Are Video Games Ruining Your Role-playing?

I love RPG video games, but they might be causing some sub-optimal habits in our tabletop role playing. So what’s a GM to do about it?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

It's Dangerous to Go Alone. Take This (Advice)!​

Way back when, video games and RPGs weren’t too different. The video games often focused on killing stuff and getting treasure and so did plenty of dungeon modules. But it wasn’t very long before tabletop games moved into more narrative and character driven play which video games had a hard time following. While some video games like Dragon Age have tried to mirror role playing, you still only get a selection of options in interaction.

Nowadays, tabletop gaming has branched well beyond the elements that have been automated in video games. For players coming from video games, those elements can cause a biased approach to tabletop gaming that might make the game less fun. Below are some examples of how "video game creep" can affect tabletop RPG play styles and how to address them.

The Plot Will Happen Regardless​

While no one likes an interminable planning session, they do at least remind us that the players are not just participating but driving the story. In a video game the story happens whether you like it or not. You just need to keep putting one foot in front of the other and the story will happen regardless. So the bad habit here is a desire of players to ‘just move on’ assuming the GM will just give the plot to them as they go. This often comes unstuck in an investigative RPG where the players need to plan and consider, but it can cause problems in any game. Just pushing ahead will often clue in the bad guys about what is going on. Worse, without some effort to uncover clues, the players will just be floundering, wondering why the plot hasn’t miraculously appeared.

To get players out of this mode the GM might have be initially be a bit more obvious with clues. Almost to the point of putting a helpful flashing icon over them so the players can find them. The key here is to get them looking for clues and trying to understand the plot rather than just assuming inaction will solve the adventure regardless. Once players remember the clues will not come to them they will start trying to find them again.

“Nothing Is Too Much for Us!”​

With the option to save and return to a tough problem, video games offer the idea that any character can potentially tackle anything that is thrown at them. After all, the hero of a video game is a pregenerated character with all the right skills (or at least the means of acquiring them). This is also coupled with the fact that if the video game throws an army of zombies at you, then you expect to be able to fight them off. No problem is insoluble as long as you are prepared to persevere.

While perseverance isn’t a bad trait, sometimes the player characters shouldn't attempt to face all obstacles with brute force. The GM might have put them against insurmountable odds because they should be retreating. They assume putting 100 zombies in the room will make it pretty clear the way is blocked, then get surprised when the PCs draw swords and dive in. Then they are even more confused when the PCs accuse them of killing off their characters by putting too many monsters in, when no one forced them to fight them.

It is hard for some players to realise that retreat is also an option. But if you are used to facing and defeating supposedly insurmountable odds it is unlikely you’ll think of making a run for it. This attitude might also give some players the idea that any character can do anything leading to some spotlight hogging when they try to perform actions clearly suited better to other characters.

At this point the GM can only remind them retreat is an option, or that the thief should probably have first call on the lock picking. If they ignore that warning then they’ll eventually get the message after losing a couple more characters.

“I’m Always the Hero!”​

In many games the player characters are heroes, or at least people destined for some sort of greatness. But in a video game you are usually the chosen hero of the entire universe. You are the master elite agent at the top of their game. The problem is that in any group game not everyone can be the star all the time. So it can lead to a bit of spotlight hogging, with no one wanting to be the sidekick.

That is usually just something they can be trained out of with the GM shifting the spotlight to make sure everyone gets a fair crack. But being the greatest of all heroes all the time may mean the players won’t be satisfied with anything less. There are some good adventures to be had at low level, or to build up a great hero, and starting at the very top can miss all that. So, players ranking at the lower level of power should be reminded they have to build themselves up. Although there is nothing wrong with playing your game at a very high level if the group want big characters and bigger challenges.

Resistance Is Futile​

One of the things RPGs can do that video games can’t is let you go anywhere. If there is a door blocking your path, in an RPG you can pick the lock, cut a hole in it, even jump over it, where in a video game it remains unopened. If you get used to this concept it can lead to players thinking the opposite of the insurmountable odds problem. A locked door means they should give up and try another route or look for an access card. They start to think that like a video game there are places they are meant to go and meant not to go, and that they should recognise that and not fight it.

This might apply to any number of problems, where the GM is offering a challenge but the players just think that means they shouldn’t persevere. Worse, the players might think they need a key to open the door and will search for as long as it takes to find one, never imagining they might smash the door down.

This is a tough problem to get past as it means the GM needs to offer more options and clues to the players. If this doesn’t remind them they can try other things, then that opens up the following issue. So the GM should try and coax more options out of the players and make a point of rewarding more lateral thinking in their part.

