A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Aberzanzorax]

Something I'd like to point out / concede.

3e, my game of choice, and its close variants (e.g. 3.5, pathfinder) have elements that are too videogamey.

I also agree that a character who is injured dozens of times in fireballs and sword thrusts and still is as effective as when at full health is videogamey (hit points, as they are in all forms of D&D, is videogamey to me).


However, when I say "x is too videogamey for me", even "4e is too videogamey for me", I don't believe that statement to be meaningless to me or to whomever might be in my intended audience. Might it need clarification? Sure.

But, the fact of the matter is that I find some elements, including, but not limited to, mechanics like healing surges and "Joe hit the baddie, so now Sally heals 5 hit points" too videogamey for me.


Showing that 3e has videogamey elements doesn't disprove that 4e is too videogamey for me and 3e is not too videogamey for me.


Here's the thing. I'm willing to overlook certain elements in favor of gameplay I enjoy. I've seen "more realistic" 3pp variants of wounds and negative effects when injured that I could use in my 3e game. But, while hp are videogamey, I'd rather just play without this level of realism and deal with the gameyness. I'm not willing to overlook other elements because those elements take me (me personally, I don't mean "people" here) out of the roleplaying and immersion and are a constant reminder that I'm playing a game (rather than roleplaying a character).


So, in short, while many types of videogames have many types of elements, and many types or rpgs have many types of elements, when too many of the ones that feel out of place to me it feels too videogamey.

I think the emphasis here is on "too" in "too videogamey". Because, in a sense, all RPGs are somewhat videogamey.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Dannager is totally right here. 4e lets you remove the magic items and retain balance.

If you don't care about balance, just remove them without compensation. The world holds together exactly as well as any previous edition where the same thing was done: the DM has to compensate for it or his game will fall apart.

Thanks for your input.

However, I'm not at all sure that "remove the magic items" sums up Thunderfoot's point at all. I think there is also the matter of quasi-magical stuff, like CaGI and healing surges as written. In fact, I believe that healing surges were a major part of his point (and he can correct me if I am wrong).

Earlier editions made it easier to moderate what resources were available at the table regarding magic. 3e took a big step toward making DM resource management difficult. 4e followed that with another step in the same direction. The size of 4e's step doesn't really matter for some folks; 3e was already standing at the edge of the cliff.

In another thread, there are people advocating giving warriors similar powers to wizards as a balancing factor to the warrior/wizard power gap. It seems to me (and, it seems to me, to these posters) that 4e does this. I believe that is a source of both the "wire-fu" and the "full healing" comments.

IMHO, and IME, full healing between all encounters was not common to any prior edition. An argument that relies upon the idea that it is fails for me on that basis.

Also, I know that LostSoul has done many (if not all) of the things Thunderfoot brings up in the creation of his own houseruled version of 4e. As a result, I accept that he has a clear understanding of how difficult he found it to be.

[MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION]: My understanding is that, in 3e, WbL guidelines are not rules, so, in this case, binding them more tightly to the ruleset does not help the DM follow the rules better. It takes something that was once a guideline, and turns it into a rule.

Or else you misspoke?


RC

 

[Neonchameleon]

There have been many elements of many versions of RPGs that have video game feeling elements - that were easy to remove. 4e makes it harder - everyone casts spells (or has abilities, whatever)

Yeah, whatever. Because there's no difference between swinging a sword and casting a fireball. Next?

healing surges,

Which means at long last there is a limit on the amount of healing someone can receive. They can't keep going like the energiser bunny as long as there's someone with the right wand.

combat roles.

Just like classic D&D. Fighter/Magic User/Cleric/Thief.

Incredible amounts of money and magic REQUIRED at levels in order to play.

Just like 3e. There's wealth by level. And incredibly expensive magic items required.

Just remove the magic items from the mix and see how long your world holds together in RAW.

That depends. Am I allowed to use the rules that are presented in 4e for removing magic items? The ones that nailing the mathematics so thoroughly makes easy to implement?

I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked.

