A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[BryonD]

However, even referring to something as "videogamey" is dicey at best. What sort of video game?

That is certainly true. Trying to understand what someone else is expressing is the first step.

 

[Dannager]

That is certainly true. Trying to understand what someone else is expressing is the first step.

That's why I believe that no one is served by saying things like "This is too videogamey," or "This is too anime," or "This doesn't feel like D&D." These are statements that confuse the discussion more than they inform.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think that's pretty clear: something reminds the utterer of videogames or anime in a way they don't like.

Is it precise? No. But as an opening statement, it doesn't have to be. The listener at that point is free to inquire as to details, conform the statement to their own understanding of things, or let is slide by as a statement of preference or emotional content. Each has advantages...and disadvantages.

 

[BryonD]

That's why I believe that no one is served by saying things like "This is too videogamey," or "This is too anime," or "This doesn't feel like D&D." These are statements that confuse the discussion more than they inform.

I disagree completely. It only doesn't work if you refuse to accept that people are speaking for themselves and have a right to their own views.

Ultimately, you are free to ignore other people's comments. But if you are going to pay attention, then you have to put some energy into actually listening. The common exchange I've seen is something like....

A: I think 4E is too videogamey because X, Y, Z,.....
B: You said "videogamey". You aren't contributing to the conversation!!!

I'd say fixating on natural generalizations as a debate tactic, rather than addressing the reasons given confuses the conversation. And frequently I tend to think that some people prefer a confused conversation to trying to address X, Y, and Z.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Any talk of 'Video games' really seems to bring out a lot of vague, but passionate feelings about Video games, or RPGS or Pen and paper games, or combinations of the three.

Frankly, I find Pen and Paper and Video games to be totally different animals. I play each for different reasons and do not expect overlap. I would not sit around a table with my friends to do a video game, and playing pen and paper games by myself is no fun at all, to be simplistic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I disagree completely. It only doesn't work if you refuse to accept that people are speaking for themselves and have a right to their own views.

As is so often the case.

Far too many discussions on EN World and elsewhere end with this realization.


RC

 

[Dannager]

I disagree completely. It only doesn't work if you refuse to accept that people are speaking for themselves and have a right to their own views.

Ultimately, you are free to ignore other people's comments. But if you are going to pay attention, then you have to put some energy into actually listening. The common exchange I've seen is something like....

A: I think 4E is too videogamey because X, Y, Z,.....
B: You said "videogamey". You aren't contributing to the conversation!!!

No.

"I think 4e is too videogamey because X, Y, Z," isn't the whole picture. What they actually mean is "In my opinion, 4e does X, Y, and Z. Also, in my opinion, these things are representative of video games. Video games are bad/don't belong in tabletop games because I said so. Therefore, things X, Y, and Z are bad."

The problem is that what they ought to be saying is "In my opinion, 4e does X, Y, and Z, and I don't like that it does those things because they negatively impact my game, and here's a list of reasons why that is the case."

When someone starts bringing something like how videogamey something is into the picture, rather than focusing on the actual issues they have with the game, the entire discussion becomes confused; we don't know what makes something videogamey to you, and inevitably when we try to narrow it down (by bringing up counter-examples that might help us determine what exactly is and is not videogamey, and why being videogamey is bad), it turns out that you don't actually dislike things that are videogamey.

For instance, if you had the following argument:

1) Powers are a video game element.
2) Video game elements are bad in tabletop games like 4e.

1,2: 3) Therefore, 4e should not include powers.

That would be fine. That is a clear argument with a strong rational foundation.

That's never the argument, though.

What the argument actually ends up like:

1) Powers are a video game element.
2) Some video game elements are bad in tabletop games but some aren't, and the distinction between the ones that are good and bad is either arbitrary or non-existent.

At this point, you can no longer proceed to step 3, because its statement no longer follows. It has not been shown that powers are a bad thing in a tabletop game, because the justification used for their "badness" was rooted in the premise that video game elements are bad for a tabletop game. When it's shown (through counter-examples people like Cirno and I have brought up to try and determine what the heck people mean by "videogamey") that video game elements aren't inherently bad for a tabletop game, and that what determines that rule element's "badness" is something else entirely that has nothing to do with whether or not it came from a video game, we realize that we just wasted a tremendous amount of time trying to determine why someone would rail against video games when it's clear that video games were never the issue to begin with.

Do you see how this makes discussions like this way more trying than they need to be? If we started with "I don't like X because it makes my game less enjoyable, and this is why:" instead of "I don't like X because it's videogamey and video game things are bad for tabletop games, don'cha know," we'd have much more productive discussions.

tl;dr Stop saying "X is videogamey!" when you actually mean "X is like something from a video game but it is also something that I think is bad for tabletop games because there are plenty of things that I like about tabletop games that have roots in video games that I don't complain about as being videogamey, despite the fact that the word 'videogamey' implies that the reason I don't like it is that it comes from video games when that is clearly not the reason I don't like it because I do like some things that come from video games." Instead, say "X is bad for tabletop games," and explain why.

 

[Aspect of Veles]

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.

Is this not simply a human DM? I saw this just skimming through, and being an avid role-player and PC gamer (I love the Neverwinter Nights games), I'm a little confused as to how this argues for either side, it seems instead to be a form of compromise.

 

[Dannager]

Is this not simply a human DM? I saw this just skimming through, and being an avid role-player and PC gamer (I love the Neverwinter Nights games), I'm a little confused as to how this argues for either side, it seems instead to be a form of compromise.

The point that it implies (and that I should have made explicit) is that, in games like Left4Dead, playing through the game with a human Director and playing through with an AI director are essentially interchangeable experiences. It's not a big point, but it does torpedo the argument that there is a fundamental difference between a game experience controlled by a human and a game experience programmed into the game. They can be different, but they can also be indistinguishable.

 

[The Shaman]

The point that it implies (and that I should have made explicit) is that, in games like Left4Dead, playing through the game with a human Director and playing through with an AI director are essentially interchangeable experiences. It's not a big point, but it does torpedo the argument that there is a fundamental difference between a game experience controlled by a human and a game experience programmed into the game.

The only difference is that you're changing programmers, from the programmer of the AI to the end-user using the program's scripting tools.

The players are still limited to actions permitted by the software. They do not have the same freedom they do in a tabletop game.