A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Raven Crowking]

For my part, I believe that the Shaman's first post in this thread pretty much nailed it, and everything thereafter is a footnote.

The videogame things I don't want my tabletop games to emulate include:

1. Railroad. The plot of Legend of Zelda is going to be the plot of Legend of Zelda no matter what you do. To succeed in the game, you will visit these places, in that order, and do those specific things. Success is dependent not upon what you wish to do, but upon how well you intuit what the programmer wished you to do.

2. Limitations on Action and Role-Playing. If the designer didn't think of it (i.e., write code or a rule for it), you can't do it.

3. Boss Fights. Yes, you are going to have major opponents in all kinds of gaming, but I never want it to feel as though I have discovered the "boss" of the "level", ala Zelda or Turok.

Now, I don't play a lot of video games, so bear with me here. Because there are some things that I definitely do want:

1. Cool terrain like those which appeared in Turok -- log bridges over cliffs, dark caves, jungles, etc. Some very cool stuff.

2. Phantom shifts like those in Silent Hill. Cool, moody, atmospheric.

3. Players getting excited over anything; it doesn't matter to me whether it is because it reminds them of something in a movie, a book, or a video game.

My dislike of some mechanics has a lot more to do with feel, or setting implications, than with whether or not they appeared in a video game.

Tabletop games do an open environment better than video games do. That is their greatest strength and, IMHO, something that the creators of said games should be doing all they can to exploit. And this doesn't occur at the rulebook level, but at the adventure level. Adventures should, IMHO, be made capable of shifting with circumstances arising from play as much as possible. IOW, they should be the opposite of the current Delve format.

4e isn't "too video-gamey"; the Delve is.



RC

 

[Bluenose]

The videogame things I don't want my tabletop games to emulate include:

1. Railroad. The plot of Legend of Zelda is going to be the plot of Legend of Zelda no matter what you do. To succeed in the game, you will visit these places, in that order, and do those specific things. Success is dependent not upon what you wish to do, but upon how well you intuit what the programmer wished you to do.

By this logic, a Paizo Adventure Path is more videogamey than Shogun 2 Total War. Or than Mount & Blade, if you require a cRPG example.

2. Limitations on Action and Role-Playing. If the designer didn't think of it (i.e., write code or a rule for it), you can't do it.

Correct. Of course, some GMs aren't terribly flexible either.

3. Boss Fights. Yes, you are going to have major opponents in all kinds of gaming, but I never want it to feel as though I have discovered the "boss" of the "level", ala Zelda or Turok.

The literary precedents for Boss Fights date back at least as far as the Iliad.

Now, I don't play a lot of video games, so bear with me here. Because there are some things that I definitely do want:

1. Cool terrain like those which appeared in Turok -- log bridges over cliffs, dark caves, jungles, etc. Some very cool stuff.

Hardly unique to videogames. I might not be a great GM in most ways, but my geographic features are usually good. Or so my players tell me.

2. Phantom shifts like those in Silent Hill. Cool, moody, atmospheric.

OK

3. Players getting excited over anything; it doesn't matter to me whether it is because it reminds them of something in a movie, a book, or a video game.

do it for me.

Tabletop games do an open environment better than video games do. That is their greatest strength and, IMHO, something that the creators of said games should be doing all they can to exploit. And this doesn't occur at the rulebook level, but at the adventure level. Adventures should, IMHO, be made capable of shifting with circumstances arising from play as much as possible. IOW, they should be the opposite of the current Delve format.

4e isn't "too video-gamey"; the Delve is.

Why pick on the Delve format? It's not the case that it has to be unadaptable. It's just one way of presenting information.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except that they really weren't dailies. Slots may have been daily, but individual spells could have been prepped or cast spontaneously any number of times up to the limit of those slots.

I see no difference between this and daily powers other than that you can customise what your daily cooldowns are once per day.

3. Boss Fights. Yes, you are going to have major opponents in all kinds of gaming, but I never want it to feel as though I have discovered the "boss" of the "level", ala Zelda or Turok.

My imediate reaction to this is "There go the Dragons..."

4e isn't "too video-gamey"; the Delve is.

And here I see the point

 

[Raven Crowking]

By this logic, a Paizo Adventure Path is more videogamey than Shogun 2 Total War. Or than Mount & Blade, if you require a cRPG example.

Sorry to say, I don't know the video game references. BUT, yes, a Paizo Adventure Path is videogamey in that exact sense. And, while I am currently using Savage Tide as a playtesting base, I've got a lot of other threads going, and if the players choose not to follow the path, well, I'm able to roll with that.

OTOH, it works in pretty well with my idea that the world will be destroyed by Cthulhuesque horrors shortly after the date of the actual "final" RCFG release, so that I can concentrate on a multi-group sandbox.

