Re: What was the first RPG?

[fletcher@u.washington.edu (Brent Michael Krupp)]

In article <qqvinaw1cp.fsf@tartarus.ucsd.edu>,
Darin Johnson <djohnson@tartarus.ucsd.edu> wrote:

>> The meaning of the term "RPG" hasn't changed since the time that Adventure
>> came out. It is not an RPG. The context has nothing to do with it.
>
>Why not?  RPG does not mean there have to be stats.  Pray tell, what
>is the official definition then, if it isn't "a game that deals with
>playing a role"?  Or is this a "I can't describe it, but I'll know
>it when i see it"?

Actually, an RPG pretty much *does* have to have stats, so as to better
create your character. A game without stats is often an adventure 
game, not an RPG.

>Note that Dungeon/Zork actually *had* character stats, just that the
>player couldn't view or manipulate them.  (ooh, it had combat, does
>that make it RPG?)

Stats that can't be viewed or manipulated ARE NOT character stats in
any meaningful way. The point of stats being important to RPGs is that
they *distinguish* the various characters one can play. Every single
time anyone played Dungeon or Zork they got the exact same "stats" with no
possible variation. Everyone playing Adventure can do exactly the same 
things, with no trade-offs at all. These trade-offs are also usually 
a part of the stats that define an RPG character.

>Well, almost everyone will agree that combat is not a required element
>of RPG's (I hope they do).

Without a combat system, or at least some sort of conflict resolution
rules, it isn't an RPG. Lots of people would agree with me here. This 
is a topic that gets argued about all the time in rec.games.frp.misc,
however.

>And probably a majority agree that randomness is not needed. 

A majority? I doubt it. Many people consider diceless "role-playing"
to be simple make-believe storytelling, and barely an RPG at all. Without
a random element in a computer game, you are left with an adventure game.
That is one of the biggest distinctions between RPGs and adventure games:
in an adventure game, you can pretty much do the exact same thing every
time you play, and always win. RPGs are much less predictable and 
usually have a more free-form nature.

>So what we're left with is the ability to personalize the character!
>Odd - Al'Qadim doesn't let you personalize your character, but people 
>call that a role playing game. 

People would be over-simplifying. Al'Qadim is a rather hybrid game --
almost an action game with RPG elements, rather than a true RPG. 
It fails to be a true RPG in part because you have no control over what
character you play and the rather simplistic inventory and magic system
is quite arcade-game-like.

>What about
>Doom, Dark Forces, or Marathon?  Some people think they're role
>playing. On the other hand, there are quite a few people that think
>nothing from SSI is even close to being an RPG. 

Some people are extremely stupid. This adds nothing to your argument.

>Is Zork Zero an RPG
>with it's stats and combat, and if these elements were removed leaving
>a virtually identical game, would it someone not be an RPG anymore?  I
>really hope your definition includes more than just these elements.

I haven't played Zork Zero, so I can't really comment. I'd guess that it
is simply a fancy adventure game.

>What did Adventure give you?  You could take on the persona of the
>adventurer.  Sure, you only got one choice, but many things considered
>RPG's do that.  

What persona? You manipulated a completely anonymous and featureless
entity about a fantasy environment, doing little but picking up and
dropping various objects. No character at all to that. Sure, you could
imagine that you were an intrepid explorer, but I could imagine that
I was a cow, and the game played the same.

>Sure, combat was limited, but if someone came out with
>the My Dinner With Andre RPG, would it fail the test because of that?

Yes, unless you developed a "dinner table argument resolution system". 
Without conflict, you don't really have an RPG, just an interactive (or
not) storytelling experience.

>What about more complex and better adventure games, such as Curses? 
>Is that less of an RPG than Rogue?

Never heard of Curses. If it is an adventure game, it probably is not
an RPG as well. 

>And there was certainly much more role playing in Adventure than
>in Temple of Apshai and Wizardry, the first games I remember that
>might fit your definition.

Of course there wasn't. I do not know how you could possibly think
this. In Wizardry, you could name your characters, give them different 
"jobs" (classes), races, equipment, and so on. Vastly more than in adventure 
(which had none of this at all).

Wizardry is in fact one of the first computer RPGs ever, though I 
think Apshai predates, and Telengard may as well (if it is the very
D&Dish one I am thinking of).

Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fletcher/
"In the faculty of writing nonsense, stupidity is no match for genius."
        -- Walter Bagehot