Videogame Influences!

[UngainlyTitan]

Don't think the battlemat is what people that complaing about the video game influence are on about. I thought it was more the power suit, the focus on class balance and the sharpening up on role aspect.

In 3e you could with certain builds (cleric and druid ) in particular play almost all roles with the one character.
Wizards walked about with a problem solved spell under their hat all the time and so forth. All stuff that makes a bad video game.

 

[Scribble]

The problem that I see with D&D taking on videogame elements isn't so much that it's a bad thing gameplay wise, but rather is that going to be enough to lure casual gamers who would be more inclined to play something like WoW to play something like this? If Wizards decided to streamline their game by incorporating videogame elements solely so that it would appeal to a wider audience, then I'm not sure if that by itself will work.

But what makes you say it's to appeal to "casual" gamers, and trying to appeal to a wider audience?

Couldn't it be that they're just trying to appeal to what they consider their core market? AKA people who enjoy fantasy games?

Again, though, it's sort of the case where you can lure someone new to play because it reminds them of the latest mmorpg de jour they're playing, but whether it will be enough to get them to play it even outside of their normal playing hours on the computer is something else entirely.

But I'm not sure I agree with it trying to "lure someone new to play because it reminds them of the latest mmorpg de jour they're playing."

It seems to imply that there is a seperation in the player as well. IE I either am a videogame player, or I'm a tabletop RPG player, but not both.

I guess thats the crux of my question? Why do some view videogame influence as simply trying to emulate videogames and draw "the videogame crowd," but others (such as myself) see it as looking at what works in a similar medium, and molding it to your own medium in order to improve it?

 

[malraux]

It is the height of hubris to say that the things that you feel are the only things to be felt. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist to be gotten. You may legitimately be blind to what they find to be a major problem, and that's okay. But just as a colorblind person should not claim that "red" does not exist, you should not claim this "feel" does not exist.

But if everyone who claims to feel the videogame influence describes a different element, it makes me think that there's no particular meaning to "feels like a videogame".

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Gee whiz.

Ok, for all of you guys that are thrilled with the *video-game* cross-polenization, etc, and don't *get it* what people's problems are?

Damn, gang. I know you guys are smarter than this. What's got you so blind?

Look, it's simple.

We're all talking about these different concepts that the games share, etc. However, this is precisely it--

Of the various *video game* elements, styles, and so on--some people like *some* of them, *BUT NOT OTHERS*.

It's exactly your inability to accept and allow that others do not desire or enjoy or want certain *video-game* styles, *feels*, approaches, mechanics, etc, to be blended with the table top D&D.

Really, is it that difficult to see, or understand? Some people don't want or enjoy overly-simplified combat mechanics that make them think of video games instead of D&D mythical combat; or the feeling of classes being overly homogenized--like what Blizzard just did in the recent patch to wow--like what some have felt has occured with 4E. Less detailed options. Less mechanical rules to make it easier to *construct* choices, options, pathways, character designs that feel distinctly different from every other NTH lvl *fighter* out there, and so on.

Video Games make everything more simplified, more homogenized, with inherently less detail, less options, less mechanics, less *customization* ability, than a traditional PNP RPG.

That's obviously a sliding scale there, because to a *limited* extent, at least, indeed...Video-Games/MMO's can contribute ideas to making any PNP RPG easier to play, easier to use, for example. But for many, there's a fine line there. You, or others that are having a hard time here, may evidently feel more comfortable with the sliding scale further down that spectrum...that's fine, but others don't. Others have more fun with D&D when those elements are much less, more controlled, and--perhaps if I am interpreting some correctly--

Even if they weren't opposed to some additional simplification, streamlining, etc--they seem to feel in any event that 4E didn't however, do it right, in the right way.

OK. Deep breath. I'm not trying to insult anyone. It just seems like people keep repeating themselves, and lots of you guys keep *not getting it*. I seem to understand where the critics of 4E are coming from, and why they feel what they do. I can see it.

Hopefully, I have helped you guys maybe understand what the rest of the gang here means by their concerns and critiques about elements of *video games* in 4E, and why they do not like it.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[SHARK]

But if everyone who claims to feel the videogame influence describes a different element, it makes me think that there's no particular meaning to "feels like a videogame".

Greetings!

Mal, right there. I'll see if I can give you a crystal clear example. In WOW, all of the classes are pretty homogenized, with similar powers doing *X* damage, but with a different name and slightly different style. There's some variation with the different classes, but there's a huge level of homogenization, and even more bland *BLEH* feeling between characters of the same class.

We clear on those *homogenization* effects in a Video Game, like WOW?

Ok. Now, when you look at the different classes and the similar powers that do lots of very similar things--lots of damage stuff by different names--and with less detailed options, mechanics, and *Customization* in 4E, when compared to 3X, can you see where people would not like that degree of similarity with a common video game feature or process?

