First of all, congratulations on an absolutely brilliant podcast! I found the discussion of player agency and gameplay mechanisms very interesting.

Personally, I tend to associate RPGs with deep characterization, which is how I can incorporate Western and Eastern games in the same category. You may not be able to change anything that happens to Yuna over the course of "Final Fantasy X", but the game goes to great lengths to ensure that the connection between the player and the player character is strong: you discover Spira alongside Tidus, you grow closer to his teammates as he does, and you probably react in similar ways when Rikku drops the bomb about the pilgrimage. And I don't think that kind of rapport is true of, say, any of the Links in "Legend of Zelda", because the focus tends to turn outward towards the world and its inhabitants.

Western RPG protagonists like the Nameless One, Hawke and Shepard are different because they're blank slates; in theory, they're just vehicles for the player to project into the story. But I think the brilliance of BioWare games is that the story gradually shifts from players acting out their whims to players choosing courses of action that are consistent with the character they've created. The first time I played "Dragon Age II", my Hawke was a warrior and a man of honor. Lots of blue wings and green olive branches. He fell in love with Anders, and at the climax Hawke killed him. And that wasn't the choice I would've made - Hawke #2 spared him even though she was with Isabella - but you experience the meta-narrative of BioWare focalizers so powerfully that you can be compelled to do what's right by the _character_ rather than by you.

Awesome podcast. Wasn't expecting the discussion on sports games but I reckon that was the highlight.

However with regards to Mass Effect your own personal decisions are still limited and generally lack impact beyond the making of the choice. It's moreso the fact that there are so many of them kind of fools the player into thinking more of the game is being influenced by them than it actually is, though then again that's understandable considering just how much work would have to be put into the game to make every little option have consequence or proper continuity. Anyway it's just not really the be all and end all of story driven entertainment or whatever. The most profound moments of the ME series happen mostly the same way regardless of past player decisions.
Also it's curious that the encounter with Ashley on Horizon is repeatedly highlighted in the podcast but that situation in particular goes almost exactly the same way regardless of the player's past or current choices. If it's Kaiden instead it's still very similar. Its funny that bringing that moment up sort of reinforces that in ME you don't really have that much freedom of choice or influence.

Box art wise all of the non-collectors covers have sucked and showing default dude Shepard, which is supposed be modified to the player's personal liking, is stupid. Maybe instead they should've had several different figures in N7 armour each implied to be different examples of Shepard with differing genders, classes, renegade scars, gear and whatever else doing the classic walk up to the camera thing. One could look at these different examples of the same character and essentially see, at least hypothetically, that their own character can be anything like or unlike any of them.
While ME2's collectors edition box is awesome, another cool one might be schematics/blueprints on each different version of the Normandy. Looking at your CE cases and seeing the old SR-1, then the redesigned SR-2 and then the new ME3 design would be pretty cool.

Also, if I'd stopped playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SoC because it's first couple hours pissed me off, I never would have discovered one of my favourite games and been insanely psyched up for the hopefully not too distant sequel.
It was probably the many characters and plot elements from the sucky early sections pointing towards the upcoming and more intriguing areas which kept me playing it. For instance in the starting location NPC's keep going on about how much greater the inner areas of the game world is, so I guess I kind of thought to myself, 'Hells yeah I'm get through this crap to get there,' so I did, and it was awesome.

The problem with all games being immediately enjoyable and accessible is that this can seriously limit what you can put into a game - Crusader kings 2 is an example, I'm loving the game but to learn it and to discover what I wanted to do with it, I had to watch let's plays.

If the game had given me a nice goal at the start and held my hand, introduced me slowly it would've been much less enjoyable, so much of the appeal of the game for me is that the goal is fluid and just how much freedom you have, not to mention the awesome choices and consequences that crop up... I just don't see how to merge that freedom with an effective introduction, partially because understanding the mechanics doesn't matter much and it's so difficult to tell people how to deal with an open sandbox - see minecraft.

Justin, I've basically said the same things about what makes an RPG. As much as I like Zelda and JRPGs, they aren't the same experience to me.

Also, I had the thought that NFL Blitz and other related strategy games could be considered as cousins of the RPG genere, but are not the same thing. I do find the relationship interesting though.

Separately, what was the name of the castle building game that was spoken of? I'm having internet troubles and couldn't hear the name.

