A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[The Shaman]

Just replace "wand of cure light wounds" with "the party Cleric" and it remains a valid point.

Right, you could remove wands of Cure Light Wounds. Of course, you'd also have to remove: healing potions, staffs with healing magic, clerics, druids and bards.

A wand of cure light wounds isn't the same thing as a cleric or other spellcaster with curative magic.

Thunderfoot said nothing about removing all curative magic from the game. "I don't like A" doesn't mean "I don't like B, C, or D, either, despite sharing a common element with A."

 

[Oryan77]

I think, unfortunately, Thunderfoot is under the impression that 4e prevents him from running the game he wants, or that it makes it harder to do so than 3.5 does.

Exactly! It's too videogamey for him!

 

[Dannager]

A wand of cure light wounds isn't the same thing as a cleric or other spellcaster with curative magic.

It's not exactly the same, but it's the same in the only sense that counts in this discussion: it's a limited resource that allows the party to heal to full between combats.

Thunderfoot said nothing about removing all curative magic from the game.

No, he said that DMs who allowed wands of cure light wounds were dumb. Presumably (since that's what we were talking about) because it allows the party to heal to full between combats, just like healing surges do (and clerics, and potions, and druids, and staffs, and bards, and etc.).

Am I missing something here?

 

[Dannager]

Exactly! It's too videogamey for him!

The difference being that when he calls it too videogamey, the discussion is dead in the water. When he explains the actual reasons behind his thinking, we suddenly have something to discuss. It's almost as if that's the point.

 

[Bluenose]

People in general (not all, mind you) like a more immersive and simulationist approach in their tabletop RPGs that video games cannot provide. It doesn't have to be even majorly simulationist, but if it feels like a video game to them, in any general sense, it's a drawback.

Microsoft Flight Simulator. Are you claiming it is:
a) Not immersive.
b) Not simulationist.
c) Not a video game.

I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked. Most of what I've seen in this thread is supports of 4e saying show me how it's video-gamey and those that feels that way complaining that those that disagree aren't listening. And to an extent that's true.

See, here's part of the problem. What you're saying you see in 4e and don't like (I've no objection to you not liking it) is not something that is true of all video games. If characters are healed to full after every encounter, that's videogamey. If players aren't healed to full after every encounter, that's videogamey. Different videogames, of course. About the only legitimate videogamey constant is the lack of a GM to adjucate what happens for when players go off-piste. Otherwise, I can pretty much guarantee that mechanics that appear in a tabletop RPG will appear in one video game or other.

Why do people think video games are overall less realistic? By sheer computing power, they can take into account every variable that might exist. Dwarf Fortress is considered a highly simulationist game.

I'm pretty certain it's a refusal to acknowledge the existence of differences between videogames.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The difference being that when he calls it too videogamey, the discussion is dead in the water. When he explains the actual reasons behind his thinking, we suddenly have something to discuss. It's almost as if that's the point.

I'd like to point out that the person you're quoting is admittedly trolling this thread. Just report him and don't reply (unless replying helps others in the thread understand your point, which I don't think this does).

I'd just chip in that it's about feeling, or theme. It's not so much about specifics. I'm not going to go into a long post about it, as I've posted my thoughts twice on the matter over the last three pages.

I'd ask everybody (this is not aimed at Dannager, despite me quoting him, as I did that to communicate my first paragraph) to please keep the discussion civil. I think both sides expressing their honest opinions can be done in a healthy way, and I think understanding (if not agreement) can be reached. There are hostilities rising, and, worse than that, there are two sides to this discussion. When a debate breaks out, and two sides appear to be in the thread, it nearly universally leads to unproductive argumentation rather than communication. I'd like to lightly prod us back towards communication, rather than argumentation.

But I have no authority, and I am really not trying to tell anyone what to do. Just making my plea, as it were. In the end, we all have different opinions on things, no matter how aligned we are on certain topics. Just play what you like, and what your group likes, and we can all be happy

Microsoft Flight Simulator. Are you claiming it is:
a) Not immersive.
b) Not simulationist.
c) Not a video game.

