A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Video games equating to an insult is funny. It just illustrates the dogmatism in the gamer community. Arguing with such people who use this terminology is like banging your head against a brick wall. They'll stay stuck in whatever views they hold and you'll get a headache.

Let change pass them by while everyone else has fun with the fiddly, animey, video gamey, new shiney that dilutes the very fabric of quality gaming.

 

[Celtavian]

Haha what, you and I have had this argument a billion times. But why not, let's do it again.

Don't recall having it with you.

Powers in D&D have always had cooldowns, they just had cooldowns of "one day." The samurai kit in 2e has a daily power. Barbarians in 3e have daily limits on their rages.

They do. But I prefer the daily limit. Allows a wider narrative range. As a DM I find it more intereseting to plan my encounters around daily powers so that a player can go "all out" if he needs to versus the encounter power mechanic where players always used their encounter powers even if they didn't need to.

Using the daily limit feels more organic to storytelling since players were more likely to save their uses for a strong fight.

The 4E encounter power mechanic is my primary video-gamey gripe. Felt like low cooldown powers that video gamers pop whenever they are up regardless if they are necessary.

When my players are popping their encounter powers "just because" even when a fight is well-handled, don't even try to sell me on the narrative of that. Encounter powers are not a good story telling mechanic.

No, the taunt ability that the 3e Knight class was straight out of a video game.

One thing I will give you, 3E had so many books they started putting out goofy stuff. I never used that dumb mechanic. No one every played a knight.

No, they're narrative, unless you can show how it's a video game.

Hit your button and the power works regardless if it makes sense. That is video-gamey.

Come and Get Me being the absolute worst culprit. I honestly can't think of any more glaring example of video-gamey then that powers.

Oozes? come and get me

Undead? Come and get me.

Can't speak the language? Come and get me.

There were others that didn't make much sense like the weapon damage aura dailies where you were supposed to imagine the character swinging his weapon around endllessly for an entire fight. Didn't matter what the creatures AC was, didn't matter how long the fight went on, didn't matter what his Con was, he could swing his weapon around for 5 minutes or until the fight ended.

I prefer other mechanics which I think better simulate a narrative.

False. There is no Crowd Control character in WoW. Nor are Leaders "healers" by default.

Dedicated Crowd Control comes from Everquest. We're not solely focused on WoW are we? Is that the only MMORPG you have any experience with?

PHBII from 3e is now a video game.

Never picked it up. 3E suffered from having to constantly produce new books. It eventually reached absurdity. 4E will most likely do the same if it is out too long as the designers are forced to come up with new ideas even if the well has run dry.

Spellcasters, 3e barbarians, 3e paladins, 3e rogues with certain advanced talents, 2e samurai, are all video games.

Don't agree.

False. Multiple abilities in WoW only work on specific targets. Undead are immune to fear. Seduce only effects humanoids. Banish only effects demons.

You're takling crowd control powers. True enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of taunt powers which seem to work on even gods in video games just like 4E's defenders taunt power works on gods.

I was thinking of fire damage working on creatures in a place called Molten Core. Though I think maybe devils have immunity to fire in 4E. I can't recall.

Things work in video games regardless if it makes sense. Like powers in 4E that do things like mind control undead, knock back giants and dragons regardless of size, make a god-like demon focus on the fighter threatening him or take a penalty, and the like. Or you going to argue this with me too? Got an argument?

3E never incorpoared such mechanics until much later. And they always tried to take into account size, con, and the like at least a little bit.

Not quite sure why you pick something like crowd control in WoW to focus on rather than the plethora of other mechanics in WoW that don't make sense as to why they work. Just like many of the powers in 4E.

Powers are very video-game like to me.

That was fun! Catch you next time I need to literally prove every statement you make wrong?

You didn't prove a single one wrong except in your own opinion.

You cherry-picked a few responses that you seem to think support your argument.

I just tossed a bunch back at you which destroy your argument. You are wrong. Always been wrong. And always will be wrong.

In fact, you seemed to have missed where the 4E designers themselves stated that 4E mechanics were built to better interface with video game design. You miss that statement by the designers?

One of the main intentions behind 4E was to create a game that was still playable as a tabeltop RPG but with a ruleset far more friendly to video game design. Amazing that a 4E booster like yourself would have missed that interview with the 4E game designers.

But you're so full of yourself, you would probably tell the game designers they didn't design 4E to better interface with video games aka video-gamey.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that 4E was designed with video games in mind moreso than any other edition. Just on this board "video-gamey" became code for "4E not good". So you feel you have to rail agaisnt the idea of 4E being video-gamey even when the evidence including the stated goals of the design team are contrary to your statement.

I think 4E will make a very good video game. Much better than 3E or any previous edition of D&D.

