The Flesh and Spirit of Role Playing Games

"You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG."

This struck me as a bold statement to make. And as bold as it is, I feel that there is an amount of truth in it. I do not unconditionally agree with this Mr. Erickson, and my explanation should be sufficient reason why.

The first thing one would ask oneself upon reading that statement is "What is an RPG?". Role Playing Games, at its most literal level, is any game where players assume the role of an individual. For all intents and purposes, such a legalistic approach is useless. Mario is an RPG, Halo is an RPG, Fallout is an RPG, Gran Turismo is an RPG. Almost all games today involve the player 'being' a character in the established fictional world of the game. To what the industry and the consumers consider an 'RPG', such a face-value approach has no point.

But where did RPGs come from? They were of course popularized by the famed pen-and-paper game, Dungeons & Dragons. To those unfamiliar with the geek hit-sensation, D&D involved physical congregation of human players, of whom one was a Dungeon Master - to drive the narrative and establish the fictional world. The rest were player characters, each representing an individual in the adventuring party. Gameplay revolved heavily around dice, and role-play, and persistent character advancement through experience and equipment. It is upon this rich base that many of the first role-playing video-games borrowed ideas and inspiration.

Fast forward to today, and we see games labeled (casually or otherwise) as 'JRPGs' to denote RPGs from Japan, and 'WRPGs' for Western Role Playing Games. Rabid fans on either side claim throne to being the better style of RPG, and much dispute is rife through the far-reaching branches of the Internet.

If you ask me, the divide is quite clear, simple, and fair.

JRPGs in their modern, current form, focus heavily on statistical character progression, inventory management (with marginal upgrades and 'enchantment'), and for many, turn-based combat. WRPGs on the other hand, have been emphasizing storytelling, player-freedom and for lack of a more purposeful term, role-play. Dear reader, do you see where I go with this?

Japanese Role Playing Games seem to adhere very closely mechanical conventions from D&D. The use of computer dice-rolls to determine turn-taking, success rates and damage all hearkens back to how role-play worked in the early days. Western Role Playing Games however are all about the narrative, and how the player wishes to act out their character in the fictional world. Thus they are more representative of the creative, free-form end of Dungeons & Dragons.

So back to the original quote. Is the modern JRPG still a Role Playing Game? In the most straightforward sense, yes - players play the predetermined, preset role of a (most likely teenage and male) individual who must embark upon grand adventure. In the mechanical sense, yes - it borrows and leans very much from the classical approach of 'game' from Dungeons & Dragons. In the 'role-play' sense (a.k.a. the Daniel Erickson sense), no - the typical JRPG makes no concession for player-choice and freedom in the same vein as D&D. If that's enough in your book to be disqualified from being a 'role playing game', then you have your answer.

Is it short-sighted to use D&D as the sole deciding factor on how much a game is a Role Playing Game? Perhaps, but I'd like to hear of a role-playing game that's outdoes D&D at its own game.