D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
I think you are using "scene framing" to describe something different from me.
I'm not meaning 90s-style "story" railroads. I'm meaning the techniques associated especially with the Forge that are a reaction against 90s-style play - but are not about world-exploration sandboxes either.
The difference is that the 90s-style railroad has a predetermined plot. The focus isn't the scene framing, but the scene resolution - because the plot depends upon scenes resolving in a predetermined fashion.
Whereas scene-framing based play, as I'm thinking of it, focuses on framing a scene that will grab all the participants, but then letting resolution fall where it falls based on the participants' use of the action resolution mechanics (GM force in "the interests of story" is anathema to this sort of play). The example from my own game that I posted above is an illustration - no predetermined plot, but more-or-less spontaneous framing of scenes that picks up on the fallout of previous scenes, and keeps the focus on those matters that are of interest to me and the players, and maintains the pressure (in that particular example, loyalty to the Raven Queen is the main focus, as this is an ongoing source of tension among the PCs, even those who worship her). I think that example also shows that you can use Forge-y techniques in a game that is far more light and trite than the avant garde material the Forge is more interested in.
One obvious difference from sandbox play is that exploration of the gameworld is located within the resolution of situations, rather than between them. I often see posts where people talk about roleplaying happening in between encounters, especially combat encounters. The sort of approach I'm calling "scene framing" emphasises roleplaying as what happens within encounters - because these generate the pressure that makes the players play their PCs, and make meaningful choices about what they do.
A corollary of this is that the transition from scene to scene is handwaved or resolved quickly and lightly - because, by definition, there is little interesting happening there (if it was interesting, it would be a scene!).
Dannager
First Post
Really?
Go talk to MMO developers, and ask them where they found inspiration for their gameplay and mechanical design choices. Many of them will (and have in the past) cited tabletop roleplaying as inspiration - and well they should!
Similarly, a lot of people have found that using MMO (and modern video games in general) as inspiration in tabletop RPG design bears delicious fruit. Mike Krahulik, of Penny Arcade, came up with a number of interesting set pieces based on video game mechanics - combat between floating planetoids, a la Mario Galaxy; a system where players effectively "roll" for their own loot by selecting from a physical pile, just as you would in MMOs; and an encounter set up around a classic laser-and-mirrors puzzle, straight out of games like Portal, The Elder Scrolls, etc.
It's silly to act like tabletop roleplaying games and MMOs are nothing alike. They have far more similarities than differences, and the coldest of facts is this: innovation in the realm of MMOs and video games is progressing at a pace that massively outstrips that of tabletop RPG innovation. Ignoring that because of an arbitrary (and willfully ignorant) belief that there is nothing to be gained by looking at that sphere of entertainment media is pointless.
Argyle King
Legend
I agree with some of this.
However, I also feel it is important for designers to realize that there are vastly different things I want out of a tabletop game than a computer game. Yes, there are similarities between mmorps and tabletop rpgs. However, there are also differences, and I feel those differences are just as important (if not more) than the similarities.
Hussar
Legend
Could you be a bit more specific? I honestly don't play MMO's (other than a few brief stints here and there and a couple of turn based online games which I don't think counts) so, from my rather uniformed view, I'm not seeing very large differences.
Other than the obvious ones like technological limitations on choices and the like of course.
slobster
Hero
There are a lot. A big one is that in an MMO, the computer handles all the bookkeeping. You can have a lot of status effects, short duration buffs and debuffs, recharge timers and so on, and it's never a load on any of the players. On a tabletop, people have to keep track of this themselves, and it gets tedious. So tabletop RPGs prize sleekness and simplicity over the more complex mechanics of MMORPGs.
On the reverse side, in an MMO the computer is the last adjudicator of any and all rules that you program in. If you create a disarm attack that prevents enemies from attacking for ten seconds, it will do that regardless of circumstances . . . even if the opponent is using claws rather than weapons.
