A Broader Definition

by Matthew Scribner

The definition for RPGs which is (I hesitate to say) universally accepted, states that the player's character must somehow evolve or grow stronger during the course of the game. This definition obviously includes every game with experience points, but leaves games like Zelda and Devil May Cry open to debate. In fact, according to this definition, Devil May Cry's Red Orbs upgrades makes a better case for character evolution than do Zelda's heart containers, at least in my opinion. However, I would like to propose an additional clause to this narrow definition, one that would have Zelda edge out DMC. It goes like this: "An RPG must have interaction with other characters, either other players or digital NPCs, and this interaction must be both frequent and necessary for the advancement of the game." Therefore, even though many action games have superior character evolution systems, Zelda, or Alundra, or Dual Hearts, are RPGs because they have the player interacting with other characters. Allow me to clarify.

Story has always been an important part of an RPG, and it is through communicating with NPCs that the story is revealed. True, it could be argued that all the cutscenes in Genma Onimusha count as interactions with NPCs, but these are movies that could easily be skipped. Even something as simple as walking up and talking to an NPC, and maybe choosing the occasional option, is more dynamic and more engrossing for the player. The player has to feel like they're part of the story, and part of the world around them. There is no better way for a developer to achieve this then having an NPC tell you about his cat - graphics and surround sound be damned. Choosing who to talk to and who not to somewhat resembles a social evolution of the character. There is rarely a statistic keeping track of that, but it usually affects the game in small ways.

Many philosophers have said that we define ourselves based on others. Similarly, the very idea of playing a role is closely linked to interaction with others. True, one-man theatre acts are quite common these days, but even these involve an interaction with the audience. Pen and paper RPGs have always been big on multiplayer adventure as well. NPCs certainly do not approach the level of interaction that real people can provide, but for game purposes, they'll do. The small contrivance of naming your character, and then having NPCs spit that name back out at you in dialogue, is not insignificant. Having other characters speak to you puts you in your role, or "the zone," if you will. It's not enough to just occasionally talk to an NPC to advance to the next level, either. There has to be sustained interaction between your player character and "the outside world," even if they are all pieces of code. If there is some kind of in-game monetary system, or even better, some form of experience gained by talking to people, then the game in question is almost surely an RPG.

I must emphasize that this is a secondary clause I am proposing. Super Mario Sunshine is filled with character interaction, but Mario does not evolve as a character. Link's method of evolution (finding hidden items to increase only his health, and occasionally defense and attack) may be crude and unsophisticated compared to, for example, Final Fantasy's, but Final Fantasy's method of character evolution is crude and unsophisticated compared to, for example, Morrowind's. Some RPGs might be more exemplary of the genre than others, but they are all still RPGs if they have the prerequisites.

No definition is all-inclusive, and there will always be some exemptions that will slip through the cracks. I can't think of any myself, but suppose a game was released that was exactly like Morrowind, only without any NPCs. It would be dull, to be sure, but it would still have an experience system so complex that I'd hesitate not to call it an RPG. My definition is open to revision.

I did not write this editorial to high-handedly bash any games. RPGamer covers some games that do not fit my party line, but I'm not going to start any crusades. I am merely proposing a reason why some games are considered RPGs and some are not. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is best drawn along the feet of the NPCs.