What is an RPG?

[ArcaneLurker]

"RPG" are vidya games inspired by TTRPGs, and then I guess if you're talking about the TTRPG, it really is about "playing a role over an extended period," but that main aspect clearly doesn't carry over to vidya games.

[enisey]

IMO, an RPG has a world, characters, leveling up, items/equipment/loot, and no other-genre mechanics prevalent enough to make classification into another genre more appropriate.

There are hybrid genres like Action RPG and Tactical/Strategy RPG, and sub-genre modifiers like MMO, Roguelike, Turn-Based and Japanese. Games in these hybrid genres and sub-genres are RPGs, but they are not "pure" RPGs.

Anything else that has RPG elements is "with RPG elements".

[J1M]

Response to inevitable "stats go up = RPG" comment: that may not be the case. Early RPGs tended to have pretty static stats once they were set. Progression mechanics may simply be an industry-wide trend due to their popularity with players. Perhaps associated with RPGs simply because it was the only point of commonality between RPGs.

[DecadeRiptide]

a role playing game

[Ranselknulf]

Response to inevitable "stats go up = RPG" comment: that may not be the case. Early RPGs tended to have pretty static stats once they were set. Progression mechanics may simply be an industry-wide trend due to their popularity with players. Perhaps associated with RPGs simply because it was the only point of commonality between RPGs.

"Stats and Levels" just get abstracted to gear and item progression instead.

I do tend to like games where the base combat stats (str, dex, agi, etc) are difficult and rare to level up on your base character, but specialization comes from gear or crafting knowledge.

The implementation of actual combat skill leveling can be hit or miss for me. Ie.. a sword skill or an archery skill. Sometimes it adds value, and sometimes its just in the way to make another exp grinding time sink.

[ManjuShri]

CYOA are the only real cRPGs. ImSims come second.

[maidenhaver]

CYOA are the only real cRPGs. ImSims come second.

ImSims are first!

[Kolgrim]

It's only an RPG if my companions all have daddy issues and are seeking my approval.

[asf]

gay thread

[rusty_shackleford]

Is a game where you can only play as a fighter(in AD&D terms) still an RPG?

[Xenich]

A game where statistical development constrains game play. That is, success and failure are not determined specifically by the players "physical" response in play, but the organization of statistical elements to achieve victory in a situation... is a big one.. but not alone (as War games also have this concept). To be honest, for me... I define it as Gygax's focus of play on AD&D, the conversion of a war game made into a character driven system of play in the same "concept" of a war game, but focused to the individual character within the world.

The problem is that there are nuances in the setup. You can go full Board game concept with a story while allowing character development to affect outcome, but I would say that "may" still be a board game/war game play.

In the end, RPG games cover a lot of area, and while many of those variants are technically RPG games, a better classification is sub classification for them (ie Action-RPG, Strategy-RPG, Story-RPG, etc...)

Obviously @rusty_shackleford has some input on this when you consider RPG and what "adventure games" of old were referred as, but I am not "picky" on the absolute, only that the subs of each focus have a clear delineation between them.

Personally, a game that is an "Action-RPG" might still be an RPG to some extent, but if it allows the sub category to bypass the RPG aspect, it is more of the sub + RPG for flavor.

So in the end, I think an RPG is... a game regardless of focus, style, or setup..... that "REQUIRES" the statistical portion of development to primarily overcome the obstacles in game.

In that, for example, souls games are NOT RPGs... in that sense, they have the look, the feel, ie the FLAVOR, but they are just action games with an RPG coating to give the player a feeling of progression outside of beating a mob.

So yeah, Statistical requirement to succeed in play is a very big element of RPGs, but it alone does not define it (obviously because as I said board games and the like share such concepts)

[Norfleet]

A game where statistical development constrains game play. That is, success and failure are not determined specifically by the players "physical" response in play, but the organization of statistical elements to achieve victory in a situation... is a big one.. but not alone (as War games also have this concept). To be honest, for me... I define it as Gygax's focus of play on AD&D, the conversion of a war game made into a character driven system of play in the same "concept" of a war game, but focused to the individual character within the world.

