What does Videogamey mean to you?

[Teemu]

"Videogamey" doesn't mean anything to me because I don't think that there's any kind of universal feel or quality to them that encompasses all computer/video games. I mean, you got sports, action, strategy, RPG, platformers, shooters, racing, and so on, then combinations of those -- and it's not like all CRPGs or sports games are alike, there are a lot of differences among games that belong to the same genre.

 

[LostSoul]

When you can't take reasonable actions that are appropriate to the setting.

In a videogame, if they haven't allowed you to climb, you can't climb a tree. If there are bad guys hiding out in a barn, you can't set the barn on fire and watch them die. (Not unless that game is X-Com.)

 

[Dice4Hire]

To me it is one of the trigger words for all kinds of trouble. Kinda like saying the name of a certain mythological figure three times in succession.

It is a word that should not be sued 99% of the time as it is just a trigger for edition warring.

 

[Intense_Interest]

I think Teemu hit it on the head with noting that there are far too many different types of features and applications within Videogames for the word to mean more than a limp pejorative.
[FONT=&quot]However I can see where the idea of "Wargamey" and "Videogamey" both overlap in the case of 4E, except the people whom are attempting to slam the game are having a hard time getting props for calling a game "too gamey". If only there was the right kind of insult that made people feel bad for playing 4th Edition as a game.[/FONT]

 

[Oryan77]

The fact is most bulk rules RPGs, ones where the players are expected to collect massive amounts of rules and try and remember all of them simply to play, are videogamey to me.

I'm surprised that so many people relate the term videogamey to nothing other than an insulting way to say you don't like something. No wonder people let it get under their skin when they hear someone use that as a comparison to an RPG.

But that is not how I use the term. I have a pretty clear definition, which I guess I've always assumed was pretty similar to the majority of people. I guess I've assumed wrong

1. I used it for the exact opposite of why the OP would use it. I'm by no means a rules guy...the less rules, the better! But, if having less rules takes away from the individuality of characters, then I see the character as just a clone of all the other characters. And I see video game characters as being pretty much clones of one another since there are way more limits to a video game when compared to any edition of D&D.

For example, cutting down the skill list. Lets say I want my rogue to be good at pickpocketing, but maybe he's never mastered the art of lock picking & never even tried to pick a lock in his life. Those are clearly 2 different talents of a "criminal" & combining them into 1 skill will make my rogue pretty much the same as most other rogues of the same level. I could pretend he sucks at lock picking, but I like having the actual distinction. I understand the benefits of cutting down the skill list, but I prefer the options for deeper customization than I do for having less options to keep track of. The skill list has never been a problem to me & it never even dawned on me that there was a problem. Knowing what my PC can and can't do was always a bonus for me.

2. An RPG is videogamey to me when it seems that rules are created first and the fluff is worked in second to try and explain why those rules exist. Sometimes the explanation is so far stretched that it doesn't even seem logical to me. My preference is when the fluff is created first, and then rules are created to try and make that fluff possible.

For example, Healing Surges & Second Wind. I have a hard time making sense of this. I understand we play a fantasy game and most of it isn't plausible in the first place. But I really appreciate the attempt that other editions have done to try and explain the "whys" of things.

The creation of the multiverse and it's relationship towards each plane, magic, gods, negative/positive energy, ect ect is really fantastic when you think about how the creators worked it all together. You can almost say, "That makes pretty good sense & almost seems plausible in real life". But Healing Surges & Second Wind makes no sense to me at all other than existing just so characters have less hassle to deal with in their "game". Even the whole 'rest 8 hours and gain back hitpoints equal to your level' doesn't make all that much sense, but I can still accept it with an open mind. But to be able to just heal up a little after a fight just because I basically willed my body to do so is just too far stretched. It makes it hard for me to take things serious and imagine my PC is in a real world.

3. An edition seems videogamey to me when power is taken away from the DM & that power is put in a players or PCs hands just because it will make it more fun for the player. It seems similar to a guy that likes to buy a video game and immediately play it with the cheat codes activated. It gives him some control over a world in a way that a DM might not necessarily want him to have control over.

