What defines a role-playing game?

Role-playing: To assume or act out a particular role. To assume or represent in a drama; act out.

Assume: Suppose to be the case, without proof.

Game: For me, a game is about organization of play, with a definitive end. Where play is an abstraction of life.

When looking up the definition of role-playing, I saw that they used the word assume quite a bit, and decided to include that definition as well. This makes the definition of role-playing much clearer, as it means that you are taking a role and making assumptions about it: The role of a boss, of a teacher, or of a level 12 paladin.

"As a boss, I suppose I would sit like this, and I would talk like this. I suppose I would go and check on the employees about X, Y and Z."

"As a teacher, I would get the students attention. I'll wait until they are quiet then I'll start the lecture on multiplication."

"Okay, my 12th level Paladin is going to Turn Undead this turn."

So a role-playing game is the organization of playing a role, where there is an end goal to be reached (storyline, dungeon, etc). That role is formalized in the rules of the game.

Perhaps this view is too broad, because now, many adventure games, and action adventure games can fall into this category.

Tony Hawk Pro Skater is a role-playing game. You role-play a skater at a competition with a time limit. What lines will the skater choose? What tricks will they do? You suppose that a kick-flip would be what they would choose to do here? Then that's what they do.

There is no assumption of turn based, fantasy, equipment, stats or experience. But Tony Hawk Pro Skater doesn't "feel" like a role-playing game.

The Last of Us is also a role-playing game. Most games with a story are role-playing games. You take on the role of the hero (whether specifically, such as Mario from Mario Bros, or generically, as in World of Warcraft, where your created character is now the hero).

Now this definition is pretty broad, which is why we add modifiers to it, Action RPG, MMORPG, Turn-Based RPG, Tabletop RPG.

But, if all these games are RPGs and so many games we have played fall into the category of this definition of RPG, then what does RPG elements mean in a video game? Why do we refer to Experience gain and levels and stats as RPG elements?

This has to do with the origin of the Role-playing genre. Dungeons and Dragons was the first game to be known as a role-playing game. It sprouted from the war game Chainmail, and it changed the focus from controlling armies to controlling individual characters. The rules involved in Dungeons and Dragons, the very mechanics of the game, is what lead to the concept of RPGs having stats and character growth.

So does this mean that we need to change our definition of Role-playing games to specifically include these game mechanics? If we do, then some tabletop RPGs may very well cease being RPGs and will revert to just being games in which you role-play.

Instead I think we need to better define what it means to role-play as far as games and video games go. I don't have an answer for this, since really, this should be a public conscience kind of thing.

For example, if we say that video games with role-playing are games where a player makes in character non-mechanics decisions, then many story focused adventure games should be considered RPGs (Telltale's The Walking Dead for example), where games where the only decisions are game mechanics based (Naughty Dog's Last of Us). Yet, Walking Dead is an adventure game with some action in it, and Last of Us is an action adventure game with some RPG elements in it (pills allow you to power up, essentially counting as a form of experience gain), or elements that modify game play by increased character ability and not necessarily player ability (health gain, less weapon sway).

So, with RPG elements being mechanics that originate from RPG games (leveling system for example), but having those mechanics not be the definition of an RPG, means that aside from the confusion, we can simply agree to this, continue to use it as we currently do, and not worry too much more about it.

It's good to talk about these things, as heuristics are important to simplifying conversations and allowing us to reach a goal of understanding each other faster.

If you agree or disagree, please respond below.

Are 2nd Markets Piracy?

Such a huge topic today, almost as bad as the piracy debate itself. This goes hand in hand with piracy into causing things such as DRM, and the latest tactics of game companies: Not including the full game at retail. A while ago one of the VG podcasts I watch talked about how some games coming out, have DLC available right away. Sometimes for free, often times for another $15. Why would they do this?

The answer is simple, they are not getting money from the 2nd Market, which by definition they never would. So, does the 2nd Market only cause damage? Or is it really as bad as piracy? Are the gate keepers of the 2nd Market the reason that things are as bad as they are now, or have they been helping game companies?

