Sorry if this kind of topic has come up before, i did use the search function to check first before writing this. I'm also not certain if this topic belongs here or in the "Other Games" section, so feel free to move it if need be.

A few years back i got into an argument on another forum with some dude about what the core components of the Role Playing Game genre were. We were talking primarily about CRPGs (console/computer) and i do not know if his arguments were intended to be blanket statements or confined to the CRPG arena, either way, i took issue with what he said.

He accused me of arguing poorly, and i have to admit that at the time i was not doing my best, but after doing some research into the topic more i came back with some evidence that he never bothered to respond to, so i've been left curious ever since as to what the majority consensus might have been.

I'd post a link to the thread, but it seems that in the years since, the thread has somehow been condensed only to the initial post, all the others have been removed.

I'll attempt to recall the arguments as faithfully as i can.

Originally, i was trying to determine the genre of a specific game, the genre of which is commonly debated: is it an RPG or is it an Action Adventure?

I was trying to take the middle ground with it (the game has aspects of both, therefore it was a hybrid of both), when the other guy came in and started citing authority from a forum separate from the one we were on to dictate the "true" definition of RPG. He never gave me a link to this forum/thread in question, he merely stated that 'this had been decided' there. (Paraphrasing)

As i recall, his definition of an RPG was as follows:

1. They MUST have levels or some other means of improving character scores.
2. They MUST have a random number generator (RNG) to determine success and failure of actions.
3. They MUST be beatable completely without skill of the player, relying instead on having high enough scores to win.
4. These scores MUST be numerically quantifiable, not an abstract visual aid. (i.e. Hearts, mana meters, different colored armor, etc.)

As i recall, i brought up several counter considerations:

1. Where is the "Role Playing" in this definition of RPGs?
2. What about LARPing, where player skill takes precedent over abstract character skill?
3. What if those abstract visual aids could be analysed and dissected to determine their numerical values?

To which his responses were along the lines of:

1. Role playing is nothing more than acting, which is unimportant to the game genre. Just because you *can* role play with a game character doesn't make the game an RPG. 'I can sit in my room pretending to be a cat, but that doesn't mean i'm playing an RPG.' (paraphrase, his example, not mine)
2. LARPing isn't a game, therefore it isn't an RPG.
3. (i don't remember his response to my third point, but i think it was that they still don't count as numerical values, regardless of how one goes about attributing a score to them.)

It was around this time that he accused me of arguing poorly (mea culpa) and left the discussion thread. I proceeded to do some research after this (why i hadn't done so sooner i don't know) and the "evidence" that i found satisfied own beliefs on the matter:

1. That a game is defined as any activity participated in for distraction and amusement, and therefore LARPs are RPGs of sorts.
2. There's already another genre of game that his definition fit even more closely than RPGs, because no matter how you go about it, you cannot divorce Role Playing from a Role Playing Game.
3. That other genre is Wargames.

So my question is: how dissimilar can a CRPG be from this:

Quote from: RPGPundit;1488723. D&D is the model of what most people define as an RPG, and therefore also the model for a successfully-designed RPG. It can be improved upon or changed, but any theory that suggests that D&D as a whole (in any of its versions) was a "bad" RPG is by definition in violation of the Landmarks. You don't have to say it is the "best" RPG, but you are obviously not in touch with reality if your theory claims that D&D is a "bad" game, and then try to invent some convoluted conspiracy theory as to why millions of people play it anyways, more than any other RPG.

Before it is no longer an RPG save in name alone?

Additionally, how little role playing can one do before one is no longer role playing.

And for that matter, how little game playing skill can one utilize before that person is no longer playing a game with their own skill, and instead is simply running automated and randomized simulations?