The following post is this author’s opinion and does not reflect the thoughts and feelings of Fextralife as a whole nor the individual content creators associated with the site. Any link that goes outside of Fextralife are owned by their respective authors.
It seems this shouldn’t need to be explained, but the gaming industry and community seem intent on reducing the term RPG to complete meaninglessness by describing absolutely everything as an RPG. I’m going to clarify some things by explaining some core ideas and concepts in the hope that the term RPG might actually be used only to describe the games it’s actually meant to describe instead of becoming another Rogue, if it hasn’t already. As a quick disclaimer, of course there are grey areas, as with all discussion of genres in every medium but we should nonetheless strive for a clearer definition of what is and what isn’t an RPG.
Defining the RPG
So what is an RPG? Well simply put, it’s a Role Playing Game. A game that is designed around the idea of Role-Playing, usually they use systems (the statistics we’re all so familiar with) to both create and enforce a degree of separation between the player and the character to force said player to think and act as the character, rather than themselves, to succeed. It’s important to note the word usually in the previous statement because RPGs don’t necessarily need stats. In fact they don’t necessarily need dialogue or combat or any other specific set of mechanics to be RPGs, so long as what systems they do have are built around this concept because, and this is important, an RPG, much like a Puzzle Game, is not a mechanical genre.

Sure, there is the obvious stuff like Pillars of Eternity where the dialogue choices and combat work together to provide plenty of opportunity to think and act as your character in both scenarios. Wizards don’t choose to study magic for no reason after all, they have a history and/or personality that lead them to it. It’s just as possible to have an RPG that’s a racing game, having dialogue impact the disposition and performance of the other racers: more or less aggressive, maybe you drugged them so they do badly, maybe even tying what upgrades are available to your dialogue choices. The timid character probably isn’t going to favor big burly murder machines so your options for racing are limited to things a timid person might use. It’s also possible to just ignore everything that isn’t the dialogue and use clever writing and AI collaborating behind the scenes to turn a visual novel into an RPG. All they need to do is convince the player to create and maintain a character instead of trying to find the “best” ending, so it should, for example, acknowledge if you’re being really two-faced. That would basically just be Pillars of Eternity with all the combat pulled out.

So What Isn’t an RPG?
On the opposite extreme, there is an element of Role-Playing in Darkest Dungeon, despite the complete lack of player dialogue. No, it’s not the combat and the stats, it’s the decisions you have to make that determine your entire playstyle. Do you try to keep your party alive and allow them time to heal? Do you dispose of them as soon as they get a troublesome condition or quirk? Do you maliciously abuse them by throwing them into the dark to farm money and simply abandon the dead or permanently disabled veterans while taking the rewards? The game also goes out of the way to acknowledge that you’re doing these things with the sanity and quirk systems. Beyond the simple mechanical changes, it tests your willingness to spend time and money resting your characters and your willingness to work around potentially negative habits they develop. Would I call it an RPG? No, I’d say it has RPG elements, but Role-Playing isn’t the game’s focus and takes a backseat to the combat and dungeon crawling.

Many, many games are called RPGs that are in fact no such thing. The industry seems to have latched onto the stats and leveling systems that generally come with RPGs as the defining metric instead of focusing on what purpose those things actually serve. Borderlands, despite my love for the series, is not an RPG, action or otherwise. The stats and math are used to enhance and flavor the shooting within the characters predefined personalities and playstyles, not to encourage or allow Role-Playing. Claiming Borderlands in an RPG is like claiming Portal is a First Person Shooter because it’s in first person and you shoot. However, looking at what purpose the mechanics serve we see the obvious, that Portal is a puzzle game using a FPS mechanic to enhance and reinforce its puzzle solving gameplay.

The Witcher series? Not so much, despite ticking all the RPG “boxes” such as dialogue choices, quests, stats, leveling systems. You are Geralt, everything you do is something Geralt would do. You aren’t asking, “what would my character do?” because the answer is “any of the options I have.” The focus is on telling their story and exploring the complex interactions from Geralt’s perspective, not Role-Playing of any description. Even preset characters in pen and paper RPGs still require interpretation and legitimately attempting to think as that character for decisions to make sense because you have infinite options. The limited nature of the decisions in The Witcher don’t really fit that kind of gameplay. Yes, you don’t technically have to Role-Play in pen and paper RPGs, but neither do you have to in any RPG, just like you don’t have to shoot in first person shooters or race in racing games, but that doesn’t change what the mechanics were designed for.