Correct. Of course, some GMs aren't terribly flexible either.

Yeah, well, does that make you happy? If X and Y are both crap, then X and Y are both crap. I accept the limitations on video games because they are necessary limitations of the format. Those same limitations are not necessary in a tabletop game.

The literary precedents for Boss Fights date back at least as far as the Iliad.

And probably farther.

I'm not talking about "fighting tough battles"; I'm talking about the form those battles are staged in.

I'm sure you've read a lot of complaints about the Skill Challenge format. X wins before Y failures is contrived, and reduces the immersion of many. But those Skill Challenges that I find evocative, at least, remain so by being faithful first to the fictional environment, and second to the mechanics.

The "Boss Fight" structure I am talking about is analogous to the Skill Challenge format, when that format is used in the way that normally generates those complaints. Having harder fights occur when they make sense to, or when the PCs seek them out? All for it. Have a single Boss lurking at the bottom of every "level", that must be bypassed to get to the next? (Shudder) No thank you.

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]: So, you can keep dragons, just don't use them as choke points to the next level. Or use them on occasion as such. It is only when each level (or the preponderance thereof, and it doesn't have to be a literal level) has a "Boss Fight" to proceed to the next, that it begins to feel very artificial.

Again, I'm no video game expert, but IME it seems that many boss fights exist to ensure that you've mastered some part of the controller, as it applies to a given game, before allowing you to continue into an area where said mastery is critical.

That is not, IMHO, the best model for tabletop gaming. It should go without saying that YMMV, but, in case it does not: YMMV.

Hardly unique to videogames. I might not be a great GM in most ways, but my geographic features are usually good. Or so my players tell me.

No, cool terrain is not unique to video games. But, I never go "Cool terrain? That's so video-gamey!" Take inspiration where you can get it, I say, and then adapt that inspiration to the medium you are using.

Why pick on the Delve format? It's not the case that it has to be unadaptable. It's just one way of presenting information.

Because I believe it fails to reinforce the strengths of tabletop games, while directly undermining those strengths. And, as I have gone into long rants elsewhere about exactly why I think this is so, I will not do so again now. Suffice to say, this isn't limited to Delve in 4e; the 3e Delves suffer just as much.

EDIT: The Jester brought up another thing I dislike, in another thread, that seems "video-gamey" to me: Rate of progress over time. From this post: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5504757-post45.html

couple of related issues to the 15-minute adventuring day (which I will henceforth call the 15MAD) are the one-day level (1DL) and the one-month career (1MC).

If you have approx. 8 encounters/level and you have 8 encounters in a day, you have a level per day.

If your party never slows down, they could finish an adventuring career within 30 days.

Now, most of the time it won't happen like that; but let's assume that on average an adventuring day has 4 encounters and you have one adventuring day per week.

That means you gain a level every two weeks and you finish out your career in a little over a year. Change the assumptions and you slow it down a little or speed it up a little. Adjust your slider to taste.

Many groups simply don't care; it doesn't matter to them. To others, the idea of the world's most powerful wizard having just turned 19 is hard to stomach.

RC

 

[The Shaman]

Ahhh, interesting that we see the "as practicable" qualifier in here.

If my character is 7th or 8th level, then rounding up a tribe of orcs to raid the duchy is a lot easier than if my character is 1st level, yes?

You can no more control the limits of a computer game than you can control the limits of another person.

But yeah, it is relatively awesome that you're trying to justify comparing a tabletop game to a video game without really having any clue what you're comparing to.

Please, turn me on to this MMORPG with an AI so sophisticated that it's indistinguishable from a human referee.

"Tolerate", in this case, simply means any response that allows the players to continue on their off-the-rails adventure. So I'm pretty sure that I just about covered all the bases there.

"Tolerate" =/= enjoy or encourage in any definition with which I'm familiar.

How is that distinction important to this argument?

First, "These things are different" =/= "This isn't allowed."

Second, an adventurer adventuring =/= an adventurer not adventuring.

You will not waste your time and the time of your other players focusing on the whims of a single player unless that single player is engaged in whatever you deem interesting and of value to the furtherance of an adventurer's career.

I'm not saying that's weird. That's what everyone does. My point is that this is an example of restricting flexibility towards a worthwhile end.

Once again, that's just wrong.

It's not "restricting flexibility." The adventurer is free to do what the player wants him to do. The difference is, we can probably sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying, while the adventurers who are storming the castle take up most of the rest of the evening.

That the idea that your style of play is better than someone else's is lacking or outdated isn't predicated on its popularity amongst the younger crowd. It's based on the idea that this sort of unapologetic elitism is just kinda sad and probably not all that healthy for the hobby as a whole.

Yeah, there's no telling how much damage my unapologetic elitism could do to the hobby. Why, who knows how many carefully crafted adventure paths could be ruined - RUINED! - if my sad ideas about player choice and referee flexibility were allowed to spread unchecked?

