A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[ProfessorCirno]

*Compares too unlike things*

*Misses point*

No, the point is that this is precisely why "too videogamey" is a worthless criticism: It can mean anything.

How is HP too "video gamey?" Because, one argument goes, just like in basically every video game ever, as long as you have 1 HP, you have no problems! And if that's not what you mean, then perhaps you need to be a bit more specific.

 

[Dannager]

Or you like video games but prefer for certain tendencies of theirs to be confined to the video game medium rather than influence refereed RPGs.

In which case your reason is not "It's like a video game!" but rather "I don't like certain video game-like elements in my tabletop game!" which, itself, is also not really a reason since it immediately begs the question: "Why is it that you're okay with some video game-like elements in your game, and you're not okay with other video game-like elements in your game?"

Are you starting to see where we're coming from?

 

[Bluenose]

Well, if you're like me, they remind you of how characters in games like Tekken or MK can heal a bit during combat, and some can do so by executing certain moves. Kinda blech in an RPG, IMHO.

They sure do rock in arcade fighter games, though.

In arcade fighter games that is a simulationist mechanic. Increased confidence as you get on top, energy from adrenaline, that sort of thing. I'm not certain that it's a good thing to have in D&D, any more than the 'death s[iral' some people want to see as characters lose hit points.

 

[wedgeski]

It's been explained to me how hitpoints are not supposed to be a representation of a characters health, so therefore healing surges can make sense. Even though I don't believe that was the designers intent when implementing the rule

Eh? Of course it was their intent. HP haven't purely represented physical wounds in D&D since forever.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hey Dannyalcatraz, healing surges are too videogamey. I don't like using them in my D&D world. What exactly do you think it is that I don't like about them?

If "Too videogamey" is the only objection you have to healing surges, then the thing I think you don't like about them is that they are newfangled and not like the D&D you grew up with. And because you have no better way of expressing it than that you use the words "too videogamey" rather than saying something direct and unambiguous.

And for the record, PC hit points have never been a direct representation of physical damage. If they had been and had any sort of simulationism at all, there would be impairment and shock penalties and it wouldn't be the case that the only hit that actually impaired someone was the one that took them from 1hp to 0. What they have always been is a mix of luck, skill, and hits not actually connecting but being close enough shaves to rattle people. Which makes taking a quick breather or inspiration far more simulationist than not being able to. And if you want something that reminds me of a video game in a bad way, the ability to accept healing spam and keep going until you wear the buttons off the control pad without your character's body saying "too much" comes to mind.

I'll use the term all day long to describe content that I feel belongs only in a video game regardless if it has ever even been in a video game. The specific history of the content is meaningless to me. ... It simply means I think of D&D in a different way than video games and I like to preserve that flavor.

In short "too videogamey" has nothing what so ever to do with actual video games of any sort. It's simply a complaint that things are newfangled and not like the D&D you grew up with.

You may not know what he's referring to, and you may need to know more specifics about why he doesn't like it, but we understand his meaning. That's when we would ask him, "Oh yeah? What parts feel that way to you?" and the conversation begins.

The thing is I don't understand. Which is why I ask what parts feel that way to the writer. And almost invariably the conversation continues by demonstrating that the writer is talking about something as too videogamey "regardless if it has ever even been in a video game". They don't care whether too videogamey has anything to do with real video games. Which makes the term as a well defined objection meaningless and the complaint one about things being newfangled and not like the D&D the writer grew up with.

 

[FireLance]

I eagerly await the next revolution in entertainment technology so that the next generation of gamers can refer to game elements they don't like as "too holodecky".

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, the point is that this is precisely why "too videogamey" is a worthless criticism: It can mean anything.

How is HP too "video gamey?" Because, one argument goes, just like in basically every video game ever, as long as you have 1 HP, you have no problems! And if that's not what you mean, then perhaps you need to be a bit more specific.

You know, this would only be a valid argument if some people didn't agree with you here. There are people who think that the 1 hit point thing is garbage, and there are people who came to it from video games first.

Congrats! You thought you demonstrated one thing, while actually demonstrating the opposite.

Yet again!



RC

 

[BryonD]

No, the point is that this is precisely why "too videogamey" is a worthless criticism: It can mean anything.

How is HP too "video gamey?" Because, one argument goes, just like in basically every video game ever, as long as you have 1 HP, you have no problems! And if that's not what you mean, then perhaps you need to be a bit more specific.

Actually, that is a valid critical comment.

If someone told me they didn't like Pathfinder because it was "too videogamey", and this is there reason why, then I would have to accept their opinion as valid. I don't share their opinion.

But I'm not going to call their critism worthless just because I disagree. Valid complaints are valid and getting emotionally defensive about it doesn't change that.

I think Pathfinder is awesome. If someone thinks it is too videogamey, I might be curious why thye think so. I probably don't care. But I might be curious.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Actually, that is a valid critical comment.

Which is a valid critical comment? The comment about hit points is a valid critical comment. The comment about it being videogamey is about as valid as one about it being too jabberwock-y. It actively impeeds communication.

But I'm not going to call their critism worthless just because I disagree. Valid complaints are valid and getting emotionally defensive about it doesn't change that.

But you aren't comparing like with like. The criticism of being too videogamey is a completely non-specific one. And except in a very few cases has in my experience almost invariably meant "it's newfangled and not like the D&D [the writer] grew up with".

I think Pathfinder is awesome. If someone thinks it is too videogamey, I might be curious why thye think so. I probably don't care. But I might be curious.

An equivalent to the too videogamey criticism would be criticising Pathfinder for not being D&D. And on further investigation this turning out to be because it doesn't have the D&D logo on the box. Is that a valid criticism?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The comment about it being videogamey is about as valid as one about it being too jabberwock-y. It actively impeeds communication.

Only if you have some reason to make it so.




(Which, BTW, also communicates something.)


RC