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

Generally I can pick up what people mean when they use short hand. If the player skips the conversation and declares "I rolled a 16 perception," that tells me the player isn't interested in engaging with the conversation that is the fundamental core of the game as I see it and as I want to play it. And since everyone likes to scream about gatekeeping, yes, both styles and everything in between are perfectly valid ways to play. But they don't mix well, if at all.
sigh... right. Okay, so you have no problem being a gate keeper. Okay got it.
Which is literally the problem this example was used to point out. Players assume, wrongly, that not only is everything a fight, but everything is a fight that's perfectly balanced for their characters at whatever level they are...regardless of the fiction.
I love how the player took it wrong the DM didn't fail to explain it right...
"press the button" syndrome.
oh god never mind... you will never be on the same page as me
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Some things are traps to punish the players for trying to engage the way they want.
another example i love... a DM started a game (This one also in 2e) with a dragon attack. 1st level characters ran away. He got pissed, so the dragon followed them. He got mad they tried to hide. Finally after 30ish minutes all the PCs were dead and the game restarted "You are ressurected 100 years later, it was supposed to be as the valiant heroes who tried to stop the Dragon.... but I guess you are the best we got"

I'm glad I wasn't in this game 1... they kicked the DM out after 3 sessions one of the players took over DMing and I was invited to fill the seat.
 

another example i love... a DM started a game (This one also in 2e) with a dragon attack. 1st level characters ran away. He got pissed, so the dragon followed them. He got mad they tried to hide. Finally after 30ish minutes all the PCs were dead and the game restarted "You are ressurected 100 years later, it was supposed to be as the valiant heroes who tried to stop the Dragon.... but I guess you are the best we got"

I'm glad I wasn't in this game 1... they kicked the DM out after 3 sessions one of the players took over DMing and I was invited to fill the seat.
that just sounds like the dm not bothering to talk to player properly as the players did the thing any sane person at their level would do.
 


Do you also demand an eloquent speech in place of a Persuasion check?
I ask for something. If not in first person, then at least some kind of description of what the character is trying to convey. Are they trying to be convincing or intimidating? Lying or threatening? What are they lying about? Who are they threatening? Are they going for manipulative or earnest? Are they leveraging anything to get what they want? You know, engaging with the fiction of the world, making choices, having those choices matter to the game...roleplaying.
Some things are traps to punish the players for trying to engage the way they want.
If all a player wants is hack-and-slash, that's great. Have fun with it. But they won't find it at my table and I make that explicitly clear up front. If they choose to ignore that, the consequences are on them. Bored because there's too much talkie-talkie? I told you we'd be roleplaying. Assume everything in the world is a combat encounter that's perfectly balanced for your level? I told you not to assume that, so start rolling up a new character. Don't want to bother poking around to explore? I told you up front that would be a big part of the game.
the low stat can't find his own hand character's player says 'na' I've seen this trick before I bet it's a portable hole' takes the bar out of the closet, looks in pulls out the portable hole... no roll.

why would that character know that trick? good question, because 2 campaigns before the DM did the same thing and no one found it and he told them later to prove how smart he was.
So the player was metagaming and the DM rewarded it. That's the problem.
sigh... right. Okay, so you have no problem being a gate keeper. Okay got it.

I love how the player took it wrong the DM didn't fail to explain it right...

oh god never mind... you will never be on the same page as me
Well, if you keep reading what I wrote and taking it to mean the opposite of what it explicitly says, then yeah. It'll be a hard conversation.
that just sounds like the dm not bothering to talk to player properly as the players did the thing any sane person at their level would do.
Isn't that weird. PCs at 1st level running away from a dragon, or some other obviously overwhelming threat is "the thing any sane person at their level would do." Weird. My players charge the obviously overwhelming threats. And, apparently, that's my fault as the DM.
 

I ask for something. If not in first person, then at least some kind of description of what the character is trying to convey. Are they trying to be convincing or intimidating? Lying or threatening? What are they lying about? Who are they threatening? Are they going for manipulative or earnest? Are they leveraging anything to get what they want? You know, engaging with the fiction of the world, making choices, having those choices matter to the game...roleplaying.
Not everyone is in debate club and knows how to twist someone around their finger. That's why the game gives you separate levers.
If all a player wants is hack-and-slash, that's great. Have fun with it. But they won't find it at my table and I make that explicitly clear up front. If they choose to ignore that, the consequences are on them. Bored because there's too much talkie-talkie? I told you we'd be roleplaying. Assume everything in the world is a combat encounter that's perfectly balanced for your level? I told you not to assume that, so start rolling up a new character. Don't want to bother poking around to explore? I told you up front that would be a big part of the game.
Fair. I don't want to be part of your game. Cool.

But that's not a failure of character brought on by exposure to the Demon Vidja Gaem.
 

For me as a DM. there is a practical difference to this.

"I look for the halfling" or "I search the pedestal for a secret compartment" tells me exactly what the player is doing and provides me with context in order to frame a ruling or a roll.

"I made a 16 Perception, do I notice anything?" doesn't tell me anything. I literally can't respond to this. What does the player notice? Well... what is the player looking at? I don't know.
It tells you they made an above average success to find whatever hidden feature there is. It cuts out the middleman. Like when people say they put on their armor, but don't go over it strap by strap.

We got kids to feed, bills to pay, and one day every other week to play. Get to the fun stuff. Don't force players to engage with stuff they have no interest in. If people want to pixel hunt they get to skip rolling.
 

my go to example is always the guy that made a HUGE search check (in 30s) but found nothing just for a guy who if he rolled a 20 would get a 19 was given an auto pass for knowing to take the pole out of the closet and look in it...

point blank if your character is specialized in searching someone who knows nothing about searching should NOT be able to "role play through it" any more then an untrained warrior shouldn't be able "role play through" hitting a huge AC.
Are you saying that a player who says he's taking the pole out of a closet to look at it should not be allowed to do so because they have a crappy Search skill?
 

Well, if you keep reading what I wrote and taking it to mean the opposite of what it explicitly says, then yeah. It'll be a hard conversation.
we will not agree. We do not play D&D remotely the same way... but fine I will try... this wont end well.


I love interactive conversations, I want my players to tell me what they do. I don't make them spell out more then they want to (unless I really am stumped) and I don't reward dump stating cha and int because "I can role play through it"

in my games if there were a DC (especially one over 20) that you could not hit there is no amount of role playing letting you do it... it's up there with hitting the moon with an arrow.

If you don't have a skill on the sheet, you can not (and have not been able to in over 20 years since I started thinking this way) been able to role play AGAINST your character build choices.

Example: Shy meek new player has a +9 Persuasion and +11 intimadate. Old RP guy who is loud and always knows the right thing to say has untrained a +1 to each... there is 0 amount of role playing that will let him come off as more inimadating or more persuasive,

just like if you have a 9 str and no training in Athletics, you aren't jumping from one building to another. just no. I don't care how well you describe it.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top