And that is a valid reason for not liking 4e and preferring Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or GURPS. If you were to say you like gritty and deadly RPGs no one would object. And for the record you are wrong about healing up to full health. Your surges are a part of your health.

So let me spell it out - IT FEELS LIKE A VIDEO GAME....

Video Game != Not Gritty.

I like video games, but I can play those, by myself, anytime. When I get together with my friend to play an RPG, I want there to be a difference - no wire-fu moves,

Ban the monk.

no outrageous amounts of required magic items,[/quot]

You must have hated 3E with its "Big 6". But because the magic items are so clearly laid out, it's trivial to remove most of them. And the rules are right there in the DMG2.

no 3 million GP requirements for treasure (Astral Diamonds, really).

I have never played a PC that has even seen an Astral Diamond. But seriously, why shouldn't a Holy Avenger cost as much as a country if it is available on the open market at all? And by the time you are flinging that much money around you aren't so much fighting the goblin tribes as trying to storm the gates of hell to beat up Orcus and Demogorgon.

I like a BIT of realism in my D&D and up until this edition it was easy to drop certain things, or ignore add-ons to get it to that sweet spot. It's nearly impossible to do so without altering the rules to the point of re-writing the PHB and really, who wants to do that. So, is THAT clear enough?

Most of what you've asked to do is use Essentials classes (or understand the power system better), use inherent bonusses, and pretend that epic tier doesn't exist. Yes, it's clear. Clear that you don't get 4e given that with the single exception of healing surges everything you have asked for is presented as explicit options in the game.

Don't know; I've never seen anything remotely like that, outside your example.

Person A: "4e is a role-playing game!"
Person B: "Yeah, I know! It plays just like a role-playing game!"
Person A: "Yeah, healing surges are so cool, they let someone at 1 hp fight really get back into the fight!"
Person B: "What? That's not role-playing at all!"
Person A: "But it's something out of a role-playing game!"

I guess the term "role-playing game" is too confusing to use. Shall I go on with the terms that are too confusing to use?

That argument is made of straw. And it's obviously made of straw if you've actually been following this thread for one obvious reason. The questions come in because the statement made initially is contraversial and person B is disagreeing with person A. A conversation with actual equivalence would be:

Person A: "4e is not a role-playing game!"
Person B: "How is it not a roleplaying game?"
Person A: "It has hit points that let you get hit more than once without collapsing with shock."
Person B: "What? But tabletop role-playing games have had hit points since the start of D&D!"
Person A: "But it's not role-playing!"

Moreover, if Rita and Stewart and John and Cassie and Mike and Romana all seem to understand what Angie means, and seem unable to fathom Bob's confusion, one might draw the conclusion that Bob's confusion is an artifact of Bob, rather than an artifact of the terms "apple" or "red".

And here you're involved in serious special pleading. Rita, Stewart, John, and Cassie all understand what Angie means. But Mike and Romana mean something else by the term. And Mark, Peter, Sarah-Jane, and Amy are all confused - and getting different answers from the two groups.

This is doubly true if we believe, from previous or concurrent statements, that Bob has some reason to believe that likening things to the colour of apples is objectionable.

So Bob is not only being confusing, he is saying something ke knows is offensive. Right.

That's assuming a DM is dumb enough to allow one. Obviously you've seen it, I feel sorry for you.

"A DM dumb enough to allow a wand of Cure Light Wounds." Congratulations. You have just called every single DM who plays 3e by the rules dumb. Every single DM who allows the Craft Wand feat and every single DM who uses item shops. And if it's embedded in the rules, why blame the DMs and not the writers of the rules?

This is an issue that comes up often. People get asked to clarify "opinions" and as soon as they do, they get those points shot down as if they were "facts".

I wouldn't clarify my opinion either if every time I did I was told I was wrong.

"I don't like 4e" is an opinion. "4e is too like a video game" is attempting to pass itself off as a fact.

I don't think Thunderfoot has revealed inaccurate knowledge of the game.