I would argue that more importantly than "statistical development" is the idea that gameplay is driven by individual character actors. Otherwise basically every game is defined by some level of statistics, while games that are "physical" yet contain clear RPG characteristics that you cannot avoid, would be disqualified. But a game absolutely cannot be an RPG without the characters. If the game has at least one individual character in play, it might be an RPG. If the game has zero characters, it is definitely not an RPG.

[rusty_shackleford]

A game where statistical development constrains game play. That is, success and failure are not determined specifically by the players "physical" response in play, but the organization of statistical elements to achieve victory in a situation... is a big one.. but not alone (as War games also have this concept). To be honest, for me... I define it as Gygax's focus of play on AD&D, the conversion of a war game made into a character driven system of play in the same "concept" of a war game, but focused to the individual character within the world.

The problem is that there are nuances in the setup. You can go full Board game concept with a story while allowing character development to affect outcome, but I would say that "may" still be a board game/war game play.

In the end, RPG games cover a lot of area, and while many of those variants are technically RPG games, a better classification is sub classification for them (ie Action-RPG, Strategy-RPG, Story-RPG, etc...)

Obviously @rusty_shackleford has some input on this when you consider RPG and what "adventure games" of old were referred as, but I am not "picky" on the absolute, only that the subs of each focus have a clear delineation between them.

Personally, a game that is an "Action-RPG" might still be an RPG to some extent, but if it allows the sub category to bypass the RPG aspect, it is more of the sub + RPG for flavor.

So in the end, I think an RPG is... a game regardless of focus, style, or setup..... that "REQUIRES" the statistical portion of development to primarily overcome the obstacles in game.

In that, for example, souls games are NOT RPGs... in that sense, they have the look, the feel, ie the FLAVOR, but they are just action games with an RPG coating to give the player a feeling of progression outside of beating a mob.

So yeah, Statistical requirement to succeed in play is a very big element of RPGs, but it alone does not define it (obviously because as I said board games and the like share such concepts)

There's only two turn-based games in our top 10 RPG ranking

[J1M]

Is a game where you can only play as a fighter(in AD&D terms) still an RPG?

Trick question? If answer is yes, does you playing a game make it no longer an RPG (since we know you like picking fighter).

[Xenich]

A game where statistical development constrains game play. That is, success and failure are not determined specifically by the players "physical" response in play, but the organization of statistical elements to achieve victory in a situation... is a big one.. but not alone (as War games also have this concept). To be honest, for me... I define it as Gygax's focus of play on AD&D, the conversion of a war game made into a character driven system of play in the same "concept" of a war game, but focused to the individual character within the world.

The problem is that there are nuances in the setup. You can go full Board game concept with a story while allowing character development to affect outcome, but I would say that "may" still be a board game/war game play.

In the end, RPG games cover a lot of area, and while many of those variants are technically RPG games, a better classification is sub classification for them (ie Action-RPG, Strategy-RPG, Story-RPG, etc...)

Obviously @rusty_shackleford has some input on this when you consider RPG and what "adventure games" of old were referred as, but I am not "picky" on the absolute, only that the subs of each focus have a clear delineation between them.

Personally, a game that is an "Action-RPG" might still be an RPG to some extent, but if it allows the sub category to bypass the RPG aspect, it is more of the sub + RPG for flavor.

So in the end, I think an RPG is... a game regardless of focus, style, or setup..... that "REQUIRES" the statistical portion of development to primarily overcome the obstacles in game.

In that, for example, souls games are NOT RPGs... in that sense, they have the look, the feel, ie the FLAVOR, but they are just action games with an RPG coating to give the player a feeling of progression outside of beating a mob.

So yeah, Statistical requirement to succeed in play is a very big element of RPGs, but it alone does not define it (obviously because as I said board games and the like share such concepts)

There's only two turn-based games in our top 10 RPG ranking

Well, if you look at "most" of them... statistical constraints are still the controlling factor for progression. Morrowind is a good example, while there are gimmicks in play, the statistics of the character (and items) constrain the player to success. Gear plays a part of character statistical progression, so yes... if you are able to obtain powerful gear, you "may" be able to still beat content outside of your ranged development because the gear itself allows you to do this. Without that though, you can't until you increase the characters development and get better gear.

