What does Videogamey mean to you?

[Plane Sailing]

I don't thing I use the term 'videogamey'.

If I were to use it, I think I would identify it with aspects of 4e which it appears to that the designers drew from successful MMOs.

a) Defender/Striker/Healer(aka Leader)/Controller roles, and focusing classes around the ability to meet particular roles

b) Recharge mechanics (per encounter, daily) for all classes.

c) monster power scales linearly with character power (probably first really introduced with 3e, perhaps?)

I'm not putting a value judgement on these, not saying that they are objectively good or bad. It just seems to me that they are aspects which the 4e designers noticed were important in popular MMOs/cRPGs and they decided could be fruitfully added to tabletop D&D.

My observation is that some people like these things, and some people don't like these things

Cheers

 

[howandwhy99]

Yeah, I think I see what you mean. You say (video)gamey means that the game's design presumes a very clear goal for the player -a goal that seems independent from anything but certain rules. The goal's obviousness is so high as the amount of rules the player has to figure out.

It isn't a goal or game objective being defined that bothers me. I like that the game objective is to try and win by getting as many points as possible. Rather it's the limitation of strategic thinking occurring because all the rules are known from within which we are to craft our strategy. It turns the game into a simulation game rather than a roleplaying one. RPGs allow for both player misinterpretation of rule patterns and a complexity of rule patterns without limit, while still engaging the players in strategic gameplay beyond the starting rule pattern hidden behind the screen.

In terms of "videogamey" (a poor term I'll admit) I'm saying the rule patterns generated, hidden behind the screen, and described by the referee can be so dissimilar to the patterns commonly held by people as definitive of those descriptions that the game becomes jarringly nonsensical. A game certainly doesn't need to be sensical or realistic, but when done the descriptions atop the rule patterns increase the difficulty of play as they are dissimilar. Verisimilitude actually makes the logic pattern finding game of roleplaying easier for the players because the similarity to dictionary definitions make these referee descriptions clues - hints at the underlying pattern being explored. Verisimilitude is also a preference for those who desire games simulating something rather than abstract games. In the case of our hobby, I mean the PFG roleplay simulation game.

 

[Gimby]

I don't thing I use the term 'videogamey'.

If I were to use it, I think I would identify it with aspects of 4e which it appears to that the designers drew from successful MMOs.

a) Defender/Striker/Healer(aka Leader)/Controller roles, and focusing classes around the ability to meet particular roles

b) Recharge mechanics (per encounter, daily) for all classes.

I'm not putting a value judgement on these, not saying that they are objectively good or bad. It just seems to me that they are aspects which the 4e designers noticed were important in popular MMOs/cRPGs and they decided could be fruitfully added to tabletop D&D.

My observation is that some people like these things, and some people don't like these things

Cheers

Theres a further observation that can be made though - the existance of the "holy trinity" in its current form arises from the heritage of the MMO, easily tracable back to magic user/cleric/fighting man. Its interesting to note that the Blizzard designers, for example, are now trying to shift from this paradigm a little (see some of the Cataclysm notes on reducing the disparity between roles a little and the design of the Northrend versus the Outland heroics). My first introduction to recharge mechanics was the 3e Unearthed Arcana which had a system even closer to that found in WoW (indiviual variable cooldowns and so on).

This is where I think the disconnect/annoyance comes to a certain extent. Things which are not seen in videogames or not significant parts of them (see Healing Surges or actually Minions as explicitly one-hit creatures) are declared to be videogamey. Things which have been part of D&D for a decade or more (see, roles) are declared to be videogamey. 1-1-1 diagonal movement and firecubes are declared to be videogamey when computers can near-perfectly handle gridless combat in realtime. The rules as a whole are described to be videogamey or written to allow easy translation to a videogame when its the only AD&D-descended edition that *hasn't* been made into a videogame.

Thats kind of what makes me feel that the term is largely worthless.

To address a post specifically, pretty much everything in Celebrim's post here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...t-does-videogamey-mean-you-4.html#post5104948
has precedent in a variety of tabletop games. AD&D I believe had a random dungeon generator and I think the T&T solos were meant to be played without a DM. Pretty much any Effect based game has the "everyone is a spellcaster" effect (say M&M). Points 4 and 5 seem to contradict each other, but I'd point to name level, or the explicit endgames you find in many indy games for the close ended design. Point 5 covers really only a subset of cRPGs where the world scales with you, but even then the game maths tends to shatter hiliariously at higher levels in many of these too - see Morrowind or Oblivion for easy examples. Even then, we see in D&D that higher level monsters will have, in general, a better AC, more hitpoints, more damage, better defenses - but again the whole concept of "levels" of player characters and their enemies derives from D&D.