“I’m Waiting for Options”​

While there may be several ways to defeat a problem, and the players know this, they might not be used to thinking of them for themselves. They will expect the GM to suggest several ways to defeat any obstacle or interact with an NPC rather than think of them themselves. This is easy to spot as the GM will notice that any clues or suggestions they make are always followed rather than taken as a helpful starting point.

The simple answer is to stop offering options and let the players think of them themselves. After all, RPGs are not multiple choice, they should be infinite choice. So the GM might also make a point of throwing the question back to the players and ask them what they will do about the encounter. The GM might offer clues if asked, but they should try and keep the focus on the players thinking of a way through rather than giving them clues.

Gaming in Every Medium​

The issues above aren’t a problem if that is how you all want to play. But they do put a lot of pressure on the GM to hand out all the answers and takes away the player’s agency to interact and influence the story. So it is worth taking a look at your group's gaming habits, particularly new players, and reminding them that although video game RPGs and tabletop RPG have a lot in common, they should be played differently.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You know that's not what simulation means in this context right? I believe the argument here is for some degree of reality simulation, coupled with emergent story.

D&D sucks so much at Forgey simulation I think that ship sailed, sunk, the owner got the insurance payout, and retired.

 

[Jer]

I feel clues are generally meant to be found, and the players then put them together, with the ability to default to their character's knowledge when the player themselves lack it. Gumshoe operates on this principle.

I follow the Gumshoe framework in my D&D/13th Age games as well - if they need the clue to progress, they get the clue regardless of the die roll. A success on the die roll leads to extra information or an insight hint from me that they wouldn't normally get. Die rolls where they fail to find the clue are only for clues that they don't need to keep the investigation moving forward.

In my mind clues in an investigation scenario are like doors in a dungeon. You need to move through doors to keep the action moving, so in a dungeon if there's a door that's hidden or locked in some way that the PCs can't get through without a skill check, that better be a part of the dungeon that you're not expecting them to get into until they go off somewhere else and find a key/map/whatever to let them through it. Likewise any clues that you hide behind a die roll better not be investigation stopping clues if you actually want to have an investigation scenario - they can be clues that the PCs can come back to when they have another clue (like the key/map/whatever in a dungeon) but not core clues that need to be found to keep them moving forward.

The alternative that I used before playing Gumshoe was to plant 6 clues for every 1 clue I expected a group to find. It's doable but exhausting as a GM. And then you still run into the problem of table luck and the players biffing every die roll and not finding even one of the clues you planted.

 

[Monayuris]

I'm not going to discount the player that spent skill and ability pts ON those things. You don't get to roel play around a low con or low str... so no you can't pump a high str and con dump your cha and int and 'roleplay around it'

Fair enough we like different things and I'll concede the point that if you don't like exploration then breaking it down to a single roll would be a way to go for you.

I find most social interaction with NPCs to be tedious and unfun. I'd be happy to just roll a Cha check and be done with it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So find a better DM. Or here is an idea: do it yourself.

There are far too many lazy players who won't do the hard (and expensive) job themselves, but are still happy to complain about those who do.

I do DM. Next insulting argument, please.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Dont the kids find an appreciation for sitcom dad's bollocks by the end tho? Like, its just about getting together and letting sitcom dad enjoy the awfulness just like his dad when he was a kid?

Not usually.

At least not since the 70's.

More likely, either everyone but Dad suffers and they're driving home saying 'never gain' with one of them covered in bug bites/bee stings, one is covered in mud, and mom is badly burned/bear mauled and dad is grinning, thinking about how fun next time will be or dad gets arrested because what was just a forest in his day is private property now or he got in a fight with an endangered species while fishing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I find most social interaction with NPCs to be tedious and unfun. I'd be happy to just roll a Cha check and be done with it.

Nope.

In fact, in order to romance an NPC, you must date me no les than six months and really sweep me off my feet.

 

[Stormonu]

What if I’m not really interested in fighting a group of monsters and just want to get back to exploring the dungeon or town I’m in? In that case can I just say ‘i fight the monsters and kill them’ then roll my d20 to see how easily i do it?

If the whole party is in agreement, and it’s not a make-or-break encounter, why not?

“Okay, everyone select a resource you want to use for the fight, roll me a DC 10 attack. You match the DC and you’ll win, but take 10 hp damage and expend two resources, plus the one you chose - if it can be expended. Beat the DC by 5, you take 5 hp damage and expend a resource, plus the chosen resource. Beat it by 10, no damage and you just expend the chosen resource. Fail the DC by 5, you take 15 hp, expend three resources and I add a condition or consequence. Roll a 1, start making Death saves.”

