Recently, on the RPG Gamers’ subreddit, someone posted a Top 5 Console RPGs blog post. Prior to this post, I had some ideas floating around about the role-playing game genre, so this post is the beginning of those ideas. The conclusion I arrived at surprised me, so hopefully, if you come from a similar game history background, you’ll be surprised too.

First, I don’t agree with the Top 5 games chosen. In descending order, they were: Odin Sphere, Disgaea, Persona 4, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy VI at number one. The main reason I wouldn’t pick these games (at least most of them) is because I’ve been trying to mull over what it means for a game to be an RPG. What does it mean to be playing a role within a game?

Certain RPGs, the Japanese staples–games like Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, and Dragon Warrior–came to mind first for me, up until recently. I want to reiterate that I love those games. But, how much of those games do you actually play a role?

Hang with me for a second. In those games, you rarely ever make a decision that changes the story (Chrono Trigger has one choice with 13 options). In most of those games, you make no character change options either. You make barely any monumental changes to the characters’ play-styles. So, you have little to no say in the story and make no changes in the characters growth, both story telling wise and play-style wise. Are you really playing the role if you are given the role with no options?

When I take a step back and deeply examine those games that, to this point in time, universally have been defined as “role playing games,” I come to the conclusion that there isn’t much that I do at all. I’m more of a passive absorber of the story. I take in everything but put little out.

So, what are examples of playing a role in a game? Here, I think of more PC games, things like Baldur’s Gate, Elder Scrolls, and The Witcher. Now, personally, I don’t enjoy that group as much, but these games have you completely in-charge of the character progression, the decisions they make, how the story will unfold, and ultimately how you want to play the game.

Now, I should clarify that certain games are split between the sides. Final Fantasy 1, for instance, allows you to make the party and have control over those characters. However, the story doesn’t change based on your choices. Other games, like the Mass Effect series, look more like Final Fantasy VI because of the final ending that Bioware chose for the series: you can have all these wonderful sidequest and rich, branching stories, but ultimately, there is one way the game will end.

Furthermore, this theory has some sorting out to do. If I were to critique my own theory, I would say an actor still plays a role even if the story is written out and all the lines are given. The actor still becomes the character in a play. But, I’ve never, as far as I can tell, felt like like I was Crono, or that I was Sabin, even though I love those characters, mainly because they aren’t me in any sense and none of my agency is in them. Because my agency isn’t directing any of the story or character elements in a profound way, I don’t see any of myself in the characters. This disconnection might be the reason why few people have been emotionally affected by a game. There’s too much of a gap between them and the characters versus what other games are like.

And before I ready my flame shield, I want to say that this whole discussion shouldn’t come with any normative claims. I am not saying that one style is better than the other. All I’m saying is we should reexamine what the genre RPG means.

I’ll end this mini-theory with another analogy. I know that the train conductor, in one sense, “drives” the train, but I think there’s a reason why he’s not a train driver. Maybe most Japanese RPGs should be called “Party Conducting Games” instead–you don’t control the direction of the party nor can you change any component of the party; you can only control how fast you reach the end.