video game design trends and PnP rpgs

[alsih2o]

way back when atari meant video games and no number was needed to distinguish which system you had because there was only one games used to beat you. you could not win, things went on and on getting harder and harder until you died.

later, it became possible to play with or against someone else. now it seems like most of the games made are made with the goal of a player eventually "beating" them. you save your game along the way, learn hints and tricks and hopefully will get rewarded in the end with some suitable display of victory.

now i can have fun with any of the above and i see them all as valida and entertaining ways to desing a game but i was just wondering if this change in mentallity towards video games has changed the tone and demeanor of pen and paper r.p.g.'s any at all, and if so how?

 

[Zaruthustran]

Yes

Fascinating observation!

I'd say "yes", this trend does appear in paper RPGs. But not exactly in the way you describe (infinite challenge/winning).

What I mean is, both early RPGs and early video games were game-focused. It was all about the game itself: the challenge, the rules, the graphics/presentation. Players measured success by seeing if they could beat their previous high score, or their buddy's high score. The focus was on struggling.

Currently, both RPGs and video games are player-focused. It's all about assuming a role, gaining personal power, achieving goals. Sure, graphics and challenge are still present, but the focus has changed. Players measure success by seeing how fast they could beat the game, or if their character could beat up their buddy's character. The focus was on winning.

Specific RPG example
Old school: we played D&D last weekend. Bob ran a great game. We made it to the seventh level of the dungeon. I'm looking forward to tackling the eighth level next weekend.
New school: we played D&D last weekend. Bob ran a great game. My character leveled up to seventh. I'm looking forward to gaining a new prestige class next weekend.


It's not just player attitude that's changed. The rules have changed. Original D&D had rules for character advancement, sure, but the focus of the rules was on dungeon building. The current PHB (and even DMG) is focused on character building.

-z

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a fan of the more recent developments.

But I do see what you're saying. My DMing style is based, in large part, on the videogames that inspire my campaigns....it's all about the story.

 

[Melan]

Interesting observation, but I am doubtful about the connection. IMHO the game changed because a few characters survived long enough to have a story and a meaning beyond the numbers on the sheet and you started to care for them and even expected the DM to treat your character better. At least a little bit.

Let's not forget, D&D came from wargames, where troops and special units are all expendable - but D&D has grown into a "simulation" (albeit not too accurate) of fiction versus just a fancy tabletop game for jaded wargamers.

Of course, later, both D&D and computer games became easier, sometimes too easy. For computer games, this could be explained by the fact that the average player spends less time playing one game (you didn't have much variety in the old days) and wants to win it pretty fast... And then move on to Game CXVIII. Getting the money of this huge market segment has been of the greatest importance to game developers for years.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

I'd say video game design and pnp design have probably influenced each other. Once computer graphics started to reach a stage where they could reasonably represent rpg concepts, those concepts started to appear in the games. Not so much in the arcade games, but in pc games for sure.

I still remember the first time I saw someone save their Warlords II game before launching a key attack. I thought "Hey, that's cheating!" Now of course games are designed with this concept built in.

From what I can see, pnp now has more assumptions of save or reset built in, in the form of resurrect/healing magic. Back in the day, I never had a character resurrected - dead was dead. The idea of an npc accepting money to raise someone from the dead was considered laughable. Now...well now you fork over the dosh and play again.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I think video/computer games and PnP rpgs have had huge influences on each other.

The most intriguing influence, to me, is the issue of balance. Go back twenty or twenty-five years, and balance as we know it today was not a big issue. On p. 25 of the 1e PHB, Gary Gygax says, "Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all charcater classes when high levels of ability are finally attained." And on p. 30, Gary writes, "The monk is the most unusual of all characters, the hardest to qualify for, and perhaps, the most deadly." And he was right - high-level magic-users and high-level monks owned other classes in 1e. Today, if any designer even hinted that one class might be "the most fearsome" or "the most deadly," he would be ridiculed for being so stupid as to make one possible character choice more powerful than another.

I think that is due to the influence of computer/video games. In a computer rpg, the programmer isn't there as the player plays, and he can't make real-time adjustments to keep the game interesting for the player. So the programmer has to make all character choices equally powerful against the game's challenges from the start, so that the player can legitimately choose how to play and be entertained no matter what. In a PnP rpg, there is less need for this 'balance,' because the DM is there to make things interesting for the player no matter what character he chooses. In a subtle but very real way, unbalancing the classes gives the player a lot of power over the world. If the player chooses a lower-powered class, the DM, to make things interesting for the player, will be obliged to send up lower-powered monsters against the character.

Which is not to say that unbalancing the classes is necessarily the right way to go. There is a lot of good from balancing the classes too - for one, it gives people a great topic to debate: "Is X broken? Is Y overpowered?" Also, it makes it easier for everyone to find a role in a mixed group, it makes people feel more secure that they won't regret their class decision or get 'power envy' later on, and it does a host of other good things. I just think it's interesting how everyone talks about balance now, and it really wasn't such a huge issue back in the day. I think computer games are what helped make it an issue.