From the wiki a RPG:

"A role-playing game (RPG) 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.

Role-playing games are fundamentally different from most other types of games in that they stress social interaction and collaboration, whereas other games emphasize competition. "

I bring this topic up because it seems as the character development is taking more of a back seat to the combat in Skyrim. From the D&D and the text based MUDs, gone are the days where you rely on attributes and probabilities to determine if you hit or miss and how hard. Now it is button mashing. Don't get me wrong the graphical experience has so much improved that it was natural for progression in manual combat. However, it seems as the controls for this competition demands more focus then the character's stats and the character's relationships or lack thereof.

Other single-player 'RPGs' have their short comings. I wouldn't consider ME2 or DA2 RPGs because their streamlining of attributes or linear game-play but they did have collaboration and simulated 'social' interaction. Just Cause 2 like Skyrim was more open world than those two and yet it is an Action Adventure. It had a main mission/story allowed users to go on multiple quests/missions by talking to NPCs and after each quest/mission the character could use the acquired money to upgrade his weapons/skills for more effectiveness. Skyrim has initial character choices and some character development over JC2, but where is the line between the two genres and how far can it be pushed?

I don't really care what you label it. It's like with ratings. I don't care if it's +16 or +18 age limit. I'll play it anyway, because it's Skyrim.

TES should evolving away from an RPG into its very own thing, IMO. The impression that I'm getting is that they want to push it more and more into the direction where what counts is what the player experiences (with the PC as their extension within the game-world), and less (though not entirely without) what the player designs. Narrowing the "gap" between the players and their characters which each titles, so to speak.

Personally, I don't see anything about attributes, random chance, or numbers in that wiki definition. "Character development" doesn't just mean getting more HP, Strength, & skill points - it also means how the character grows personally - via decisions, choices, interactions with others, etc.

As I've said in other threads, while it's story was a bit weaker than Mass Effect 1, I thought that the "RPG elements" of Mass Effect 2 were stronger - the conversations, decisions, choices, that kind of stuff.

Sure, it didn't have cluttered inventory management, but that's not really what makes an "RPG", necessarily.




From a very strict point of view, it could be argued that almost no digital "RPG" is one - you just don't have the freedom to really make decisions & choices for your characters, the things they can do are all limited by the game's interface & mechanics. Without a GM, and the ability to negotiate over what your character does (rather than what the game allows him to do), how much are you really "roleplaying"?

Interesting point of view. It is hard to play a role if there are limitations on your development in the role in the digital sense.

cant it be both?

The freedom to steer your character in your desired direction and take them whereer you wish it more importat to an RPG than dice rolls, hands down. In the field of player freedom, TES is still king.

Maybe they could coin a new genre that would make hard core RPG fans not feel something was missing. Something like an APG. Adventure Playing Game. :thumbsup:

True. Whenever I'm playing these "RPG"s, be it the western or the Japanese ones, I can't help but thinking that what I'm playing were actually mis-labeled and more like a relatively rigid still "story-driven" adventure games with choices and consequences, sometimes with a bit of number-crunching involved. The only good, and true RPGs (sessions, actually!) are the ones that involved a bunch of imaginative people with a highly creative and spontaneous GMs. Also, some food and drinks. So yes, it's a social stuff, not something we can do (yet) on our own while staring obsessively into the monitor lol.

edit:

Or to make it more TES-tastic and somewhat lore-appropriate: an "RMG" aka Role-Mantling Game!

Skyrim is a RPG. Why? Because Beth says so.

For me it is the ultimate culmination. Before Morrowind i use to play an insane number of turn based rpgs(anyone i could get my hands on really) and at the same time i really loved action games too like Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia, Legacy of Kain and Blood Rayne. Bethesda pretty much ended my gaming career by combining the two genres in the most successful way to date(then) and effectively ruined both of the two pure genres for me... forever.

You would have to school me on the 'Mantling' term here and how it fits the lore. :confused:

Inventory management is cluttered if the design is bad. And the ME inventory system was an embarrassment. They went for an FPS-style system in ME2 because they just weren't interested in including equipment or a range of options for weapons and armor in the game. That's fine, but it was their choice, and they were more interested in developing mini-games than items. Though IMO, the mini-games were as poorly designed as the original inventory system. (FWIW, I liked ME1 & 2, but for me it was despite the glaring flaws.)

On the general topic: RPGs grew out of wargames, and so the concept of modelling various aspects of combat was a central concern. By modelling I mean "a mathematical system to simulate aspects of the real world", like physics and gravity in first-person computer games. This idea of modelling combat was merged with the idea of playing a specific character, and the result was role-playing games. The idea of modeling combat lead to fleshing out details of equipment, skills, attributes, etc.

Modern CRPGs are moving away from the core idea of modeling combat, and focusing on the role aspect. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But the word "role" has become so dilute that it's nearly meaningless. Many people have such a broad and vague definition that any game from CoD to Donkey Kong, or even Battleship, fits the definition.

Also, IMO if developers (all RPG developers) are going to simplify or remove the "combat physics", they need to make up for that with more sophisticated NPC/world interactions. Instead what we're getting is a larger number of shallow and even insulting interactions (Fable).

Meets the first part of the definition, fails the 2nd but so do all single-player CRPGs

As far as I'm concerned its a RPG, so is PnP, so is LARPing (not that I'd ever do it)
Its not the mechanics that make it roleplaying, its the attitude you take into it
That said I'd still say the best RPing is PnP but thats because of the interaction between players and referee, not because I have hundreds of assorted dice and dozens of rulebooks

I don't know why this definition wouldn't pass for Skyrim...

You take up a role of a character that you created, you take responsibility of their actions, there's character development as there is a big difference between a level 1 and level 50 character, not to mention there will be difference between two level 50 characters and social interaction and collaboration have a large presence, not as big as more "traditional RPGs" but they're in.

The definition doesn't mention how your character's stat should matter more than your skills.


... and it's still beyond me why Dragon Age 2 is not considered as an RPG...

TES games are imo the best argument for that Action and RPG elements are NOT mutually exclusive.

Rather, better action elements can reflect your rpg choices far better than inferior or nonexistent action elements,

And action elements without enough rpg elements behind them - well, just look at the fable series. They've methodically shrunk the rpg portion of the game to 'make way' for more action development - and as a result, have gotten progressively worse as the series goes on.

The best approach, imo, is to evenly develop the rpg and the action elements, improving both with each sequal, rather than sacrificing one on a whim to bolster the other. And we see Bethesda doing this with Skyrim - the combat looks incredibly more visceral and dynamic. And the rpg elements are improved as well - 280 perks, 20+ dragonshouts, 85 spell effects, choose what to wield in each hand - your character and playstyle will be intricately customized to the nth degree, haha.

Bioware is catching on to this trend as well - they're putting a lot more rpg elements in Mass Effect 3 this time. =

As for the fable series, the first game will always be one of my favorite rpg's - hopefully Fable 4 makes a 180 and puts the rpg back in fable's action-rpg line. But I really don't see this happening unless Peter Molyeux gets replaced by a younger, next-gen savvy developer lol.

There's what i like to consider two different ways of making an RPG.

character roleplaying game (cRPG; think turn based rpg's, pen and paper) were everything the character can do, there strenghts and weaknesses are based on there attributes/skills ect

Action roleplaying game (mass effect 2) were the strength of the PC depends on the player not the characters skills..

ES titles have always been in the middle but have been migrating towards action based roleplaying due to it's easer for the majority of the people to get into as it's less complex then >9000 skills.

@alexandus: question are you refering to the current gen systems (360/ps3) as next gen....I r get confuse when people still call them next gen when theres nothing next gen about them anymore.

Action/Adventure games and RPGs are best defined by their objectives, not by an arbitrary grouping of gameplay elements. An RPG is a game where the objective is to play a role. When I play an Elder Scrolls game, or Baldur's Gate, or Fallout, I am doing so to explore what my character can accomplish. Any particular quest or adventure is secondary to playing the role. An Adventure game is one where the objective is to have an adventure. I play Myst for the adventure, and I really couldn't care less for my character's capabilities. An Action game is one where the objective is to successfully perform a variety of prescribed feats of manual dexterity. An Action/Adventure game would be game that combines the objectives of an Action game and an Adventure game. If I were to play Prince of Persia, I would be doing so for the adventure and for the finger-gymnastics and timing challenges.

For RPGs, social interaction is not required. You can have a game where your role is some unfortunate fellow stranded alone on an island, but where your primary objective remains playing the role. Character progression is not required either. You could run a game of D&D where the player characters never advance beyond level 1. Linear gameplay might suggest an Action or Adventure game, but if the objective is to work out what the character can do, then the game is an RPG. Button mashing doesn't make a difference to the objective. You can define a character's ability as some probability adjusted by arbitrary numbers representing a character's attributes and skills. You can also define a character's ability as equaling the player's skill with the game controls.

If you maintain that the objective defines the genre, and if you keep a game's objective firmly in mind, then the chances are good that you will know the game's genre.

Skyrim is clearly in the RPG genre.

ES is basically a single player P&P type medium. You can basically make any character you can think of. You cant really do this in most other RPGs. And since stats make an RPG and ES has stats, its obviously an RPG. Before someone tries to refute that, name one RPG that doesnt have stats. Stats takes some of the skill from the player and puts it on the characters skill (in a real time RPG).

Since playing AD&D from the late 70's, I have seen the changes.
For me, character development is important, and choice of what you want to be.
Of course computers have taken over our visual imagination, and rolling physical dice, but that is ok. Back then, we would have loved what we have today.
Immersion has always been important as well. But I don't want RPGs turning into just shooters or simulators.
There should also be consequences to choices. For example, in traditional P&P games, a battlemage took twice as long to level up, in order to balance having additional skills. Not saying that's how it should be now, but some sort of consequences should be applied for game balance.

I am guessing many of you will disagree with me, and I expect it, because times are changing. If CRPGs become completely unrecognizable to me, then I will just have to play P&P games with the old-timer gamers.
But I think if this happens, it will be a loss to new players.
People still go on forums asking how to role play. I am glad the question is still being asked, because it shows interest and gives me hope for the future.

It's an Action-Adventure RPG B)

I don't think anyone can argue that stats are not the one defining characteristic of an rpg that has remained constant from PnP all the way up through every iteration since until today. But stats alone do not make a pure RPG other wise like Todd said his Madden NFL would then be an RPG.

If I were to attempt refuting "stats make an RPG", then I wouldn't do so by naming an RPG that doesn't have stats, but by naming a game that has stats but that isn't an RPG. Age of Wonders comes to mind, as do Civilization IV, Magician Lord, and Street Fighter 2. An RPG can have the character's stats derived entirely from player skill too. I would imagine that some LARP games have done it this way, though I am unaware of what their names might be, or even if they have names. Someone in the Society for Creative Anachronism might know.

Well said.


Don't forget The Sims, lol!

There's plenty of games that have stats that are not RPGs, there are no RPGs that do not have stats. Stats are a constant. And in the games that do have stats that are not RPGs, what do those stats represent? The always represent difference, or progression. So stats are a constant and are one defining aspect of an RPG. Therefore you could say stats are part of what makes an RPG. So theres nothing wrong with my first statement. So really, other games that have stats is irrelevant, since without stats in some way, your not playing an RPG. Hence the term "stats make an RPG".