rpgs didn't really have role playing in the sense of playing a character with some other people playing characters and going on an unscripted adventure. Instead focus was put of mechanics and a single main story and world. Some games have put the role-playing in RPG, but since the genre's inception as a game genre, it has been a very amorphous term, and the dividing line is very unclear. The common definition seems to be games with a leveling system and some form of character progression that involves customization, but that of course goes on to include games like Call of Duty technically. The issue is really that is that the video game definition of rpgs boils down to "it's a game that is like other games that are considered rpgs."

A game where the stats of characters are more important to success or failure of every action than the skills of the gamer.

How does this definition tackle the Souls games?

Action RPG. So more action than RPG. It's a hybrid genre.

Same as with Action-adventure games being essentially action games with some adventure elements thrown in.

It's not perfect distinction of course, but with how fluid the genres can be it's probably the best one we have.

Just because there are less options doesn't make it less of an RPG. Also remember the level of presentation. Role-playing isn't exactly projecting yourself into a character... It's about the fact that you can role play in the game. If a game has that...it's an RPG to the fullest. The Witcher gives the player to role-play as a witcher..and even if it's more linear in character customisation...it still let's you role play. Role playing is role playing regardless of how many different roles a game can give you.

I'd rather not. A shitload of games have RPG elements, and people always tend to fight over what's RPG and what's not. Couldn't care less myself.

Well, my definition of an RPG comes down to choice and consequence.

I have played RPGs without any stats, I have played RPGs with predetermined characters hell I have even played RPGs that were soley based on dialogue, so no stats what so ever.

What they all had in common is the players choices on the problematics they face, and how they find the best solutions (which is often but not always based on the stats they have to represent the characters).

They may Chose to become heroes, but no one ever said that they can not become the villains, that is all up to the players, and the DM in truth would have no right to dictate it.

So the most basic and needed component(s) is (at least to me) choices, agency. And consequences of their actions.

While RPGs on a pc or console can not be as reactive to accommodate said choices, they tend to be built up over the illusion of such, mostly seen in "here is a problem, it has multiple solutions, which is the better one?"

Would you chose to side with one faction or another? would you try to topple the powers that be, and replace them with yourself, or would you be the hero?

That is an RPG to me at least.

Most original RPGs for pc and console could only imitate the stat portion of an RPG, and in most ases they have not really progressed all that much. Part of what made the Original Fallout likely one of the best RPGs ever? well you never once had to fight, anyting, you could run, and simply persuade your way thorough the world. That is what an RPG is.

Most JRPGs correctly ain't RPGs proper, they tend to have a fixed story, with very little player agency and ability to impact said story. They are closer in relation to Dungeon crawlers in that aspect. I find that that is the main reason why that "J" is in front of the RPG, not because it is made in Japan, you do not se JPlatformer or Jdriving games anywhere, do you? Nor can you statethat the visual style is the cause, since a ton of JRPGs never looked like you would expect.

JRPGs were pretty identical to the first attempts for an RPG in the west, but where the west typically tried to advance the genre to closer mirror the PnP version, the JRPGs focused more on telling a compelling story, it is a great subgenre of RPGs, but they went a completely different path.

That is not to claim that they are lessers, and I do know games that people call JRPGs that are much closer to traditionel RPGs (And no not the souls games which are without a doubt Dungeon crawlers).

People tend to herald Baldues gate as an impressive RPG series, but those games tend to have fairly little choice and consequence, so not that you can claim that all western RPGs are true RPGs either.

You know, that little point in the first Witcher game, where you could chose to let that sad little elf go? Yeah later the consequence of that action is that a someone fairly central to that part of the game, gets killed by said little elf. A consequence for your action, you could have chosen differently. But that was the result of mine. I may not be able to control Geralt, but I could dictate his actions and choices (Fun fact, often in example D&D you did not always get to chose who you were, you rolled for it, random chance of who you were, you simply played the role).

I think the difficulties in making games with so many choices, mostly buried so players should and could not see them, sent the genre spinning into a lot of sub categories. JRPGs, CRPGs, tactical RPGs and RPG Hybrids (Deus Ex, System shock 2 being good examples).

So the term RPG has splintered off to 7+ categories. And we have this argument here every month or so. My response has always, go play a PnP RPG, and take what you played there, and hold it up to the RPG genres that exist on PC and Console, and you will find what an RPG is.

My question however is: Is this so important? Most people who have played a PnP RPG knows full well what an RPG is, but that certainly does not make the different genres we have now, of lesser worth, They might have had the same ancestor but they are wholly their own.

That is like claiming that half the genres of movies are "lessers" because they were born of other genres. A natural evolution to focus on specific parts of the machinery, is all really.

I just wish that people would kill off the "Arpg" label, since "dungeon crawler" existed long before that term.

But then in the end it is up to each person to define what meaning a label holds to them.

A game where your characters abilities are greatly emphasised, going as far as to determine what ways you can interact with the world. Where a characters abiliites are more important than the players. A character with an agility/dexterity of 1 should never be able to do a ton of evasive maneouvers, if at all.

And Pokemon fits that bill quite well. A Pokemon's ability to interact in the battlefield (and the world) is determined by what moves they have. How well they interact is dependant on their stats, their typing and their ability.

@acp_45: I used projecting yourself as an example of the flexibility of the mechanics.

In evey game you role play something. Not all games are RPG's. There are less role play options in TW than in Mass Effect and the mechanics allow for less role playing freedom. That's why I put it below. Mass Effect is much closer to a full fledge RPG than TW is.

It's hard to define and RPG because there are many different styles of RPGs. You have the Western RPG which is more open-end in terms of the story and character building. Then you have the Japanese RPG which is a bit more controlled story and character development which may for the player to develop things in a specific manner. So yeah this is the one category of gaming where it's hard to say all _______________ should play like this. I mean for years on the console the JRPG was the RPG of choice. WRPGs being the RPG on console is quite new to be honest.

@acp_45: Great post and no. It doesn't lessen the quality of the game so it is not important. Just trying to have a discussion on what is an RPG for people.

Something people do in private is mah best guess. :P

Well, I just disagreed with what you said.

You called The Witcher a game with mild RPG elements... and you based that off of the fact that it doesn't have a lot of character customisation and character role playing scenarios you can find yourself in... instead it only gives you a linear role as a Witcher. But the game clearly has "choices and a great setting to role play in.. Not to mention the fact that you "can" role play.

@acp_45: It definitely has choices but compare it to a game like Fallout or Baldur's Gate and its scope in role playing is much more limited. It's not even about the fact that you cannot project in yourself into the game alone, it's about the fact that the options are much too limited in the role playing department to call it a pure RPG. It's an action RPG and as I said before in Mass Effect you can decide to roleplay a paragon soldier or a neutral biotic. You can choose your background, your class, your talents, there is a lot more decision making than in the Witcher series, the role playing elements are more important and much more involved.

It's not to say TW3 is a bad game. Hell it's my favorite game of the year. I simply don't see how you can say it is as much RPG as Mass Effect or TES when the role playing factor is unarguably less present and important.