Healing Surges are hard to remove from the game; Wands of Cure Light Wounds are not.

And inherent bonusses are easier to implement than removing magic swords from 3.X.

The game hands out treasure based on party level, not individual choices made by the players.

What is handed out is based on the party. How (or even if) the PCs get it is based on the PC actions.

Some - not most, but some - of the powers are "wire-fu".

Very few.

I'd guess that Thunderfoot would like a game where you have to work for what you get, bad stuff lurks around every corner, and your choices are the difference between success and failure.

Still the case. It's just scale. Although I think Thunderfoot is looking for WHFRP.

Of course, I can think of video games that are like that (Rogue-likes and X-Com), which is why I think the term is confusing.

Worse than confusing I'd have said. Distracting.

And yet, somehow, only the Select Few continue to find it confusing........

Or perhaps only the Select Few understand it and their combined attempts to explain aren't helping.

That "you could just accept that .... in their mind it makes PERFECT sense to say videogamey."?

And in my mind it might make perfect sense to say Jabberwocky. This doesn't mean I'll use it somewhere I know it's (a ) very simmilar to a deliberate put-down and (b ) not going to be understood by much of the readership.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"4e is too like a video game" is attempting to pass itself off as a fact.

Sorry, but you lose here: that is every bit as much an opinion as someone saying "That soup is too spicy." or "Garlic smells bad."

 

[The Shaman]

It's not exactly the same . . .

A lot like the way people use the word, "videogamey."

. . . 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.

Y'know, if you're going to make an argument, you need to spell this out in the first place, rather than making people draw it out of you, because then we can discuss if your premises make sense or not.

That should actually sound familiar to you.

And your premises are wrong; wands and spells of cure x wounds provide a variable amount of healing per the rules through 3.x, so it's not guaranteed that a character can "heal to full between combats." My character spent most of our game-day adventure with a crossbow and one hit point because we were low on magic.

No, he said that DMs who allowed wands of cure light wounds were dumb.

I'm one of those referees who didn't make wands of clw available, either, so I can understand where Thunderfoot's coming from. Potions and scrolls, yes, but wands felt wrong to me.

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.).

Except, of course, that's not necessarily true, not for clerics, druids, staves, and bards and not even for healing surges, which are also a finite resource that can be expended before an adventurer is done for the day.

Am I missing something here?

More than you seem to realize.

 

[jmucchiello]

No, I'm just expecting that when they come to participate in an open, online discussion on a topic that is years old, they should probably make a bit of effort to post sensibly.

You expect too much. Seriously.

Or they could read this thread, whose message is: "We know you are tempted to call it videogamey and be done with it, but that's not going to cut it because we aren't inside your head and have no idea what you mean. So how about skipping it and getting straight to the part that matters?"

I've said people are inconsistent and lazy when it comes to critical thinking skills and will just say the first thing that comes to mind no matter how much YOU think making a thread like this could change them. If you think this thread will prevent even one person from using the term "videogamey" you are sadly naive. What makes you think anyone would even FIND this thread before they typed "I hate 4e, 5e and 6e because they're too videogamey?" NO ONE will ever see this thread again once it falls off the front page because no one would ever sit down and say, "Hey I think XXX is videogamey I WONDER IF ANYONE ELSE AGREES WITH ME I'll google it before I post my own opinion." Snowball in Hell are far more likely. People post without thinking. People never read FAQs. Where have you been?

I mean, you have essentially just agreed with the entire point of this thread.

Agreed with your point? I find your point silly and your assumption that people are logical comical. There are video games that I find too "videogamey". I hope that doesn't burst a blood vessel.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Video Game != Not Gritty.

That I am not sure I can agree with. My knowledge of video games is admittedly limited, but I am not familiar with any video game that is as gritty as a tabletop game can be. Even the horror ones, like Silent Hill and Resident Evil, don't seem very gritty (even if they are enjoyable).