For example, magic items. When a player is expected to get whatever magic items he wants rather than take what the world puts in front of him, it seems very videogamey to me. The reason is because in a video game, I know what items exist in the game & I can go online and find out how to obtain those items & find out where they're located. In real life, I may not necessarily know that Boots of Spider Climbing even exist, so why would I cry 'foul play' when I don't come across some at the store or eventually find them while adventuring?

Disclaimer: Any similarity to any specific edition in my examples is pure coincidence In no way am I simply trying to bash any edition or say that anyone plays D&D wrong. The OP asked a question, and I have tried to give my answer the best I could based off of my own gaming experience. Don't hate the playa, hate the game....no wait, don't hate the game, hate the....no....uh...hate the playa & the game, but don't hate the DM?....no....ah screw it....

 

[S'mon]

I don't find it a very helpful term.

I guess I have some particular problems with most videogames, like repetitive can't-lose combats that turn into level-grinding, silly arbitrary quests (especially trivial 'farming'), too much flashy magic for the setting (thinking Age of Conan), no or very little penalty for death, and inappropriate railroading - where an interesting choice is stripped from the player who is forced down a particular path.

4e has the potential for several of these, and some of the WoTC published adventures may have them, but none are required by the game per se IMO.

 

[FireLance]

1. I used it for the exact opposite of why the OP would use it. I'm by no means a rules guy...the less rules, the better! But, if having less rules takes away from the individuality of characters, then I see the character as just a clone of all the other characters. And I see video game characters as being pretty much clones of one another since there are way more limits to a video game when compared to any edition of D&D.

For example, cutting down the skill list. Lets say I want my rogue to be good at pickpocketing, but maybe he's never mastered the art of lock picking & never even tried to pick a lock in his life. Those are clearly 2 different talents of a "criminal" & combining them into 1 skill will make my rogue pretty much the same as most other rogues of the same level. I could pretend he sucks at lock picking, but I like having the actual distinction. I understand the benefits of cutting down the skill list, but I prefer the options for deeper customization than I do for having less options to keep track of. The skill list has never been a problem to me & it never even dawned on me that there was a problem. Knowing what my PC can and can't do was always a bonus for me.

2. An RPG is videogamey to me when it seems that rules are created first and the fluff is worked in second to try and explain why those rules exist. Sometimes the explanation is so far stretched that it doesn't even seem logical to me. My preference is when the fluff is created first, and then rules are created to try and make that fluff possible.

For example, Healing Surges & Second Wind. I have a hard time making sense of this. I understand we play a fantasy game and most of it isn't plausible in the first place. But I really appreciate the attempt that other editions have done to try and explain the "whys" of things.

The creation of the multiverse and it's relationship towards each plane, magic, gods, negative/positive energy, ect ect is really fantastic when you think about how the creators worked it all together. You can almost say, "That makes pretty good sense & almost seems plausible in real life". But Healing Surges & Second Wind makes no sense to me at all other than existing just so characters have less hassle to deal with in their "game". Even the whole 'rest 8 hours and gain back hitpoints equal to your level' doesn't make all that much sense, but I can still accept it with an open mind. But to be able to just heal up a little after a fight just because I basically willed my body to do so is just too far stretched. It makes it hard for me to take things serious and imagine my PC is in a real world.

3. An edition seems videogamey to me when power is taken away from the DM & that power is put in a players or PCs hands just because it will make it more fun for the player. It seems similar to a guy that likes to buy a video game and immediately play it with the cheat codes activated. It gives him some control over a world in a way that a DM might not necessarily want him to have control over.

For example, magic items. When a player is expected to get whatever magic items he wants rather than take what the world puts in front of him, it seems very videogamey to me. The reason is because in a video game, I know what items exist in the game & I can go online and find out how to obtain those items & find out where they're located. In real life, I may not necessarily know that Boots of Spider Climbing even exist, so why would I cry 'foul play' when I don't come across some at the store or eventually find them while adventuring?

And if significantly more posters would take the trouble to write stuff like this instead of simply saying, "It's too videogamey," I wouldn't dislike the term so much.

