Have computer games ruined table RPGs?

[I'm A Banana]

First of all "Balance" is mostly a table-top conceit, and all the baggage that goes with it (number crunching, testing, etc.) is mostly affecting the table top. This is because unlike a videogame, a tabletop game can never have 'the best' and 'the ultimate.' There is no easy path to victory, no programmed responses, no fighting battles over and over again for the phat loot, or just to level up. A videogame is immutable, and thus whigning about balance isn't good....you just want to be the most powerful...it's a matter of how hard it is to get there that is difficulty.

Balance is almost purely a table-top idea, though some MMORPG's have adopted it, but it's because they use similar ideas...a game like that often concentrates on what members of a team can do, and force interaction to a certain degree to be effective. You have the four roles (sometimes three) within a party, and all are needed for the most effective fighting...having a Cleric, Wizard, Fighter, and Rogue is, in a way, it's own little cheat code for victory....

That said, the plots and stories of CRPG's are the things that have *enhanced* my game, if anything....

....which is why I'm devoted to d20-izing Final Fantasy...

 

[rounser]

Someone (Uthrecht?) pointed out that CRPGs are much more limited in scope than tabletop RPGs

In theory, yes. In practice, nuh-uh.

I'm yet to find a PnP game with as much thoroughly detailed scope as Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment. IME most DMs can't improvise anywhere near that well, or will resent your straying too far (assuming you're not being railroaded in the first place).

 

[DrZombie]

My two cents :

- CRPG = hack'n slash. Even the more story driven are mostly lines of boring text between hack'n slash episodes. The puzzles can mostly be solved by a lobotomised chimpansee, and when you solve'em there's more hack'n slash. Mistake me not, I like computer games, I just wish they would leave the roleplaying crap out of it, because it'll never ever be as good as a tabletop game.

- Has this ruined the tabletop game? Well, no. What it has done is that it has attracted people that are interested in fantasy to the game, but they don't know any better then to hack 'n slash, it's all they have ever seen. Mix 'em with some RPG veterans and they will either blossom or leave, and they won't be a great loss if they leave anyway.

- Maxed out characters : as soon as you don't start at first level, you'll have maxed characters. Start at level 10 and your players will come up with characters hat have the minimal requirement to get into a prestige class, have all the right feat combos and have some skills with extreme scores. Can you blame 'em? As long as they have a decent background and some idea about personalities, I don't really mind.

-Same thing was said about CCG. With the 3rd edition you can just feel the precise timing rules of CCG's. Not a bad thing i think.

 

[heimdall]

Has this ruined the tabletop game? Well, no. What it has done is that it has attracted people that are interested in fantasy to the game, but they don't know any better then to hack 'n slash, it's all they have ever seen. Mix 'em with some RPG veterans and they will either blossom or leave, and they won't be a great loss if they leave anyway.

I remember complaining about hack 'n slashers in the early 80s, min-maxers, too, so I wouldn't say the phemonenon can be tied to CRPGs. I think 2nd edition really exacerbated the issue and it was at that time CRPGs started getting popular. With all the kits, speciality priests, etc., I saw some really nasty min-maxed characters.

On a different note, I know some folks have referred to the group tactics, etc., that are now being seen in D&D. You know, it's true CRPGs have 'em, and that might be one reason for the influence, but consider game Star Trek Fleet Battles, Star Frontiers, and especially BattleTech were very, very heavily tactical. Concepts like concentration of fire and speed kills were brought out in those games.

 

[Dark Jezter]

My two cents :

- CRPG = hack'n slash. Even the more story driven are mostly lines of boring text between hack'n slash episodes. The puzzles can mostly be solved by a lobotomised chimpansee, and when you solve'em there's more hack'n slash. Mistake me not, I like computer games, I just wish they would leave the roleplaying crap out of it, because it'll never ever be as good as a tabletop game.

I respectfully disagree. I've never seen a tabletop RPG campaign that had a storyline as rich and intricately detailed as the ones found in Baldur's Gate II or Planescape Torment. They may exist, but I have yet to see one, or even hear about one. And, as rounser pointed out, DMs who try to have storylines deep enough and complex enough to compare to those games usually end up railroading the hell out of their players.