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally, I find most concerns of this type to be in the same crappy category as every other technology hand-wringing or tech demonization we've had for the past three thousand years. Computers will make children have no patience or attention span. Ink and paper will make children forget how to use chalkboards. Cheap printed books will make people stop valuing them enough. Writing will make people forget everything they learn and cause them to interact with dead words rather than living ideas. Etc.

Are there potential issues that can arise from expecting one medium to behave exactly like a related but different medium? Yes, certainly. Does this mean that related medium is bad because it causes problems? No, not at all. Particularly since, as others have rightly stated, these issues can appear even for people who have never played CRPGs or even video games more generally, and certainly aren't guaranteed to happen for people who have played CRPGs.

Some of the proposed "fixes" aren't even very good in and of themselves. Watering down mysteries and making clues so obvious that a brain-damaged goldfish couldn't miss them doesn't actually make the game better, it just trivializes things so that they can't even potentially become stumbling blocks. Many of these bits of advice directly contradict one another: players being too gung ho because nothing is insurmountable so try to curtail their enthusiasm, players being too passive so try to get them to take the reins themselves. It comes across more as "these are problems any group can have, but we're going to frame them only in the context of CRPG player clichés." And the solutions are equally narrow-framed, blunting them before they even get deployed.

The overall thrust of the argument (when stripped of the unnecessary "video games are the problem!" element) isn't bad, but man, the presentation thereof is really lacking. I could actually use something on some of these fronts ("don't suggest, let them work it out") but there's really not much meat here, just bare problems and really basic responses.

 

[Ovinomancer]

D&D sucks so much at Forgey simulation I think that ship sailed, sunk, the owner got the insurance payout, and retired.

I'm not a huge fan of GNS theory, not because it fails to actually have some explanatory power, but because it insists on binning things too aggressively -- a game can have multiple pieces of GNS and still be "coherent." It's worth noting that the original author has left it behind for largely these reasons.

That said, D&D actually does simulation pretty well. Simulation is about recreating a genre or concept. D&D does this. Of course, D&D is it's own genre at this point. Still, D&D looks to maintain it's own internal consistency and largely focuses mechanics on cause and effect resolution methods -- the PC does A, result B follows. The breaking of this causal resolution mechanic was a large complaint about 4e, and persists in the loud (if not majority) opposition to any kind of damage on a miss mechanics for martials (magic is, of course, always excepted).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the whole party is in agreement, and it’s not a make-or-break encounter, why not?

“Okay, everyone select a resource you want to use for the fight, roll me a DC 10 attack. You match the DC and you’ll win, but take 10 hp damage and expend two resources, plus the one you chose - if it can be expended. Beat the DC by 5, you take 5 hp damage and expend a resource, plus the chosen resource. Beat it by 10, no damage and you just expend the chosen resource. Fail the DC by 5, you take 15 hp, expend three resources and I add a condition or consequence. Roll a 1, start making Death saves.”

Yeah, I considered writing "skirmish" rules for 4e more or less along these lines. A way to make a really really streamlined, low-overhead "quick fight" system that still took cues from the characters and their powers while being as fast as possible.

My preference was to charge healing surges rather than HP directly, so I guess that would cash out as Hit Dice in 5e. More or less, you roll a d20 perhaps with a primary stat mod, that's your overall performance if you don't give special effort. Various things can qualify as special effort, e.g. consumable items, daily item powers, using a daily power, selling me (quickly) on a special stunt, Leader giving you a buff, etc. No positioning (unless part of aforementioned stunt), minimal buff tracking, rules meant only for fast and brutal fights that the party is very unlikely to lose but which can sap resources and make strategic planning less confident.

Whole idea being, about half of combat encounters would get the "skirmish treatment," becoming five to ten minute blitzes that still cost something most of the time. That way, the remaining combats can be allowed to be big, dramatic affairs because they're meant to be, because you've had a couple low-impact fights and now a set piece would be more satisfying.

In an ideal world where Chris Cocks summoned me to be the head designer of 6e, this would be one half of a parallel strategy, the other half being to add some actual "social combat"-type rules, which would be the non-combat set pieces equivalent to a proper set piece fight, just as the aforementioned "skirmish rules" would be the combat equivalent of the current "just roll Persuasion and we'll see what happens" rules for non-combat scenes. This is obviously a much more ambitious goal than the previous, but I think it would breathe a great deal of life into a part of the game that has been almost static since 3e at least (and possibly much earlier).