Your post was a bunch of opinionated gibberish with very little if any logic, demanding evidence for something that doesn't even relate to the actual premise of the argument.
Please stop trying to drag others into that delusion.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Actually...Come to think of it, I'd argue that Telltale Games: The Walking Dead, is more of an RPG than a lot of MMORPGS, and it has zero vertical progression. In fact it has none at all. This is largely an argument of opinion, but bear with me here...
It may not be marketed as an RPG, or even officially categorized as one. You may not be able to create your own character either. But what you can do, is interact with, and greatly influence the course of the story. I'd say this is one of, if not the most important factor to being an RPG. Let me explain...
A common argument for defining RPG's is the idea that it's a game where you play a role. I've used this argument myself a few times, but it's often shot down (and sometimes rightfully so) because this definition can be applied to any game. In Half-life you play the role of Gordon Freeman, in Mario you play the role of a weird italian plumber with issues, and so on. But none of these games let you interact with the story in the same way that an RPG does.
Going back to the roots from which the RPG genre sprouted, tabletop. What made it roleplay wasn't the stats, progression, trinity archetypes or the silly voices of people "acting in-character".
What made it roleplay was the ability to tell the DM that, you want to kick the mayor in the groin, and then have the world around you react accordingly. Depending on your actions, the story changes, branches off and develops unexpectedly. You could have an upcoming encounter that was supposed to be a nasty boss fight, but if you approach it creatively you could end up swaying the enemy over diplomatically instead. Turning the story upside down and gaining an ally simultaneously.
To me, this is what makes an RPG an RPG. The ability to interact with, and influence the story.
In half-life, you might be able to choose between hallway A or hallway B, but that's about it. Some games give you a few moral options that give you ending 1 or ending 2, but that's about it. In RPG's, to varying degree, you're given an objective and considerable freedom in how you want to complete that objective. Along the way, you make friends and foes exclusively depending on who you choose to help or ignore.
This, of course, is a lot harder to simulate and program in video games, as made evident by the tendency to create linear storylines. Which isn't inherently bad. But I'd still say that that is the essence of what makes an RPG. You not only play the role of your character, but the story responds to it. Take that as you will...
Actually...Come to think of it, I'd argue that Telltale Games: The Walking Dead, is more of an RPG than a lot of MMORPGS, and it has zero vertical progression. In fact it has none at all. This is largely an argument of opinion, but bear with me here...
It may not be marketed as an RPG, or even officially categorized as one. You may not be able to create your own character either. But what you can do, is interact with, and greatly influence the course of the story. I'd say this is one of, if not the most important factor to being an RPG. Let me explain...
A common argument for defining RPG's is the idea that it's a game where you play a role. I've used this argument myself a few times, but it's often shot down (and sometimes rightfully so) because this definition can be applied to any game. In Half-life you play the role of Gordon Freeman, in Mario you play the role of a weird italian plumber with issues, and so on. But none of these games let you interact with the story in the same way that an RPG does.
Going back to the roots from which the RPG genre sprouted, tabletop. What made it roleplay wasn't the stats, progression, trinity archetypes or the silly voices of people "acting in-character".
What made it roleplay was the ability to tell the DM that, you want to kick the mayor in the groin, and then have the world around you react accordingly. Depending on your actions, the story changes, branches off and develops unexpectedly. You could have an upcoming encounter that was supposed to be a nasty boss fight, but if you approach it creatively you could end up swaying the enemy over diplomatically instead. Turning the story upside down and gaining an ally simultaneously.
To me, this is what makes an RPG an RPG. The ability to interact with, and influence the story.
In half-life, you might be able to choose between hallway A or hallway B, but that's about it. Some games give you a few moral options that give you ending 1 or ending 2, but that's about it. In RPG's, to varying degree, you're given an objective and considerable freedom in how you want to complete that objective. Along the way, you make friends and foes exclusively depending on who you choose to help or ignore.