As I said, there are layers of this that push the game in either direction making it more the sub-hybrid focus as opposed to the RPG constraint. I view an RPG game from that statistical concept first and foremost. So a souls game for instance, is simply an arcade game. You could strip out all of the RPG aspects of it, no levels, no gear, no skills, etc... and the game can still be beaten as it was intended (ie arcade play), the RPG aspect is merely flavor it is not needed, it just makes the game easier.

How many of the RPGs on the list could be done without ANY development? Can you beat the game without the character progression?

This is not to discount them as unique games of their own focus which use RPG features to enrich interaction with the characters progression in the game, but if they do not constrain, if that development is not required to progress, then I don't see it as an RPG in the basic concept I described.

A game where statistical development constrains game play. That is, success and failure are not determined specifically by the players "physical" response in play, but the organization of statistical elements to achieve victory in a situation... is a big one.. but not alone (as War games also have this concept). To be honest, for me... I define it as Gygax's focus of play on AD&D, the conversion of a war game made into a character driven system of play in the same "concept" of a war game, but focused to the individual character within the world.

I would argue that more importantly than "statistical development" is the idea that gameplay is driven by individual character actors. Otherwise basically every game is defined by some level of statistics, while games that are "physical" yet contain clear RPG characteristics that you cannot avoid, would be disqualified. But a game absolutely cannot be an RPG without the characters. If the game has at least one individual character in play, it might be an RPG. If the game has zero characters, it is definitely not an RPG.

Would Kings Quest I be an RPG in your evaluation?

I mean, I categorize them as "adventure" games, basically where there is no real statistical development of constraints, just story + puzzles (ie the puzzles are the progression factor).

A good game that shows an evolution of this to an RPG would be the "Quest for Glory" series which took "Adventure" games and then added some statistical constraints to them. That said, I am not 100% sure if those constraints keep a player from succeeding, that if they never developed any statistics, could they still complete the game? Meaning, is it a "requirement" or is it merely flavor? It has been too long since I played them.

[Norfleet]

Would Kings Quest I be an RPG in your evaluation?

Yes. You inhabit a role that you play in a game, and the game is driven by the actions of the character(s).

I mean, I categorize them as "adventure" games, basically where there is no real statistical development of constraints, just story + puzzles (ie the puzzles are the progression factor).

Two things can be true at once.

A good game that shows an evolution of this to an RPG would be the "Quest for Glory" series which took "Adventure" games and then added some statistical constraints to them.

You say "evolution of this to", I say that's just an expansion of the game with a combat system.

That said, I am not 100% sure if those constraints keep a player from succeeding, that if they never developed any statistics, could they still complete the game?

I'm not sure if you could do it without EVER raising a stat, but certainly there's no need to actually try to grind stats, given that the game is apparently less than 8 minutes long.
Quest For Glory I VGA Speedrun Any% No Major Skips Magic User 7:56

[Xenich]

Would Kings Quest I be an RPG in your evaluation?

Yes. You inhabit a role that you play in a game, and the game is driven by the actions of the character(s).

I mean, I categorize them as "adventure" games, basically where there is no real statistical development of constraints, just story + puzzles (ie the puzzles are the progression factor).

Two things can be true at once.

A good game that shows an evolution of this to an RPG would be the "Quest for Glory" series which took "Adventure" games and then added some statistical constraints to them.

You say "evolution of this to", I say that's just an expansion of the game with a combat system.

That said, I am not 100% sure if those constraints keep a player from succeeding, that if they never developed any statistics, could they still complete the game?

I'm not sure if you could do it without EVER raising a stat, but certainly there's no need to actually try to grind stats, given that the game is apparently less than 8 minutes long.
Quest For Glory I VGA Speedrun Any% No Major Skips Magic User 7:56

Ok. That isn't how I would classify them, mainly because then most any game can be an RPG, which I find confusing. If you play a role, its a "role playing game" pretty much would encompass most games out there, and the classification then has no meaning to me. I use the definition I explained because it fits in with the type of game I expect. So for instance, Kings quest is an adventure game, focused on story/puzzle progression, Souls games are arcade games focusing on player reflex, and so on... with RPG as I defined it focusing more on the characters statistic development strategically applied (and constrained to that development) in play to resolve obstacles. Past that, all the "sub" RPG games will weight in various directions depending on their focus IF they leverage statistical development in play and it isn't simply a "flavor" to it.