JRPG vs Western RPG
It is also worth talking about the idea that JRPG and RPG are different genres. They are. The term JRPG is a kind of misnomer, because the games don’t necessarily need to be Japanese such as Septerra Core and are not RPGs. People see the stats and label games RPGs without actually paying attention to what purpose the stats serve and just assume RPG, which is the source of said misnomer. JRPGs are generally much closer to Anime than RPGs. They’re about watching set characters with set personalities experience a set story in a set manner, you’re just along for the ride. Whatever choice they offer, if any, usually has a single correct answer as a way forward like the social links in Persona 3 and 4. Most JRPGs have more in common with The Last of Us than with Pillars of Eternity. This is not to say JRPGs are in any way bad or inferior, they aren’t, just that the name of the genre is misleading.

Why the Name Matters
One final point before my conclusion, “you’re playing a role and thus this is a role playing game” is a pedantic and unhelpful thing to say. It would be like me saying, “every game is an action game because you always have to take action.” That’s not what either of those terms mean, and those interested in having an actual discussion will concede that point.
Now, there are reasons this is important. So far as I am aware, there is virtually no meaningful discussion on RPGs as I just defined them and what things help or harm them and how they might be improved. One reason is very simple, nobody is using the term correctly so RPG casts too broad a net for anyone to talk about them without spending 20 minutes defining it first or using the terms traditional or isometric to talk about that specific kind. I can’t discuss why Fallout 4 isn’t really an RPG or is a really, really bad RPG and how various things harm the experience from that perspective because people see the mechanics they associate with RPGs, call it an RPG, say that they liked it and so it’s a good RPG, and refuse to continue the discussion in any meaningful way. It’s difficult to talk about mechanics I’d like to see in RPGs, for example more visual novels that fit that description, or what RPGs could steal from visual novels because it’s “not an RPG.”

Furthermore, while RPG should indicate a very specific type of game even if the actual mechanics it uses vary wildly, it has instead been taken to mean: leveling system, stats, and maybe you get floaty numbers in combat. This describes large swathes of all the games ever made and so is an utterly useless descriptor, as it robs people of a way to talk about actual RPGs and RPG systems that don’t conform to that notion.

So, next time you are about to refer to a game as an RPG or read one being talked about as an RPG, ask yourself “should it actually have that label? If so in what way does it justify having it?” Also, you can’t leave the term RPG to stand on it’s own as a catch all descriptor because while it says a lot about what purpose the mechanics of the game serve, it doesn’t say much about what those mechanics actually are. It needs to be defined. There is no denying RPG is a broad genre, just about any set of mechanics from a combat free visual novel to an action focused Dark Souls almost completely devoid of story/dialogue fits into the genre. Let’s not make it broad to the point of uselessness by including things that steal surface elements without regard for what purpose those things actually serve.
You wouldn’t call Lord of the Rings a horror story because it has ghosts in it would you?
More Opinions

42 responses to “What’s in a Name? The RPG Problem”
That they don’t is kinda irrelivant. It uses OGL (Ie the basis of the D&D ruleset) and actually has detailed rules, it just doesn’t lend itself to the dungeon crawly type of campaign that is popular and deals mostly with social stuff.
I know that for entirely innocent reasons, I swear. (Actually I stumbled across it and was too curious to not read some of it.)
>
Based on what the reviewers say, it sounds more like an erotic novel than something to use in the game. They keep saying that they use it just for reading, or as an idea book, but don’t really use the rules or anything gameplay related.
again, yes.
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/1588463990” rel=”nofollow
>
What about the S&M sex slave thing?
actually yes. Catfolk are a thing.
>
Can you be a cat man whose is the “pet” to an exceptionally wealthy wood elf mistress. Yeah, didn’t think so. Great game ever, my imagination.