All previous editions of D&D were poorly designed for video games. Which is why even when they did design games around previous mechanics, they had to make major changes to get it done. Doesn't make one game better or worse.

 

[Dannager]

Cirno will undoubtedly handle the rest of this, but I blinked a few times when I saw a couple of these.

The 4E encounter power mechanic is my primary video-gamey gripe. Felt like low cooldown powers that video gamers pop whenever they are up regardless if they are necessary.

The only place that anyone holds back on their readily available upgrades in power until they've managed to convince themselves that it's absolutely necessary is on Power Rangers. Surely that's not the narrative feel you're reaching for.

Undead? Come and get me.

Yeah, because zombies never get distracted, right?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

They do. But I prefer the daily limit. Allows a wider narrative range. As a DM I find it more intereseting to plan my encounters around daily powers so that a player can go "all out" if he needs to versus the encounter power mechanic where players always used their encounter powers even if they didn't need to.

Using the daily limit feels more organic to storytelling since players were more likely to save their uses for a strong fight.

The 4E encounter power mechanic is my primary video-gamey gripe. Felt like low cooldown powers that video gamers pop whenever they are up regardless if they are necessary.

When my players are popping their encounter powers "just because" even when a fight is well-handled, don't even try to sell me on the narrative of that. Encounter powers are not a good story telling mechanic.

Daily powers aren't any better of a storytelling mechanic. Your argument here comes down to "I like this but not this." That doesn't make one "Video gamey."

Hit your button and the power works regardless if it makes sense. That is video-gamey.

Come and Get Me being the absolute worst culprit. I honestly can't think of any more glaring example of video-gamey then that powers.

Oozes? come and get me

Undead? Come and get me.

Can't speak the language? Come and get me.

It's not video-gamey, it's narrative. All you're showing here is that your players lack creativity.

There were others that didn't make much sense like the weapon damage aura dailies where you were supposed to imagine the character swinging his weapon around endllessly for an entire fight. Didn't matter what the creatures AC was, didn't matter how long the fight went on, didn't matter what his Con was, he could swing his weapon around for 5 minutes or until the fight ended.

I prefer other mechanics which I think better simulate a narrative.

Are you really going to start throwing stones at D&D not having a mechanic to show someone being tired after fighting? Because you're in a glass room inside a glass house which is in of itself inside a larger glass house.

Dedicated Crowd Control comes from Everquest. We're not solely focused on WoW are we? Is that the only MMORPG you have any experience with?

No, it's the only one people refer to when they talk about 4e.

Don't agree.

And look at all that evidence

You're takling crowd control powers. True enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of taunt powers which seem to work on even gods in video games just like 4E's defenders taunt power works on gods.

What taunt power? Go on, name the "taunt power" that all 4e defenders have. I'd love to hear this. I know it can't be marks, because marks don't work that way. Well, I suppose marks work that way if you have no idea how marking works, but you say you've DM'd 4e. So tell us what the taunt power that all defenders have.

I was thinking of fire damage working on creatures in a place called Molten Core. Though I think maybe devils have immunity to fire in 4E. I can't recall.

There's a feat in 3e that lets you do this. And a PrC for cold damage, to boot.

Things work in video games regardless if it makes sense. Like powers in 4E that do things like mind control undead, knock back giants and dragons regardless of size, make a god-like demon focus on the fighter threatening him or take a penalty, and the like. Or you going to argue this with me too? Got an argument?

Ok, so it's narrative.

This isn't a video game thing. You're taking something that's a part of storytelling and claiming only video games do it. Do you have an argument? All your seem to say right now is "This is a thing video games do." That's nice, but video games do a lot of things. Video games have wizards in them - are all tabletop games with wizards now a video game?

3E never incorpoared such mechanics until much later. And they always tried to take into account size, con, and the like at least a little bit.

Until magic was involved, because 3e is primarily a gamist system. 4e is narrative, 3e is gamist. 3e is "Here are rules that can never be broken unless you use magic." 4e is "Here are the rules, now here are the narrative abilities the characters have that can override the rules."

Not quite sure why you pick something like crowd control in WoW to focus on rather than the plethora of other mechanics in WoW that don't make sense as to why they work. Just like many of the powers in 4E.

Powers are very video-game like to me.

No more then any of the daily mechanics on barbarians or rogues or paladins or any other class were in 4e.

Again, your argument comes down to "I like this so it's not video gamey, but this exact same thing is in a system I don't like, so it is."

In fact, you seemed to have missed where the 4E designers themselves stated that 4E mechanics were built to better interface with video game design. You miss that statement by the designers?

Prove it.

One of the main intentions behind 4E was to create a game that was still playable as a tabeltop RPG but with a ruleset far more friendly to video game design. Amazing that a 4E booster like yourself would have missed that interview with the 4E game designers.