It's exactly that degree of similarity with the *Video Game* that many people do not like or enjoy about 4E. They see it as too similar. It is blending a mechanic used in Video Games to a greater degree into D&D than what they enjoy.

Obviously, you don't feel that way, and that's fine. But they see it as too much *Video Game* feel, for what they want in their D&D game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[UngainlyTitan]

In WOW, all of the classes are pretty homogenized, with similar powers doing *X* damage, but with a different name and slightly different style. There's some variation with the different classes, but there's a huge level of homogenization, and even more bland *BLEH* feeling between characters of the same class.

We clear on those *homogenization* effects in a Video Game, like WOW?

snip

It's exactly that degree of similarity with the *Video Game* that many people do not like or enjoy about 4E. They see it as too similar. It is blending a mechanic used in Video Games to a greater degree into D&D than what they enjoy.

Obviously, you don't feel that way, and that's fine. But they see it as too much *Video Game* feel, for what they want in their D&D game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That is one view of video game and here is another

The biggest difference between a videogame and a tabletop RPG is verisimilitude.

This isn't just tossing off buzzwords. Videogames largely get a pass on a lot of believability because they show you pretty pictures. It's OK if you can't go to the Forest of Doom yet, if you're railroaded into a plot, if you can't say "no," if you "farm" monsters, if you can't die...all of this is totally acceptable in a CRPG...

...but all of it finds harder acceptance in a Tabletop RPG.

You can forgive CRPG designers for not being able to program in every possible human iteration.

It's more difficult to forgive a DM (or ruleset) who tells you "no, you can't do that," when clearly, it's *possible*.

This reaches into a few other areas -- videogames are comfortable with a high level of abstraction, a lot of subsystems....tabletop games are not. Videogames work good with complex formula for hiding damage and randomness, tabletop games are better when the maths are simple. Crafting and farming work well in videogames, it's harder to get them to work in tabletop games...It's not bad to have a game influenced by videogames per se. That'll depend upon the taste. But it is a definite flavor.

One thing that 4e does, for instance, that is a lot like a videogame is make positioning of minis very important. Much like moving sprites around on a grid, it's a level of abstraction that might help resolve some combats a bit faster, but it isn't very realistic.

FFZ, of course, takes that idea even further and does the whole combat system abstract, which is even MORE like a videogame.

It is true that a lot of videogames try to reach the same level of open-endedness that D&D and games like it have, but there is always a limit, somewhere, in hardware and software. There's no real limit to the DM except maybe involving heavy maths.

Some of it makes sense to me and some of it does not.

One thing that 4e does, for instance, that is a lot like a videogame is make positioning of minis very important. Much like moving sprites around on a grid, it's a level of abstraction that might help resolve some combats a bit faster, but it isn't very realistic.

This bit of Kamikaze Midget's post makes not sense to me. i get his other points and I get yours Shark. I don't necessarily agree but these are two examples out of a pretty short thread with different views on what is video games and I guess a lot depends on what games you play.
I do not play WoW, though i have played guid wars and I kinda see what you mean with respect to sameness of characters but I don't agree that it applies to D&D at least not as I experience it. In Guid Wars I would still maintain that an Elementalist was a different beast to a necromancer or a fightrer. Never played the later classes.

At least you are giving specifics, and saying what it is about the video game that your don't like. It makes it more meaningful for those of us who don't know the game.

 

[Umbran]

But if everyone who claims to feel the videogame influence describes a different element, it makes me think that there's no particular meaning to "feels like a videogame".

There is a particular meaning - it means that when I play one, it feels to the speaker rather similar to playing the other. You were looking for some objective, quantitative measure, or something? Check it out, we are talking about "feelings". Since when have they been particularly particular?

Think for a second - frequently around here have we had people ask, "What makes the game D&D for you?" And, no matter what edition it is asked for, we gets tons of different, occasionally mutually exclusive answers. If there's no particular definition for what "feels like D&D", we should not expect a single, unified meaning for "feels like a videogame".

Such an expectation seems to me to be unrealistic. Honestly - it's rare to get two people to agree on what makes good pizza, much less something more complicated like RPGs.

 

[Scribble]

It's exactly your inability to accept and allow that others do not desire or enjoy or want certain *video-game* styles, *feels*, approaches, mechanics, etc, to be blended with the table top D&D.

Let me start by saying that I can accept that others have difefrent opinions then I do. I'm seeking to understand what motivates those opinions.

You say a number of interesting things, so I'm going to discuss... But if yuo wouldn't mind leaving the "is it that hard to understand... gee whiz" type comments out I would appreciate it.

I'm also not trying to get into D&D edition war here, because I'm talking about the influence of videogames into tabletop games as a whole, and not specific editions of D&D.