To me, "videogamey" implies a great number of things, only one of which is a dealbreaker -- an artificial constraint on the possible action. For me, this problem arises from the following:

1. Any combat system that requires so long to resolve a combat that the action becomes artificially constrained to "only important combats". This includes the systems of both 3e and 4e. As a funny aside, although artificial constraint in action is something I associate with video games, this particular form of artificial constraint is something no video game I have ever played has included. Video games have no problems whatsoever dealing with minor combats.

2. Skill Challenges as presented in the (early?) rules require artificial constraints in terms of complication and resolution. These artificial constraints may actually spur creativity for some groups -- I have read some excellent examples of the same -- but they are still artificial constraints. Note also that I am aware that a good DM can rise beyond the book presentation; I like the Jester's "Sodden Ghoul Lake" SC, for example. It doesn't feel artificially constrained to me, at all.

3. Limitations on how many times a day you can attempt any mundane (i.e., non-magical) task. This includes the Barbarian "Rage" ability from 3e, and is covered pretty well in the "Jump Card" discussion on another thread.

4. The Delve Format, starting in 3e, sets up encounters in a way that reinforces, rather than mitigates against, artificial constraint.

5. This may seem strange, but the lack of natural constraints in some rules, to me, really reinforces the artificial constraints in others. I can push a giant who weighs several tons, but I am limited in how often I push a kobold. I can make an emotionless supergenius leave his position of tactical cover, but I am limited in how often I can do the same with some moronic mook.

6. Any "game balance" that has a very narrow range of threat levels that can be both interesting and that can impact the outcome of the adventure as a whole. This also began in 3e, and was increased AFAICT in 4e by a considerable amount. A fight should not have to seem like a set-piece battle (potentially lethal, requiring pulling out most if not all of the stops) to be engaging, IMHO. This directly ties into how a game handles resource management, IMHO, and whether or not you can loose significant resources without the chance of utter defeat.​

Now, you can say (and you may well be right) that the factors leading to that sense of artificial constraint do not actually exist in video games (or in most video games). That's fine; I'm not saying that those particular factors do; I am saying that the sense of artificial constraint does.

And, the #1 thing that tabletop games do better than video games is remove that sense of artificial constraint. IMHO, a tabletop ruleset that enhances that sense of artificial constraint, rather than glorying in freedom from it, is shooting itself in the foot. The computer can do it better.

That argument is made of straw. And it's obviously made of straw if you've actually been following this thread for one obvious reason.

It is a very close paraphrase of the "evidence" given. The initial statement I reworked had the people agreeing that X was videogamey, and then discovering that they did not know what the other meant by the same. This is something I have never, ever seen.

And here you're involved in serious special pleading. Rita, Stewart, John, and Cassie all understand what Angie means. But Mike and Romana mean something else by the term. And Mark, Peter, Sarah-Jane, and Amy are all confused - and getting different answers from the two groups.

Nah. I am not arguing that there is no group Y who is confused; I am arguing that Dannager is dead wrong when he presupposes that, because he is in group Y, that there is not also some group X who is not confused by what they are saying.

"I don't like 4e" is an opinion. "4e is too like a video game" is attempting to pass itself off as a fact.

Erm, no. You've actually got those turned around.

"I don't like 4e" is, if you don't like 4e, a statement of fact. If you say it and you do like 4e, it is a false statement. It is a statement about an opinion, but the statement itself is either true or false.

"4e is too like a video game", OTOH, is a statement of opinion, expressed as a statement of opinion. If you are unclear, those words "too like" express a valuation. Valuations, by their nature, are subjective.

A statement about valuation is always an opinion. A statement about the valuations you hold is always true or untrue (though there can be degrees of truth or untruth).

And in my mind it might make perfect sense to say Jabberwocky. This doesn't mean I'll use it somewhere I know it's (a ) very simmilar to a deliberate put-down and (b ) not going to be understood by much of the readership.

Actually, "I find the term videogamey to be too Jabberwocky" makes perfect sense to me, assuming that you are referring to the poem, which contains made-up nonsense words.