Now for Mass Effect talk: You actually do have the opportunity to turn Cerberus against itself from the inside - for the most part, by making Paragon decisions (not necessarily dialogue, I mean the choices). For example, you send the Cerberus data to the Alliance, you blow up the Collector base, you turn David in Overlord to the Alliance program, you convince Miranda and Jacob to leave Cerberus, etc. It just requires your Shep to be a little sneaky in how s/he acts.

Also, for Mass Effect default choices, I noteced that all of them were neutral except for the "kill the Rachni queen" one, and that removes a scene that otherwise would make no sense (the quasi-possessed asari with a message from the Queen).

Thanks for the great podcast!

RPGs as all games are defined by their mechanics or rules. In this day and age gamers seem increasingly blinded by the surface of games such as their graphics, story (and the choices that may exist within), voicing acting and other things that serve as backdrop to one's main engagement with the game.

An rpg is defined by the stats of the character or characters one is controlling and the overlying system that determines the effectiveness of action based one or more characters stats. Turn-based (and phased-based if it need be mentioned) rpgs are completely focused on the characters abilities. The player just chooses how to develop the character(s) and what abilities they'll use. The reason one would focus on a mage's magic modifier(intellect/wisdom/mentality) rather than strength, is dependent on the fact that their magical abilities won't improve and that that class generally doesn't have aptitude(stats&abilities) in physical combat. Now however, a mage-fighter would benefit from some increased stats in strength; there's the expectation that one will balance out stat increases in both magic and strength for that character while not doing so with a pure mage since it would be a waste.

Turn-based RPG Series: X-Com, Wizardry, Realms of Arkania, Metal Max, Chrono Trigger/Cross, Etrian Odyssey

Action-rpgs simply, or generally, remove the stats governing accuracy or hit and dodge. They typically only focus in on one character being controlled, allowing the A.I. to control the actions of one's other party members. Ultimately however, one's performance is dependent on the stats of one's character. After a certain point, due to scaling, one's character can't take on greater foes without increasing one's stats; this of course neglecting abuses to the system.

Action RPG (Series): The Witcher 2, Dead Island, Mount&Blade, Star Ocean, Last Story, Parasite Eve 2

The word role in RPG has nothing to do with story, but the abilities of one's character.
Rogue is a role in an rpg.
Cleric is a role in an rpg.
Farmer is a role in an rpg.
Miles Standard is a rather unassuming gentleman from the town of Elbe in Ugar, located on the Felkin continent of Sume. At the age of ten he was enrolled in the Magic Academy of Dindom, where he learned of the intricacies of magic. At the age of fourteen, a game of oneupsmanship with his colleagues resulted in him being blinded in one eye; in actually he gained the ability to see the little viewed world of phantasms. At the age 18 he found himself drafted into a war between the Principality of Ugar and the Holy Sumen Republic. At the age of 30, he was released from captivity and made a general in the Holy Sumen Republic due to his masterful commanding when he rose to the rank of lesser knight at age twenty-five and served as such up to his capture at age 28 at Azul Creek. Now in charge of his life, he returns home in order to decide what to do with his life.

None of that is a role in an rpg, just the founding of the player's starting point. One knows Miles has some experience in magic, but one doesn't know anything important to gameplay. Lesser Knight and General are just titles that give one no idea of how his skills have developed.

Choice is ultimatly insignificant compared to the purpose of the start and endpoints in an rpg. Multiple paths and faction allegiances serve to limit or open one's options. However, they will eventually submit to the end. Those games that could be played indefinitely end when the player says it ends. The path be it straight or webbed functions the same as levels, tracks, rooms, areas and stages in other games. The ability to either use magic, a sword or a gun to kill enemies also falls into this category dubiously and only then on the account of using more than one option to solve problems is widespread through video games. In Smuggler's Run, one's choice of vehicle can make difference between easy success, hard success, neck and neck failure and guaranteed failure.

Leveling are insignificant compared to stats. Levels simply allow one to improve a character's abilities and stats, or just increase a character's repertoire of abilities. A great example of stats being more important than leveling is Trapped Dead. The reason you would give one character a gun and another a melee weapon is dependent on their stats. Take the doctor, it only makes sense to give him the shotgun, do to his low accuracy. Giving the bandages to anybody but him is lunacy, given the fact that he is the only one that can heal characters. Everybody else except for the photographer I think, just stop the bleeding.

