D&D vs. WoW

I can play my tabletop game without having to pay a monthly fee.

Tabletop: When my kids climb up on my lap and start rolling my dice it doesn't matter.
Computer RPGs: When my kids climb up on my lap and start banging on the keyboard - daddy sometimes uses words he's not supposed to.

Since I have no MMORPG experience, maybe this doesn't apply to those games, but I have found the pace of online games such as WarCraft III to be too much for me. I have trouble processing huge amounts of information really fast, and I don't have the best reflexes on the keyboard. In my tabletop game, I can ask the DM for clarification and the game automatically pauses for it. The game will briefly pause while I explain my actions and roll my dice.

But in the end for me it is all about the social aspects. I just can't get that same level of interaction, fun and familiarity through a computer. Look at EN World. I feel like I know a lot of you somewhat because of these boards, but meeting some of you at a game day is a whole different, and for me a more gratifying, experience.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Andor said:
What do RPGs lack?

Complex systems handled seamlessly, graphics, setting appropriate music, functional economies

A good GM in a decently designed system handles complex systems seamlessly. No movie or computer has yet to match teh graphics I can picture in my own mind. I have a largish collection of soundtracks specifically to give my games settign appropriate music. And the online economies are just as hokey as the tabletop economies, but we don't notice that because nobody ever tries to use the online-game economies to model normal farmers...

CRPGs lack the basic flexibility of tabletop. When a tabletop DM sees where his players want to go dramatically, he can shift plans to suit. No non-sentient pre-programmed computer system can manage the alteration of dramatic tone that a human being can.
 


Quasqueton said:
Thanks for the first response.

I'm hoping to discuss positive things, here. Let's leave out the negative things. What positive "features" does one have over the other?
Quasqueton


WoW is fast and furious. I can log in, play for an hour, then quit. In that hour my gaming is satisfied, my character got meaningful experience, and I will have manged to get a good amount of money and/or items from drops.

Can't really do that in table-top rpg, which tends to require scheduling and 4+ hours of gametime. Not to mention you often have to play with the same party over and over, so if a couple people can't show, then you can't play.

They both have positives and negatives. I prefer to log into World of Warcraft and play with a pickup group very quickly. The group may be good or bad, but in the end it means I can play quickly on MY free time.

It is well worth $15 a month.

~Le
 

I think the biggest thing tabletop has is direct human interaction. I play a lot of WoW, but it's mostly because I can't play D&D regularly. There's just no substitute for hanging out with your buddies around a table. However, stuff like Teamspeak is helping to bridge that gap.

In CRPGs favor, I'd have to go with set-up time. Aside from installation time on a PC, most games you can just sit down and play. The ones you can't don't have a lot of set-up time. Regular pen and paper games have a lot of front-end investment from the players (mostly PC generation) and espectially from the DM.
 

Some of the initial posts mentioned things that were "lacking" and for some players they might not be lacking.

Maybe not everyone wants to "see" the other players for example. Part of their appeal is that every one is equal and on the same playing ground. When you get rid of that, the on screen persona is no long the "Person" anymore.

Just a thought.

Razuur
 

MoogleEmpMog said:
I think eventually, MMORPGs could offer this level of interaction fairly easily, where you could (at least on your server), literally become the ruler of the virtual world not just for the DM-created NPCs but for thousands of other real players, too. Complete with coups, assassination attempts and massive doublecrosses.
For this to work, you need more player control of the world, and less computerized villains.
Essentially, your opponents need to be real people, not mobs.

Anyone remeber Trade Wars? (Recently, while doing research for a RPG product, I had to explain to a 'kid' that I hadn't played a multiplayer online game since before the internet.) Back in the early 90's I was involved in two different Trade War games (on a couple of BBSs). One had a good interplay of good and evil chatacters. The other, however, had almost no evil characters, so there was lot of trade and very little war. I decided to something about this. I sent a message to all the major players telling them my plan: I would turn evil and start a crime syndicate. I would then encourage new players to turn evil and come work for me. All my underlings would be fair game for the good side, but I would be inviolate, because, hey, I'm doing a service for the forces of good by giving them someone to fight. It even seem to be working, until a rather unfortunate misunderstanding involving a planetary defense system.

Back to my original point: Player vs. Player action has long been possible, but I'd like to see a way that player action can change a region from contested to aligned (or vice versa). I'd liked to see a game where a player can say he defeated a certain Big Evil and be the only player who can say that (at least on that server). A game where worlds (read: servers) evolve differently because of the players in it.

These sorts of things might already exist (as I said, I'm not too up on modern games), but I have a feeling it's more lucrative for companies to just create massively multiplayer video games, rather than immersive roleplaying; I also suspect that's what the public prefers too.

PS I have since played WoW - I pwned some trolls with my massive hammer. Booyah.
 

Andor said:
What do RPGs lack?

Complex systems handled seamlessly, graphics, setting appropriate music, functional economies, ninja looting, kill stealing, corpse camping, l33T speak, newbs, and newb haters.
Clothing optional. :p
 

Andor said:
What do MMORPGs lack?

Voice communication, facial expressions, shared snacks, the ability to play something else, physical presence, the ability to alter rules on the fly or to make judgement calls, home brews.

What do RPGs lack?

Complex systems handled seamlessly, graphics, setting appropriate music, functional economies, ninja looting, kill stealing, corpse camping, l33T speak, newbs, and newb haters.

Some of these things can be overcome on either side with some effort now. Others may be fixed in the future, some will be eternal.

No and No.
RPGs have the most complex graphical setting ever. This little thing called the imagination. Nothing is more vivid than this no matter how much ram your machine has. ;)
 

I'd also have to say that the most lacking thing in online RPGs is in fact role-playing. Even on so-called RP servers there is very little going on. Why? Because WoW is essentially a big arcade game. You put in your quarters and try to get the high score. The entire world is static (for good reasons) so it doesn't matter how many times we foil Nefarions evil plans because he will be always back in 5 days.

The two games are similar in some ways. While at lower levels you can just log in and play whenever, guild raids are scheduled a week in advance. They last between 2-6 hours a session depending on which dungeon it is. Extra points are given to those who are on location and on time :) There is prep work to be done as well. I usually spend 2-3 hours a week gathering herbs to make potions. Warlocks have to farm soulshards, warriors need gold to pay for armor repairs, hunters need thorium arrows, ect. $15 a month might seem like a lot but when I add up all the books I've bought (then bought again for 3.5) I've spent more then that.

I don't think online and tabletop rpgs will ever be reconciled until someone creates a holodeck. :)
 

Remove ads

Top