If I am offended that you think "videogamey" is a made-up nonsense word, there is no way that you can express that thought without my being offended. It is my belief that, in this case, and in many other similar cases of similar EN World threads, it is the thought expressed that is actually deemed offensive. This was, IMHO, true for Pokemount. It was true for my objection to the term "fluff". It is true for videogamey.

I am also not convinced at all that (b) is the case, or is the case anymoreso than any other term used in gaming parlance. I am convinced that some people, who are offended by the idea the term encapsulates, would like us to believe that (b) is the case so that we will stop talking about that idea.

But, then, I haven't yet read anything that explains why it should be deemed so (more than any other term, as LostSoul points out) that isn't either too Jabberwocky, or that doesn't rely on some rather Carrollian logic.


RC

 

[Diamond Cross]

your assumption that people are logical comical

Yeah, the intellectual elite who think people are logical do not watch shows like "Operation Repo" or "Bait Car" on TruTv.

Because you'd think these people when caught doing something wrong red handed and on video tape would just sit down and admit they were caught. That would be the logical thing to do wouldn't it?

But instead what do you get?

In "Operation Repo" you see the team being confronted while repoing a vehicle of some sort. The cameras are rolling. The owners of the vehicle sometimes responds with violence, while the cameras are rolling. You'd think those people would be smart enough to realize two things:

The vehicle is not yours until you've paid it off entirely and the contract says the company can take it back if they've missed payments.

And secondly, they'd realize that they are on tape and any violence they do to the repo guys is admissible in a court of law. And since the repo guys have the paperwork and everything on videotape, they are very likely to win the case against the owners if it goes to court.

In "Bait Car" the police set up a car that is specifically designed to catch car thieves. It is wired with a hidden camera and a shut off. The camera catches the car thieves on tape and in some cases when caught red handed, even while being shown the tape, still continue to deny that they did it.

I ask you, how are these things logical?

Short answer they are not. It's entirely emotional ebcause these people think they did nothing wrong and do not want to be in trouble and want to avoid trouble.

Logic is something akin to caviar, it is an acquired taste and most people must be trained to use it, which is what intellectual elitists fail to understand and forget. While some individuals might have some natural talent for logical thinking, most people will go by how a person sounds and looks rather than what is actually being said. The details are often unimportant, and any addressing of them will be taken personally as an insult against themselves.

And that is the same thing for most people who say things like it's too videogamey. Because that's how it sounds and feels to them. Even though they may be unaware or even don't give a hoot about the details. And that's simply not logical.

 

[Oryan77]

In "Operation Repo" you see the team being confronted while repoing a vehicle of some sort. The cameras are rolling. The owners of the vehicle sometimes responds with violence, while the cameras are rolling. You'd think those people would be smart enough to realize two things:

Some people aren't smart enough to realize something else (BTW, I am joking and don't actually mean you are not smart, I just had to say it)....

I take it you are not aware that Operation Repo is completely 100% fake? It's a scripted show man. It got it's start on a Mexican station in southern California before it got on network tv.

I'm pretty sure Bait Car is fake too but I haven't found proof. The people are way too happy to be caught.

Most of the "reality" tv shows are fake. Cheaters is another one that is completely fake. My favorite episode was when the idiot host got stabbed by a jealous boyfriend on a boat and had to be "rushed" to the hospital. That episode proved it was fake.

 

[Oryan77]

The difference being that when he calls it too videogamey, the discussion is dead in the water.

This is the entire reason why your argument is kind of BS. You're so set on proving everyone wrong rather than looking in and considering the fact that maybe you are not entirely right. You think that because you don't understand the term, then the rest of us are morons for using the term. If you think it is a stupid term, that's fine. But just because you think it is stupid doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to people.

The discussion is dead in the water to you. Please, somehow, try to understand that. There is nothing wrong with that. If after 20 pages of people trying to explain the term to you (that they completely comprehend) and you still don't get it, then I would think that any intelligent person would think to themselves, "Well, maybe this is just one of those things that is over my head."

But I have the feeling you can't admit that. We're the stupid ones, right?