That is how I look at it because when I want to play an RPG, it being focused more on action play, or the development having no "requirement" in play isn't what I am looking for.

[rusty_shackleford]

Well, if you look at "most" of them... statistical constraints are still the controlling factor for progression. Morrowind is a good example, while there are gimmicks in play, the statistics of the character (and items) constrain the player to success. Gear plays a part of character statistical progression, so yes... if you are able to obtain powerful gear, you "may" be able to still beat content outside of your ranged development because the gear itself allows you to do this. Without that though, you can't until you increase the characters development and get better gear.

As I said, there are layers of this that push the game in either direction making it more the sub-hybrid focus as opposed to the RPG constraint. I view an RPG game from that statistical concept first and foremost. So a souls game for instance, is simply an arcade game. You could strip out all of the RPG aspects of it, no levels, no gear, no skills, etc... and the game can still be beaten as it was intended (ie arcade play), the RPG aspect is merely flavor it is not needed, it just makes the game easier.

How many of the RPGs on the list could be done without ANY development? Can you beat the game without the character progression?

This is not to discount them as unique games of their own focus which use RPG features to enrich interaction with the characters progression in the game, but if they do not constrain, if that development is not required to progress, then I don't see it as an RPG in the basic concept I described.

You've yet to explain why a game with action combat is more disqualifying than turn-based combat. Turn-based combat requires just as much player skill as action combat, just a separate kind.

[Xenich]

Well, if you look at "most" of them... statistical constraints are still the controlling factor for progression. Morrowind is a good example, while there are gimmicks in play, the statistics of the character (and items) constrain the player to success. Gear plays a part of character statistical progression, so yes... if you are able to obtain powerful gear, you "may" be able to still beat content outside of your ranged development because the gear itself allows you to do this. Without that though, you can't until you increase the characters development and get better gear.

As I said, there are layers of this that push the game in either direction making it more the sub-hybrid focus as opposed to the RPG constraint. I view an RPG game from that statistical concept first and foremost. So a souls game for instance, is simply an arcade game. You could strip out all of the RPG aspects of it, no levels, no gear, no skills, etc... and the game can still be beaten as it was intended (ie arcade play), the RPG aspect is merely flavor it is not needed, it just makes the game easier.

How many of the RPGs on the list could be done without ANY development? Can you beat the game without the character progression?

This is not to discount them as unique games of their own focus which use RPG features to enrich interaction with the characters progression in the game, but if they do not constrain, if that development is not required to progress, then I don't see it as an RPG in the basic concept I described.

You've yet to explain why a game with action combat is more disqualifying than turn-based combat. Turn-based combat requires just as much player skill as action combat, just a separate kind.

It isn't just that it is "action", it is if the action can circumvent the statistical constraints. Since I define RPGs as the game play being constrained to the characters statistical development, then an action game that gets around it, isn't one IMO (ie Souls). If the mechanics of character development constrain the player (ie level 1 can not beat a level 20 mob no matter how much jumping, evading by physical skil, etc... it isn't an RPG in that respect, and yes... this also means Gothic has non-RPG game play in it).

[rusty_shackleford]

Well, if you look at "most" of them... statistical constraints are still the controlling factor for progression. Morrowind is a good example, while there are gimmicks in play, the statistics of the character (and items) constrain the player to success. Gear plays a part of character statistical progression, so yes... if you are able to obtain powerful gear, you "may" be able to still beat content outside of your ranged development because the gear itself allows you to do this. Without that though, you can't until you increase the characters development and get better gear.

As I said, there are layers of this that push the game in either direction making it more the sub-hybrid focus as opposed to the RPG constraint. I view an RPG game from that statistical concept first and foremost. So a souls game for instance, is simply an arcade game. You could strip out all of the RPG aspects of it, no levels, no gear, no skills, etc... and the game can still be beaten as it was intended (ie arcade play), the RPG aspect is merely flavor it is not needed, it just makes the game easier.

How many of the RPGs on the list could be done without ANY development? Can you beat the game without the character progression?

This is not to discount them as unique games of their own focus which use RPG features to enrich interaction with the characters progression in the game, but if they do not constrain, if that development is not required to progress, then I don't see it as an RPG in the basic concept I described.

