Definitions of RPG

What is an RPG? More to the point, what isn't?

So many games out there today are claiming "we are the best RPG, we have all these features" yet when it comes down to it, the main feature they are missing is the role. An RPG is a game where the player is required to role-play their character, and I think that this is lacking in games today. I have heard some people say that an RPG is an open-ended game, where there is no restriction on the player in what they choose to do and how they choose to do it. This definition is reasonable, but there should be some effort to urge players to stay "in character". The whole meaning of an RPG to me is a game where you can be your character and act out a role using your character as a medium through which to do so. An RPG is not a game where you are required to relentlessly hack and slash through hoards of beasts to destroy some greater evil. The problem with most games that call themselves RPGs is that they fit the description of the hack 'n' slash. This game may be entertaining for the time being, but it has a limited life, and that life should be coming to an end. On the topic of "End Goblin Genocide" I have to state that no goblin will blindly attack you if you did not provoke it. Is it really in your Role to be killing that goblin?

Putting the 'R' back in 'RPG' or Redefining RPG's

The role of the character in RPGs has been steadily degrading until the point that most games that claim they are, are now no longer RPGs. So how do we go about redefining the Role? If an RPG really is the open ended game that was described, what is to stop that player from making their character go… out of character? There is a simple way that I can see of keeping a player in character. A determined player can always act out of character, so maybe their role could be redefined as they go. The way to keep a player in character is to give them a set of skills that they excel in. By using these skills they gain experience in this kind of skill, and by training this skill (requires the experience) they gain a new level in the skill. For any skill that is deemed out of character, they gain less experience and are limited in the overall scheme of things by setting a limit on what level they can train that skill to. If they let their natural skills deteriorate while concentrating on skills that are not in their character, they could get their role switched and then they lose the ability to be able to increase their old role's stats but now can increase their new role's stats with more affinity. This would make it smarter to choose an appropriate role at the beginning of a game instead of switching half way through. It would be costly to do the switch and so most people would stick with the role that they originally chose.

More about Role-Playing as "That would never happen in real life!"

I recently read a reply to a message that people who continuously complained about Roles were fanatics. The reason they gave went along these lines:

"Role-playing is where you endeavor to act the part/role that you are given. Well, I would never be in a situation where I was required to run through a cave with a big sword with lots of monsters trying to kill me. It just doesn't happen!"

This is one of the major misconceptions about Role-playing. What I would define as being role-playing is trying to act out that role WITHIN THE GAME when faced with certain situations. Another one that I would accept would be acting out your role as it would be done IF you were faced with such a situation. This broadly terms what Role-playing is to me, but is not necessarily a strict definition within itself. Role-playing does not require you to dress up in costume and run around trying to save princesses, just to get into the "spirit" of the game. It may be fun to do occasionally, or at parties, but it is definitely outside of what defines Role-playing in an RPG. That is what we discuss endlessly, that is what we refer to, and that is what we love.