 

[Mistwell]

When someone calls 4e "videogamey", and there is no further context to go on, I assume they are using the term in a derogatory manner to dismiss 4e as a combat-oriented game that borrows too much from popular video games and strays too far from "true" role playing games.

 

[Oryan77]

What I find particularly bothersome about the 'Healing Surge' debate is that it is edition specific. In other words, it focuses the discussion on the question "Is 4e D&D [too] videogamey?"

The OP asked a question and I gave my own answer. I provided an example of what I think is videogamey because if I didn't, then people would complain that I just made a blanket statement. I wanted to back up my thoughts with an example.
I can give examples of what I think is videogamey from 2nd & 3rd edition also, but 4e is easier for me to use as an example because it seems more noticeable in 4e.

If you want, I will copy & paste my original post and give examples in a 2e & 3e response, but I warn you, it'll be just as boring to read. I have not made any statements that I'm trying to bash a specific edition, so please, don't then proceed to turn it into an edition debate by hollering out things like, "Hey, sounds like you're trying to bash 4e!" That's just being an instigator & is just as annoying as the people who intentionally try to bash an edition to piss people off.

I don't have a problem discussing these small details. The OP asked for a definition for videogamey, and hashing things out is the best way to get to an answer. Or, I could just say what the majority of people said and go with, "I use it to say something sucks". I dont' really know how else to answer the question and give examples at the same time without someone thinking I'm trying to bash an edition.

You might use the term gamist instead.(it fits your definitions better)
You are mucking up the definition it isnt like vgs.

Seeing as how there is no definition (this thread proves it), I'm not sure how I'm mucking anything up.

I'm not so sure I understand the term gamist. Maybe we need a thread to define that also?

By gamist, do you mean a system put in place for no reason other than it making the game funner without any logic needed behind it? The game comes first, realism comes last?

Healing surges actually have some real world correspondence ala -> adrenaline and the real world second wind (ever felt it ? its awesome and quite sudden, and arguments against it makes me think we have few athletes rolling dice).

That's a good comparison. But overall, I still have a hard time accepting that logic. If my max HP is 100, and I'm getting wounded a lot by a sword, and afterwards the adrenaline wears off and I bandage myself up, it would still be possible for me to be at 100 HP again by using Healing Surges...meaning, I'm in perfect condition again. But why? I still have serious wounds that should not already be healed and allowing me to feel perfectly fine again.

It just seems to me that they are aspects which the 4e designers noticed were important in popular MMOs/cRPGs and they decided could be fruitfully added to tabletop D&D.

That is pretty much how I see it. I may not prefer that style of D&D, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't enjoy it. Whatever floats your boat is cool with me.

 

[Celebrim]

The OP asked a question and I gave my own answer. I provided an example of what I think is videogamey because if I didn't, then people would complain that I just made a blanket statement. I wanted to back up my thoughts with an example.

I don't at all mean to seem like I'm picking on you particularly. Rather, I'm noting that several posters have chosen to ignore almost all of what you said in favor of focusing on a comparitively minor point: "Is Oyran77's example a good one?"

I don't blame you for providing an example. It's a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation. If you don't provide an example, people will attack you for being overly general. If you do provide an example, people will nit pick the example in some fashion to try to show that its not a perfect example. One of the problems with trying to illustrate a point by example or analogy is that very frequently someone will try to counter the example or analogy by focusing not on the aspect of the thing you thought interesting, but some other aspect you really didn't focus on when you choose the thing as an example.

Personally, I don't find Healing Surges to be 'videogamey', but I do find them to be 'gamist', which, I agree with Garthanos is a related concept that overlaps your definition somewhat.

 

[Layander]

Healing SurgesI I must admit I'm surprised that people consider videogamey.

Indeed, I don't know of a videogame that actually HAS healing surges.

Regeneration- yep, that's common in videogames and Hit points + healing potions is of course the most common videogame type of tracking (and that's pulled from D&D).

I've always seen Healing Surges as "ACTION movie" staples. The "John Mcclane" style where the hero gets beaten up in one scene, but about 5 minutes later, he's as right as rain to do another incredible action stunt/encounter but at the end of day, he has no more in the tank.

