So you're saying then that you think every Might & Magic, Wizardry, Bard's Tale and Gold Box game are not RPG's in your definition? Because that would be pretty much insane.

I mean all these people talking about games where you the player determine how the story evolves, lol where are these RPG's you are even talking about? Fallout and Age of Decadence are like the only ones I can even think of. You're talking about some Ivory Tower definition of RPG which only exists in theory.

Like 99% of CRPGs that actually exist do not have a story which you the player controls, the vast majority of CRPGs are about killing monsters, getting xp and loot, leveling up, rinse and repeat. If we're to find a common definition, then firstly we need to determine the gameplay elements common to the majority of RPGs, not completely superfluous stuff which exist in a few games tops.

IMO an RPG doesn't need multiple endings (perhaps "illusion of choice" is a better description). I don't think I can pinpoint specific style of choices. It's possible to have an RPG with a predefined character, and it's possible to have an RPG without much choice in NPC interaction. However, I think you must have some sort of choice which affects the game, whether that choice is what armour and weapons to buy and use, what skills to practice or whether to attack an NPC or not.
Candy Crush isn't a role playing game.

That's a very vague definition of "choice". With such definition, "choice" is needed for each genre. And thus it is completely meaningless to bring it as genre's element, just like the story.

This "choices" talk made me remember "Choose your own adventure" kind of books. I have "read" one such book and it had mistypes in page numbers given in choices, so I had a heck of a wonky adventure XD

Yeah, well, that's why I don't consider games like this "role-playing games". They're maybe "role-playing ruleset simulators without actual roleplaying". But that's just my personal opinion.
I don't deny that those games can be a lot of fun, though. They're more like math-puzzle games - find the optimal way to upgrade your characters, and that's fun in it's own right. Just like some people like management games that for me are as charming as an Excel spreadsheet.

Concerning the "suboptimal" choices: One example would be turning down a quest, because your character simply wouldn't do it. So you don't get the XP and loot from that quest. Why does the game have to be badly balanced because of that? There could be other ways to compensate the player (like rewarding playing along their moral alignment, but tempting them with promises of riches if they leave it), or the game has an XP system that lets you catch up - ie. you get more XP if you are a lower level (like in Witcher 3) and less XP if you are way above the critters (like D&D).
And also things like difficulty settings have been invented quite some time ago.
If I may come back to my "role-playing non-RPG" Civ: if I want to play a "perfect" strategy game, making optimal decisions and all, I crank the difficulty up. When I'm in the mood for "role-playing" a ruler that is maybe a simple warlord with no interest in research or wealth, but loyal to the point of thickness to his allies - I have to turn down difficulty, because a game like that would be very hard to win on hard.

I do know of course that the first dungeon crawlers were called (C)RPGs, even if they're all about managing numbers and contain no role-playing at all. But the question was "How would you define RPG", and for me RPG is interactive storytelling (and even that little part about getting that bloody chest open, is storytelling). I do play PnP RPG (hopefully tonight *yay*) and I could more easily imagine playing without dice and stats (although I don't want to do this) than playing without all the interaction and decisions and only rolling dice to kill stuff and level up. In fact we've had enough playing nights when we didn't use the dice and character sheets at all.
LOL, must have been really weird and *wtf*. :-)

I don't say it should be super-challenging and hard, but going with Fighter who has 1 Strength should bring you no victories at all. And stealth should not be viable to get through the game as pacifist (which shouldn't be possible in CRPG at all).
Such "level tuning" is exactly the example of "unrewarding". It promotes heavy metagaming to do things in strict order to not suffer big experience penalties. It sounds good on paper but frustrating in reality. There is no such math model which would equally upscale and downscale rewards - it all ends in heavily unbalanced mess and becomes nightmare of metagaming.
I think best "difficulty setting" is no level cap (or very high level cap), which was a standard in most of early games. Battle is too hard? Gain couple more levels and it will be easier. Everything is too easy? Deprive yourself from some leveling and things will be hard again.
Interactive storytelling is perk of different genre, we called it "quest" genre back in the day in my land, I think it is called "point and click adventures" nowadays. CRPGs are about numbers, leveling, loot, dragon-slaying, saving princesses (for Gold and Exp!), etc.
It was about Arthur, Merlin and Knights of the Round Table. I didn't get a clue what was going on. Some characters died but then I was meeting them in next scene. Mordred perished and then participated in some battle...