This, of course, is a lot harder to simulate and program in video games, as made evident by the tendency to create linear storylines. Which isn't inherently bad. But I'd still say that that is the essence of what makes an RPG. You not only play the role of your character, but the story responds to it. Take that as you will...
Well let's educate you on what RPGs are so you can avoid making this mistake:
The list I keep referring to? Those are what we've been calling RPGs in videogaming for 35 years.
These gamesaren't being called RPGs. They're called Adventure Games. It includes most of Telltale's lineup (it's missing a few games like Game of Thrones which are actually still adventure games.)
Videogame RPGs aren't defined by "playing a role". You play a role in over 90% of all games. We use the term RPG to apply to only specific games which are heavily characterized by progression, story, and stats-driven combat.
The Tabletop RPGs that spawned Videogame RPGs were still heavily wargame-inspired at the time. Chainmail (tabletop, 1974) was mostly combat, and evolved into D&D (tabletop, 1974) which used Chainmail's combat rules and was mostly a dungeon crawl (there's almost nothing that isn't combat-oriented in the three rulebook PDFs linked in this thread. What is there is very mechanical; you hire an Alchemist and he performs a function; no description of improv-acting style role-playing is mentioned as far as I could find.)
Videogame RPGs spawned with games like DND (videogame, 1975). Note that this occurred BEFORE D&D evolved into a game that was more than just a combat dungeon crawl. Dungeon (videogame, 1975) was another early offering.
So in 1975 when Videogame RPGs split off from Tabletop RPGs, they were actually extremely similar: games which just involved progression and stats-driven combat.
It was only later (Ultima 1, 1981) that Videogame RPGs developed story (which would became a core pillar of the genre) . Someone else might be able to call out exactly when in D&D's history that Tabletop RPGs gained their focus on improv storytelling. Certainly the article on D&D's Basic Set ('77, '81) paints John Eric Holmes as one of the early forces encouraging the rules to be improv-driven in ~1977, but I'm not sure how much of that actually shone through in those early sets.
So now you should understand that RPGs are a very specific thing in videogames, and have been for ~35 years (ever since Ultima 1 brought in that third design pillar).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well let's educate you on what RPGs are so you can avoid making this mistake:
If I may direct your attention to the third line of my post, which was even underlined
v
-> This is largely an argument of opinion <-
^
I'm well aware of which games we've been "calling RPG's for the past 35 years". I just disagree with the interpretation.
It begs the question: why?
Why are stat-driven menu-combat games being defined as roleplaying games? what is it about scaling numerical attributes that makes a game, a roleplaying game? As opposed to things like choice/consequence mechanics. Or hell, roleplaying?
Perhaps more importantly, why are these specific functions the deciding factor, when these same functions are simultaneously applied to other games in different contexts, without necessarily affecting the genre in the slightest?
Looking around the web, there doesn't seem to be any official dictionary defintion of the term "roleplaying game" beyond some variant of "A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world."
Some sites elaborate on mechanics like stat-driven progression and that sort, while others also mention story with meaningful interactions. This leads me to believe that, claiming that one thing is more correct than another, is ultimately a little bit nonsensical.
A tendency (the method in which all, or most, of the current games categorized as RPGs have been created) does not necessarily dictate the definition.
An FPS can be an FPS with or without a progression system, stats or even guns. As long as it's first person, and you shoot things. A MOBA can be a MOBA with or without a progression system, or in-match item building (see Magicka Wizard Wars), as long as it's a battle arena, with online multiplayer.
An RPG should be able to be an RPG with or without stats or progression, as long as it requires you to roleplay. No?
Horizontal progression, shallow vertical progression, action adventure or whatever you want to call it is more practical for persistent online worlds. Give me tighter local lore based content and no hero journey mixed with radiant procedural content and sandbox player world building with logical and logistical developer world building and I am happy.
Well let's educate you on what RPGs are so you can avoid making this mistake:
DND (later renamed Telengard) was made in 1977, "dnd" made in 1975 actually already had a fundamental plot system in place and tasked the player with obtaining two ancient artifacts, not simply kill stuff. Put simply, from the beginning of the genre there was the vestiges of an objective and at least vague plot driven purpose to one's actions. Given the limitations of the early systems, you can also see that the storytelling mechanics were relatively limited by how much space in memory they could dedicate to extra dialogue.
