Taking a Break

[LostSoul]

Video-gamey: Having qualities akin to a video game. Specifically, the degree to which mundane abilities/decisions are constrained by the ruleset/gamist concerns.

That was not what I understood from our discussion.

What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game. Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.

 

[Vurt]

That was not what I understood from our discussion.

What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game. Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.

I think you could add, "those qualities of a game which remind you of elements usually found in a video game."

For example, all editions of D&D to some degree have usually tailored challenges around the party level. As level went up, so did the challenges. The lower level challenges still existed, but you didn't focus on them, presumably lower level adventurers dealt with them, or you handwaved that the party handled them out of game, or you just made them invisible to the players.

This is not unlike the rendering process of most 3D video games--you only focus on the objects directly in front of the player, and toss out anything that might otherwise exist on the map outside the field of view of the frame.

If you play both RPGs and are familiar with the language of 3D shooters, you might make the connection, and thereafter be reminded of it every time you encounter it in the RPG. And even though you could find it in evidence in the RPG long before video games ever came out, well that's just history, and it really doesn't necessarily impinge on how someone might "feel" when it's encountered.

And I wouldn't say it was unjustified if that player looked at how all the monsters he encountered were level-appropriate and said that that felt "video-gamey" to him.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That was not what I understood from our discussion.

What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game. Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.

Different phraseology, same basic idea.

The constraint was specifically on non-supernatural actions, though....those which would not be so constrained by any sort of "real" world, thus violating the player's sense of verisimilitude. The feeling that the game is "videogame-y" is based upon the degree to which possible choices feel scripted by the designer(s).

However, your second sentence is open to debate (in any system).

RC

 

[That One Guy]

Just took a break, it was nice. Being back is nicer. A fine establishment we have here.

Dude, Family, welcome back! (I actually was wondering where you had gone off to when I made my comment to this thread)

 

[Hussar]

"Hot-button" and "intellectually lazy" are at least as vague as video-gamey. So, if they are "just useless to conversation and act as active barriers to communication", why are you using them?

Hrm, Hot button - terms deliberately chosen to provoke a negative reaction. Intellectually lazy - not bothering to actually attempt to communicate in any meaningful way, but rather, simply trying to score points in an internet debate.

Assuming, of course, that we agree about what "non-cumbersome/clunky" means in this context. Or that this is all that elegance means in terms of game design, which I do not think it is. It is, for example, at least as important IMHO that a system be appropriate to be elegant. "Flip a coin" or "DM desides" are the most "elegant" solutions to any problem given the definition you believe entirely nails the term down, but I doubt very much that this is what one expects from an "elegant" ruleset!



Barring, of course, the answers given (including mine).

Video-gamey: Having qualities akin to a video game. Specifically, the degree to which mundane abilities/decisions are constrained by the ruleset/gamist concerns.

RC

Oh, true, we can argue about whether a given rule is elegant or not. Fair enough. But, as you say yourself, we're on the same page when discussing things. Is X elegant? Well, we can discuss that. But, at no point are we disagreeing about what elegant means.

If a term generates fifteen different definitions from fifteen different people, I would say that that term is extremely vague. The fact that the term is also very loaded and carries strong negative connotations only hurts any attempt to communicate.

That was not what I understood from our discussion.

What I understood was: A feeling the player gets from his choices being constrained by the system that reminds him of playing a video game. Note that his PC's choices are not so constrained.

Heh. Eight pages of definitions, every one of them different. It doesn't matter what you or I think it means. The term is so broad it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. In other words, the best defition that I can think of is, "I don't like X. I don't like (some elements from) video games. Therefore X is videogamey".

Are there commonalities? Of course their are. But, why not actually just stick to those rather than cloud the issue?

A while ago I talked about Shadowfax being a Pokemount. I did it for two reasons. One was to tweak RC's nose (which is always fun ) and the other was to actually make a point.

In the discussion, RC raised criticisms about the 3e mechanics for a paladin's mount and couched these in the term "pokemount". I asked him to clarify what he actually meant by this term and things went back and forth for a while and it eventually boiled down that the only real point of comparison between Pocket Monsters and the paladin's mount is the fact that they are both summonable. The resemble each other in no other way - thematically or mechanically.

So, what did Pokemount actually mean? I understood that it was a negative term in context, but, since the only commonalities were the fact that both come out when called, I didn't really get the point.

Had RC simply stated something along the lines of, "I find the mechanics for summoning a paladin's mount to be flat, bland and boring" then we could have a discussion. Instead, we wound up going around and around the pedantic track, yet again, because he insisted on using a neologism that didn't make any real sense.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Maybe all the negativity stems from the fact that a whole heck of a lot of people don't like 4E?

Their opinions shouldn't be silenced just because other people do like it.

There's a message here and the sooner WotC wises up and admits it, the better off they'll be: they screwed up the release of 4E.

 

[Jhaelen]

There's a message here and the sooner WotC wises up and admits it, the better off they'll be: they screwed up the release of 4E.

Did they, though?

 

[Rel]

Maybe all the negativity stems from the fact that a whole heck of a lot of people don't like 4E?

Their opinions shouldn't be silenced just because other people do like it.

There's a message here and the sooner WotC wises up and admits it, the better off they'll be: they screwed up the release of 4E.

Did they, though?

This is an excellent conversation not to have in this thread.

 

[LostSoul]

Different phraseology, same basic idea.

The constraint was specifically on non-supernatural actions, though....those which would not be so constrained by any sort of "real" world, thus violating the player's sense of verisimilitude. The feeling that the game is "videogame-y" is based upon the degree to which possible choices feel scripted by the designer(s).

However, your second sentence is open to debate (in any system).

RC

Yeah, the basic idea is the same.

I did want to put that second sentence in there because that's where all the confusion on my part was coming from. I remember the argument like this:

RC: You can't disarm someone more than once per encounter. That's a constraint like a video game.
LS: No, your PC can disarm someone more than once per encounter, and here's a whole bunch of ways how he can.
<argue about those examples for a while>
RC: It's the player's experience that matters - he can choose to use the mundane disarm power once per encounter, and that constraint makes it feel like a video game.
LS: Oh, yeah, I get it now. It's not so much about what's going on in the fiction, it's about the choices the player has.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Intellectually lazy - not bothering to actually attempt to communicate in any meaningful way, but rather, simply trying to score points in an internet debate.

You will note, I hope, that I have said repeatedly that I fully believe that we are as much on the same page with the term "videogame-y" as we are with the term "elegance". The difference, IMHO, as that when you use certain terms, some choose not to understand, because they are not interested in attempting to communicate in any meaningfuly way.

Even if a "term is so broad it can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean", if you are interested in communicating in a meaningful way, and I am willing to elaborate what I mean, the only way you can cry "I don't understand what is meant!" is if you are simply trying to score points in an internet debate.

In the discussion, RC raised criticisms about the 3e mechanics for a paladin's mount and couched these in the term "pokemount". I asked him to clarify what he actually meant by this term and things went back and forth for a while and it eventually boiled down that the only real point of comparison between Pocket Monsters and the paladin's mount is the fact that they are both summonable. The resemble each other in no other way - thematically or mechanically.

Actually, I argued that the 3.5 mechanic for the paladin's mount was inappropriate given the general context of the paladin's mount from any previous edition, effectively making it similar to a pokemon. You (and others) argued that this is no different from any other type of summoning, and I disagreed. You now seem to feel that your point of view is somehow what things "boiled down" to, but I feel differently.


RC