You've yet to explain why a game with action combat is more disqualifying than turn-based combat. Turn-based combat requires just as much player skill as action combat, just a separate kind.

It isn't just that it is "action", it is if the action can circumvent the statistical constraints. Since I define RPGs as the game play being constrained to the characters statistical development, then an action game that gets around it, isn't one IMO (ie Souls). If the mechanics of character development constrain the player (ie level 1 can not beat a level 20 mob no matter how much jumping, evading by physical skil, etc... it isn't an RPG in that respect, and yes... this also means Gothic has non-RPG game play in it).

This applies equally to most turn-based RPGs, where player skill can easily be used to defeat more powerful enemies. What you seem to be describing is just an autobattler, not an RPG.

[Stack of Turtles]

Would Kings Quest I be an RPG in your evaluation?

Yes. You inhabit a role that you play in a game, and the game is driven by the actions of the character(s).

I mean, I categorize them as "adventure" games, basically where there is no real statistical development of constraints, just story + puzzles (ie the puzzles are the progression factor).

Two things can be true at once.

A good game that shows an evolution of this to an RPG would be the "Quest for Glory" series which took "Adventure" games and then added some statistical constraints to them.

You say "evolution of this to", I say that's just an expansion of the game with a combat system.

That said, I am not 100% sure if those constraints keep a player from succeeding, that if they never developed any statistics, could they still complete the game?

I'm not sure if you could do it without EVER raising a stat, but certainly there's no need to actually try to grind stats, given that the game is apparently less than 8 minutes long.
Quest For Glory I VGA Speedrun Any% No Major Skips Magic User 7:56

Ok. That isn't how I would classify them, mainly because then most any game can be an RPG, which I find confusing. If you play a role, its a "role playing game" pretty much would encompass most games out there, and the classification then has no meaning to me. I use the definition I explained because it fits in with the type of game I expect. So for instance, Kings quest is an adventure game, focused on story/puzzle progression, Souls games are arcade games focusing on player reflex, and so on... with RPG as I defined it focusing more on the characters statistic development strategically applied (and constrained to that development) in play to resolve obstacles. Past that, all the "sub" RPG games will weight in various directions depending on their focus IF they leverage statistical development in play and it isn't simply a "flavor" to it.

That is how I look at it because when I want to play an RPG, it being focused more on action play, or the development having no "requirement" in play isn't what I am looking for.

I don't understand this common drive to redefine "RPG" to mean "some specific type of game I personally like and NOTHING ELSE".
Maybe you just don't like all RPGs?

[sheet]

Game genre is a spectrum and Computer RPG falls in between Puzzle and Japanese RPG on my list.

Edit: Actually, Squad Tactics is more CRPG-like here, so CRPG is between Puzzle and Squad Tactics.

[Norfleet]

Ok. That isn't how I would classify them, mainly because then most any game can be an RPG, which I find confusing. If you play a role, its a "role playing game" pretty much would encompass most games out there, and the classification then has no meaning to me.

Yes and no. The characters have to be the driving influence on the game. OG Doom, for instance, isn't really an RPG, because the Doom Guy is just an avatar and no actual character (or stat differences) of his own.

I use the definition I explained because it fits in with the type of game I expect. So for instance, Kings quest is an adventure game, focused on story/puzzle progression, Souls games are arcade games focusing on player reflex, and so on...

But on the oher hand, Souls games DO have stats and equipment that you'd expect of an RPG, and can thus reasonably be classified as RPGs. What you're going for is a strictly exclusionary definition of an RPG that excludes all games YOU don't consider to be "sufficiently RPG". It is therefore perfectly reasonable to consider Dork Souls an action-RPG, while King's Quests are, well, less actiony and more puzzley. But puzzles are a traditional element that can be found in an RPG also. To say that an RPG which contains ONLY puzzles (and therefore has no need of combat stats) is not an RPG is to say that an RPG with only combat is simply a Dungeon Crawler and thus not an RPG. I say both are RPGs, just of a different flavor.

with RPG as I defined it focusing more on the characters statistic development strategically applied (and constrained to that development) in play to resolve obstacles.

Well, that's just the "Game" part of an RPG.

That is how I look at it because when I want to play an RPG, it being focused more on action play, or the development having no "requirement" in play isn't what I am looking for.

This is fair, but on the other hand, adopting an exclusionary definition of an RPG just because you don't want THAT specific kind of RPG is rather narrow-minded. The fact of the matter is that "RPG" can considered to be a very broad category covering a wide variety of games, not all of which are necessarily to your tastes.

It isn't just that it is "action", it is if the action can circumvent the statistical constraints. Since I define RPGs as the game play being constrained to the characters statistical development, then an action game that gets around it, isn't one IMO (ie Souls).

But does the action "circumvent" statistical constraints? In Dork Souls, if I dodge every attack through personal skill, I haven't circumvented the fact that my character was built as a squishtastic agility character. I've specifically worked within those statistical constraints to beat the game. The game is specifically intended to do this. That's what makes it a GAME. If intelligent and skillful use of the statistics and game mechanics does not allow me to achieve outcomes and every outcome I can achieve is strictly determined by stats and stats alone, this is no longer a GAME, and therefore, fails to be an RPG by failing to be a game. An "IdleRPG", for instance, despite borrowing the name and many visual trappings of an RPG, is not an RPG because it is not a game.

If the mechanics of character development constrain the player (ie level 1 can not beat a level 20 mob no matter how much jumping, evading by physical skil, etc... it isn't an RPG in that respect, and yes... this also means Gothic has non-RPG game play in it).

The problem with this "stat purist" interpretation of an RPG is that this was never how an RPG was from the very earliest things we could definitively call RPGs. Players were ALWAYS expected to overcome challenges that statistics alone would otherwise have dictated to be impossible, because otherwise it is not a GAME, and therefore, not an RPG. In fact, if the challenge COULD just be overcome by statistics alone, it would not be a CHALLENGE. Killing a monster because their HP divided by your DPS is greater than your HP divided by their DPS is not a challenge, it's a straightforward exercise in statistical attrition. Killing a monster that you could NOT otherwise have killed because you used GAMEPLAY against it, that is what makes it a game.

[Norfleet]

Cowboy and Indians is an RPG in the same way that surfing is a board game.

Surfing is not a board game because while it has a board, it is not a game: There are no rules of play. It is simply a board activity.

[King Crispy]

An RPG can be anything involving your imagination.

[Xenich]

You've yet to explain why a game with action combat is more disqualifying than turn-based combat. Turn-based combat requires just as much player skill as action combat, just a separate kind.

It isn't just that it is "action", it is if the action can circumvent the statistical constraints. Since I define RPGs as the game play being constrained to the characters statistical development, then an action game that gets around it, isn't one IMO (ie Souls). If the mechanics of character development constrain the player (ie level 1 can not beat a level 20 mob no matter how much jumping, evading by physical skil, etc... it isn't an RPG in that respect, and yes... this also means Gothic has non-RPG game play in it).

This applies equally to most turn-based RPGs, where player skill can easily be used to defeat more powerful enemies. What you seem to be describing is just an autobattler, not an RPG.

Please explain how you got "autobattler" out of my explanation?

Yes. You inhabit a role that you play in a game, and the game is driven by the actions of the character(s).


Two things can be true at once.


You say "evolution of this to", I say that's just an expansion of the game with a combat system.


I'm not sure if you could do it without EVER raising a stat, but certainly there's no need to actually try to grind stats, given that the game is apparently less than 8 minutes long.
Quest For Glory I VGA Speedrun Any% No Major Skips Magic User 7:56

Ok. That isn't how I would classify them, mainly because then most any game can be an RPG, which I find confusing. If you play a role, its a "role playing game" pretty much would encompass most games out there, and the classification then has no meaning to me. I use the definition I explained because it fits in with the type of game I expect. So for instance, Kings quest is an adventure game, focused on story/puzzle progression, Souls games are arcade games focusing on player reflex, and so on... with RPG as I defined it focusing more on the characters statistic development strategically applied (and constrained to that development) in play to resolve obstacles. Past that, all the "sub" RPG games will weight in various directions depending on their focus IF they leverage statistical development in play and it isn't simply a "flavor" to it.

That is how I look at it because when I want to play an RPG, it being focused more on action play, or the development having no "requirement" in play isn't what I am looking for.