But, while BG2 and PT may have incredible storylines, they don't (yet) give you the near total freedom that playing in a good tabletop campaign has. BG2 is very non-linear as far as CRPGs go, but you still can't have your character attempt to do anything he wants.

 

[Driddle]

OK, OK, OK ... So I made a bad choice in my initial post of using the word "ruin." An overexaggeration or lacking specific intent, in retrospect. ("Bad, Driddle! Bad!")

And yet about half of the responses so far have conceded computer games are influencing the lingo, attitude, behavior and other various aspects of the table gaming experience.

Ruin? No. Major social effect? Yes.

 

[milotha]

I think that even as the AI in computer games advances, it will never replace a human GM. There are many interesting social dynamics and strange/unique situations that are missing from computer RPGs that only a human GM can abjudicate. It's harder to change the rules in a computer RPG. I think it will be a long time before computer RPGs can do this.

In addition, you miss the face to face interation that sitting across the table from your GM and fellow players instills. There are nuiances to social interaction that you just can't provide in an computer RPG. Not to mention the shared snacks, and the fact that you can easily decide to play something else that day - boardgame, cardgame, another RPG etc.

 

[Faraer]

Crossover is inevitable; as Pauper says, the most visible thing is the terminology drift. 'Levelling up', ugh. I don't like it either.

I've never seen a tabletop RPG campaign that had a storyline as rich and intricately detailed as the ones found in Baldur's Gate II or Planescape Torment. They may exist, but I have yet to see one, or even hear about one.

Hear about one? Ed Greenwood's Company of Crazed Venturers and Knights of Myth Drannor campaigns, for sure.

 

[DrZombie]

In addition, you miss the face to face interation that sitting across the table from your GM and fellow players instills. There are nuiances to social interaction that you just can't provide in an computer RPG. Not to mention the shared snacks, and the fact that you can easily decide to play something else that day - boardgame, cardgame, another RPG etc.

And you'll never ever fall out of your chair because you've been laughing so hard you lost your balance because of something a player says at exactly the wrong (right) time.
Example of last night:

GM : At the center of the village several natives wait for your arrival. In the center, dressed in full regalia, with a leopardskin cloak and a tall crown-like hat with magnificent feathers, an elder main looks up as you approach.
Player : I step forwards and say : Take me to your leader.....

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I respectfully disagree. I've never seen a tabletop RPG campaign that had a storyline as rich and intricately detailed as the ones found in Baldur's Gate II or Planescape Torment. They may exist, but I have yet to see one, or even hear about one. And, as rounser pointed out, DMs who try to have storylines deep enough and complex enough to compare to those games usually end up railroading the hell out of their players.

But, while BG2 and PT may have incredible storylines, they don't (yet) give you the near total freedom that playing in a good tabletop campaign has. BG2 is very non-linear as far as CRPGs go, but you still can't have your character attempt to do anything he wants.

I ran one of those campaigns once. There were seven or eight major myths that played throughout and against each other during the course of the game. Each person in the game was important and unique, and each decision mattered.

Everyone in the group was a writer or an actor or both, and it came through. We typically played to raise the drama and everyone did their best to create a good story. This game consumed us though. We met 2-3 times a week, and on the days that we wern't playing, a couple of us were writing myths for the game. Given a few general guidelines, we'd go and write the stories of the major heroes who were remembered in the world. The moments when my players saw connections from the little details of the writing they did to the game at hand was wonderful. I still miss that game...

Now, as much as I love the Baldur's Gate series (and my love for PS: Torment is greater) I think you're giving them too much credit in this case. They are very well crafted (the ending sequence to each game was especially wonderful), but you're still connecting key story point to key story point throughout the game. Between story points you can wander a little, but each major event HAS to be hit, you cannot avoid going to certian places. The games, by their very nature, do railroad you. Fallout, on the other hand, was sheer brilliance in the array of options and methods of completion offered (I'm going to go through this time as a brainy talkative type and skip most of the story points). Of course, most of the dialog was pretty dry and there was almost no character interaction.

But frankly, with only one player I could make a pretty darn intricate, detailed and deep storyline while presenting a vast and dizzying array of choices. Especially if said player is willing to let me take actions for him whenever I need to and put words in his mouth.