>
It already exists. It’s called Dungeons and Dragons and it’s the greatest thing I’ve ever played.
>
If My Dreams Become Doubly Negative they will be positive.
If only all games had a Dungeon Master Mode.
>
Hey, keep on dreaming. Don’t dream negatively man.
Yes. Hence Why It is a Pipe Dream.
>
There are three things stopping that from happening.
Money
Time
Interest
I mean, at least one RPG has at least one of those features, but I bet it would take a LOT of time, labor, and resources to make a game that does all of that well and in sync with each other on the scale that I think you’re imagining. Not no indie sized RNG based RPG, BIG, like WoW big, only not an MMO, and far more life like.
I am still waiting for my Ideal RPG.
I have wanted an RPG that has the Customization potential of the Sims Games. Imagine being able to be the architect of your Castle, Choose how your party looks like. and their personalities, Choose what the Townies/NPcs Look Like in Your Castle. Cultivate the Townspeople to craft or find better items.
ONly to learn that this is just a small portion of the game. Add in an epic length Campaign and Side quests. Along with the oportunity to Craft your own Dungeons and encounter others. Even having a Custom Weapon and Armor Crafting Mode, Picking how you want the best in game Armor to look like.
I could go on and on. But I think I have said enough.
A RPG fan`s background is not connected in any way to a definition of the term RPG. But it`s part of how different players are perceiving a particular role playing game. Such a perception is subjective, and it will always be – based on personal preferences and options. Fortunately the RPG offer is diverse enough to satisfy many such different preferences.
Role-playing require immersion, and immersion means a detailed enough imaginary world. Like in the case of any good novel. Like the worlds from Dune or Ender`s Game for instance. In my opinion, if you want to define what RPG means, the best way is to establish a common element for all RPG`s regardless of genre (a common core). Then deal with the many RPG categories.
For me, role-playing a character based on immersion in the game`s world is that core. I gave the examples of classic adventure games vs classic RPG`s. Both genres included puzzles and an overall story. But an adventure game didn`t require role-playing and immersion. Just puzzle-solving abilities. There were almost zero decisions in a classical adventure game. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis was famous because you had to decide twice (if I remember right) the entire game – choosing one of the three available paths and saving Sophia. In rest it was puzzle solving, and each puzzle had only one correct solution.
Now compare this with even a modest RPG. How many decisions do you have to make in a RPG? Are these decisions affecting at least some outcomes? How (on what basis) do you make these decisions?
That`s part of the immersion.
I’m kinda responding to both at once because your points are entangled a little bit, but not everything is a reply to both of you.
I don’t expect an RPG to tick all the boxes or be called something else. I expect it to tick 1 box, to be built for roleplaying (ie allowing the player to define their character). I don’t care what else it does or doesn’t do or how it manages it, if it does that then it’s an RPG.
There are no “pure” RPGs, any more than there are “pure” action games. Put another way, any “pure” RPG where every system was built from the ground up for roleplaying would still have a (if not multiple) subgenres that would provide a meaningful distinction between them and other types of similarly “pure” RPG. Sure some of those subgenres probably lack a name at the moment, but they exsist and could be defined to compare and contrast with others. The Isometric pause and play party based kind of RPG (Baldur’s Gate) is distinct from a Tactical RPG like Shadowrun Returns, which is distinct from an action RPG like Fallout NV and they’re all equally “pure” in the sense that just about everything you can do in them is built to allow you to define and role play a character, doing what you think they would do and using their skills to succeed.
When you get elements of that turning up in games that don’t fit that description as a whole, you say they have RPG elements but are game type X or you might have a hybrid genre or sub genre to name.
All RPGs are limited by what they have time and money to write in, but there is a difference between writing a character to allow you to define who they are even if they have a set past (Fallout NV and Planescape Torment do this) and writing a character so that they’re pre-defined and everything they can do is believable for that pre-defined character. For example, The Courier (the NV protagonist) could be a sadistic sociopath who only works for Caesar because Caesar lets you do what you want to anyone who isn’t his ally, or a corrupt politician type bent on spreading the NCRs version of democracy so they can exploit it regardless of the cost to others. These 2 are arguably equally reprehensible characters, but many of their choices would be very, very different and NV will let you define your character either way (despite a fixed history.) That is a very different situation than Geralt and the writing of The Witcher where there is also a fixed history, but also a fixed way he deals with that history and a fixed personality and all of the choices are written to make sense for a specific person. It is very difficult to play a Geralt that is disjointed or does anything out of character because the game doesn’t give you that control. When you don’t have to think as your character to determine what they would do, it’s not roleplaying in the pen and paper/video game sense.
I believe it is. The sole defining metric is to examine everything you’re allowed to do in the game and ask “is allowing me to define the character the purpose of this action, yes or no and why?” If the answer for any major gameplay element is no, not an RPG or is an RPG hybrid. (yes I know the term major in that context would need a specific definiton, I’m not claiming to have all the answers.) The specific requirements on each individual thing you could do would be dependant on what that thing was, what the context was and what your options were, so a specific detailed list of requirements would be impossibly long.
My first “RPGs” were Pokemon, Legend of Legaia. I didn’t play what I could call an RPG until Kotor like 5 year later. Once you start defining terms by person interpretation the term is useless and means nothing. I can interpret the word “apple” to mean “car.” That doesn’t mean an apple is a car, it means I’m using words incorrectly.
>
About Monkey Island: it was quite a long time ago when I first played it
. I think it was about 2 or 3 afternoons (less than 10 hours on total). I played the Special Edition a few years ago much faster, but it doesn`t count. I liked it a lot back then – its crazy humor won me over. But Monkey Island 2 had that twisted ending – completely out of story, but worked!
I still play such games from time to time, like Broken Sword 5, which was quite enjoyable.
As for RPG`s, immersion is an important criteria for me. Games designed to be RPG`s have specific elements to make immersion possible and to maintain it. Like some elements from that short story from Cortazar I posted earlier. If you have read it, and glanced toward the door at the end you`ve been role-playing.
Is facilitating and maintaining immersion a key part of a RPG? I don`t know. I didn`t played that many RPG`s to be able to answer that. Also, immersion doesn`t work in an universal way. For instance, I tried a bit “Life is Strange” and it didn`t worked, since I`m no longer a teenager (I know it`s an adventure game). The same I can say about the Witcher games. The way the game was setup around Geralt just broke the immersion in my case; and his voice didn`t helped either. That doesn`t mean W1-3 are not RPG`s. Each of us have different experiences about playing RPG`s, and possibly different starting RPG`s. For someone introduced to the genre with Witcher 3 or DA:I the meaning of role playing game can be quite different from mine.
This is off topic, but how long did it take you to beat Monkey Island? Also, did you like it or not, and if so, how much and why?
You make a good point on an important quality for an RPG. It should make you, as the player, a part of it’s world. Player involvement in the world of the game helps the player immerse themself in it, and thus better connect to the role(s) you play in the game.
>
This is the core or the RPG genre, in my opinion. A game built around the role playing idea – a game featuring a detailed world (which can be very strange or familiar). When elements and characteristics of said world are influencing the kind of actions you`ll chose for your played character(s), making you start thinking as being part of that world. Like in Tyranny, when you chose actions for your character according to the rules set for Fatebinders by Kyros and Tunnon, instead of just killing everyone on sight, or waiting for the events to unfold without your intervention.
When I started playing IWD the first time (my first RPG) I`ve played games from Indiana Jones, Monkey Island, King Quest or Broken Sword series. The difference for me became obvious in a short time after. A game like BS1 has an overall story (a complicated plot which you are gradually uncovering) and two characters to play, BUT the game advances through puzzles. As a player, you are concentrating on said puzzles, expecting them in each new area, scanning for clues and objects. There are of course dialogues with other characters, and it helps if you take into account their behavior, expected goals and interests. All this makes a Broken Sword game a RPG? Now think about the first IWD game. There are fewer puzzles, and dialogues compared to BS1. What`s different is that you are no longer scanning the areas for puzzle clues; instead, by accepting the game story, you are starting to help out the inhabitants of Easthaven and later Kuldahar, uncovering several plots on the way. Acting like you are part of the world, giving your aid to help ending the region`s troubles, learning its secrets in the process. Is IWD a RPG?
I`m not arguing against you and your idea of defining what RPG is. I`m trying to help you, by giving you examples to think about and what I know about the process of establishing definition. An objective definition for a concept is one working “independently”, the same way for anyone applying it. Like the one for prime numbers. Such a definition needs to have very precise elements/rules. Often the required precision is reached by rules expressed by numbers, like stats for characters. It`s not that you cannot be objective. It`s the requirement of being usable by anyone with the same outcome which makes a definition objective.
Videogames don’t have the flexibility of pen and paper, so in essence all options for role-play are limited to what the developers thought out.
I am not a huge Witcher fan because I do not like playing as a male and having to “role-play” a male. I can play as Nathan Drake all day, but I don’t like having to role-play a relationship between Geralt and some bimbo. That right there highlights a crucial difference in how the witcher presents an rpg experience vs an action game.
Either way I think that the combination of several factors (and to me most importantly character development through stats, gear, quest options) is what makes for the “definition” of RPG. I do not think that expecting a single game to click all boxes or be called something else is realistic or fair. I think that if it ticks more of “rpg” boxes than action, it needs to be called “action rpg” as dark souls and witcher do. Purist RPG experiences are often simply called “rpg” without an addendum, unless they get the “classic” or “oldschool” label to go with it.
>
IT’s only too large and vague because people use the term incorrectly.
There are more types of RPG for the same reason there are more types of puzzle game. When it’s not a mechanical genre, any set of mechanics can be made to fit the bill.
I don’t believe I was particularly focused on character creation as a necessity (more on character definition,) but I already addressed the “you’re playing Geralt therefor you’re roleplaying” argument. If you want to make that claim then *every game where you control a character is an RPG and the term is effectively meaningless and should be abandoned entirely. It’s not as if skill trees or being able to see the math in combat are exclusive traits of RPGs, team fortress 2 and Farcry come to mind, so it doesn’t necessarily indicate those things that people associate with them either. It needs a proper definiton or it needs to die because it adds nothing to the conversation.
Again, I’m looking a featuresets and the purposes they serve. I don’t have to like or dislike them, they’re not more or less RPGs because I do or don’t find the systems they use to allow it engaging, they’re not even more or less RPGs if I really, really, really like the role playing apects that are present (or just not actively interfered with,) what matters is wether or not role playing is the point and how much of the game is built around that concept.
>
Again, it’s not that you don’t create the character, it’s that you don’t define the character. You don’t necessarily create the characters in D&D either (other people can do it for you and there are presets) but you do define them and have to actively interpret their personality to attempt to do things as them. You don’t do that in The Witcher, you’re generally only allowed to do things that are believable for their version of Geralt. You pick what you want to do, not what Geralt would do, he could do any of it and it would make sense given his personality and experience.
I’m also advocating that a series of elements be checked. In fact I’m advocating that every element be checked, and that the questions people should be asking when checking are along the lines of “how would this let me define my character and role in this world?.” If the answer is “it doesn’t because everything is designed to be believable for an individual pre-defined character” then it’s not an RPG.
Does that make what I was saying clearer? I’d agree that RPGs have expanded to include different approaches and styles, but I’d argue it has nothing to do with the definition as it relates to pen and paper/video games changing and everything to do with people finding new mechanics to allow ways to role play. That’s the thing about not being a mechanical genre, any set of mechanics can be adopted.
It occurs to me that I never defined what I meant by mechanical genre, so if it isn’t clear what I mean by mechanical genre is like First Person Shooter, Racing Game and Hack and Slash, genres that literally describe the mechanics of the game, as opposed to RPG, Puzzle Game or Strategy Game, that describe what the purpose of the mechanics is but not what those mechanics are (hence all the subgenres in the latter and not so many in the former.) It’s maybe also worth mentioning that many mechanical genres (Ie First Person Shooter, itself a sub genre of Shooter) are sub genres of genres that are just as broad as RPG (ie Action Game). It might also be worth noting, when RPG is subdivided into something other than action RPG (the go to genre for everything ever and whos constant misuse is responsible for most of my irritation in this matter) it’s usually, in my experience, more accurate. I’ve never once seen a game popularly called an isometric RPG or a Tactical RPG that isn’t actually an RPG (not that they don’t exsist, just that I haven’t seen them.)
>
When I said playing the role of Geralt, this is what I was referring to. You cannot play Geralt and not be in the Witcher universe at the same time.
As another point though, just about RPGs in general, you could potentially make a mechanical checklist for the genre of RPGs, as noted. However, what you would have happen is a group of games that don’t tick a few boxes and therefore don’t fall into a category. If you called The Witcher 3 an action game it would be more of a misnomer, even if it’s 51% RPG and 49% Action. If you call it an Action RPG then you’ve covered both categories and these best explain what sort of RPG it is.
Cas
I always thought playing pretend was the first form of Role-playing Game (and the best).
We’ve had this discussion in the forum many times, I can’t find the thread but there are some from 2012 lol.
The reality is that the definition of RPG is not cast in stone. Wikipedia leads with:
>
Reality is that since Pen and Paper and Dungeons and Dragons, the RPG genre has expanded to include different approaches and styles, creating hybrid games. The creation of your own character is not the trademark of the RPG any longer, the development of a character through a character sheet seems to be a more common theme. When I consider whether a game is an RPG or not, I usually check it against a series of elements, not one. The most salient one is whether there are stats, skill trees, crafting, and what level of depth those get.
Playing a character made by others such as Nathan Drake in an action game is not the same as deciding what happens to Geralt – but the thing that makes The Witcher an RPG is the combination of several factors such as stats, skill trees, crafting, conversation choices, different endings and quest outcomes that bring it together as role-playing.
>
To me, it’s not that playing as Geralt makes The Witcher an RPG, it’s that the game immerses you into the world in such a way that you empathize, connect to, and ultimately become Geralt. When you say “playing that character”, people assume you just mean controlling them and their actions, but to me it means you play the character’s role, as in you are playing the role itself, not just the game. Shooting in CoD doesn’t mean I’m role playing as a military soldier, I’m just controlling one. It’s when the game has me act as the character’s role, think as if I was in the character’s role, be the role in the game, that is a role playing game.
most of your article was an opinion piece and was extremely subjective. What you think is an RPG and what others consider an RPG can and will be different in many cases. The genre is much too large and vague to be definable without being subjective, and is one of the reasons that their are now types of RPGs (such as Action, Turn-Based, JRPG, and CRPG). Playing Geralt in the Witcher 3 is the very definition of Role-Playing as you are playing that character. You don’t have to enjoy it for that statement to be true, and you won’t find many people anywhere calling The Witcher 3 something other than what it is, an RPG. In short, character creation isn’t what defines an RPG.
There are many games out there that blur the lines, this much is true. A few that come to mind are XCOM 2, Last of US, Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted. However, some games are going to “connect” more with some players than others and will be considered more of a “true RPG” to them.
Cas
It can be completely objective. Instead of relying on specific elements, you rely why they’re there and what they do. That’s what I was advocating for in the first place. Like, the very first thing I said is that RPG is not a mechanical genre so you have to define them by what purpose the mechanics actually serve. Yeah, there is a blurry area with blended genres and mechanics that serve different purposes (dark souls stats actually do serve a role playing oriented purpose, to let you define your character, they could have a much more typical action game setup by abandoning stats and just upgrading weapons or otherwise scaling your power as you progress,and it would probably be a lot less work, but they also share the spotlight or outright take a backseat to the action gameplay so it could go either way,) but that’s true of all genres. It’s true of Puzzle games too, Tetris and Portal are obviously a puzzle games but games like Hotline Miami and Super Hot really straddle a line.
That’s kinda what I was advocating. My entire first section was defining RPGs by actual roleplaying elements and what that means, and the last section was advocating that people be quick to add subgenres to that because when defined that way RPG is very specific but allows most any set of mechanics.
Log in to leave a Comment