Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3345062" data-attributes="member: 6777">I think one relevant point that was hinted at in the interview was the idea of providing what CRPGs can't. And, as both Dancey says and Bruce Baugh has said, typical D&amp;D play (and similar games) provide a default experience that CRPGs can at least approximate. I.e., if you want to kill things and take their stuff, WoW can do that pretty much just as good, if not better (in some ways) than a TRPG. Ditto if you want to be a passive observer of a detailed game world and/or plotline. Add in the comment about Moore's law, and CRPGs are only going to keep on approximating the experience better and better.However --and I don't mean to sound like an indie fanboy, 'cause it's D&amp;D that I play most often-- there are newer games that provide an experience that simply cannot (yet) be duplicated with a CRPG. The non-tactical, premise-focused, heavy-player-input games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Prime Time Adventures, and Sorcerer simply can't be done other than via a group of people sitting around a table (or at least communicating via some method, e.g., Skype). This is exactly what the FtB host was trying to get at.These kinds of games may not be able to counteract the &quot;long tail,&quot; but they're a better argument for the tabletop than D&amp;D*, unfortunately.* Typical D&amp;D, at least. There are certainly groups out there who de-emphasize the tactical aspect and play up the &quot;human element,&quot; as it were. And again, we're talking about &quot;good enough&quot; play experience, not an identical one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3345062, member: 6777"] I think one relevant point that was hinted at in the interview was the idea of providing what CRPGs can't. And, as both Dancey says and Bruce Baugh has said, typical D&D play (and similar games) provide a default experience that CRPGs can at least [I]approximate[/I]. I.e., if you want to kill things and take their stuff, WoW can do that pretty much just as good, if not better (in some ways) than a TRPG. Ditto if you want to be a passive observer of a detailed game world and/or plotline. Add in the comment about Moore's law, and CRPGs are only going to keep on approximating the experience better and better. However --and I don't mean to sound like an indie fanboy, 'cause it's D&D that I play most often-- there are newer games that provide an experience that simply cannot (yet) be duplicated with a CRPG. The non-tactical, premise-focused, heavy-player-input games like [I]Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, Prime Time Adventures[/I], and [I]Sorcerer[/I] simply [I]can't[/I] be done other than via a group of people sitting around a table (or at least communicating via some method, e.g., Skype). This is exactly what the FtB host was trying to get at. These kinds of games may not be able to counteract the "long tail," but they're a better argument for the tabletop than D&D*, unfortunately. * [i]Typical[/i] D&D, at least. There are certainly groups out there who de-emphasize the tactical aspect and play up the "human element," as it were. And again, we're talking about "good enough" play experience, not an identical one. [/QUOTE]

Verification