Given the new-ness of the genre and it's mechanics, there were many experimental titles and permutations which sometimes focused on one element over another, but you can also see even back in 1979 with the Space title a much more narrative driven RPG with a much more heavily roleplayed user experience.
Narrative and depth of a character's role is a feature of RPG games, even the computer titles. For the computer we can actually see that it's was an inherent feature as far back as the inception of it as a genre.
You also heavily misrepresented the PnP systems in your dialogue. As with all PnP RPG titles, they are foremost a rule-system that establishes the basic governing operations of a game, and the lore is content that is used to describe different worlds and settings for the users to play through. This is often what is called a module or a campaign setting. This is true even prior to Chainmail's release, as there were rule systems that predated that as well where the likes of the Castle & Crusade Society played through plot-heavy and narrative campaign settings like Blackmoor as far back as 1971.
That was before D&D took off. After the release of D&D that mechanic of modules and campaign settings took off much more dramatically, and that one rulesystem consequently spawned a very large variety of home-brewed narratives as well as many prefab settings (including an adapted version of Blackmoor and the Greyhawk setting).
This means that by the time RPG systems hit computers, they had not only been a staple in the use of these RPG systems for at least 5-6 years pior or more, but that they were at least present in basic form (as were pretty much all components of RPG systems back then) on the computer equivalents.
If you're gonna "educate" people to "avoid making mistakes", don't make such a big mistake yourself.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If I may direct your attention to the third line of my post, which was even underlined
I'm well aware of which games we've been "calling RPG's for the past 35 years". I just disagree with the interpretation.
It begs the question: why?
Why are stat-driven menu-combat games being defined as roleplaying games? what is it about scaling numerical attributes that makes a game, a roleplaying game? As opposed to things like choice/consequence mechanics. Or hell, roleplaying?
Perhaps more importantly, why are these specific functions the deciding factor, when these same functions are simultaneously applied to other games in different contexts, without necessarily affecting the genre in the slightest?
Looking around the web, there doesn't seem to be any official dictionary defintion of the term "roleplaying game" beyond some variant of "A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world."
Some sites elaborate on mechanics like stat-driven progression and that sort, while others also mention story with meaningful interactions. This leads me to believe that, claiming that one thing is more correct than another, is ultimately a little bit nonsensical.
A tendency (the method in which all, or most, of the current games categorized as RPGs have been created) does not necessarily dictate the definition.
An FPS can be an FPS with or without a progression system, stats or even guns. As long as it's first person, and you shoot things. A MOBA can be a MOBA with or without a progression system, or in-match item building (see Magicka Wizard Wars), as long as it's a battle arena, with online multiplayer.
An RPG should be able to be an RPG with or without stats or progression, as long as it requires you to roleplay. No?
Why is blue called "blue"?
Because that's the word we assigned to the concept. Its blue because everyone calls it blue and so everyone knows what you're talking about when you call something blue.
Interesting questions can be asked as to why our brains see something as blue when processing the light that hits our eyes after that light has bounced off other things.
Interesting questions can be asked about the etymology of the English word Blue and how it evolved from previous languages.
However questioning why "blue" specifically or any implication that we should call non-blue things "blue" starts to work against the purpose of words. The reason "blue" works is specifically because everyone calls blue things blue. If people commonly called all colors "blue" or even if they called green and blue "blue", the word literally lose its utility (proportional to how widely mis-used).
If blue wasn't in the dictionary but was widely used in this way, we'd still know what blue was because we'd have a huge history of instances where blue was used to describe something of that particular color.
So the simple fact remains that if you diverge from the three things that make something an RPG (vertical progression, story, and stats-based combat) you're not going to end up with a game players call "RPG", because the word has never been used in that context to refer to anything else.