I purpose this simple question. What is Dungeons&Dragons without the stats and D20 system, but keeping the lore?

To me, it's a just a collection of information and a bestiary. One could say that without the dice rolls and character sheets, one just has the components for creating a story. One could say its a Create-A-Your-Own-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Kit.

The idea that one doesn't play rpgs for the gameplay is absurd. Story is context, it explains the how and why. Story is the alpha and omega.

Zelda is an action adventure game, the genre that relies entirely on player skill and none of what makes Link. To the adventure genre entirely, puzzles are their most important aspect or the concept of how this puzzle prevents one's progression into the next room. Action adventure simply adds constant and ideally competent combat. Link's items, be they weapons or tools, are no different from the pistol and gravity gun of Half-life. The idea of comparing Zelda to rpgs stems from the fact that it has few competitors in the genre; especially not one's that are re-occurring. Heck, the whole reason that one saw people constantly comparing Skyward Sword and Skyrim is because they both lack what one would call competition; the contest between rivals of attempting to redefine or improve the basics of their genre.

In short:

Systems and stats define rpgs, player choice and character advancement are marginally important in determining what an rpg is.

The guys on the podcast think they are so smart without employing scientific mehtod which would be smart but then they would loose the listeners. It hurts me every time to hear these guys talk about what "is" an RPG. They do not consider anything. They have no premises but a conclusion, but think they have made a sound argument.
This way of thinking they display in the conversation displays the core problem of the community of the so called "gamers". Gamers being the selproclaimed intellectual elite of people who play videogames. The people who cry for videogames to be more than just games you have fun with but try to apply a philosophy to gaming like the aformentioned what a rpg "is" which is ontology. To answer the question is important to game development. To be honest it is only important to game developers because they are the ones making the game. It is because knowing what certain mechanics are and what you can use them for to accomplish certain goals is what makes good game design. If a game has good design the players will most of the time not notice design choices. Only the hardcore players will want to deeply understand the mechanics to optimize their gameplay of the game.
To guide you I take the example of Baldur´s Gate and Final Fantasy. We agree that they are both RPGs. So everthing that is different is not essential to being an RPG. So this will be the different styles of presenting the narrative. Final Fantasy having a stringent narravtive with little choice, Baldur's Gate having a non-liniar but fixed story. What I am saying is Baldu's Gate has multiple choice dialogue you decide wether your player avatar is good, evil, rightous or chaotic but you end up defeating your evil brother. The narrative is not important to be a RPG.
If we talk about player's agency within a game regarding RPGs we think about how we the players affect the narrative of the game. But because the narrative is not important for a RPG to be a RPG player's agency is not important to a RPG.
You eliminate the rest of the differences comparing more games of the genre and have one conclusion. The one thing that makes a RPG is the game mechanics. That is statistical growth through repetitive action. For everyone that is called grinding or leveling.
Now you may notice that many games have a leveling system. Are they RPGs? Is Call of Duty an RPG for having a leveling system? Well, no of course not. But now we know that Call of Duty implemented RPG mechanics.
Talking about the importance of player's agency within a RPG is a marketing move. Bioware wants you to think they are making the real deal RPG and SquareEnix makes a dumb kiddy version you should not play because you are the adult and need the adult Bioware product. Either that or the designers of Bioware are stupid. But assuming they know what game design is they are just trying to mislead the community to get more sales. The problem is that magazines like the escapist are fooled. But they are not only fooled by the PR department of Bioware and the like but they are also forced to spout this nonsense because the readers who are the aformentioned "gamers" want to read that stuff to feel like the smart gamer he/she thinks he/she is without thinking because they already have those thoughts and want to be prooven right by media outlets. There is a whole world of wrong with such a method of aquiring information. But that is how the PR department is also forced to keep spouting the lies and the media outlets are forced to report those lies and the readers consume those lies. We now have erected a bulding of lies that we cannot just tear down because everyone has had helped build it. So everyone must work together for the lies to stop. But that doe not seem to happen any time soon. The cooperations are comfortable how much money they make and the consumers are too comfortable because they like the lies. Media outlets are everyone's slave in such a matter. So what has to happen to fight this selfimposed ignorance and the spread of lies nowadays so prevalent in hte industry?

ruthaford_jive:
What makes an RPG for me? Level ups, story, and choices (if it's western generally). There are exceptions of course. Not that anyone cares... just throwing it out there.