If anything, I've seen this closer to actual novel characters like Conan who in his books does the sme things whereas the standard videogame method of "hitpoint recovered via healing items/potions you recover from barrels and you can be an Energizer bunny as long as you have that" I thought was a pure D&Dism that was ripped off.

Similarly, the encounter style system I've always seen more along the lines of action movies and manga where the character pulls off a cool move but doesn't use it every freaking time.

Beyond the Beyond. Very old console RPG from PS1, every time your character gets low on hit points he uses a vitality point and gets better, but heaven help you if you run out of vitality points and cant restore your hp any more.

 

[BryonD]

I've always seen Healing Surges as "ACTION movie" staples. The "John Mcclane" style where the hero gets beaten up in one scene, but about 5 minutes later, he's as right as rain to do another incredible action stunt/encounter but at the end of day, he has no more in the tank.

In Die Hard John McClane's wounds accumulate, but he never is functionally slowed down. The wounds are played up in places, but when push comes to shove, they have no impact. At the end of the movie he is a wounded, beat up mess on the way to the hospital.

In 3E a fighter can take more and more wounds, but he is not functionally slowed down. But eventually he needs some form of healing care.

In 4E a fighter takes wounds, surges, and the wounds go away.

I don't consider either a purely precise model of Die Hard, but 4E is further from that mark. YMMV

Similarly, the encounter style system I've always seen more along the lines of action movies and manga where the character pulls off a cool move but doesn't use it every freaking time.

I find that having that power there to use every encounter makes them get used that much more frequently.
I've seen 3E characters with a bag of tricks that get recycled. And that does get old. But the tendency to be a bag of tricks is more prevalent in the encounter based system.

 

[Njall]

Wow, it's strange how people can react differently to the same mechanic.
To me, "healing surges" were something that made the game more realistic, rather than more "video gamey".
HP never made sense for me: I accepted them as a game construct, a necessary evil if you will.
Let me explain: since the beginning, Gygax made clear that HP didn't represent actual health; rather, they were a mixture of luck, skill, physical health and plot immunity.
Ok, that makes sense. If someone slashes at you, it doesn't really make sense that you can take the full force of the blow and survive unless you're really lucky, and the chances that you can take 5, 6 swings in a row and walk away on your feet are pretty slim.
However, it took an experienced fighter days, if not weeks, to regain his defensive prowess after even a moderately challenging fight, barring magical healing. Furthermore, since HP were influenced by Con and Class while natural healing was a constant value, the toughest fighter's wounds were proportionally slower to heal than the frail magic user's, and it took him a lot of time to fully recover from fatigue.
This...didn't really fit the genre, IMO, and I don't even saw how it was realistic at all. In fantasy novels, the main characters don't spend days recovering after a minor fight, and the tough, experienced combatant is back on his feet way before his frail companions.
With healing surges, suddenly HP make sense: recovering from a tough fight doesn't take days or weeks simply because you're not really wounded: you're just bruised and battered ( and, considering that no edition of D&D ever supported long lasting injuries, crippling wounds or mutilations, this doesn't really break my suspension of disbelief...after all, if I can assume that a sword slash will never cut one of my hands off, I don't see why I can't assume that it's not going to deliver a grievous wound no matter what).
And, really, healing surges are the closest a game has ever come to simulating fatigue, for me: if you run as fast as you can, for example, you'll be exhausted after awhile. Take a short rest, catch your breath and you can run again for awhile.
If you do this over and over, though, you'll tire out pretty quickly, and, in the end, you'll need a long rest to recover.
Healing surges are pretty much the same thing, except that they represent how long you can defend yourself before you're too tired to parry or dodge another blow.
In addition, they tie the amount of HP healed to the recipient rather than the healer, meaning that healing you from 0 to full will take the same number of healing spells at both 1st and 30th level.
That's pretty consistent with Gygax's original explanation, IMHO, and I don't really see how it's more "video-gamey" than needing a pocket healer to keep you alive fight after fight, but I guess it's a matter of opinion

 

[BryonD]

To the OP, I really don't find that much in 4E I'd call videogamey.
I see the point, but I'm not a big subscriber to it.

I think the core piece of how classes are balanced by level is very much in the style of WoW. (DPS, HPS, and damage adsorption all carefully fit to the math)*. Obviously a PnP realization is going to have major differences from a server run algorithm. But the heart of the idea is related.
But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And having an element of 4E be akin to WOW is a far cry from 4E is WOW.

* - yes, I realize that there is far more to it than these. But that is equivalent in both games. And in 4E is is more like DPR (R=round)