What defines a RPG?

[neerdowell]

HoloDust said:

neerdowell said:

I'm not disputing the original classification which most people base their opinions off of. I'm saying the original classification was wrong and that is where all the confusion arises from. The original D & D and other early WRPGS should not have been considered RPG's. Due to people's relation to these games that are more about controlling the role rather than playing it, they have formed this perception that JRPG's which are drastically different from this mold should not be classified as RPG's. This has also led to other features that are not necessary to be associated with RPG's such as stats, leveling, and luck.

I think people should keep their description witin reasonable bounds, as long as the emphasis of a game is on playing the role of the lead character, whether one has control over their direction or not, this should be classified as an RPG.

Huh, what? Pen&Paper RPG are where RPG computer/video games come from, and you very much ROLE PLAY in them - if you ever played D&D you'd know that good playing involves being in your character and behaving like you're expected to behave in accordance to your character's story and alligment. That doesn't mean you're destined to one path like in most JRPGs, it just means you will be limited to a degree in your choices.

Honestly, I would still consider any form of control that influences the story or personality of the character to be more improvising / creating than playing a role. What I am saying is that the original RPG's should have never been called as such because it has led to a great deal of confusion where it is assumed that you must maintain some level of control in the role. You could by all means still consider this playing a role; however, it does not mean that a lack of improvisation / creation is any less of playing a role.

If one watches a movie, with no control over the finished product, nobody disputes that an actor plays a role. With RPG's however, people dispute what it means to play a role.

Perhaps I might have been more accurate in stating that certain features of the early games have been mistakenly attributed to the genre instead of being attributed solely to the games. Just because being able to assume some level of control in your characters was present in early RPG's doesn't mean it is a required feature.

Sadly, I feel this perception has limited the genre a great deal. The more control you allow the player to assume, the less you allow developers to assume. This isn many ways creates a very loose feeling. That is fine for some games; however, this notion has largely monopolized WRPG's and as such developers have saw little reason to craft an intricate story for fear that they will take too much control out of the player's hands.