A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[The Shaman]

As a player, it's occasionally nice to have the illusion of freedom to do whatever you want with the game world. That illusion, of course, is shattered by the reality that you're playing a game with other people. If you were playing by yourself in your own head with nothing but your imagination, enslaving orcs and conquering duchies would be no big deal. But you're not. You're playing with a bunch of other people, and the guy in charge of the world usually has his own idea of how the game will progress.

Back in the day, our characters tended to have a number of henchmen and hirelings, so since a single player would often be running the equivalent of a party, it was not at all uncommon for us to run one-on-one sessions between normal game nights.

Be that as it may, you're parsing the example much too closely.

As a DM, I am under no obligation to allow you to enslave some orcs. While I may have the capacity to let you do that (even by simply saying "Okay, you enslave some orcs."), I probably won't. Functionally, this is no different than if your computer game didn't have the ability to allow you to enslave some orcs.

And I'm under no obligation to continue playing with you. Functionally, this is the equivalent of your computer sprouting legs, thanking you, and politely excusing itself from your desk.

As the DM, I outline expectations of my players - among which is included the understanding that you will participate in the story that has been prepared.

Well then, I wouldn't sit down at the table in the first place, so problem solved for everyone concerned.

Some DMs run things "sandbox" style, but you're still playing in their sandbox. In this manner, flexibility - the sort of flexibility you seek - can be damaging to the game.

Codswallop.

You clearly don't like "artificial" boundaries in your games. I'm sure the invisible wall trope of video games infuriates you.

Wouldn't know - never play 'em.

Believe it or not, though, those same invisible walls exist in tabletop gaming. You just don't get the visceral experience of physically bumping into one. Instead, depending on the skill and patience of your DM, you will wind up being subtly steered back to the plot, or tolerated as the DM scrambles to improvise, or yelled at for deliberately jumping the rails.

Wow, that's . . . wow.

Flexibility is nice. It's great to have different solutions to the problem of retrieving the Boggle of Zoon. It encourages creative thinking. There's plenty of room for this sort of creative thinking in most video games. Many encourage it. But if your idea of flexibility is having the freedom to say "My character decides to retire from adventuring life and start a vegetable stand in the local market," I doubt you're going to find your average tabletop gaming group any more accommodating than a video game.

Funny, I used the example of rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy, and somehow you turned it into tending a turnip patch.

One of these things is not like the other.

And fortunately, my experience is quite different from yours. You might be quite surprised at the effect a veterano like myself has on a group of players; give them a whiff of real in-character freedom, and good luck keeping 'em on your shiny rails, conductor.

 

[Dannager]

Fair enough- it does happen.

But it isn't the only possible "videogamey" critique.

Nope. It's just a really popular one. WoW is a big deal right now, and it seems like everyone is qualified to provide their opinion of what WoW is all about, especially those who have never played it. Which is hilarious, because then people start saying "This thing about D&D-edition-I-hate is just like WoW!" even though the thing they mentioned doesn't bear any similarity to WoW whatsoever.

 

[Dannager]

Back in the day, our characters tended to have a number of henchmen and hirelings, so since a single player would often be running the equivalent of a party, it was not at all uncommon for us to run one-on-one sessions between normal game nights.

Right. It's still a multiplayer game, even if it's just you and the DM.

And I'm under no obligation to continue playing with you.

Exactly. You could go find another game that does exactly what you want it to do. Er, I mean, a DM who does exactly what you want him to do.

Well then, I wouldn't sit down at the table in the first place, so problem solved for everyone concerned.

Social expectations are funny like that.

Codswallop.

Would you like to elaborate?

Wouldn't know - never play 'em.

Clearly, as someone who doesn't play video games, you are amply qualified to judge their merits and capabilities compared to things you do play.

Wow, that's . . . wow.

Once more, would you like to elaborate?

Funny, I used the example of rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy, and somehow you turned it into tending a turnip patch.

One of these things is not like the other.

You're right. One of those things is a situation that I wouldn't facilitate in my D&D games, and the other is running a vegetable stand.

Snark aside, they're exactly the same. If a DM decides that rounding up slaves is not something he envisions focusing his time and the time of your fellow players on, it won't happen. Similarly, if a DM decides that you running a vegetable stand is not something he thinks is appropriate for your game, it won't receive acknowledgment or support either.

I used the vegetable stand example precisely to get you to try and say they're two different things. You have your own preconception of where a D&D game should go. You have your own boundaries. Those boundaries are not "things that are possible in a fantasy world". Instead, those boundaries are "things that I think might be interesting". Apparently, according to your boundaries, rounding up slaves is something to focus on, and a vegetable stand is not.

