What Can We Learn from CRPGS?

[Jd Smith1]

The GM always has to do prep for RPG's. Even to run an introductory module. Having to do some prep negate out of the box sandbox play? By that standard no RPG is ready to play so much as a starter set module 'out of the box', because the GM would have to still do some prep to run it. That's a ridiculous standard to hold over RPG's.

No, that's the standard you set when you made the claim that they are sandbox-ready 'out of the box'.

You don't have to work up 100's of locations in advance. That would be silly. You have a faulty idea of how much prep it takes to run a sandbox campaign.

You can do entire sandbox campaign with the PC's perusing their own goals. And the GM throwing possible Adventure Hooks aka the random quest at the PC's does not = railroad/non-sandbox. PC's always have a choice as the GM is not forcing them into some preplanned storyline for the campaign. [

Actually, that is exactly what a sandbox campaign means: the group can go anywhere, and find fully-fleshed-out locations, NPCs, and side quests ready and waiting.

Yes, that is the kind of sandbox play that is done by RPG's. many fantasy RPG's have random tables to roll on for all these kind of things. There is no core plotline in any well run campaign.

Seems you are comparing what you can do in videogames to the 'Adventure path' standard that has reared its head since 3e D&D.

That's not sandbox play; sandbox means that the players are not constrained. CRPGs have managed that; RPGs aspire, but cannot. And there are numerous award-winning campaigns, not to mention countless GM-written campaigns, built around a central plot. Yes, you can form a group from strangers in a tavern, and endlessly grind heavily-populated random ruins too.

However, many players like to be part of a larger undertaking than 'monsters from the old, illogically-placed ruins are terrorizing the countryside'. They enjoy, over 50-70 weekly sessions, to unravel larger goings-on, while pursuing individual goals and side-quests.

Point out what what videogames can't do? The obvious is obvious. And if they aren't obvious to you, then this whole little debate we are having is completely futile.

It's apparent that what you want out of your gaming experiences is more in line to what videogames deliver: You prefer the visual input and production values of videogames (willingly accepting their limitations to have it), to the minds eye of imagination. That's fine.

If it is obvious, point out what a CRPG can't do that an RPG can. So far, you don't seem to have found any point on which to stand.

 

[Jaeger]

No, that's the standard you set when you made the claim that they are sandbox-ready 'out of the box'.

Nope.

GM Prep is inherent in RPG's. You are separating out a processes of playing the game, and saying "If you do this thing everyone does to run any RPG session," you are not ready to go "out of the box'.

That's like telling everyone that the game of Monopoly is not ready to go out of the box. Everyone would say you're being ridiculous.

No Computer game is ready to go 'out of the box' by that standard. When you bought Skyrim you could not play it 'out of the box'. You need to interface the game with other devices to play it like the relevant Console. And then there's the downloading of game patches...

Actually, that is exactly what a sandbox campaign means: the group can go anywhere, and find fully-fleshed-out locations, NPCs, and side quests ready and waiting.

You have a different idea of the level of detail required for sandbox play for RPG's compared to everyone else I have come across in the hobby.

No one who engages in sandbox play has everything fully fleshed out before hand. Nor have I heard of anyone but you on RPG forums trot out "100% fully-fleshed-out locations, NPCs, and side quests ready and waiting" as a standard for playing an RPG in the sandbox style.

That's not sandbox play; sandbox means that the players are not constrained. CRPGs have managed that;

No. It is exactly the opposite situation.

Videogames have much greater player constraint inherent in their very design. They simply cannot account for and adjudicate every possible player action and situation.

RPG's can because they have a GM that can adapt on the fly to all kinds of PC craziness.

If it is obvious, point out what a CRPG can't do that an RPG can. So far, you don't seem to have found any point on which to stand.

Why should I point out the obvious when you have so much experience in the RPG hobby?

If you really don't know with all your experience, then nothing I can point out will convince you.

As for points on which to stand, lets see if you are able to acknowledge one I have just made in my other replies to your recent rebuttal...

 

[Campbell]

I feel like GMs could stand to learn a fair bit about dynamic combat encounters that require coordination to beat from the better MMOs (World of Warcraft/Final Fantasy XIV).

The dynamic environments of Breath of the Wild and how they respond to player actions are another.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Nope.

GM Prep is inherent in RPG's. You are separating out a processes of playing the game, and saying "If you do this thing everyone does to run any RPG session," you are not ready to go "out of the box'.

That's like telling everyone that the game of Monopoly is not ready to go out of the box. Everyone would say you're being ridiculous.

No Computer game is ready to go 'out of the box' by that standard. When you bought Skyrim you could not play it 'out of the box'. You need to interface the game with other devices to play it like the relevant Console. And then there's the downloading of game patches...




