Taking a Break

[ProfessorCirno]

Criticism of any game system should be allowed. Of course, if you're going to use undefined "negative" terms like videogame-y, WOW-like, unfun, etc., without explanation that will inevitably cause problems.

I can see the others except "videogame-y," as I've seen NEW players say 4e "feels like a video game." I agree that it should be explained, but saying 4e feels like a video game isn't some horrifyingly insulting low blow that some people make it out to be.

 

[Branduil]

Videogame-y is funny because it changes from an insult to a compliment depending on who is using it. It's still rarely a good description though, as it means nothing.

For instance, hit points are videogame-y.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I can see the others except "videogame-y," as I've seen NEW players say 4e "feels like a video game." I agree that it should be explained, but saying 4e feels like a video game isn't some horrifyingly insulting low blow that some people make it out to be.

I will agree if that is rephrased as "saying 4e feels like a video game isn't INHERITLY the horrifyingly insulting low blow that some people make it out to be".

The problem is two-fold:

1) Many posters here remember the "3e is anime!" cries from a few years back and (myself included here) feel that this is just the next step. So anyone that was tired of the (justified or not) "Anime!" cries tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to "video-gamey!". I have no doubt I am guilt of this reaction myself.

2) Most OPs that I have seen (I honestly think all of the ones I have seen - though I could easily be misrembering or missed some along the way) don't explain why they say it feels like video game or why they feel this is a bad thing. And yes, I have seen 4e advocates that are just as bad in this regard.

It is very difficult (if not impossable) to have a deep discussion back and forth if both sides don't agree on what they are discussing. If niether side specifies what they feel is "video gamey" one side could be talking about the new spell casting system while the other is talking about fighters and 'agro'. How can we even discuss if something is good or bad for a system if we're not talking about the same thing?

I know you said you agree with this next section Cirno, but I'm going to go on because I think it needs to stated and an example given.

I'm hoping to finally play 4e this weekend (or at least mess around with it with another player from my 3e game). Many of the things about 4e I think I'm going to like but the new Saving Throw system I'm worried has been overly simplifed. It doesn't matter the caster level, spell level or level of the target - 10+ wins the day. A first level caster vs a level 30 character or a level 30 caster versus a level 1 target - doesn't matter, it's the same target number.

I can see advantages (doesn't matter the caster level of guy who built the trap in the 3000 year old ruin) but I can't help but think something could have been done to bring more of "the characters" into it. Say, the saving throw would be "X + 1/2 caster level" or something and then have feats/exploits that give bonuses to the save.

That is an honest worry I have about 4e. Maybe it'll play fine or maybe I'll be saying "it's worse than I thought" in a week or so. I have no doubt the above example will go over much better with many posters here than "4e has been dumbed down and therefore sucks" which is how many undetailed critizisms come across to me.

From my standpoint saying someone has problems with 4e is fine (heck, I just did that a couple paragraphs earlier). Saying they don't like 4e is fine. Even saying "X, Y and Z of 4e feels like a video game and I don't like it because of reasons 1, 2 and 3" is fine with me. But if someone actually wants to have a conversation about what is bad or what is good about 4e they need to be a little more detailed about why the game is the worst thing to happen to the industry or why it is a blessing from above.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Videogame-y is funny because it changes from an insult to a compliment depending on who is using it. It's still rarely a good description though, as it means nothing.

For instance, hit points are videogame-y.

In another thread, I defined what I meant by videogame-y, and when I did, LostSoul (pro-4e) agreed with me that 4e is more videogame-y than 3e. It just goes to show that the process of definition really can work.

(In my definition, a game is more like a videogame when the ability to attempt mundane tasks -- i.e., non-magical tasks -- has more constraint based upon design principles or what the author/s view as proper game flow. It doesn't matter to me whether or not this is restricted solely to PCs or NPCs. In a video game, several mundane actions which seem logical to the player may be impossible to attempt simply because the game designer didn't think that they should be attempted. Likewise, mundane tasks that can only be attempted X times per day -- as opposed to, say, altering the chance of success based on circumstances -- make a game more videogame-y. In this case, videogame-y is at the opposite pole from simulationism. When Gygax wrote about why video games would never replace pnp RPGs, it was specificially this ability to simulate that he claimed was the primary difference....and I agree with him.)


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Excellent point, Jedi_Solo. I share your concerns about saving throws, incidentally. If someone started a thread saying nothing but "4e sucks" it would be regarded as trolling on the basis that it says nothing substantive. But to say 4e is like a videogame is barely more substantive so ought to be regarded as trolling also. That it's expressing a genuinely held belief is irrelevant, the "4e sucks" post does that and is still worthless. Compare those comments to the criticisms made about 3e such as that casters are too powerful or prep is too time consuming which are far more precise.

We had a "What do you mean by videogame-y?" thread recently and the tremendous diversity of definitions (and videogames mentioned) imo demonstrated how useless the term is. Some took it to mean that 4e has a strong emphasis on combat, which would of course mean that every version of D&D has been videogame-y. And most other ttrpgs, too. If anything ttrpgs feature combat more than videogames do, given the large number of platforms, puzzles, flight sims and the like.

In closing I wish to add that D&D is too wargame-y. By this I mean that the level mechanic is derived from Chainmail's hero and superhero figures who took 4 and 8 hits to kill, respectively.

 

[Fifth Element]

I acknowledge that I can, do, and will notice the asshats on the opposite side far more then I would notice them on this side.

Yeah, that's just human nature really. It's a confirmation bias - you pay more attention to things that support your position than to those that refute it. We all do it some extent or another.

 

[Fifth Element]

We had a "What do you mean by videogame-y?" thread recently and the tremendous diversity of definitions (and videogames mentioned) imo demonstrated how useless the term is.

True. When someone says something like "videogame-y" they are generally not talking about the game itself, but about their perceptions of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"X is a bad term. It means nothing, and also has an offensive meaning."



Really, the same problem exists with a lot of terms. We don't all agree, for example, on the meaning of "D&D", yet no one would suggest that we stop using the term.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"X is a bad term. It means nothing, and also has an offensive meaning."



Really, the same problem exists with a lot of terms. We don't all agree, for example, on the meaning of "D&D", yet no one would suggest that we stop using the term.


RC

Maybe the solution is to not use such names and words in an offensive context?

"It is videogamey" or "it is not D&D" are good examples. There are situations where this can be a non-offensive statement. But way too often, they are not. (Shadowrun is not D&D. WoW is videogamey. That might work as non-offensive...)

 

[Desdichado]

Worst. Dear John. Ever.