Interesting Post by Mearls on rpg.net

[Sir Brennen]

This is the point where the analogy breaks down. The key difference between wargames and RPGs is that wargames are, to a very large extent, entirely mechanical. As such, a 'pure' translation to the computer screen will replicate the play experience very well indeed.

RPGs, on the other hand, have a mechanical core, but around that have a strong shell of interactive storytelling and improvisational acting. They also traditionally have a much more unbounded set of options to them - in a war game each unit has a very limited range of things that it can do; in an RPG a character can at least attempt any action within the bounds of human (and sometimes non-human) capability. That cannot be readily translated to the computer screen. Playing WoW is a very different experience to playing a tabletop RPG in anything but a fairly constrained hack-and-slash manner.

So you're saying that actual role-playing and interactive storytelling will never be possible by a group of humans connected over the internet within a programmed game world?

I disagree. In fact, I think more interactivity which replicates the tabletop experience is where at least a segment of the market is heading.

 

[Imaro]

So you're saying that actual role-playing and interactive storytelling will never be possible by a group of humans connected over the internet within a programmed game world?

I disagree. In fact, I think more interactivity which replicates the tabletop experience is where at least a segment of the market is heading.

Yes, but won't this still be limited by the medium of what is "possible" in the created gameworld?

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Wargames met their death knell in the 90's. Computer strategy games have nearly replaced them all (with perhaps rare exception to the almost cult-like following behind Warhammer). Mearls seems to indicate that there is some similar trends amongst tabletop games, and WotC has to adapt to some degree.

Personally, I believe a lot of tabletop games are going to move to the widget-style we see with a large number of Fantasy Flight Games (and which may also be the reason why Warhammer v3 is getting the full FFG treatment with interactive pieces to use at the table). Hybridized games such as 4E, driven by widgets (power cards) and built around a parallel property (figures) is one such way to crest the wave (tabletop industry) as it begins to recede.

You can bank on the fact that all tabletop games WILL have interactive elements within them from here on out, whether it be physical widgets and/or online-driven properties and content. The burgeoning generation of gamers are interactive web 2.0 users, weened on video games written by English-speaking gaming companies that are extraordinarily deep. If they are to become to inheritors to our hobby (and they will), the industry HAS to keep ahead of the curve by developing products that cater to their generation. Grognard or not, that's the future of the hobby - and it's not my opinion, it's an undeniable fact.

 

[delericho]

So you're saying that actual role-playing and interactive storytelling will never be possible by a group of humans connected over the internet within a programmed game world?

It's possible as long as everyone involved is a PC. As soon as you get NPCs in the mix, you're tightly constrained by the behaviours that the programmer envisaged when putting together his adventure.

For example: Imagine we have a tribe of Lizardfolk guarding a MacGuffin. The player of the Bard says, "I'll try to persuade them to just hand it over!" Being as this is a fairly unusual choice (the most common would be to attack), this wasn't envisaged by the adventure writer.

In D&D: The DM makes a ruling, assigns a difficulty, and the player rolls. Unless it's a bad DM, he at least gets to make the attempt.

In an MMO: No joy. It wasn't an option the designer envisaged, so it can't be done.

The nature of the computer program is that there will always be limits of this sort. And the moment there are NPCs in the mix, we hit the problem.

So, the MMO simply cannot replicate the same sort of unbounded play that the presence of a DM provides to the tabletop game.

The basic point I'm getting at is this: there are things the computer is really good at (handling the math, special effects, combat), and things that it is inherently bad at (handling NPCs, improvising, creating anything new). It would be a poor choice to try to compete with the machine against its strengths; go for the weaknesses instead.

 

[amysrevenge]

I think folks should be a bit more careful saying things like "can't" and "never".

Can a computer (today) be as flexible and engaging as a good DM? Heck, no.

Will a computer (ever) be able to do this? Probably, yes.

 

[Dire Bare]

It's worth noting however that the company the most "You're killing D&D!" ire is directed against, Blizzard, does not innovate.