That's a simplistic example, but you get the drift. Computers don't have common sense. GMs do (or should . . .). Thus a major advantage of tabletop RPGs is that you can create a relatively abstract ruleset, and rely on the GM and his group to translate it into a richer game experience.
Because computers are not currently able to simulate "real" physics and common sense situations, designers also build classes, abilities, and systems that are very dissociative. In other words, they value interesting tactical situations and dynamic combat systems over verisimilitude. Pen and paper games don't need to do that.
And that's all I'll say on that subject!
Argyle King
Legend
Personally, I do not feel MMOs offer nearly the depth of a tabletop game. There are a -for me- a lot of similar things at the surface when I have my first few glances, but I do not find the same depth in a MMO that I find when I get further into a tabletop game. The best analogy I can think of off the cuff would be the difference between a book and a movie. I love movies, and I also love books, but I enjoy the two mediums for very different reasons. Movies often have cool special effects which are not possible with a book, but some of those same movies are also a bit shallow when it comes to depth of experience.
I also do not feel MMOs offer the ability to personalize your experience to nearly the same extent tabletop gaming does. A lot of huge strides have been made to improve this. I can mostly certainly pick what my character looks like and things of that nature, but how far can I go beyond that in some games? I suppose this ties back into what I mean by depth somewhat. I have some options I can choose, but those options are mostly in the beginning and then the rest of the game experience is more-or-less the same experience everyone else has. No matter how many times I collect rat pelts for the shopkeeper, he's still there asking for more. I can't (to my knowledge) play a WoW orc who wants to join the human side. Speaking of WoW, while there is some choice when it comes to powers and how I build my character, it is my understanding* that there are a few generally accepted 'right' ways to build the various classes.
*I have barely any experience with WoW. I tried it and hated it.
*This is important to point out because there are similar complaints about some D&D classes from both 3rd and 4th Edition. If a choice is a 'trap choice,' is it really a choice?
When I play a computer or console game, I'm also still limited by what the game says I can do. This is another area where video games have made huge strides, but still come nowhere near the flexibility of tabletop games. I am a huge fanboy of the Elder Scrolls, but even it has things which bug me. If I'm fighting a bandit and he begs for mercy, that's not an honest choice. He'll either run away only to come back later and attack me again or I have to kill him. There's no option for me to take him prisoner and turn him over to the guards of a nearby city or anything like that. One of my biggest pet peeves in this regard would have to be games in which you cannot jump... Solid Snake from the Metal Gear games is the most badazz soldier on the planet, but he cannot jump.
I think what I was trying to get at there was that video games have a lot of artificial limitations. Some of them do an excellent job of hiding them, but there are a lot which do not. I've noticed a trend in D&D to start adding more of what I would consider artificial limitations. If I'm level X, I can fight Y goblins at a time; if I'm level A, I should have a sword that's level B; if I'm doing a skill challenge I use a certain set of rules which are different from combat. I would rather -as somewhat mentioned earlier- have what I consider to be a more natural feeling experience. That is something I do not feel MMOs generally do very well.
One of the major differences I noted when playing MMORPGs is they are in effect theme parks.
The character can "go on a ride" and complete a series of quests, but every other characer of the same type has the same quests and the completion/choices made by the player have no effect on the world and in many cases, the quest lines can be repeated as desired.
WoW made a some baby steps into a more dynamic world (essentailly showing different players different environments depending on where the character was in a quest-line) after I was through with the game. I don't know if that trend continued or was dropped.
Last edited:
Dannager
First Post
The same goes of board games, puzzle games, party games, drinking games, video games, sports games, and gambling games. MMOs are fundamentally no different than any of those, in that they are all forms of game-based entertainment and can all be mined for inspiration. Any developer worth his salt will be able to appreciate the differences as well as the similarities.
So let's stop acting like MMOs are to tabletop RPGs as rock music was to a morally upright society in the 50's.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Until computer games can handle spontaneously created user content there are no innovations worth mentioning.
Similar Threads