Saying you make exceptions for western to opposed to non western (say japanese) production is racist.
Also there are no exceptions to the rule in this case because it is not some case of a chaotic system with too much elements of random. If you want to define RPG give us a definition that applys to all what is called RPG. Why is that you might ask. I can answer that. It is because of logic. There is a method that is called deduction. If you know what a RPG is because you have defined what makes a RPG a RPG you may deduce if a random game you are looking at is a RPG.
Here is how the argument works:
1. All RPGs have statistical growth through repetitive action.
2. This game has statistical growth through repetitive action.
3. This game is an RPG
Also works like this:
1. All RPGs have statistical growth through repetitive action.
2. This game has no statistical growth through repetitive action.
3. This game is not a RPG.

Wow... I don't know why, but whenever the two big questions of "What makes an RPG?" or "What's more RPG, Western or Eastern?" I always seem to run into the "JRPGs aren't RPGs because you don't play a role!" and I always die a little inside. I'll turn to a very old post, which I will edit a little to incorporate further knowledge gained since I first posted it, but for the most part expresses why JRPGs are RPGs and are no more so than Western ones. (sorry for the typos in advance)

"The main flaw with this argument is that you're comparing two culturally different experiences (WRPGs vs. JRPGs) with one culture's back story (D&D). The fact is, the Japanese don't view role-playing in the same light as us Western folk. Where as Western RPGs revolve around choices, customization and overall free form thinking, Japanese role-playing involves more storytelling, immersion into pre-set characterizations and realizations about personalities you never may have recognized before. It's more of a learning experience that gets you out of your shell to take on another's viewpoint, where as western philosophy on the matter encourages learning about and using your own personality to overcome extraordinary circumstances. Let's get some examples up here, shall we?

First I'll delve into Dungeons and Dragons. As most of us know, D&D is a game about character creation. It lets you pick from a wide veriaty of classes, who have a robust line-up of abilities and powers to conquer a world in the way you see fit. It allows statistical customization of your characters, while throwing in chance by having you roll to determine your overall strength. The character then plays out a determined personality, chosen from the beginning, and grows as a person in both personality and statistics as he or she adventures through the world before them. It encourages out-of-the-box thinking as well as puzzling solving and good judgement. These campaigns are mainly set in western-esque settings including broadswords, heavy armour and Tolkien races as well as monsters from common mythos, but have spread out to accommodate wuxian (asian kung-fu style, think Journey to the West) adventures as well.

Now what do the Japanese have to counter this? While possibly not the first tabletop RPG to ever come out in Japan, my first taste of their style was from Tenra Bansho Zero. This particular game is steeped in a sort of cyber-punk feeling as humanity has now gone into space to find habitable planets. So who's going into space? Well, children who pilot mecha, warrior caste with shiki demons bound to jewels inside them called "Samurai", cyborg "Kijin" who obtain perfection through replacing flesh with steel and a "Shinobi" caste of spies who insert battery packs into themselves to give them super-human powers! The main differences are how the characters interact with the world through the mechanics of the game. It plays out more like a Kabuki play, where your overall goal is to form a coherent and compelling story rather than to make choices. You interact with others and reactions are never determined by solely by personality, they're rolled for. Sure, you can get modifiers for persoanltiy traits, Karma points and such to effect the outcomes if you feel you need to sway a bad roll (much like how combat modifiers work in D&D), but on the whole your reactions are not your own and are determined by the role of some dice and a chart. You then have to act, in character, that reaction to NPCs or other players, trying to immerse yourself into your newfound, developed role and then deal with the consequences of this new revelation in the story.

So we stand here at a cross-raods, where there are similarities, but also some big differences between the two cultures. If you look at their progression into video games, however, you can see huge similarities. The Japanese prefer story, where as the West perfer choice and gameplay. It's a style and both have stuck to what they do best. So take each for what it is and enjoy both!"

Where WRPGs present the opinion that a character should be an extension of the player, JRPGs believe that the player needs to become the extension of the character. I think this is a profound difference in philosophy of role-playing and both have great advantages and disadvantages. However, can one really be called better than the other, or are they simply different and appeal to different beliefs in how we role-play?

