OK, I know Prak has done something similar to this, but I mainly started this discussion because the term 'RPG' is whored around so much these days that it has become almost useless as a way to define any game.

For starters, we can look at the name itself; it is ambiguous, to say the least. 'Role-playing game.'

Literal definition: the gamer plays a role that is different from that which they are in real life.

Games this can be applied to: Nearly every single game on the fucking planet. Hell, even in Pong the character played the role of a white line.

So, the literal definition fails.

Classic definition: From the pen and paper role-playing games, ie, Dungeons and Dragons.

In pen and paper role playing games, the person actually 'becomes' the character they are playing; they receive experience points for a combination of things, which includes: navigating a grid based dungeon created by a dungeon master, fighting enemies based on character stats and dice rolls, and acting in character.

Key strengths: flexibility, character building, acting skills.

Games this can be applied to: Neverwinter Nights, which is really just a DnD toolkit. Games that build on the basic ruleset include games such as Ultima, Baldur's Gate, Knights of the Old Republic, and the Elder Scrolls.

Now, Final Fantasy fanboys aren't going to like this, but Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy started off as Japanese rip-offs of Ultima. This is a well documented fact. This is evident in the fact that earlier Final Fantasies are very light on story, and focus more on building your character up. However, the process was (overly) simplified for the Japanese audience; your character earned experience for defeating enemies, and stats were upgraded depending on what class you chose: you could not choose to upgrade skills manually.

This simplification lead to a divergence; in order to keep western audiences happy, western RPG makers created more and more elaborate worlds. To keep Japanese audiences happy, Japanese RPG makers created more and more elaborate plots.

Because of all the divergence, it is hard to nail down a single definition for a role-playing game. But I tend to use this general rule of thumb: If your character is assigned a number as a level, that can be advanced via the achievement of experience or skill points, that game is, for classification purposes, an RPG.

Your rule is fatally flawed, Lee.

Level systems such as that have been used in an outrageous number of games, spanning many different genres. They originated in miniatures wargames that even predated the term "role-playing game." Since then, systems like that have been used in action platformers like Castlevania, real-time strategy games like Warcraft 3, and even silly Japanese dating sims. All of these cannot possibly be role-playing games or it defeats the purpose of denying the literal definition you posted.

In the previous thread (Thread 29666), I noted the origins of the term and the defining characteristics that warranted its creation. Since the combat and skill building systems were taken directly from existing games, only the free-form characterization element of the original pen & paper games set the new genre apart. Therefore, it can safely be said that free-form characterization is the principle element that must exist for a game to be called a role-playing game.

Hmm. Unless you add the caveat that achieving a higher level is the only way to complete your goal, but the gameplay is in the levelling process, not attaining the goal itself?

That means that dating sims are out, because the goal is definately the only reason to gain levels. Miniature games and WarCraft 3 are won using strategy; it is not necessary to upgrade your units in order to defeat an opponent.

Maybe I'm just not looking at it the right way, but that made absolutely no sense to me. You'll need to clarify that a bit before I can respond.

I'm probably not thinking straight in the wee hours of the morning.

I'll reply tomorrow afternoon when i'm a bit more awake :)