What is an RPG?

[Stack of Turtles]

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

There are lots of games that are clearly RPGs, but you can absolutely do this and win if you know how to work the system.

[rusty_shackleford]

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?

As an example, Divinity: Original Sin 2 Tactician mode was regularly attacked for being "too difficult" (which apparently, Larian listened and greatly turned down the difficulty for BG3 tactician.) I found the difficulty to be enjoyable for me.

I have mentioned this a few times prior, but I actually used to be a high ranking esports player. This knowledge is completely transferable across domains, and yes obviously, to other video games. You are trained through thousands of hours of play at a competitive level to simply think differently. I absolutely can devise plans in a turn-based RPG that normal people will not come up with, for the same reason a high ranking chess player would.

[Stack of Turtles]

I have mentioned this a few times prior, but I actually used to be a high ranking esports player.

I never would have guessed you were actually Korean.

[Xenich]

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?

The mechanics are finite. There are only so many ways to beat an encounter and the closer you get to the apex of a given solution, the RNG (depending on game) will decide if it is possible or not.

So, some decisions "could" work... to a level of application, but it would depend on character statistics AND the RNG to see if it could happen. For instance, in Wizardry 7 I made a really ****** group on my first play and pushed it through regardless. I got better over time, but... there were some fights due to my poor makeup that made success VERY difficult and I had to rely on the RNG of the encounter (ie repeated reloads) to eventually win against it.

I am sure you could have made a "worse" party and never be able to win the encounter, or.. it may require the player to go back in other things, level up of RNG spawns to get to the point to overcome it.

That is "exactly" my point though. The statistics of the game govern the success. The player has options in tactics which allows them to apply different strategies to achieve a win, and combined with the RNG a lot of party design, level and makeup can succeed, but... there is a "requirement" to which no matter how smart the person is, a poorly designed party "could" eventually hit a wall and fail.

Contrast that with lets say an action focused game where the RPG (stats and development) are flavor. The only real constraint is the players "twitch" skill, so all the RPG aspects have no real meaning to the very skilled "twitch" player (ie Souls).

I mean, you could make a souls game RPG focused and literally gate a players ability to succeed by gear/level and then... it would be more RPG focused in my opinion.

In the end, I know this discussion is pointless... the definition of RPG is so ********, so mixed up, so all over the place over the years that there will never be consensus. I can accept that, I was just explaining what I "term" as RPG in the means of how I select a game I want to play under that focus. If I want an RPG, I don't want a game where all of the character development, gear progression, etc... is pointless because I could beat the game without it if I just did the moves right (ie Souls).

[Xenich]

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?

As an example, Divinity: Original Sin 2 Tactician mode was regularly attacked for being "too difficult" (which apparently, Larian listened and greatly turned down the difficulty for BG3 tactician.) I found the difficulty to be enjoyable for me.

I have mentioned this a few times prior, but I actually used to be a high ranking esports player. This knowledge is completely transferable across domains, and yes obviously, to other video games. You are trained through thousands of hours of play at a competitive level to simply think differently. I absolutely can devise plans in a turn-based RPG that normal people will not come up with, for the same reason a high ranking chess player would.

I liked D:OS 1 release, before they changed combat on the enhanced. I did not like D:OS 2 for other reasons (not because I thought they weren't RPG focused), but they went away from older RPG mechanics before then.

[Oyster Sauce]

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.

What if I decide to use weapons in a manner I feel like Doomguy would use them even if I know they're technically not optimal? Does shooting a bad guy in the penis because the protagonist is out for personal vengeance make Call of Duty an RPG?

[Stack of Turtles]

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.

What if I decide to use weapons in a manner I feel like Doomguy would use them even if I know they're technically not optimal? Does shooting a bad guy in the penis because the protagonist is out for personal vengeance make Call of Duty an RPG?

Yes.

[Xenich]

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

There are lots of games that are clearly RPGs, but you can absolutely do this and win if you know how to work the system.

Yes. Not saying they aren't, but you are discussing "unintended" design focuses, bugs, etc....

I am talking about "intended" design. Souls was "intended" to be beaten without a single attention to the RPG game. The RPG aspect was just flavor to make it easier for the non-arcade players.

If you think about it, souls is every bit a traditional 80's arcade game put into 3D. It is all about arcade, the RPG is fluff.

Gothic, I don't know the details, but I imagine it was like EQ, some things were intended, but others not. Point is, I don't think the developers in those games expected players to "twitch" their way past the RPG constraints, and if they did... they were intending "action" to bypass and therefore made it an arcade game with RPG flavor.

[rusty_shackleford]

That is "exactly" my point though. The statistics of the game govern the success. The player has options in tactics which allows them to apply different strategies to achieve a win, and combined with the RNG a lot of party design, level and makeup can succeed, but... there is a "requirement" to which no matter how smart the person is, a poorly designed party "could" eventually hit a wall and fail.

Contrast that with lets say an action focused game where the RPG (stats and development) are flavor. The only real constraint is the players "twitch" skill, so all the RPG aspects have no real meaning to the very skilled "twitch" player (ie Souls).