So lets take a look at what exactly happens: Company A (the developer) makes a game. Company B (the distributer aka Gamestop) sells the game. Company B purchases the game from Company A, in bulk, and sells it for the MSRP. Customer A, buys the new game from Company B. Customer B cannot afford to buy the game new, and does not purchase the game. Customer A finishes the game, and decides he's done with it. Customer A goes to Company B, and trades the game in for in-store credit. Customer A now either uses that credit to purchase new or used games, but being the Customer A that he is, he buys new games. This may not directly support original Company A (Customer A may be buying a game from another developer), but it does get money going back to publishers. Customer B, sees the game he wanted on sale used, and purchases it, supporting Company B, helping them stay in business to sell new games to people like Customer A.

Now obviously, this works fine with brick and mortar stores, and games that are on a physical medium. But we are in a digital age, and as proponents for Piracy state over and over again, it takes no effort to copy 1s and 0s. We can understand a $60 MSRP, because of the cost to get the game on disc, and ship it, and the packaging, etc etc etc. But why is the same game $60 to download? Because the download services get a cut of the sale (Apple Itunes gets 20% I believe).

So digital distribution does not result in cheaper games for Buyers, but it does guarantee revenue for the game companies. Furthermore, Digital Distribution negates the possibility of the 2nd Market. But why shouldn't I be able to sell my right to play a game to someone else? I paid for that right, so if I no longer want it, I should be able to sell it, or even give it away to someone who would not have purchased it otherwise, right? I mean, they wouldn't have bought it for full price, but for cheaper or free, they at least are playing the game, resulting in more people online to bring the "fun" to those who did pay the original cost. I mean, its not really that different whether I'm playing it or someone else is it?

But game companies want to make money from the 2nd Market. So they release DLC on launch date, so that one day (and some games have done this already), if you purchase a game new, you get the DLC for free, but if you purchase it from the 2nd Market, you have to pay $15 for the DLC. DLC that isn't really DLC, but usually on the disc already, but locked. In other words, you have to pay $15 for a lie.

Now I suggested what the benefits and actual damage of Piracy was for the game companies, regardless of how I feel about that, it is still immoral. But with the 2nd hand market, you have similar benefits, sometimes better benefits (Customer A gets money to reinvest into game companies), and you end up with similar damages to piracy (developer gets no additional money, except for DLC, which is good for them right?).

So is the 2nd Market Piracy? I don't think so. I think its very good for game companies, and their efforts to damage it may end up damaging only themselves.

What do you think?

A question of Piracy

This is a reply to a post at Tobold's, it was pretty big, so I decided to make a post here (edited to remove the names of offending parties):

Pirate servers often offered 4x leveling speed, and the ability to go up to level 120.

Many features didn't work, etc etc, you had to upgrade to a specific version of (unmentionable MMO), and all sorts of things.

In the end, it was pretty lame, since you essentially playing (unmentionable MMO) as a single player rpg, without the benefit of having enough people on. Like playing on a dead server in the middle of the night, with no one else on.

It did wonders to show me the flaws of (unmentionable MMO)s leveling game.

Not to mention, these servers are run by people who get community support for the servers, so some people were paying MORE than $15 a month for this. (and the ones who paid were usually given GM powers).

I'm with Spitfires on this though, that maybe it's my getting older, but I'm much less inclined to pirate now, than I was when I was in my late teens/early 20s. Or perhaps its because I have money to spend.

Thing is, as far as I can tell, pirates aren't really removing THAT much revenue from the game companies (or music industry, or movie industry).

When I had anything, I wouldn't have bought it (I didn't have the money). I experienced something for free. But once I HAD money, if I liked something, I would buy it, and would never think to pirate it.

I need to find the story, but one author, put his story (in DRM free pdf format) for free on torrent, and several thousand people downloaded it. He became popular enough, that his books started selling.

The thing is, if you have a good product, it will generate buzz. Piracy is a buzz that you are not paying for, as it is a "free gift" to all the people who would NEVER have paid for your product anyways (this would be considered pricing the item for each individual, in this case, free), which in turn can cause those who DO pay for things to be more apt to purchase something, as they are interested in the product, since so many people are talking about it.

At the same time, (unmentionable MMO) private servers do not serve that function at all. But would those people really be paying for (unmentionable MMO)? I know for the month that I played on a private server all those years ago, that I wouldn't have paid for (unmentionable MMO) then. But if the server wasn't complete crap, would I have come back to (unmentionable MMO)?

As far as I can tell, I came back to (unmentionable MMO) to play with friends, and not necessarily to play the game. Now, most of the friends I'd be interested in playing with no longer play, so that made things easier for me.

So I know it was anecdotal, but that is my "evidence" of the effect of piracy.