Prove it.

But you're so full of yourself, you would probably tell the game designers they didn't design 4E to better interface with video games aka video-gamey.

Prove it.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that 4E was designed with video games in mind moreso than any other edition. Just on this board "video-gamey" became code for "4E not good". So you feel you have to rail agaisnt the idea of 4E being video-gamey even when the evidence including the stated goals of the design team are contrary to your statement.

Prove it.

I think 4E will make a very good video game. Much better than 3E or any previous edition of D&D.

Prove it.

All previous editions of D&D were poorly designed for video games. Which is why even when they did design games around previous mechanics, they had to make major changes to get it done. Doesn't make one game better or worse.

P
R
O
V
E

I
T

 

[Diamond Cross]

You know what the funny thing about all this hooey is?

Pen and paper RPGS came long before there was swords and fantasy video games.

And had a huge influence on them.

The first video game of course being pong.

D&D was certainly not the first, although it is the most famous and influential.

I'm just tired of these either or tribalism from people.

you can either like Star Wars or Star Trek.

You can like either Garfield or Heathcliff.

You can either like Tea or coffee.

I'll have none of it and I'll go my own way and like whatever I want to like, thank you very much.

 

[enpeze66]

My take on this: Of couse I am in the camp of the slow food fans. I despise 3rd and 4th edition. Its not D&D anymore and I am not sure if they are roleplaying games at all. At least not more than those self styled video "rpgs".

Funnily the more "video" the rpgs become the slower and tedious is the combat. It becomes self purpose and not just "story tool".

This is perfectly evident if one reads a 4e board. Most of the posts are about builts and combat tactics or other "how-to-get-another +1" tipps and not about adventures or setting.

So why is a game like 4e perceived as "video" game? Thats simple. Formulaic redundant options which are presented in tons of narrow rules. And using one of these options feels like pressing a button each combat round or once per minute till the cooldown expires. Then repeat and repeat.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Sigh.

Just sigh.

 

[Aus_Snow]

You know what? I think computer games have had an overall positive influence on the making of TTRPGs. Also, coding in general (has too, I mean).

There. I said it.

And sure, it so happens I'm not keen on 4e, but that's due to what I perceive as fundamental system flaws, system elements that don't appeal, aesthetics that turn me off, and various other things, including WotC's attitude here and there.

Plus, it's redundant anyway - mind you, I'd have bought it if it hadn't repulsed me. *shrug* But yeah, redundant because if I want to play D&D, I already have a number of options right here for that - yes, they might well be a bit weird, and full of holes, but that works for cheese, right? Gotta have food metaphors when discussing RPGs... And if I want a generic fantasy RPG, I've got plenty of options there too.

It's not because I believe 4e to be particularly video-gamey. Or board-gamey. Or "just a tactical minis game".

Why? Well, it's a TTRPG. That's why. It quacks like one, etc.

That said, I've not played 4e - or any MMORPG. But I have played a few CRPGs, and read the first three 4e corebooks anyway, so... I feel that I more or less know what I'm on about here.

tl;dr: In answer to the OP's closing line - neither do I.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Just from reading the 4e PHB I totally get where people come from with 'videogamey'. Some have said it reads like a tech manual; that it's fluff anemic. Now, I like that (regardless of how newbie unfriendly it may or may not be), because it made the task of learning the rules easier. I do, though, get why many consider it lame (my 13 year old self probably would've considered it lame).

When I saw people claiming 4e was videogamey, here and elsewhere, that's what I thought they meant -- how clearly they can see the clockwork turning, so to speak. I thought they meant that kind of loss of immersion. That's fine. It's arbitrary, of course, but it's all arbitrary anyway.

I didn't read it as people necessarily dissing video games.

(Some people are always going to take the stand of 'What I like is better than what you like'. Such is life. You can either take the same stand or move on.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

My take on this: Of couse I am in the camp of the slow food fans. I despise 3rd and 4th edition. Its not D&D anymore and I am not sure if they are roleplaying games at all. At least not more than those self styled video "rpgs".

Funnily the more "video" the rpgs become the slower and tedious is the combat. It becomes self purpose and not just "story tool".

This is perfectly evident if one reads a 4e board. Most of the posts are about builts and combat tactics or other "how-to-get-another +1" tipps and not about adventures or setting.

So why is a game like 4e perceived as "video" game? Thats simple. Formulaic redundant options which are presented in tons of narrow rules. And using one of these options feels like pressing a button each combat round or once per minute till the cooldown expires. Then repeat and repeat.

I would just slap you across the head with a rulebook for this gibberish but it wouldn't do any good, you regenerate 3hp/round anyway.