Some people don't want or enjoy overly-simplified combat mechanics that make them think of video games instead of D&D mythical combat; or the feeling of classes being overly homogenized--like what Blizzard just did in the recent patch to wow--like what some have felt has occured with 4E. Less detailed options. Less mechanical rules to make it easier to *construct* choices, options, pathways, character designs that feel distinctly different from every other NTH lvl *fighter* out there, and so on.

Video Games make everything more simplified, more homogenized, with inherently less detail, less options, less mechanics, less *customization* ability, than a traditional PNP RPG.

But is that really a videogame vrs tabletop thing though? Or just an inherent feature of class based systems or just the fact that in the end it's a game?

I mean take say basic D&D... If you played a dwarf... what really seperated you in the game from another dwarf? Equipment choice? Stats? Hit Points?

If you played a wizard, you couldn't wear armor. If you played a cleric, nothing but blunt weapons for you! Lack of options/customization galore, but I'm not sure I've ever heard basic be called too videogamey.

I remember in Vampire the Masquerade certain clans got certain powers..

Or if you're playing a wargame, certain types of troops can do certain actions.

Games in generasl require you to make certain choices, or accept certain "facts" about the moves you can make.

That's obviously a sliding scale there, because to a *limited* extent, at least, indeed...Video-Games/MMO's can contribute ideas to making any PNP RPG easier to play, easier to use, for example. But for many, there's a fine line there. You, or others that are having a hard time here, may evidently feel more comfortable with the sliding scale further down that spectrum...that's fine, but others don't. Others have more fun with D&D when those elements are much less, more controlled, and--perhaps if I am interpreting some correctly--

I think what I'm really looking for are those lines?

We have to different mediums for simmulating fantasy. Both rely on a level of math and percentages to resolve conflicts and questions.

Would those same lines exist if say, D&D was taking influences from other P&P games?

 

[malraux]

There is a particular meaning - it means that when I play one, it feels to the speaker rather similar to playing the other. You were looking for some objective, quantitative measure, or something? Check it out, we are talking about "feelings". Since when have they been particularly particular?

Think for a second - frequently around here have we had people ask, "What makes the game D&D for you?" And, no matter what edition it is asked for, we gets tons of different, occasionally mutually exclusive answers. If there's no particular definition for what "feels like D&D", we should not expect a single, unified meaning for "feels like a videogame".

Such an expectation seems to me to be unrealistic. Honestly - it's rare to get two people to agree on what makes good pizza, much less something more complicated like RPGs.

Some feelings have pretty uniform definitions though. If I were to describe a game as boring, you might not subjectively agree with my assessment, but you'd at least know what I was saying.

When a person starts complaining about 4e feeling video-gamey, I don't know what they mean. Moreover, its clear that having some similarity with some game somewhere isn't a problem for people, as almost every game has hp, levels, etc. From reading the videogamey complaints, it seems to me that the real problem is just whatever the person is claiming is similar to video games. That is, would Kamikaze Midget find the focus on minis and positioning a bad thing if it weren't in video games? Or shark find the classes acceptably similar if WoW were not popular? Both of those complaints I can see and understand, even if I don't agree. But there's really not a common thread between them, so I don't see the utility in using the same word to describe the sensation.

 

[SHARK]

Some feelings have pretty uniform definitions though. If I were to describe a game as boring, you might not subjectively agree with my assessment, but you'd at least know what I was saying.

When a person starts complaining about 4e feeling video-gamey, I don't know what they mean. Moreover, its clear that having some similarity with some game somewhere isn't a problem for people, as almost every game has hp, levels, etc. From reading the videogamey complaints, it seems to me that the real problem is just whatever the person is claiming is similar to video games. That is, would Kamikaze Midget find the focus on minis and positioning a bad thing if it weren't in video games? Or shark find the classes acceptably similar if WoW were not popular? Both of those complaints I can see and understand, even if I don't agree. But there's really not a common thread between them, so I don't see the utility in using the same word to describe the sensation.

Greetings!

Well, Mal, no. The example I gave has *NOTHING* to do with WOW's or any other video game's *POPULARITY*. Ok, I'll try this again.

All video games tend to homogenize character classes. All video games tend to highly simplify combat mechanics, movement, what have you. All video games tend to have pretty similar powers and attacks for their character classes.

All of this is true to a greater extent than what is done with Table RPG's.

Thus, in many people's view, when a Table RPG adopts processes that are closer to what Video Games do than Table RPG's, (IE Homogenization of powers, less customization of characters, fewer actual mechanical rules in which to design things, rather just leaving it up to you to *imagine* it from whole cloth; More conforming strictures channeling characters into the same avenues of play) then such a game resembles a Video Game too much in a way as to detract from the desired milieu of the individual's campaign.

QED.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK