Unpopular opinions go here

[Snarf Zagyg]

Idk if it was here or in another topic (perhaps not even on this site), but Ive said before that one of the biggest things the tabletop industry and hobby needs to grow up and get over is letting game design advances in video gaming cross over to tabletop, because at the end of the day, game design is game design.

Stated Motivation for OneD&D- Let's clean this up a little!

Actual Motivation for OneD&D- So, have you heard of loot boxes? It's time to monetize D&D to make it a billion dollar brand update the game to modern standards!

I'm kidding. Kind of. What, you don't think that this conversation hasn't been had in Renton?

 

[Reynard]

I don't think that there is a difference when using a VTT.

The salient distinction (for me, and the definition I am using) is between a computer-aided game, and a computer game.

If the game is playable without a computer creating the diegetic framework (in effect, acting as a participant), then there isn't an issue. You can use the computer to create maps and minis for combat. To allow conversations between remote participants. To roll dice. To store character sheets. And so on.

A VTT is just the game, but with computer aids. Oh, that does not sound right. It's just a computer-aided game. Does that answer the question?

It does. Thank you.

What, I wonder, should we call a game like Neverwinter Nights or DOS2 GM Mode -- one that is a computer game, for sure, but one in which the GM does in fact do many GM things while players do player things, but within the limited framework of the game engine? Is there a term we can devise that expresses that style of game. It isn't just a CRPG or even just a multiplayer/co-op CRPG because of the GM, but it also isn't a VTT or a MMORPG.

 

[Gradine]

I don't think that there is a difference when using a VTT.

The salient distinction (for me, and the definition I am using) is between a computer-aided game, and a computer game.

If the game is playable without a computer creating the diegetic framework (in effect, acting as a participant), then there isn't an issue. You can use the computer to create maps and minis for combat. To allow conversations between remote participants. To roll dice. To store character sheets. And so on.

A VTT is just the game, but with computer aids. Oh, that does not sound right. It's just a computer-aided game. Does that answer the question?

I would make the argument that role-playing within the confines of a computer game transforms the play into a computer-aided game. You can create your own maps and minis and icons, physically or digitally, to help highlight the visual aspects of the world being created. You can also do all of that in Minecraft. You can do everything you've listed in Minecraft. Some of that is more complicated that others (the rolling dice and storing character sheets, both of which I've seen accomplished but take a lot of work; but then we've already established that these are not necessities for a TTRPG).

You can argue that an actual human being is who is creating those maps and minis but... computer games aren't coded by sea monkeys. Every part of the engine, every asset included within the framework of Minecraft was also created by a human being (notwithstanding the AI can of beans). Sure, they are human beings not directly involved in the act of play itself, but then... if you walk into a store and buy pre-built 3d terrain or minis... those people aren't directly involved your tabletop play either. People coded Roll20 too.

Again, I'm not saying that Minecraft is a TTRPG under this definition. It's not. But you can play a TTRPG, under this definition, utilizing Minecraft

 

[Lanefan]

If a game (the game itself, not your playgroup implmentation of it) requires a computer (or super-phone, tablet, or video-game system) for folks to reasonably play it, then it isn't a ttRPG - even if they sit around a table to do it.

I'm the other way around: it's a TTRPG only if and when you're all sitting around the same physical table, even if you need electronic aids while at said table in order to access online elements (e.g. spell write-ups, house rules, etc.) that have replaced or augmented paper books.

VTTs don't count as TTRPGs. Ever.

 

[Emberashh]

Stated Motivation for OneD&D- Let's clean this up a little!

Actual Motivation for OneD&D- So, have you heard of loot boxes? It's time to monetize D&D to make it a billion dollar brand update the game to modern standards!

I'm kidding. Kind of. What, you don't think that this conversation hasn't been had in Renton?

I mean, in the grand scope of things that is a valid example. Regardless of whether or not we like the motivation behind using predatory game design, it is something those who would be amenable to it are missing out on.

After all wasn't the whole OGL snafu because someone at Bank of America was roasting WOTC for not millking their audience like MMOs do?

 

[Reynard]

I would make the argument that role-playing within the confines of a computer game transforms the play into a computer-aided game. You can create your own maps and minis and icons, physically or digitally, to help highlight the visual aspects of the world being created. You can also do all of that in Minecraft. You can do everything you've listed in Minecraft. Some of that is more complicated that others (the rolling dice and storing character sheets, both of which I've seen accomplished but take a lot of work; but then we've already established that these are not necessities for a TTRPG).

You can argue that an actual human being is who is creating those maps and minis but... computer games aren't coded by sea monkeys. Every part of the engine, every asset included within the framework of Minecraft was also created by a human being. Sure, they are human beings not directly involved in the act of play itself, but then... if you walk into a store and buy pre-built 3d terrain or minis... those people aren't directly involved your tabletop play either. People coded Roll20 too.

Again, I'm not saying that Minecraft is a TTRPG under this definition. It's not. But you can play a TTRPG, under this definition, utilizing Minecraft

Because of the limitations of game engines, you have to actually stop playing Minecraft or NWN or whatever to deal with other parts of the game the engine doesn't support. Given that, I think CRPGs that allow for the assymetrical dynamics and play of traditional RPGs are a medium/genre unto their own.

 

[Reynard]

VTTs don't count as TTRPGs. Ever.

That's ridiculous.

 

[Gradine]

Because of the limitations of game engines, you have to actually stop playing Minecraft or NWN or whatever to deal with other parts of the game the engine doesn't support. Given that, I think CRPGs that allow for the assymetrical dynamics and play of traditional RPGs are a medium/genre unto their own.

But all TTRPGs have limitations in their "engines". I'm thinking back to how old editions variously handled (or didn't) skills. Or how every edition has handled (or didn't) specifically stealth. Having tried to run a campaign on Roll20, I can tell you there's a lot of limitations in that engine where I had to stop and figure things out on my own. "The rules don't cover this, we gotta figure parts of this out on our own" is kind of one of the key things that separates RPGs from board games. Or computer games, for that matter.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It does. Thank you.

What, I wonder, should we call a game like Neverwinter Nights or DOS2 GM Mode -- one that is a computer game, for sure, but one in which the GM does in fact do many GM things while players do player things, but within the limited framework of the game engine? Is there a term we can devise that expresses that style of game. It isn't just a CRPG or even just a multiplayer/co-op CRPG because of the GM, but it also isn't a VTT or a MMORPG.

Honestly don't know.

And to clarify, I love CRPGs. I think people do amazing and creative work in CRPGs, and in Minecraft, and in MMORPGs. And they are plenty of fun.

The reason I happen to like the definition I proffered is because I think it provides something of value; it places an emphasis on the shared framework of the participants under the guise of diegesis (what is true within the game). In that sense, it allows you to think of both the Platonic ideal of what that shared space is, while still understanding that the participants might have different interpretations of it. It's both a term of definition as well as a useful analytical tool to examine the process of roleplaying (defining the diegetic frame and acting within the shared space).

In other words, it's very helpful for examining the "magic" in everything from casual freefrom to a structured weekend LARP to a D&D campaign. Unfortunately, it's not useful for CRPGs or for solo play.

 

[Lanefan]

And how many "Board Games" have you played that don't actually have a physical board?

Uh...none? Ones where you build the board as you go along, e.g. Settlers of Catan, still end up with a board.

I can't count on one hand the number of "computer" and "video" games I've legitimately played on my cellphone, or is Icewind Dale suddenly now a phone game?

Smartphones and computers are pretty close to the same thing in different containers these days.

Is an audiobook an actual book?

No, though the same term still gets used for both; ditto digitized books e.g. what you get on Kindle.

And when's the last time you watched a film on actual film?

More to the point (for me, anyway), the last time I called it a film rather than a movie or video was probably 40 years ago.