I would say that the whole interactive storytelling idea is not a feature of RPGs, but rather of visual novels. In fact, I could argue that many jRPGs are RPG/VN hybrids, but with those two aspects not integrated well, resulting in you being forced to go through one genre of gameplay before going to the next.

A similar example of a hybrid would be ActRaiser, which is a hybrid of a 2d platformer and a city-building simulation. The two genres are not integrated well.

A hybrid that is a little more integrated would be Magic of Scheherezade, because the Action combat (the main combat system) and the Command-mode combat (which plays as a turn-based RPG) use the same character resources.

Huh? Don't you role play a special Terris / Bejewl player?

Or a picky eater of candy where you need food arranged in a specific order? XD

Jokes aside, except puzzle games, are there any game that you do not role play?

I think the only true criterium applicable nowadays is that your character's or characters' performance is based on stats that grow as you proceed through the game, allowing you to tackle challenges you wouldn't have been able to deal with at the start.

That's probably the only true factor, given how different several games widely considered RPGs are. Western RPGs are all about becoming your character and are focussed on exploration and kind of doing your own stuff. Japanese RPGs are all about having strongly defined characters and a plot that drags the player along instead of the other way around. The only real thing they have in common are the fact that they have character progression systems as a central gameplay element.

Why would a fighter have STR 1? That's not playing a role, that's just insane. And why shouldn't it be possible to get through the game as a pacifist? Actually that would be pretty awesome. Sneak and talk your way through, maybe stun opponents when that's not possible...

Depends on your play style. I don't like it if I have to care about metagaming and maxing XP to be able to beat a game a lot. That's why I don't play management sims, or only very forgiving ones that just let me build in my speed (like Train Fever).
You seem to be very restricted in your way to look at games. If you like min-maxing your stats and questing for loot and XP and the optimal build is enough for you - why not? But not all RPG players are like that, and they want to have fun, too, you know?

And why should that be? People have different play styles and tastes. I know that I can beat ie. Baldur's Gate 2 with ToB on "core rules" difficulty, role-playing my decisions. I probably couldn't do it with the Ascension mod, so I don't.
Some people like to optimise their characters and party more (and don't give a damn about personal preference) and those are happy with Ascension. Why shouldn't the game offer setting for both play styles?
I agree that offering a little bit of grinding to compensate for missed XP is a valid option. But some people simply don't like grinding for XP, so for them there should be an easier mode that reduces it.
Choice is good, or not?

I wouldn't call Adventures "interactive storytelling", or only in the broadest sense that encompasses almost all games. Most adventures are extremely linear, the only interaction is clicking on the right things to move on.
It's not like the player really "interacts" with the story. "Interaction" works in both directions - the player influences the story and the story influences the player's actions.

And the thread title is "How would you define RPG", not "How would you define CRPG". And I wouldn't define RPG as numbers, leveling and doing things for loot and XP. That's only a small part of it (contained in the "G"). For me "RP" has twice as many letters :-P

Sounds like hilarious trip ;-)

I would define RPG privately in my own home with the door locked, the windows closed, the internet cable unplugged, and my phone turned off.

And I would wear my tinfoil hat, too!

That's probably for the best...


(+1)

1 STR is exaggeration just to show the point. Pacifistic approach isn't possible in CRPGs just like in Strategy, Shooters, etc. It simply goes against the core of the genre - killing big bad dragons and such.
I simply don't like aforementioned "level tuning" and multiple ways to solve quests. It usually means that only one way is the most rewarding and I don't want to gimp my characters, especially when game features no respawn. Even if game is otherwise easy, it just goes against my nature.

