A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Bluenose]

Perhaps the most significant (again, IMO) way in which a tabletop game can be "like a videogame" (apart from inflexibility, which is more a DM issue than a rules issue) is, as Dannager mentioned, gamist (or at least, non-simulationist) elements that can strain suspension of disbelief and derail immersion if not handled properly. However, even this is not a problem if you don't consider it to be a problem.

Are you suggesting that video games are inherently gamist as opposed to simulationist? You can certainly find video games that are far more simulationist than it is possible to be in a tabletop game. There's nothing inherently gamist about how video games play, or simulationist in tabletop games.

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?

So: an aggro mechanic in a video game forces mobs to attack a particular target. The 'aggro' mechanic in 4e leaves people who don't attack that target at a disadvantage. It is indeed a very videogame like mechanic. The video games in question being sports simulations. And they of course are simulating real life, where marking is a significant factor in many team sports.

 

[billd91]

IOW, not quite sure why you quoted my post, with that particular observation following it.

Maybe because I joined in the conversation after you and didn't want anybody reading along at home to lose the thread of the topic? Is that rude or something?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So: an aggro mechanic in a video game forces mobs to attack a particular target. The 'aggro' mechanic in 4e leaves people who don't attack that target at a disadvantage. It is indeed a very videogame like mechanic. The video games in question being sports simulations. And they of course are simulating real life, where marking is a significant factor in many team sports.

Expecting D&D fans to understand how team sports works might be a bit much, I'm afraid

 

[ExploderWizard]

First off, NWPs were optional rules ;p

If you cannot grasp the concept that ALL tabletop rules are optional then you will never see the difference between them and video games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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".

You mean like daily spells?

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?

Except it isn't. 3e Knights had a "threat" mechanic. Defenders are actually threatening. A "threat" mechanic is a form of mind control saying the monster must attack the chosen target.

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

Except it isn't. Video games have a much easier time with circumstantial modifiers for monster type. It's the opposite of a well designed video game here.

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.

I think you'll find it's like D&D and that's why it's like an MMO.

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)

That's not the role differentation I'm familiar with in any MMO (either DPS or CC drop out of the equation in my experience). It is, however, analogous to Fighter/Cleric/Magic User/Thief. Which is about as pure as D&D gets.

2. Defender threat mechanic feels like taunt.

Having used both, all I can say is this is a world away from my experience. Marking and defender aura make me feel big and strong and that people have to keep their eye on me or I will kill them. Taunt feels like mind control. Literally.

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)

So your problem is that people need to catch their breath? Because daily powers are all over the place in older versions of D&D. Like every single spell. Now the method of expression might be MMOy. But cooldowns are far more common in older editions of D&D than in 4e.

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.

Except this isn't my experience of video games. Video games can and do have far more modifiers than tabletop games because it doesn't drive the DM crazy to keep track of them all or slow the game down.

Ultimately your list tells me that you appear not to play either computer games (let alone MMOs) or 4e. Now the language of 4e resembles an MMO for exactly the same reason the language of classic D&D resembles a tabletop wargame. Using language your target demographic is likely to understand helps.

 

[Bluenose]

If you cannot grasp the concept that ALL tabletop rules are optional then you will never see the difference between them and video games.

"I want to play a 6th level barbarian with rage powers."

"We're playing Heroquest. There are no levels."

"That's an optional rule!"

The whole point of the G part of RPG is that it's a Game. It has rules. Some of those rules are so intrinsic to how the game plays that leaving them out makes it a different game. Monopoly has been made with many boards for different places, but every version has to have a board.

 

[billd91]

You mean like daily spells?

Except that they really weren't dailies. Slots may have been daily, but individual spells could have been prepped or cast spontaneously any number of times up to the limit of those slots.
Harkening back to The Shaman's posts, it's a difference between more freedom to make choices and more constraints. In a video game, those constraints are necessitated by the medium. Table-top RPGs are generally much less restrained, ideally only where absolutely necessary.

 

[ggroy]

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.

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

As I've gotten older, I've found myself walking away more and more frequently from rpg games of various types.

I've walked away from sandbox type games, as well as railroad type games.

I've resigned the DM chair quite a number of times over the years too.


I suppose my tolerance level in regard to playing rpg games, has become more and more exacting as I've gotten older. I would rather spend 4-5 hours watching television, than being bored playing an rpg game with particular individuals who I prefer not to be around with.

Life is too short for dealing with undesirable people whom I prefer not to deal with.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I realized that one of my video games combat systems seems a lot like what I know of D&D 4e. Well, nobody has daily or encounter powers, but at will seems covered.

The video game in question is Ephemeral Fantasia. Each ability your character has costs action points to use, and action points refresh at a constant rate. More powerful abilities cost more AP. And when the main character copies one of his allies abilities, when he uses it it costs him his HP. Magic uses a mana system, which I think also has a refresh rate.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"I want to play a 6th level barbarian with rage powers."

"We're playing Heroquest. There are no levels."

"That's an optional rule!"

The whole point of the G part of RPG is that it's a Game. It has rules. Some of those rules are so intrinsic to how the game plays that leaving them out makes it a different game. Monopoly has been made with many boards for different places, but every version has to have a board.

Yes, there need to be rules in place in order for the activity to be a game.
Some, none, or all of those rules can come from a rulebook. The only important ones are those that the participants choose to follow.

I enjoy playing videogames and tabletop rpgs. Each form has its own benefits and drawbacks. There are certainly concept crossovers between them but some elements translate better than others. This is similar to the relationship between books and movies. What works well in one medium might not be a great thing in the other.

I accept the limitations of videogames because they provide enjoyable experiences despite those limitations. The strengths of the medium are convenience, eye candy, and instant gratification. I can turn on WOW or Dragon Age and just play without needing to schedule time, coordinate with others, etc.

Tabletop rpgs offer a different kind of enjoyment. There is more effort involved, scheduling needs to be done, and so forth. The experience itself is still worth the effort because all limitations and possibilities within the game are decided by those of us playing.

Bringing videogame elements onto the tabletop is no benefit tradeoff.

1) Limitations on what can be accomplished via coding (RAW)

2) No pretty graphics to look at.

3) Scheduling and coordination still need to be done.

Overall, its a losing proposition.