I don't understand this common drive to redefine "RPG" to mean "some specific type of game I personally like and NOTHING ELSE".
Maybe you just don't like all RPGs?

How does that make any sense at all?

[rusty_shackleford]

It isn't just that it is "action", it is if the action can circumvent the statistical constraints. Since I define RPGs as the game play being constrained to the characters statistical development, then an action game that gets around it, isn't one IMO (ie Souls). If the mechanics of character development constrain the player (ie level 1 can not beat a level 20 mob no matter how much jumping, evading by physical skil, etc... it isn't an RPG in that respect, and yes... this also means Gothic has non-RPG game play in it).

This applies equally to most turn-based RPGs, where player skill can easily be used to defeat more powerful enemies. What you seem to be describing is just an autobattler, not an RPG.

Please explain how you got "autobattler" out of my explanation?

You're describing a game where player input has little to no effect on the outcome. Plenty of turn-based RPGs allow the player to use player skill to defeat more powerful enemies.

[Xenich]

This applies equally to most turn-based RPGs, where player skill can easily be used to defeat more powerful enemies. What you seem to be describing is just an autobattler, not an RPG.

Please explain how you got "autobattler" out of my explanation?

You're describing a game where player input has little to no effect on the outcome. Plenty of turn-based RPGs allow the player to use player skill to defeat more powerful enemies.

Player input is the choices made in development of the character and that of the tactical decision in play they apply them to.

If a player puts all of their points into "spell casting" and chooses to "melee" the encounter, they will lose.

Aside from that, this constrains the player by their development. If for instance a given area of the game is "high level" mobs, the player will not be able to defeat them because the character is not developed enough to do so. They must first build their character to eventually confront them to a win.

What you seem to be objecting to is that chess has rules and you are constraining the player too much if they can't take their castle and simple move it diagonally, you know... because they want to.

[rusty_shackleford]

Please explain how you got "autobattler" out of my explanation?

You're describing a game where player input has little to no effect on the outcome. Plenty of turn-based RPGs allow the player to use player skill to defeat more powerful enemies.

Player input is the choices made in development of the character and that of the tactical decision in play they apply them to.

If a player puts all of their points into "spell casting" and chooses to "melee" the encounter, they will lose.

Aside from that, this constrains the player by their development. If for instance a given area of the game is "high level" mobs, the player will not be able to defeat them because the character is not developed enough to do so. They must first build their character to eventually confront them to a win.

What you seem to be objecting to is that chess has rules and you are constraining the player too much if they can't take their castle and simple move it diagonally, you know... because they want to.

OK, but what about the tactical decisions actually made in combat that allow one player to beat far more challenging enemies than another player can because of his own abilities outside of the game?

[Stack of Turtles]

Ok. That isn't how I would classify them, mainly because then most any game can be an RPG, which I find confusing. If you play a role, its a "role playing game" pretty much would encompass most games out there, and the classification then has no meaning to me. I use the definition I explained because it fits in with the type of game I expect. So for instance, Kings quest is an adventure game, focused on story/puzzle progression, Souls games are arcade games focusing on player reflex, and so on... with RPG as I defined it focusing more on the characters statistic development strategically applied (and constrained to that development) in play to resolve obstacles. Past that, all the "sub" RPG games will weight in various directions depending on their focus IF they leverage statistical development in play and it isn't simply a "flavor" to it.

That is how I look at it because when I want to play an RPG, it being focused more on action play, or the development having no "requirement" in play isn't what I am looking for.

I don't understand this common drive to redefine "RPG" to mean "some specific type of game I personally like and NOTHING ELSE".
Maybe you just don't like all RPGs?

How does that make any sense at all?

I believe that a role-playing game is any game in which you play a role. That doesn't mean just any game, though. You have to actually play the role, which is to say, there is some kind of choice you make according to the character you're playing. The choice can be purely superficial and doesn't necessarily have to have any consequences, but, of course, it's better if you do. So, like Norfleet said, Doom is not an RPG because, although you could say you are in the role of Doomguy, you don't play the role of Doomguy, because being Doomguy has no impact on the actions you take.

In contrast, you want to define RPG to mean "the type of game you expect", but the term RPG is not invented to apply to your personal tastes only. There can be games that are RPGs, but aren't "what you're looking for".