I mean, you defend your standpoint that rounding up slaves is something that you expect to be allowed in any D&D game you play in, then back away from defending the idea that running a vegetable stand should be allowed, while at the same time trying to tell me that allowing total flexibility is a desirable thing in a tabletop game?

Really?

Either you agree that running a vegetable stand should be a legitimate option for someone playing D&D to expect to be able to do in your game, or you agree to the very basic premise that unbridled flexibility is not inherently a desirable characteristic in a game, and that past a certain point it can become not only useless, but actually detrimental to the flow of the game.

And fortunately, my experience is quite different from yours. You might be quite surprised at the effect a veterano like myself has on a group of players; give them a whiff of real in-character freedom, and good luck keeping 'em on your shiny rails, conductor.

While I have a certain level of admiration for your desire to disrupt play experiences for the sake of demonstrating your own creativity and old-school cred, I had sort of hoped that we were well past the outdated (and fundamentally lacking) notion that adventures that follow a path are somehow inferior to the style of game you prefer.

 

[garrowolf]

And I don't recall seeing anyone saying they hated WoW and game X was so WoW-like that they hated game X, for instance.

I hate WoW and D&D 4thed is so WoW-like that I hate it.

Sorry I just had to do that.

Seriously I actually do dislike RPGs that take too much from video games. I understand that most video games take their ideas from RPGs but many times the concepts don't convert back all that well.

One of the things that I don't like is Hit Points as a long track where it doesn't matter how much you have taken until you die. I hated that in original D&D. Now in a side scrolling fighting game it's fine because it's not a realistic game anyway.

I tend to think of character types based on the cultures involved in the setting. One of the things that bothered me about D&D 4th ed was that it focused so much on roles in combat I was reminded of WoW. It had nothing to do with the background of the setting or any cultural roles. It was aspects of tactics in a video game. Every time I was trying to figure out what my character could and should do I was pulled out of the setting by this mindset.

I understand the desire to maximize your character. However 4th ed seemed to be more of a tactical game then a RPG.

Now I have to say that maybe I'm biased because I never liked the D&D style low tech fantasy settings. They always seemed to be very one dimensional. I don't even read those kinds of fantasy books. I read modern fantasy and scifi.

One of the few low tech fantasy medieval games I did like was Ars Magica. My thought on Wizards running around with an adventurer group was most of the time they should work for the magic user. In fact if magic was that powerful they should be in charge of every nation in these settings.

Sorry I think I started rambling. I feel like an old man shaking his cane at "you kids and your damn video games!"

 

[Dannager]

Seriously I actually do dislike RPGs that take too much from video games. I understand that most video games take their ideas from RPGs but many times the concepts don't convert back all that well.

One of the things that I don't like is Hit Points as a long track where it doesn't matter how much you have taken until you die. I hated that in original D&D. Now in a side scrolling fighting game it's fine because it's not a realistic game anyway.

Uhhh...this isn't something that RPGs took from video games.

Also, in what way is any version of D&D a "realistic" game?

I tend to think of character types based on the cultures involved in the setting. One of the things that bothered me about D&D 4th ed was that it focused so much on roles in combat I was reminded of WoW. It had nothing to do with the background of the setting or any cultural roles. It was aspects of tactics in a video game. Every time I was trying to figure out what my character could and should do I was pulled out of the setting by this mindset.

Then ignore the names of the roles?

I understand the desire to maximize your character. However 4th ed seemed to be more of a tactical game then a RPG.

Do you believe that these things are mutually exclusive?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now in a side scrolling fighting game it's fine because it's not a realistic game anyway.
<snip>
Sorry I think I started rambling. I feel like an old man shaking his cane at "you kids and your damn video games!"

Bah! I'm probably older than you are, whippersnapper.

Anywho- its funny you should mention side-scrollers: as hinted at by FireLance's (i) in his second paragraph, that's the origin of my "videogamey" problem first arose, not with online RPGs...because I don't play those at all. The last fantasy CRPG I bought was Ultima 3...no- it was the "Gold box" D&D stuff from the early 1990s.

Even though I love side-scrollers, I just don't want that kind of feel in my P&P RPGs.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Once upon a time, what a player knew was no less important than what was on the character sheet.

Shocking, I know.

In any case, Use Rope was introduced as a non-weapon proficiency in 1e AD&D about twenty-five years ago; yes, Virginia, D&D had rules for doing stuff long before 3e was a wiggle in Monte Cook's epididymis.

First off, NWPs were optional rules ;p

Secondly, let me explain the dissonance.

Let's not beat around the bush - 4e is what we're mostly talking about here. And one of the prime complaints for 4e has been "But there's no x skill! How can I make a character who forges weapons without a forging skill?! How could I make a character that brews his own beer without Profession? It's just like a video game!"

And here's the gigantic dissonance, and it's why "it's lilke a video game" is utterly meaningless - it's a just-so statement. 4e doesn't have the skill? It's like like a video game, it doesn't have non-combat skills! It does have the skill or the ability? It's just like a video game, you have to roll for everything!

4e has leaders, strikers, defenders, and controllers! Nevermind that fits entirely to meet out with "Cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard," the quissential D&D team, it's now like a video game! 4e HP is an abstract, just as every edition's HP is? It's now like a video game!

2e had the Diablo book, and 3e was called Diablo. 3e had the World of Warcraft setting - not once, but twice! - and 4e is called World of Warcraft.

Me? I want to see what Blizzard game gets a 4e book, so I can accurately predict what the next edition will be called by people desperate to knock it down a peg.

"It's video gamey" doesn't work because every edition has been called video gamey. Everything is called video gamey. 4e is like a video game? Wow, that's entirely different from when 3e was called a video game! Nihil novi sub sole. Especially when gamers start to whine.

 

[Celtavian]

90% of the time they mean "look I dislike video games and I dislike this tabletop game so it's just like a video game."

Note how often the comparison turns to shambles once you ask them what elements of the game it reminds them off. I'm often intrigued of this strange form of World of Warcraft that exists in another timeline in which nobody ever raids, the spells and abilities are timed on an encounter scale, and none of the classes have mana/rage/focus/energy.

You've never asked me that. I could explain quite easily how 4E is video-gamey to me. I think I already have many times.

If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns".

Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game. Attack me or you are going to have problems, so my friends can beat on you and I can absorb all the damage. Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?

And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey.

No one said 4E was exactly like World of Warcraft. All some of us said is that it has some mechanics and an overall feel like a MMORPG with the defined roles and threat mechanic as well as the power system.

To put it specifically point by point:

1. The roles feel analogous to the following:

Defender (Tank)
Leader (Healer)
Controller (Crowd Control)
Rogue and such (Damage dealer/DPS)


2. Defender threat mechanic feels like taunt.

3. Power system:

Encounter powers (MMORPG powers with 1 minute to 5 minute cooldown. Usually an encounter)
Daily Powers (powers with 30 minute to 1 hour cooldown. Several encounters)


4. Every power working:

Powers work in MMORPGs. Doesn't matter the creature often times. They work, even if it doesn't make sense. 4E has a lot of that such as being able to blast undead with psychic damage, even though their minds are dead.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Necromantic privileges must, almost by definition, be abused. So... arise, O thread of evil! We shall harvest more souls votes, and see what can't be achieved.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You've never asked me that. I could explain quite easily how 4E is video-gamey to me. I think I already have many times.

Haha what, you and I have had this argument a billion times. But why not, let's do it again.

If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns".

Powers in D&D have always had cooldowns, they just had cooldowns of "one day." The samurai kit in 2e has a daily power. Barbarians in 3e have daily limits on their rages.

Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game. Attack me or you are going to have problems, so my friends can beat on you and I can absorb all the damage. Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?

No, the taunt ability that the 3e Knight class was straight out of a video game.

And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey.

No, they're narrative, unless you can show how it's a video game.

1. The roles feel analogous to the following:

Defender (Tank)
Leader (Healer)
Controller (Crowd Control)
Rogue and such (Damage dealer/DPS)

False. There is no Crowd Control character in WoW. Nor are Leaders "healers" by default.

2. Defender threat mechanic feels like taunt.

PHBII from 3e is now a video game.

3. Power system:

Encounter powers (MMORPG powers with 1 minute to 5 minute cooldown. Usually an encounter)
Daily Powers (powers with 30 minute to 1 hour cooldown. Several encounters)

Spellcasters, 3e barbarians, 3e paladins, 3e rogues with certain advanced talents, 2e samurai, are all video games.

4. Every power working:

Powers work in MMORPGs. Doesn't matter the creature often times. They work, even if it doesn't make sense. 4E has a lot of that such as being able to blast undead with psychic damage, even though their minds are dead.

False. Multiple abilities in WoW only work on specific targets. Undead are immune to fear. Seduce only effects humanoids. Banish only effects demons.

That was fun! Catch you next time I need to literally prove every statement you make wrong?