Also: please note that the opinion of what "blue" means is utterly irrelevant. If someone has an opinion that green things are "blue", they're simply wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Vermillion_Raventhal said:
More like dropping what creates what most people hate about the genre.
And you base this on what evidence?
Because in case you haven't noticed, the "genre" is based on progression, it is everywhere and if there was an MMO to get away with horizontal design it either failed or did their best implemented progression in a way or another.
So again, where is your evidence suggesting people "hate" progression?
Axehilt said: ...the opinion of what "blue" means is utterly irrelevant. If someone has an opinion that green things are "blue", they're simply wrong.
First off, the three main pillars of RPG design is not "vertical progression, story, and stats based combat". Foremost, the "three main pillars" of RPG design is something that exists as little more than your opinion of what they are, and are apparently subject to change even from yourself seeing as you changed from a prior statement of progression over to specifically calling out vertical progression.
So what that means right off the bat is that what you just argued for isn't even an objective stance, but your own personal opinion. Meaning by your logic, your argument is utterly irrelevant and "simply wrong".
Aside from that, the actual core principles of RPG design are best defined by the characteristics of the genre.
Storytelling and Setting
Exploration
Character Building and Itemization
Character Actions and Abilities
Progression Mechanics
Combat
Means and Depth of interaction
That's considerably more than just three pillars, and even if we grouped things like all the character and progression mechanics into one and the story and exploration into one, to merge the likes of combat and means of interaction would be to directly dumb down the user experience as we can see with many games that there are plenty of interactive features outside the realm of combat. If we were to merge those we could define combat as a subgroup of interactivity though.
Meaning if we paired it down to three pillars it would be basically this;
World Structure
Character Development
Interactivity
This is exactly why one can have a game like Undertale which is an RPG, yet the game offers choices such as a no-kill route using non-violent actions among the rest of it's gameplay features.
So too does this point extend to the progression mechanics of a game, as vertical progression is very simply one type of structure to which character development can take place and can functionally be augmented or even substituted with other progression mechanics and customization choices.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I...don't think that's a comparable example by any measure. "Blue" is a word given to the primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.
The word "Blue" itself might be a meaningless combination of letters without context, but in the English language, it has a very clear definition. And as far as I'm aware, we're currently communicating in English, yes?
RPG is an acronym of the term "Roleplaying game". Both words of which have definitions of their own. One being roleplay, and the other being a game, respectively.
For a more in-depth definition.
Roleplay:
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction:
- Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role:
2.the material or equipment used in playing certain games:
- a store selling toys and games.
3.a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
(dictionary source) These two words, which have their own very clear definitions, make up the term "Roleplaying Game" (RPG for short), which is by extension a combination of these two definitions. Make sense? Unless of course I missed a lesson on "how to make up terms that don't mean, what their definitions say"... I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You may notice that the definition of roleplay has no mention of stats or scaling power.
Regardless of what the developers communicate through their games, with the way they create them. It still doesn't make sense to me, that statistics and rising numbers are a defining feature of roleplaying games.
I...don't think that's a comparable example by any measure. "Blue" is a word given to the primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.
The word "Blue" itself might be a meaningless combination of letters without context, but in the English language, it has a very clear definition. And as far as I'm aware, we're currently communicating in English, yes?
RPG is an acronym of the term "Roleplaying game". Both words of which have definitions of their own. One being roleplay, and the other being a game, respectively.
For a more in-depth definition.
Roleplay:
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction:
- Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role:
2.the material or equipment used in playing certain games:
- a store selling toys and games.
3.a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
(dictionary source) These two words, which have their own very clear definitions, make up the term "Roleplaying Game" (RPG for short), which is by extension a combination of these two definitions. Make sense? Unless of course I missed a lesson on "how to make up terms that don't mean, what their definitions say"... I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You may notice that the definition of roleplay has no mention of stats or scaling power.