 

[Diamond Cross]

I enjoy both.

However, there are some weaknesses that a video game has. Such as you're usually playing alone.

However, one of the strengths of a video game is that you can often save before a difficult spot and you can try try try again and again until you get it right and not have to worry about creating a new character.

But one of my biggest complaints about a computer game is that if they don't want you going to some place or area, you just can't go there. Such as in WoW if you don't have a flying mount you can not climb over hills or mountains ever.

It's also annoying to see a door that there is absolutely no way to open. It always frustrates me because why have a door there if there's no room with something in it?

 

[Mercurius]

Without having read the thread (yet) it comes down to one word: imagination. There is little to no use of imagination in playing a video game, while in RPGs the potential is great. This is not to say that everything must include the use of imagination to be a valid activity, but one of the main reasons that I, and presumably many others, engage in RPGs is the play of imagination in a shared mind space. You don't get that in video games; actually, in some ways you get the opposite: the play of visual-auditory senses in a simulated virtual space.

 

[Dannager]

It's also annoying to see a door that there is absolutely no way to open. It always frustrates me because why have a door there if there's no room with something in it?

To further enhance the illusion that you're in a real world.

Some people appear to be under the impression that a human DM is inherently better at providing this illusion than a video game is. I believe that not only is this matter up for debate, but that when the dust settles, the average video game will provide a better illusion than a human DM will.

 

[Dannager]

Please, turn me on to this MMORPG with an AI so sophisticated that it's indistinguishable from a human referee.

Games like the Neverwinter Nights series and the Left 4 Dead series allow you to play the part of the director/narrator/DM in a video game environment - controlling NPCs, making plot-related decisions out of sight of the PCs, adding elements to the game world, etc.

But, y'know, again, this is clearly not a subject matter that you are adequately familiar with if you're planning on drawing meaningful comparisons.

"Tolerate" =/= enjoy or encourage in any definition with which I'm familiar.

Actually, the first two definitions of "tolerate", according to the American Heritage English Dictionary, are:

1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).

Note that definition 1 easily encompasses any range of enthusiasm you care to ascribe to your decision to go along with the party's actions.

It isn't until you reach the third definition...

3. To put up with; endure.

...that we see "tolerate" in the light that you're probably seeing it: to begrudgingly allow something to take place.

Maybe double-check those definitions next time.

First, "These things are different" =/= "This isn't allowed."

Really?

Second, an adventurer adventuring =/= an adventurer not adventuring.

Really?

Once again, that's just wrong.

It's not "restricting flexibility." The adventurer is free to do what the player wants him to do. The difference is, we can probably sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying, while the adventurers who are storming the castle take up most of the rest of the evening.

Well, you could sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying. Of course, you could also intricately simulate the turnip farmer/vegetable stand owner/street walker/bar performer/rat catcher's activities using a set of rules developed on the fly, while relegating the other adventurers' activity (storming the castle) to a few minutes of roleplaying.

You are no more providing the tools for the player who wants to be a vegetable stand owner to enjoy himself than a video game might provide the tools for you to enjoy yourself "going off the rails".

Yeah, there's no telling how much damage my unapologetic elitism could do to the hobby. Why, who knows how many carefully crafted adventure paths could be ruined - RUINED! - if my sad ideas about player choice and referee flexibility were allowed to spread unchecked?

See, that's intended as sarcasm, but from where I stand it has merit delivered seriously.

 

[Diamond Cross]

To further enhance the illusion that you're in a real world.

Except for one thing. In a real world any door can be opened with the right equipment, or explosives.

Not true in a CG world.

So it doesn't really further enhance the illusion of being in a real world, but rather breaking the rules of a real world with the designers saying "HA HA! let's see how badly we can mess with the player's minds."

it comes down to one word: imagination

I find no lack of imagination and there are lots of impressive visuals in a game to see. I really don't see how this lacks imagination.

Example:

That is a rest an resurrection shrine in DDO. The rest shrine heals you and restores your mana and some of them can be used multiple times in a dungeon.

The resurrection shrines simply resurrects you if you die in a dungeon. Provided a friend or hireling can pick up your soul stone and take you there.

How is that not imagination in use? AND where can you find something like this in a Pen & Paper rpg? Many RPGs do not allow for resurrection at all. D&D does, but it's a pretty powerful ability and not available to lower level characters.

Now, sometimes a cg rpg can restrict your options in a dialogue with an NPC, and you can only win against a boss if you do certain things, like say break all the coffins to take away his damage reduction ability, but other than that, I really don't see how cgs takes away the imagination.

It's just a different form of imagination, and sometimes even seeing things like this can inspire other people to have their own thing in a RPG.