EDIT: Although I still think the term is not very useful because it seems to me that all the above criticisms can be made without mentioning video games. IMO, rules that take away the characters' individuality, building flavor around rules instead of vice-versa, and shifting the balance of power from the DM to the players are issues and/or problems that can be discussed in their own right, and whether or not they are more prevalent in video games adds little to the discussion. As always, YMMV.

 

[Stormonu]

For me, I use the term when I run across mechanics that lurch me out of the faux reality of the game or that don't act according to "common" or game-world sense. I stress the word mechanics - rules that are just so out of place that they are "proud nails" thumbing their fingers at you and screaming "it's just a game!"

For example, the magic item system of 3E & 4E do this for me; magic items that singularly cost more than entire kingdoms and need to be continuously upgraded/replaced (though the latter has been part of D&D since nearly the beginning). And where did all these +1 swords come from anyway? Coupled with the "wish lists" of 4E magic items, and it just disappoints me. I can understand someone questing for an item - following rumors and seeking out information about a particular magic item. But just finding it lying around because it makes your "build" better? Nah, not for me.

Likewise, healing surges and minions come dangerously close to videogamisms, but they are ones that I more readily agree with. I can accept minions because we've all seen the "one-hit kill" and can accept them under that construct. There's no basis in reality or myth to account for healing surges, but they work game-wise; they're a forgivable "sin".

Leveling is perhaps the worst videogamism of all, especially when you figure into how it determines what sort of foes you'll face and how powerful your abilities will be - even abilities not related to what you've been recently doing. How decapitating orcs makes you better at Knowledge of the Planes, I'll never know. However, like healing surges, it works overall for the D&D game and its an easy overlooked "sin".

Also, as I think others have mentioned, a videogame feel often arises when the game itself limits or heavily downplays certain activities or actions - like the example given above of letting players attempt to burn down the BBEG's wooden fort instead of forcing them to storm it. It often shows itself though, more often in limiting actions in or out of combat; games where you can't craft your own items (such as 1E, before WSG & DSG ), can't sunder enemy weapons or equipment and other such artificial limitations.

* Side story. I actually had a friend DM who allowed his players to "save" their place in a game before going into a big fight or quest, so if they failed, they could "redo" it. When I refused to do the same in my own game, he refused to play. I don't miss gaming with him one bit.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's like pornography, as the saying goes.

But, as I suspect comparing [specific*] RPGs to pr0n would go, I don't find using the term 'videogamey' a useful course of action. Well actually, I don't use it, so the point is moot.

I kinda get the MMO thing that some folks have brought up. Not that I've ever played one, or ever will. So this might be the closest fit, if someone's guilelessly applying the term.

Anyway, I like video games. Some, at least. So you won't hear me accusing any RPG of being one, just because I don't like it -- even if I didn't like Dragon Age (the TTRPG) I wouldn't call it videogamey!

What really irks me though is the boardgamey and wargamey claims. Yeesh. Just because one option has lost some mileage. Puh-lease.

For the record, I've not yet seen a RPG that isn't one.


* Because, yeah, everyone knows that TTRPGs in general are exactly like pr0n.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The fact is most bulk rules RPGs, ones where the players are expected to collect massive amounts of rules and try and remember all of them simply to play, are videogamey to me.

But wouldn't t his be a misleading use of "videogame". In videogames, I don't have to know or learn the rules. The game automatically follows them and I can't do it "wrong".

For me, videogamey would entail something like being constrained only to do things the game explicitely allows. In any pen & paper roleplaying game with a DM (even "exotic" games without a dedicated DM and just the players that also roleplay NPCs), the DM can always come up with reactions on the fly.
You can derail his plot, and he can also recover from it. That's impossible in videogames, or if possible, it probably means you're stuck in some way, having found a bug.
If the developers didn't think of your solution, it won't work. If Shepard dies in Mass Effect 2, you have to reload. You can't roll up a new Cerebrus Operative or Spectre trying to follow in his footsteps. Or roll up an independent trader that specializes in element zero and totally ignores the Reaper threat.

A game like World of Warcraft might be designed more like a sandbox, but there are still things you can't do.

Some videogames have tried to overcome this limit. Neverwinter Night's DM tools are a step in that direction.

Everything else is not really "videogamey" to me. It doesn't seem to distinguish an RPG from a videogame.