I like it when game is open about its rules instead of surprising me with bad mechanics like "If you'd talk your way out of this situation, you'd get 10 times more Exp" or "this character triggered timed quest when joined your party, fail to do it and you lose that character [true for most of recruitable characters]". Such games make me browse Internet in search of walkthroughs to avoid potential frustration, and before I am there I am already playing some other game.
Difficulty modes undervalue accomplishment and world and allow for cheesing. CRPGs already have "difficulty modifier" it is called leveling. If people want easier game but don't want to "grind", they have to deal with it. I like to play fighting games casually, but I understand that I need a lot of practice ("grind") to feel comfortable with combos in different combat situations. I like strategies, but I understand that I need to spend time learning which strategic approach is the most reliable. And so on. if people don't want to deal with that, there are cheat codes (nothing wrong about cheating).
That is to make the line between tabletop gaming and video games. "C" stands for "Computer/Console". And if to look at history of CRPGs, all the first CRPGs were about numbers, leveling and doing things for loot and XP. Not "some" of CRPGs, ALL of them. What was frowned upon in tabletop gaming ("Monty Haul" campaigns) was a baseline expectation from CRPGs. On other side, Computers allow modeling of very elaborated worlds, dungeons and character progress systems, something which is far beyond the possibilities of tabletop campaigns.

In other words CRPGs don't have anything in common with role-playing and tabletop games except the name.

Again: The questions is NOT about CRPG, but about RPG.

But in order.
a) Not all CRPG are about killing the big bad dragon. Maybe all you like are, but not all. Planescape: Torment is not about killing the big bad Dragon, and it's one of the best CRPG ever.

b) Your example is just bad game design. In effect, a "talker" should get approximately as much XP as the "fighter". And yes, I hate timed quests too, except when they really make sense, story-wise, and thus add to the atmosphere of urgency. In this case the game designer has to make sure you can beat the quest when you encounter it - otherwise: bad design.

c) So, just because you don't like it, nobody should have it? Also, grinding and practice are different things. You learn something with practice, develop your skills. Grinding is doing the same thing over and over that you already can do - just to see some numbers go up. It's work, actually.
Also I personally don't like cheating. It destroys every sense of accomplishment. I'd rather honestly beat a game on easy than cheat my way through hard. But I don't condemn people who use cheats (except in MP).

d) See first sentence. And as I've previously written, those old CRPG are not "RPG" in the true sense. They simulators of RPG rulesets. Of course computers are perfect for managing lots of numbers. And that's what the early CRPG did. The worlds weren't very elaborate those games either. Just stickmen, text and numbers.
But RPGs have come a long way since then, and they're trying to emulate the "real thing" more. Of course it will take a long time until an interactivity like with a real human DM will be possible, maybe this will never happen.
The old games were all "mechanics", but take for instance Witcher 3: Lower the difficulty and you have a story based game which you can heavily influence. But you don't have to care about how you spend your points and getting the best recipes and equipment that much. Set it to hard and the mechanics become more prominent: you will spend more time thinking about how to develop your character, get max damage, find the optimal weapons and armour and the best recipes, otherwise it's gonna be real tough.
Your ideal RPG is obviously a lot about numbers you can manage. My ideal RPG is about role-playing - and the more the numbers are hidden from me, the better. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there, just it's the computer's part to keep track of them - not mine.

Certainly not how publishers/stores (including GOG!) do. Their definition of RPG seems to include "has a leveling up mechanic of some sort".

From personal opinoin of OP: "A RPG game is founded upon the traditions of tabletop roleplaying".
So we definitely speak about CRPGs here.
Those games are rather outliers, than a good example of the genre. Even more so, Planescape Torment is 1999 y. game, it was released at the end of golden era. There was like 99% of all classic RPGs released before that. Which all were about killing big bad dragons and getting shiny loot. Judging whole genre by couple outliers is wrong.
But it usually ends like this or in some variation like "do quest in pacifist mode, get reward, then kill quest NPC for bonus".
I think that "grind" is overused word with too much unneeded negativity. Getting home from work and killing some monsters in methodical manner for "+1" here and there - it is one of the things which draws people to CRPGs. Some people can't understand it, just like some can't understand how it is possible to watch/play same football on almost daily basis.
Good example, my fav. game - Might and Magic VI. It was all about numbers in the end, but look at the world, at the dungeons. At the depth of the systems. It is much more elaborated than most of PC games released after that.

Saying that CRPGs are just simulators of RPG rulesets is like saying that old strategy games are not strategy games in true sense but just simulators of war.
When game tries to be "real thing" too much, it stops being game... And real human DM can't "simulate" non-euclidian dungeons, teleporter mazes, in-depth loot systems and character progress, etc. he can simulate fake rolls though :))
Imo, you simply describe some variation of Action/Adventure genre. There you role play hero, usually you have opportunity to solve things peacefully and you are not overburdened with "grind" and "numbers" game.