People beating dork souls without leveling up etc., is just people cheesing mechanics + complete knowledge of the game. You will see this pop up in any popular game. For example, beating Baldur's Gate 3 without leveling up:
Can You Beat Baldur's Gate 3 AT LEVEL ONE?!? | The Movie


Is Baldur's Gate 3, a somewhat faithful adaptation of D&D 5E, not an RPG?

[Xenich]

It doesn't matter though. Everyone has their own opinion on this. I really stopped caring about "classifying" it a long time ago. I have expectations, classifications, etc... that I term to a game I consider an RPG. If that is what I am seeking, and it does not meet those expectations. I don't play it for that reason. If I am in the mood for something outside of those expectations and the game fits it, I will choose it then.

I found this works best for me, and I don't really care anymore about the politics of classification, who is right, etc... none of it matters in the end.

[Xenich]

That is "exactly" my point though. The statistics of the game govern the success. The player has options in tactics which allows them to apply different strategies to achieve a win, and combined with the RNG a lot of party design, level and makeup can succeed, but... there is a "requirement" to which no matter how smart the person is, a poorly designed party "could" eventually hit a wall and fail.

Contrast that with lets say an action focused game where the RPG (stats and development) are flavor. The only real constraint is the players "twitch" skill, so all the RPG aspects have no real meaning to the very skilled "twitch" player (ie Souls).

People beating dork souls without leveling up etc., is just people cheesing mechanics + complete knowledge of the game. You will see this pop up in any popular game. For example, beating Baldur's Gate 3 without leveling up:
Can You Beat Baldur's Gate 3 AT LEVEL ONE?!? | The Movie


Is Baldur's Gate 3, a somewhat faithful adaptation of D&D 5E, not an RPG?

Cheesing mechanics? Like knowing a bosses physical game mechanic limitations and process and taking advantage? Ok... lets accept that. /shrug If it is a bug, or an unintended result , not sure how that is a basis for argument.

as for "pre-knowledge"... can you beat Wizardry games by knowing everything and then not leveling up and going to the end boss and winning? I mean, you still have to level your characters, build them up to beat the encounters right?

[Norfleet]

Cheesing mechanics? Like knowing a bosses physical game mechanic limitations and process and taking advantage? Ok... lets accept that. /shrug If it is a bug, or an unintended result , not sure how that is a basis for argument.

No one has as many friends as the man with many cheeses!

[nepbnhurj]

I think they're games where the player has a significant role in character creation, where a personality can be projected onto the character. I wouldn't call a game like Escape from Tarkov a roleplaying game even if it could be played like one, since the player character is essentially just the player using a 3d model. In Tarkov, if you do or do not kill someone when you do or do not have to, no difference is made and the game carries on. I wouldn't call Red Read Redemption a roleplaying game either, since John is his own character that does not change no matter what the player does. It's hard to apply your own thoughts to John and accept them as canon. The same is not the case for a game like Skyrim, though. You can say pretty much whatever you want about the Dragonborn and project whatever personality you want onto them. Is the Dragonborn a wizard? "Yes, in my playthrough."

[maidenhaver]

In the true RPG, the character chooses his player.

[J1M]

That is "exactly" my point though. The statistics of the game govern the success. The player has options in tactics which allows them to apply different strategies to achieve a win, and combined with the RNG a lot of party design, level and makeup can succeed, but... there is a "requirement" to which no matter how smart the person is, a poorly designed party "could" eventually hit a wall and fail.

Contrast that with lets say an action focused game where the RPG (stats and development) are flavor. The only real constraint is the players "twitch" skill, so all the RPG aspects have no real meaning to the very skilled "twitch" player (ie Souls).

People beating dork souls without leveling up etc., is just people cheesing mechanics + complete knowledge of the game. You will see this pop up in any popular game. For example, beating Baldur's Gate 3 without leveling up:
Can You Beat Baldur's Gate 3 AT LEVEL ONE?!? | The Movie


Is Baldur's Gate 3, a somewhat faithful adaptation of D&D 5E, not an RPG?

Cheesing mechanics? Like knowing a bosses physical game mechanic limitations and process and taking advantage? Ok... lets accept that. /shrug If it is a bug, or an unintended result , not sure how that is a basis for argument.

as for "pre-knowledge"... can you beat Wizardry games by knowing everything and then not leveling up and going to the end boss and winning? I mean, you still have to level your characters, build them up to beat the encounters right?

Pretty common for games that feature level scaling to be completed at an intentionally low level or with less than a full party depending on the math. I just did this with Crusaders of Khazan.

[fork]

All genre-definitions are ****** by ******* nowadays, it's not even worth arguing about this anymore.
Just one example: the original Resident Evils (1,2,3,REmake, Zero) are Action Adventures (in a horror setting), RE4 and beyond are Third-Person-Shooters and awful FPS. All off them are called Survival-Horror, which is not a ******* genre, but a setting.
We have ******** normies, journalists and the corpos looking to maximize profits defining genres now.
Of course it's all ********.

[Prardenciflar]