Now, to come full circle, I believe the disconnect for JRPGs within the video gaming world is that no one can make you choose a particular path without it being seen as a straight narrative. Unlike Tenra Bansho Zero, JRPGs, as with Western RPGs, are wholly personal experiences and that the singular invention of the reset button means that no one can enforce the outcome of the game without eliminating that mechanic altogether and just making it a singular narrative. This is why JRPGs are more story driven, choice lacking games and may not be as attractive to some people. It still upholds that ideal of self-discovery through experiencing another (wo)man's perspective and seeing your identity of self flow out through opinion but it's not as profound, I believe, as it is with the pen & paper style. In the end, however, both are philosophically grounded in the same thing: a journey of self-discovery. To me, that's what defines an RPG.

ruthaford_jive:

What the hell are you talking about, what does racism have to do with anything I just said? I think you misconstrued what I was saying amidst all the trolling/ego masturbation.

I did not misconstrue what you were saying. You just don't know what you are saying. The whole WRPG vs. JRPG debate is about racism. Excluding RPGs produced from japanese developers and saying RPGs using certain mechanics are japanese is racist. You may call it what you want but the principle is excluding something from something else thus treating it as something different, special or foreign and alien to be wary of. You were probably raised to not be racist. You also were raised to not accept racism. Thus your reaction of me saying you saying racist things. You think of yourself not as a racist. You saying something racist with malevolent intent is something you cannot imagine yourself actualy doing. That is superficial racism. There is also a deeply hidden hidden racism which we almost never notice like with the "western" and "japanese" RPGs. You may think them just labels and names who can do no harm but then you are mistaken. Words always carry meaning. I thus take the stance that our language dictates how we are understanding each other. Thus concluding you expressing those words have an affect on another ones outlook on the world because he gets the meaning of your words you yourself do not intent to transmit thus getting the message wrong you want him to receive.

ruthaford_jive:

Anyway, I meant choices (story choices) generally apply to western games more, because they do.

Your argument is very sound. If something is true then this something is true. I cannot argue with that. You have proven that something must be true if it is true. Listen, if you want to argue learn how to argue. You cannot prove something by assuming that which you are going to prove. You may assume somehting which you are trying to prove the opposite of because proving your assumption wrong leads you to the conclusion that the opposit of your assumtion must be true. The opposit being any status that is not-somehting you assumed.

ruthaford_jive:

Most (meaning not all) JRPGs don't give you a lot of choices, as far as progressing the story along how you want. And I said exceptions because there are exceptions to all three of those personal criteria in regards to what makes an RPG for me. If you noticed, I said personal and 'what makes an RPG for me', so that means this is a personal outlook. If someone else has different criteria, so be it.

Here is how it works. You say that what makes a RPG a RPG for you is random. Why are you saying that you might ask. That is easy to answer. "Most" like "some" are not "all". If you define a type, a sort, a kind of something they all have a certain something in common. Not most of them but all. You agree? Thus leading us to the conclusion that which is not shared by all is not relevant but optional to what we define. So if you say "most" and "exception" this just means it is not the important matter which we are talking about. It is not what makes a RPG a RPG.
Having different criteria is ok as along as the argument is sound, valid and of interest to the discussion. Your argument is sound and valid assuming what you are saying is true, but not interesting because of our assumption that what you are saying is true.
You see I studied logic. There is such a thing. I know how to argue. You are just displaying your ignorance of the matter (not ment as an insult) how anyone else but fanatics might agree with your point of view. That is because I assume you wanted a response to your point of view which you got and wanted people to agree or convert to your point of view (which I am trying to do to you).
Here is how the argument will work from now on. You proove me wrong and I am left with no other choice but to agree that I am wrong because I made an error within my own argument and my premises, or you take my premises and introduce another premise I agree with and proove your argument.

Wait! What tv show were you guys referring to to at the beginning?

Cheers for tackling my question (more or less) :)

everyones discussion on what makes an RPG an RPG made me realize that I'm not (at present) fully ready to be critically thinking about games on the same level as you folks do (but I try anyway). Despite everyones radically different take on what makes an RPG an RPG, there isn't anything I could have brought to the convo that would have enriched the discussion the way you folks have today. Cheers for what you do. :)