Regardless of what the developers communicate through their games, with the way they create them. It still doesn't make sense to me, that statistics and rising numbers are a defining feature of roleplaying games.
and excatly why Second Life is a MMORPG without vertical progreesion
These two words, which have their own very clear definitions, make up the term "Roleplaying Game" (RPG for short), which is by extension a combination of these two definitions. Make sense? Unless of course I missed a lesson on "how to make up terms that don't mean, what their definitions say"... I could be wrong.
Well, there is this definition, but it kind of just restates what you already said;
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
Here's an interesting quote as well;
"In some ways, the emphasis on character development has impeded progress in storytelling with RPGs. The central premise of these [computer RPGs] is that the player steadily builds his abilities by acquiring wealth, tools, weapons, and experience. This emphasis on character development tends to work against the needs of dramatic development - dramatic twists and turns clash with the prevailing tone of steady development. Fortunately, this impediment is not fundamental to the RPG genre; it is a cultural expectation rather than an architectural necessity." (Chris Crawford 2003)
"A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children." (Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook)
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Vermillion_Raventhal said:
More like dropping what creates what most people hate about the genre.
And you base this on what evidence?
Because in case you haven't noticed, the "genre" is based on progression, it is everywhere and if there was an MMO to get away with horizontal design it either failed or did their best implemented progression in a way or another.
So again, where is your evidence suggesting people "hate" progression?
It isn't obvious what he is basing it on? While MMOs are a struggling genre the MOBA market is thriving. MOBAs start every match with all players matched evenly and all you earn is additional characters that are equal in power to the original ones and new character skins. Clear horizontal progression.
I don't think MMOs are dying because people hate large persistent worlds filled with thousands of players. All the friends I've known that gave up on MMOs cited the grind as the number one reason.
Vermillion_Raventhal said:
More like dropping what creates what most people hate about the genre.
And you base this on what evidence?
Because in case you haven't noticed, the "genre" is based on progression, it is everywhere and if there was an MMO to get away with horizontal design it either failed or did their best implemented progression in a way or another.
So again, where is your evidence suggesting people "hate" progression?
It isn't obvious what he is basing it on? While MMOs are a struggling genre the MOBA market is thriving. MOBAs start every match with all players matched evenly and all you earn is additional characters that are equal in power to the original ones and new character skins. Clear horizontal progression.
I don't think MMOs are dying because people hate large persistent worlds filled with thousands of players. All the friends I've known that gave up on MMOs cited the grind as the number one reason.
Not only that but the grinds are just bad gameplay a lot of the time. Filler task to just say you have "content." The whole end game setup based around a small percentage of content repeated over and over.
"it is a cultural expectation rather than an architectural necessity."
I couldn't agree with this more. Some people can't even see how a MMORPG could exist I'd it wasn't WoW styled themepark.
The genre has already moved away from the vast vertical progression being truly entertaining but can't give up the architecture. That's why more and more games are moving towards deleveling and scaling. Easy fast leveling was just the start. Not sure how developers can continue to justify having systems in place that go against their progression designs.
It isn't obvious what he is basing it on? While MMOs are a struggling genre the MOBA market is thriving. MOBAs start every match with all players matched evenly and all you earn is additional characters that are equal in power to the original ones and new character skins. Clear horizontal progression.
I don't think MMOs are dying because people hate large persistent worlds filled with thousands of players. All the friends I've known that gave up on MMOs cited the grind as the number one reason.
Just because MOBA has no progression does not mean people hate progression in MMOs.
Both are very different game types.
Backing up unsubstantial claim with more unsubstantial claims and false logic doesn't work well...
I...don't think that's a comparable example by any measure. "Blue" is a word given to the primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.
The word "Blue" itself might be a meaningless combination of letters without context, but in the English language, it has a very clear definition. And as far as I'm aware, we're currently communicating in English, yes?
RPG is an acronym of the term "Roleplaying game". Both words of which have definitions of their own. One being roleplay, and the other being a game, respectively.
For a more in-depth definition.
Roleplay:
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction:
- Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role:
2.the material or equipment used in playing certain games:
- a store selling toys and games.