Honestly, I'd say not immersive. I've yet to meet someone who has played one who seems to feel like they do when they actually fly a plane. I have met roleplayers who seem to feel the joys or the sadness, the anger or the pain that their characters experience. Admittedly, my experience with pilots is limited to a very small handful of people, and also that my input is subjective. However, I think that's the point of my post, in a general sense, which I'm sure you picked up on

 

[Dannager]

I'd like to point out that the person you're quoting is admittedly trolling this thread. Just report him and don't reply (unless replying helps others in the thread understand your point, which I don't think this does).

Fair point.

 

[BryonD]

Honestly, I'd say not immersive. I've yet to meet someone who has played one who seems to feel like they do when they actually fly a plane. I have met roleplayers who seem to feel the joys or the sadness, the anger or the pain that their characters experience.

Exactly.
Microsoft flight simulator is great at simulation, but only of one really specific thing.

If we are discussing simulation and immersion in table top role playing games and some one points at MSFS as an equivalent, then that tells me they don't know what they are missing.

 

[Bluenose]

Honestly, I'd say not immersive. I've yet to meet someone who has played one who seems to feel like they do when they actually fly a plane. I have met roleplayers who seem to feel the joys or the sadness, the anger or the pain that their characters experience. Admittedly, my experience with pilots is limited to a very small handful of people, and also that my input is subjective. However, I think that's the point of my post, in a general sense, which I'm sure you picked up on

So do most people who use weapons as part of the various re-enactment groups feel the same immersion with a tabletop RPG? I don't, and people I know don't. I can however certainly point to people who have developed emotional reactions to situations in video games.

Exactly.
Microsoft flight simulator is great at simulation, but only of one really specific thing.

If we are discussing simulation and immersion in table top role playing games and some one points at MSFS as an equivalent, then that tells me they don't know what they are missing.

That's the point of simulation. You don't have to simulate everything. If you're trying to in a tabletop RPG, you fail. A computer can keep track of massively more data than a human GM. It's the improvisation of a human GM that's the strength of tabletop RPGs, not the idea that somehow it's more immersive to fail to simulate more things.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So do most people who use weapons as part of the various re-enactment groups feel the same immersion with a tabletop RPG? I don't, and people I know don't. I can however certainly point to people who have developed emotional reactions to situations in video games.

Developing emotional reactions to situations in video games is not the same as immersion. It's similar, however, and based in the same arena. For example, I know someone who literally cried when Sephiroth killed Aeris in Final Fantasy 7 (even though I disliked the game). Obviously, this person felt honest emotion because of the game. Now, while they didn't feel like they were any one person involved in the story (which is really what immersion is, in a general sense -at least, according to my personal "definition," insofar as I'm willing to give anything a concrete definition [which is, to say, I like to think of things in terms of concept, rather than in semantics]), they certainly had a certain amount of empathy involved, and that tied them to the current story.

Even though I dislike FF7, especially the characters of Cloud and Aeris, I didn't disagree with how this person felt. I may not feel that way, but it's a valid feeling, even if I had a somewhat more joyous reaction myself. Feelings are something that generally need to be respected, in my experience, if civil discussion is to be had. Of course, YMMV

That's the point of simulation. You don't have to simulate everything. If you're trying to in a tabletop RPG, you fail. A computer can keep track of massively more data than a human GM. It's the improvisation of a human GM that's the strength of tabletop RPGs, not the idea that somehow it's more immersive to fail to simulate more things.

If you recall, I did indicate that it was a combination, and feel of something, more than any one aspect. It's not exclusively about simulation. In my experience and, more importantly (to me!), according to my preference, it's about immersion more than simulation, though that's usually somewhat necessary, to differing levels.

Most important is the feel of the game. Does it not feel like what you want out of it? Was that feeling like a video game? Is this particular activity feeling like a video game objectionable? If so, then people are validly expressing their emotions regarding their dislike of something feeling "video-gamey."

It's not a slight on video games, much like people saying that Metal Gear games feel too much like movies isn't a slight against movies. It's gets an emotion across, and you are free to either ask for specifics, or to ignore it. Either way, you're asking about a feeling, which is not based in logic, it's based in emotion. As long as both sides recognize this during discourse, I doubt much of a problem will be had during the ensuing discussion