RPG's and Suckage

RPG's touch a raw nerve The degree of emotional investment RPG fans exhibit strikes me as unique.  We are very protective of our genre and hold lengthy discussions of whether or not a certain game even "counts" as an RPG.

This article's point isn't to decide who's right and who's wrong - everyone has different taste and expectations, and that's okay.  But every fan is a potential customer, and convincing them that our game doesn't suck has a lot to do with managing their expectations.  A game they might have otherwise liked will be dismissed ifs framed in the wrong way, and given the heated passions of RPG fans, if your game is deemed to suck it will suck hard.

I think there's a reason that we argue about RPG's so much - it's the same reason we argue about "art" - we all disagree about what the word even means.

    RPG's lack a centrally defining mechanic  Everyone has a different idea about what makes an RPG an RPG.  Common things include leveling up, story, "role-playing", and exploration.  However, every time someone offers up "RPG's are all about X" someone inevitably answers with, "Are you saying Y, which lacks X, isn't an RPG?"

    First, there's experience points and levels.  This can't be the defining characteristic, as plenty of RPG's do without them - Shadowrun and Ultima Online being great examples.  As for story, Dungons & Dragons can be run as a mechanics-only hack n' slash campaign, and procedural games like Nethack have little to no author-imposed narrative whatsoever.

    Surely, role-playing defines "Role-Playing Games," right?  First we have to decide what we mean by "role-playing".  Let's limit the term to exclude things like "playing the role of Mario" in Super Mario Bros.  In this case "role playing" becomes nearly synonymous with "acting in character."  But if acting in character defines "role playing games", then most RPGs are excluded, including D&D campaigns with laid-back Dungeon Masters.

    Finally, let's consider exploration.  Almost all RPG's feature exploration in some sense of the word, but tactical RPG's like Final Fantasy Tactics and Bahamat Lagoon certainly don't, and exploration isn't always front and center in the games that include it - it's often a side dish.

    So what, if anything, do all RPG's have in common? Take a look at this chart*:

    *This chart is incomplete, simplified, and probably leaves out all your favorite games :)

    There's only one feature that all the games on my list have in common - loot.  Equipment.  Stuff.  But does this define RPG's? Surely not - plenty of other games that we don't consider to be "RPGs" have stuff - even swords and armor.

    Now, let's compare that to this chart for First-Person-Shooters:

    FPS's are clearly defined by a first-person view and shooting.  It doesn't really matter what else you tack on or what conventions you leave out.  Even Portal can be clearly defined as a first-person shooter, even though your gun is (usually) non-violent and mostly just used for traversing space.

    RPG's are not defined by a few central mechanics, whereas most other video game genres are: (Real Time Strategy, Point-and-click Adventure, Tower Defense, 4X Strategy).  Instead,  "RPG" has become a vague term that surrounds certain groupings of mechanics and themes, but without a strictly definable formula.

    This is by no means a bad thing, nor does it make the term "RPG" entirely subjective.  It does mean, however, that each player walks around with their own personal definition of what defines an "RPG," making it interesting to manage expectations, and dividing the genre into several factions.


    This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://www.fortressofdoors.com/rpgs-and-suckage/