3.a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
(dictionary source) These two words, which have their own very clear definitions, make up the term "Roleplaying Game" (RPG for short), which is by extension a combination of these two definitions. Make sense? Unless of course I missed a lesson on "how to make up terms that don't mean, what their definitions say"... I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You may notice that the definition of roleplay has no mention of stats or scaling power.
Regardless of what the developers communicate through their games, with the way they create them. It still doesn't make sense to me, that statistics and rising numbers are a defining feature of roleplaying games.
No, it's the same thing. RPG in videogames refers to a specific thing, in precisely the way that "blue" refers to a specific thing. That's how words work.
If you call non-RPGs "RPG" just because they involve the dictionary definition of playing a role, you'll simply be using the genre wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Vermillion_Raventhal said:
More like dropping what creates what most people hate about the genre.
And you base this on what evidence?
Because in case you haven't noticed, the "genre" is based on progression, it is everywhere and if there was an MMO to get away with horizontal design it either failed or did their best implemented progression in a way or another.
So again, where is your evidence suggesting people "hate" progression?
If people loved progression they wouldn't pay to skip or avoid it. I think that's enough evidence in itself.
Comments
Please stop trying to drag others into that delusion.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It may not be marketed as an RPG, or even officially categorized as one.
You may not be able to create your own character either.
But what you can do, is interact with, and greatly influence the course of the story. I'd say this is one of, if not the most important factor to being an RPG.
Let me explain...
A common argument for defining RPG's is the idea that it's a game where you play a role. I've used this argument myself a few times, but it's often shot down (and sometimes rightfully so) because this definition can be applied to any game.
In Half-life you play the role of Gordon Freeman, in Mario you play the role of a weird italian plumber with issues, and so on. But none of these games let you interact with the story in the same way that an RPG does.
Going back to the roots from which the RPG genre sprouted, tabletop. What made it roleplay wasn't the stats, progression, trinity archetypes or the silly voices of people "acting in-character".
What made it roleplay was the ability to tell the DM that, you want to kick the mayor in the groin, and then have the world around you react accordingly.
Depending on your actions, the story changes, branches off and develops unexpectedly. You could have an upcoming encounter that was supposed to be a nasty boss fight, but if you approach it creatively you could end up swaying the enemy over diplomatically instead. Turning the story upside down and gaining an ally simultaneously.
To me, this is what makes an RPG an RPG. The ability to interact with, and influence the story.
In half-life, you might be able to choose between hallway A or hallway B, but that's about it. Some games give you a few moral options that give you ending 1 or ending 2, but that's about it. In RPG's, to varying degree, you're given an objective and considerable freedom in how you want to complete that objective. Along the way, you make friends and foes exclusively depending on who you choose to help or ignore.
This, of course, is a lot harder to simulate and program in video games, as made evident by the tendency to create linear storylines. Which isn't inherently bad. But I'd still say that that is the essence of what makes an RPG. You not only play the role of your character, but the story responds to it. Take that as you will...
- The list I keep referring to? Those are what we've been calling RPGs in videogaming for 35 years.
- These games aren't being called RPGs. They're called Adventure Games. It includes most of Telltale's lineup (it's missing a few games like Game of Thrones which are actually still adventure games.)
Videogame RPGs aren't defined by "playing a role". You play a role in over 90% of all games. We use the term RPG to apply to only specific games which are heavily characterized by progression, story, and stats-driven combat.The Tabletop RPGs that spawned Videogame RPGs were still heavily wargame-inspired at the time. Chainmail (tabletop, 1974) was mostly combat, and evolved into D&D (tabletop, 1974) which used Chainmail's combat rules and was mostly a dungeon crawl (there's almost nothing that isn't combat-oriented in the three rulebook PDFs linked in this thread. What is there is very mechanical; you hire an Alchemist and he performs a function; no description of improv-acting style role-playing is mentioned as far as I could find.)
Videogame RPGs spawned with games like DND (videogame, 1975). Note that this occurred BEFORE D&D evolved into a game that was more than just a combat dungeon crawl. Dungeon (videogame, 1975) was another early offering.
