• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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?

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?

signal-3655575_960_720.png

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andrew Peregrine

Andrew Peregrine


log in or register to remove this ad

werecorpse

Adventurer
not so sure it is me projecting... I pointed out that he DID interact just not the way you expected (or the way I would have)

yes and no... you sign up for a genre and where a curve ball every now and then, completly derailing is an issue with the DM

correct. but if along the way you find the goblin attack, and find out that the goblins are only warlike because they need food... deciding "wait, I want to talk to the goblins and help them set up a trade agreement/mutual defense agreement with the local town" is a strange way to go but not a 'wrong' one.
The reason I say you are projecting is because what happened in the game I described was a two session scenario where the group had a pretty common in genre event (a space ship issue, leading to a crash landing leading to interacting with the environment on the planet) and your response was to compare it to and complain about how it is similar to when you were in what appeared to be a multi session long complete campaign you didn’t enjoy.

and this wasn’t a complete derailing as I said after they dealt with the interrupt scenario taking less than 2 sessions and they are back on the mission they accepted at the start of the first of the 2 sessions. You are characterising it as a complete derailing. Not what I was talking about.

absolutely “finding out they need food“ would involve some level of observation and understanding, that and talking to the goblins would be a legit way of interacting. What he did didn’t involve coming to an understanding that the goblins needed food - just a surrender to the goblins without any clue as to why they were there and a request that they tell him where the dungeon was, while the others ran away (analogy becoming more and more imperfect). But my point again, is that your justification for saying the player shouldn’t have to interact with the encounter is because its not what was expected, when in genre it really is not unexpected in the same way that a goblin ambush on the road to the dungeon isn’t unexpected.
 

werecorpse

Adventurer
Again, if the player isn't interested in what you're presenting, that isn't a character flaw on their part. They found a solution to not having to deal with something boring or tedious or irritating for them that they didn't sign up for.

It's the sitcom dad who doesn't care what the family wants and insists they put up with it.
No it’s not. Though maybe you play differently, in all the TTRPG games I’ve played in having an unplanned for encounter along the way is something I signed up for.
 


werecorpse

Adventurer
I think you missed his point, where the players did opt out but the GM is claiming they are terribad players for not following his plot breadcrumbs. He's not disagreeing with you, he's pointing out that even if you opt out, it seems you get cast as the badguy in the discussion. I actually see this quite a lot -- GM's blaming players for things the GM did.
No you appear to have missed the point. For starters it was one player in a group of 4. It wasn’t a bait and switch, it was an in genre encounter along the way to a planned adventure. It took less than 2 sessions to resolve. The player did not opt out by leaving the game, he did however refuse to follow the breadcrumbs or engage with the scenario and surrendered to wait until it was over. He is not Terribad. The other 3 players engaged with the scenario resolved it and had a good time doing so.

What was the thing the GM did that was wrong in your opinion?
 



Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
No you appear to have missed the point. For starters it was one player in a group of 4. It wasn’t a bait and switch, it was an in genre encounter along the way to a planned adventure. It took less than 2 sessions to resolve. The player did not opt out by leaving the game, he did however refuse to follow the breadcrumbs or engage with the scenario and surrendered to wait until it was over. He is not Terribad. The other 3 players engaged with the scenario resolved it and had a good time doing so.

What was the thing the GM did that was wrong in your opinion?
You've described the player that didn't go along with your plan in less than glowing ways. You clearly think they did not play well. The only thing I see is that they attempted to sidestep content that they didn't want, and they got to sit out while the other players engaged with your planned scenario and got to play. I'm not sure that I did characterize this poorly or did miss the point. I just am looking at it from the point of view that maybe the player that didn't want to play the scenario you inserted and instead wanted to get back to the first scenario you presented might have had a valid play agenda.
 


CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Play my campaigns straight without springing shocking swerves without consulting the players and then trying to demonize them online for not loving me for it.
I get the part about not complaining online, but I'm not sure I can relate to the rest. That sounds like a miserable experience all around.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top