You have a different idea of the level of detail required for sandbox play for RPG's compared to everyone else I have come across in the hobby.

No one who engages in sandbox play has everything fully fleshed out before hand. Nor have I heard of anyone but you on RPG forums trot out "100% fully-fleshed-out locations, NPCs, and side quests ready and waiting" as a standard for playing an RPG in the sandbox style.




No. It is exactly the opposite situation.

Videogames have much greater player constraint inherent in their very design. They simply cannot account for and adjudicate every possible player action and situation.

RPG's can because they have a GM that can adapt on the fly to all kinds of PC craziness.




Why should I point out the obvious when you have so much experience in the RPG hobby?

If you really don't know with all your experience, then nothing I can point out will convince you.

As for points on which to stand, lets see if you are able to acknowledge one I have just made in my other replies to your recent rebuttal...

You've made no points, nor replied directly to any question. The fact that your experience doesn't cover a given situation is not proof of anything but a lack of experience. So far, you haven't been able to answer a single challenge to your positions, nor refute a single example presented.

It's not a matter of 'why you should'; what it is, is that you can't. We both know you're wrong.

And since we both know the truth, there's no more point in diverting the thread. I'll put you on ignore, and the thread can continue for everyone else. It's been a pleasure proving the facts. Have a good day.

 

[MGibster]

Lot's of CRPGs have this, but side quests! You don't necessarily have to flesh them out fully, but having some little adventure ideas to run when not everyone can make it to game night can be a lot of fun.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Lot's of CRPGs have this, but side quests! You don't necessarily have to flesh them out fully, but having some little adventure ideas to run when not everyone can make it to game night can be a lot of fun.

Side quests are invaluable; they encourage a feeling of the wider world, are (as you noted) great for when a key member of the group cancels, and are just all-round useful.

 

[Jaeger]

I know one thing to be true now: Jd Smith has been debating in bad faith from the beginning.

And is obviously mentally unequipped to have someone challenge his viewpoint that computer games do Sandbox play better than RPG's.

I said: "As for points on which to stand, lets see if you are able to acknowledge one..."

He was not.

Just one example from our exchange:

You've made no points,

Oh really!?

He made this statement:

That's not sandbox play; sandbox means that the players are not constrained. CRPGs have managed that;

I replied:

No. It is exactly the opposite situation.

Videogames have much greater player constraint inherent in their very design. They simply cannot account for and adjudicate every possible player action and situation.

RPG's can because they have a GM that can adapt on the fly to all kinds of PC craziness.

I make a point of a GM being far more adaptable than any computer game. Which in my opinion is an a direct refutation of his claim.

He then asked for me to: "point out what a CRPG can't do that an RPG can.", and yet I did it in that very post!

The intellectual dishonesty to not concede that any point was made, or that any examples were given in reply is plain for all to see just from that one exchange.

I caught a hint from his replies what he was doing - which is why I refused to be his dancing monkey and point out the differences between computer and table top RPG's that are obvious to anyone who has experience playing both.

This seemed to have caused some vexation.

That he choses to take his ball and go home like a spoilt child on the playground with his public announcement of my addition to his ignore list, and claiming some kind of 'victory' at the same time... Well, people may infer from that what they will.
.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel like GMs could stand to learn a fair bit about dynamic combat encounters that require coordination to beat from the better MMOs (World of Warcraft/Final Fantasy XIV).

The dynamic environments of Breath of the Wild and how they respond to player actions are another.

Good choices. I wish that TTRPGs would understand that while "class fantasy" is important, so is too class playstyle. One of the few TTRPGs I recall where playstyle was conscientiously attempted in the class design was Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Monte Cook went through and said, "Some people like to be the master of magic, so here's the Magister class. Some people want to be the gish, so here's the Mageblade class. Some people want to be the support/healer, so here's the Greenbond. Some prefer the heavily-armored warrior, so here's the Warmain, while some prefer the light-skirmish fighter, so here's the Unfettered. Some want to be a holy warrior, so here's the Champion. Oh, and some want to be the skill-monkey, so here's the Akashic."

 

[pogre]

One of the things I think better CRPGs do is set an overall tone for the world the games are set in - there are little things you find or discover in unraveling the game that reinforce the atmosphere and environment of the game. Naturally, one has to weigh the amount of minutia versus keeping the flow of the game moving in TTRPGs, but including little side scenes or descriptions that reinforce the campaign's setting is something I could incorporate better. Everything from how people dress to descriptions of buildings, etc. could be used to add richness to a setting without bogging it down too much.

Just because we cannot compete with the visual splendors or even the sounds of a video game does not mean we cannot borrow some of that flavor.