So in 1975 when Videogame RPGs split off from Tabletop RPGs, they were actually extremely similar: games which just involved progression and stats-driven combat.
It was only later (Ultima 1, 1981) that Videogame RPGs developed story (which would became a core pillar of the genre) . Someone else might be able to call out exactly when in D&D's history that Tabletop RPGs gained their focus on improv storytelling. Certainly the article on D&D's Basic Set ('77, '81) paints John Eric Holmes as one of the early forces encouraging the rules to be improv-driven in ~1977, but I'm not sure how much of that actually shone through in those early sets.
So now you should understand that RPGs are a very specific thing in videogames, and have been for ~35 years (ever since Ultima 1 brought in that third design pillar).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If I may direct your attention to the third line of my post, which was even underlined
v
-> This is largely an argument of opinion <-
^
I'm well aware of which games we've been "calling RPG's for the past 35 years". I just disagree with the interpretation.
It begs the question: why?
Why are stat-driven menu-combat games being defined as roleplaying games? what is it about scaling numerical attributes that makes a game, a roleplaying game? As opposed to things like choice/consequence mechanics. Or hell, roleplaying?
Perhaps more importantly, why are these specific functions the deciding factor, when these same functions are simultaneously applied to other games in different contexts, without necessarily affecting the genre in the slightest?
Looking around the web, there doesn't seem to be any official dictionary defintion of the term "roleplaying game" beyond some variant of "A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which each participant assumes the role of a character, generally in a fantasy or science fiction setting, that can interact within the game's imaginary world."
Some sites elaborate on mechanics like stat-driven progression and that sort, while others also mention story with meaningful interactions. This leads me to believe that, claiming that one thing is more correct than another, is ultimately a little bit nonsensical.
A tendency (the method in which all, or most, of the current games categorized as RPGs have been created) does not necessarily dictate the definition.
An FPS can be an FPS with or without a progression system, stats or even guns. As long as it's first person, and you shoot things.
A MOBA can be a MOBA with or without a progression system, or in-match item building (see Magicka Wizard Wars), as long as it's a battle arena, with online multiplayer.
An RPG should be able to be an RPG with or without stats or progression, as long as it requires you to roleplay. No?
Given the new-ness of the genre and it's mechanics, there were many experimental titles and permutations which sometimes focused on one element over another, but you can also see even back in 1979 with the Space title a much more narrative driven RPG with a much more heavily roleplayed user experience.
Narrative and depth of a character's role is a feature of RPG games, even the computer titles. For the computer we can actually see that it's was an inherent feature as far back as the inception of it as a genre.
You also heavily misrepresented the PnP systems in your dialogue. As with all PnP RPG titles, they are foremost a rule-system that establishes the basic governing operations of a game, and the lore is content that is used to describe different worlds and settings for the users to play through. This is often what is called a module or a campaign setting. This is true even prior to Chainmail's release, as there were rule systems that predated that as well where the likes of the Castle & Crusade Society played through plot-heavy and narrative campaign settings like Blackmoor as far back as 1971.
That was before D&D took off. After the release of D&D that mechanic of modules and campaign settings took off much more dramatically, and that one rulesystem consequently spawned a very large variety of home-brewed narratives as well as many prefab settings (including an adapted version of Blackmoor and the Greyhawk setting).
This means that by the time RPG systems hit computers, they had not only been a staple in the use of these RPG systems for at least 5-6 years pior or more, but that they were at least present in basic form (as were pretty much all components of RPG systems back then) on the computer equivalents.
If you're gonna "educate" people to "avoid making mistakes", don't make such a big mistake yourself.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
- Because that's the word we assigned to the concept. Its blue because everyone calls it blue and so everyone knows what you're talking about when you call something blue.
- Interesting questions can be asked as to why our brains see something as blue when processing the light that hits our eyes after that light has bounced off other things.
- Interesting questions can be asked about the etymology of the English word Blue and how it evolved from previous languages.
- However questioning why "blue" specifically or any implication that we should call non-blue things "blue" starts to work against the purpose of words. The reason "blue" works is specifically because everyone calls blue things blue. If people commonly called all colors "blue" or even if they called green and blue "blue", the word literally lose its utility (proportional to how widely mis-used).
If blue wasn't in the dictionary but was widely used in this way, we'd still know what blue was because we'd have a huge history of instances where blue was used to describe something of that particular color.So the simple fact remains that if you diverge from the three things that make something an RPG (vertical progression, story, and stats-based combat) you're not going to end up with a game players call "RPG", because the word has never been used in that context to refer to anything else.
Also: please note that the opinion of what "blue" means is utterly irrelevant. If someone has an opinion that green things are "blue", they're simply wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because in case you haven't noticed, the "genre" is based on progression, it is everywhere and if there was an MMO to get away with horizontal design it either failed or did their best implemented progression in a way or another.
So again, where is your evidence suggesting people "hate" progression?
So what that means right off the bat is that what you just argued for isn't even an objective stance, but your own personal opinion. Meaning by your logic, your argument is utterly irrelevant and "simply wrong".
Aside from that, the actual core principles of RPG design are best defined by the characteristics of the genre.
- Storytelling and Setting
- Exploration
- Character Building and Itemization
- Character Actions and Abilities
- Progression Mechanics
- Combat
- Means and Depth of interaction
That's considerably more than just three pillars, and even if we grouped things like all the character and progression mechanics into one and the story and exploration into one, to merge the likes of combat and means of interaction would be to directly dumb down the user experience as we can see with many games that there are plenty of interactive features outside the realm of combat. If we were to merge those we could define combat as a subgroup of interactivity though.Meaning if we paired it down to three pillars it would be basically this;
- World Structure
- Character Development
- Interactivity
This is exactly why one can have a game like Undertale which is an RPG, yet the game offers choices such as a no-kill route using non-violent actions among the rest of it's gameplay features.So too does this point extend to the progression mechanics of a game, as vertical progression is very simply one type of structure to which character development can take place and can functionally be augmented or even substituted with other progression mechanics and customization choices.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I...don't think that's a comparable example by any measure. "Blue" is a word given to the primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.
The word "Blue" itself might be a meaningless combination of letters without context, but in the English language, it has a very clear definition. And as far as I'm aware, we're currently communicating in English, yes?
RPG is an acronym of the term "Roleplaying game". Both words of which have definitions of their own. One being roleplay, and the other being a game, respectively.
For a more in-depth definition.
Roleplay:
Game:
These two words, which have their own very clear definitions, make up the term "Roleplaying Game" (RPG for short), which is by extension a combination of these two definitions. Make sense? Unless of course I missed a lesson on "how to make up terms that don't mean, what their definitions say"... I could be wrong.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You may notice that the definition of roleplay has no mention of stats or scaling power.
Regardless of what the developers communicate through their games, with the way they create them. It still doesn't make sense to me, that statistics and rising numbers are a defining feature of roleplaying games.
"Role-playing games
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
Here's an interesting quote as well;
"In some ways, the emphasis on character development has impeded progress in storytelling with RPGs. The central premise of these [computer RPGs] is that the player steadily builds his abilities by acquiring wealth, tools, weapons, and experience. This emphasis on character development tends to work against the needs of dramatic development - dramatic twists and turns clash with the prevailing tone of steady development. Fortunately, this impediment is not fundamental to the RPG genre; it is a cultural expectation rather than an architectural necessity." (Chris Crawford 2003)
"A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children." (Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook)
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
but i also want pvp lobby game.. like gw2 spvp
The genre has already moved away from the vast vertical progression being truly entertaining but can't give up the architecture. That's why more and more games are moving towards deleveling and scaling. Easy fast leveling was just the start. Not sure how developers can continue to justify having systems in place that go against their progression designs.
Both are very different game types.
Backing up unsubstantial claim with more unsubstantial claims and false logic doesn't work well...
If you call non-RPGs "RPG" just because they involve the dictionary definition of playing a role, you'll simply be using the genre wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver