An RPG is a role playing game. You get into the mind of the character and "become" that character. The genre is very different from this very broad definition, however (for instance, 007 is a roleplaying game as you are James Bond, but it's certainly not in the RPG genre!). So any time you become the character you're playing, you're in an RPG. You are Link, but you aren't a chess piece.

Quote:Original post by Kest
If your original question is asking what RPG represents, I think it's pretty relevant that most RPGs have repetitive, grind-type gameplay.

No, it's not relevant at all. You're trying to answer an objective question with a subjective observation. A question which you still haven't really answered, other than to say that I'd already answered it myself.

Otherwise, you've spent several posts insisting that games like Fable and Oblivion are poor gameplay experiences masked with RPG elements, which is just obtuse and also not an answer to the question. Saying what an RPG -should- have (good gameplay) does not explain what defines the RPG genre.

Case in point...

Quote:Original post by Kest
Unfortunately, when "RPG" pops up, my first instinct is to question the worthiness of the game's interactive mechanics.

...which has nothing to do with the question at hand, unless you really want to answer the question by suggesting that "repetitive gameplay" is a fundamental characteristic of any RPG, which might be a funny answer (it even makes me chuckle a little), but a pointless answer nonetheless.

So, please, enough with the abstract arguments about games that you don't think measure up. This is not a discussion about how RPGs can be improved, and its off-topic.

Quote:Original post by QuantifyFun

Quote:Original post by Kest
If your original question is asking what RPG represents, I think it's pretty relevant that most RPGs have repetitive, grind-type gameplay.

No, it's not relevant at all. You're trying to answer an objective question with a subjective observation.

You'll soon find that any answer to your question is subjective. I've been through this exact discussion here on GameDev about three times.

Quote:Otherwise, you've spent several posts insisting that games like Fable and Oblivion are poor gameplay experiences masked with RPG elements, which is just obtuse and also not an answer to the question. Saying what an RPG -should- have (good gameplay) does not explain what defines the RPG genre.

I've been focused on this question:

Quote:Original post by QuantifyFun
What matters to you in an RPG?

My answer is gameplay. I went into detail about it. My apologies.

Quote:So, please, enough with the abstract arguments about games that you don't think measure up. This is not a discussion about how RPGs can be improved, and its off-topic.

I'll leave you to it, then.

Quote:From D&D in the 70s, all the way up to Mass Effect, it's seen a lot of bending, nuance, fringe tweaks, and evolution - but what fundamentally defines an RPG and what makes an RPG great? What are the building blocks that everybody starts with, sticks to, and that you expect, that make a game an RPG.

As you have included non computer based RPGs I assume that you are not only interested in computer RPGs.

First of all, I'd like to establish what I mean in my definition when I say: "the main focus".

Virtually all games share aspects between each other, but what separates one game genera from another is that one game will focus the players activities on one set of tasks and another will focus them on some other set of tasks. The games might have all those tasks in common, but the difference lies in the focus that each game give to different tasks.

For example:

In a First Person Shooter, the game focuses on the player reflexes, and hand eye coordination. However, the player will also need to think strategically. What weapon is good against that enemy, should I try to draw one enemy out or use area effect weapons to take them all out simultaneously, etc.

So an FPS has strategic aspects, but because the game focuses mainly on hand eye coordination, then it is not a real time strategy game.

An RTS, on the other hand, also may requires hand eye coordination and player reflexes, but the main focus of the gameplay is that of strategic choices.

It has aspects found in FPS (and other action games), but it is not an FPS (or action game), but a Real Time Strategy game.

So the activities that the game focuses the player on defines the genera.

So although a Flight Simulator might allow the player to Role Play a pilot, because the gameplay is not focused on this aspect (but on simulating the flight characteristic of a plane), then the game is a Flight Simulator rather than a Role Playing Game.

This is important as if you ignore the "main focus" qualifier I out in (which nearly everyone seems to do when ever I present this definition), then you will be able to break that definition. But that is not breaking my definition, but instead it is called a Strawman argument.

Ok, now that that disclaimer is out of the way (every time a thread like this is started, I have to post that disclaimer as my second post. Yes, every time), I'll get down to my definition:

A Role Playing Game is a game where the main focus is about the player projecting a Persona into a Role. A Persona is a made up personality.

Now, many people like to mention: Plot, Adventure, Character building, and so forth, but there are plenty of counter examples where a game is considered an RPG and yet is missing one or more of these elements.

If a game can be considered an RPG and not have those elements, then those elements can not be when defines an RPG (elementary my dear Watson - sorry couldn't resist :D ).

I don't think that what defines an RPG is tied to any particular rules. Instead, it is more about how the player uses those rules to interact with the game world.

IF the player mainly uses the rules to shoot enemies with their reflexes, then the game is a shooter. If the player mainly uses the rules to fly a plane, then it is a flight simulator. If the player mainly uses the rules to Project a Persona into a Role, then it is a role playing game.

Quote:Unfortunately, when "RPG" pops up, my first instinct is to question the worthiness of the game's interactive mechanics. Oblivion makes a great example - cheap, simple combat, with no depth. Fable is another. How fun would the combat of these games be without any character advancement? Boring within a few minutes. Character advancement does nothing to fix that. The grinding just keeps bringing players back to it.

This is to my point. The focus on these games is not on the combat mechanics, but is supposed to be on "Playing a Role". So, should a game be condemned as a bad Role playing game if the Role Playing aspect is good, but the combat mechanics are boring? Sure it might make it a bad game, but a bad Role Playing Game.

Further more, does a RPG need a combat mechanic at all? Can it still be an RPG without one?