I would disagree with this. I think Blizzard is an incredibly innovative company. It's true that their flagship games, Warcraft, Diablo, and Starcraft, all pull from common fantasy and sci fi tropes . . . as do practically all popular games, MMO or tabletop. But you can create a game, a novel, a movie or any type of artwork within genre tropes and still be innovative and creative.

Blizzard, IMO, does an excellent job taking those tropes and twisting them into something new and different. When first playing WoW, I became entranced with the Tauren race. The Tauren felt so different from any other fantasy race I had gamed before. It took me a while to even realize that Tauren are actually Minotaurs, but portrayed quite differently than standard fantasy Minotaurs! The Blood Elves, the Night Elves, the Goblins, the Draenai, and even the Orcs are all based on standard fantasy tropes, but are quite innovatively different from the source material.

And of course, putting the story elements aside . . . Blizzard has done an amazing job of innovation in constructing the actual game of WoW itself! WoW didn't simply copy earlier MMOs, it took the basic form and built on top of it to become the new standard. A lot of what we take for granted in MMO design springs from WoW.

Now, I'm not saying WoW is a perfect game or there still isn't room for further innovation and improvement . . . but to somehow view Blizzard as a company that doesn't innovate, it's just ridiculous!

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes, but won't this still be limited by the medium of what is "possible" in the created gameworld?

With current technology, okay. But never say never. What will be possible tomorrow will blow us away (if we're still around, that is).

Look to science fiction and the many stories that feature world-wide virtual reality that is so complex it is practically limitless! We may or may not get to that point in reality, but we are already approaching it.

I'm more worried about possible lessons from Star Trek's holodeck! Will the future VRNet become self-aware, in part or in whole, and try to off us? Eep!

 

[Scribble]

But it does not have to be able to replicate human imagination in order to dominate. Whether human imagination is limitless or not is not really relevant - the market for leisure dollars is finite. The fact that published adventures and campaign settings (and, in fact, one major dominant rules sysstem) exist makes it clear that people don't need "infinite" variety in order to play a game. They simply need enough variety to keep things entertaining.

There's a pretty interesting article in last month's Wired magazine that shows how technology doesn't have to be "The Best" in order to win the market.

A whole lot of people don't want the product that is the "highest quality" or the "most features." If it allows them to do the main "thing" they want to do, and it's cheaper/easier to use? Then it's "Good Enough." And for these people, going further then good enough, and sacrificing ease of use for "higher quality" means they no longer want to be a part of your product.

Not everyone wants a camera they can adjust f stops and speed settings, while adding new lenses and manually adjusting focus... They just want a camera that they can point at their friends, snap a picture then quickly upload it to Facebook. Start adding new "quality" features, and these people back away if it takes them more effort to update their Facebook.

Same for computer vrs tabletop. Not everyone wants to be able to do "anything" in the game if it means more work on their end. They just want to sit down, and be a "Nightelf Mohawk" for a little while.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

This is exactly what I don't like about 3rd edition--that the more you know the system, the better you are at the game. It is a "munchkin's" wet dream.

Unless your definition of "the game" is limited to "building a hyper-optimized PC," then what you've said isn't true, and nor is it a fair paraphrase of what the quoted poster said.

Personally speaking, there's a helluva lot more to the game than "knowing the system," like, for example, role-playing, cooperation, tactical thinking, resource management, luck, and on and on. "System mastery" is, IME of having played and DMed 3E for 9 years now, a tiny fraction of being good at 3E.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's possible as long as everyone involved is a PC. As soon as you get NPCs in the mix, you're tightly constrained by the behaviours that the programmer envisaged when putting together his adventure.

I think "tightly constrained" may be overstating things as technology exists now, and it will become much more an overstatement as technology progresses.

If it's possible to provide options such that 99 out of 100 players will choose actions that have been provided for in the code, is that "tightly constrained"? I don't think it is.

A coder doesn't have to allow for "everything," or even "nearly everything," that's possible; a coder only has to allow for things that "nearly everyone" will attempt.