What does Videogamey mean to you?

[Celebrim]

To address a post specifically, pretty much everything in Celebrim's post here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...t-does-videogamey-mean-you-4.html#post5104948
has precedent in a variety of tabletop games.

One of the things that I find increasingly annoying when trying to talk to someone is the tendency of language to be descriptive only when its binary, or at least the insistance people have that all uses of language must be binary. This insistance leds people to assert that something that 1 molar sulpheric acid is the same as 12 molar sulpheric acid, because well, they are both sulpheric acid right?

The fact that something had precendent in some form doesn't mean that we are unable to distinguish between it and something else. 3e D&D lets you invest skill points in purchasing skills and in some variants even lets you buy your attributes, but that doesn't mean its appropriate to call 3e D&D a 'skill based system' or to say that it has 'point buy character generation' because despite those features its clearly a class based system and in fact very far down on the 'class based' side on the axis of class based vs. skill based when we compare it to other systems.

So, yes, there are some precendents and things that feel somewhat 'videogamey' like solo modules do have a long history in the game, but that doesn't mean that the term 'videogamey' isn't descriptive of something. It justs means that a solo module is, by the definition of the term I've define, somewhat 'videogamey'. In fact, it's also very 'choose-your-own-adventure-y' and very much 'Enormous Cave-y'. Early attempts at creating RPGs on computers like 'Dungeon' feel very much like solo adventures and vica versa. I don't see how this in the slighest harms my argument.

Pretty much any Effect based game has the "everyone is a spellcaster" effect (say M&M).

And that's not true either. Because to begin with, opening the 2nd edition M&M sitting beside me here we find several archetypes that as eshew powers either mostly or entirely (for example, the Martial Artist). In fact, as I have defined 'spell-caster' (has limited resources which have a recharge time), arguably no archetype in M&M is by default a spellcaster because powers aren't depletable by default and the concept of a recharge is largely missing unless you do alot of work to build it in as a drawback or spell complication. The fact that that the non-spellcasters effects and attacks in M&M are fancy, spectacular, or even flavored as arcane effects is irrelevant for the working (admittedly D&D-centric definition) I used in my write up. From the D&D centric definition, an energy beam blaster is simply a fighter with a flashy attack descriptor for their ranged attack. And, that is in fact how the archetype would play.

Points 4 and 5 seem to contradict each other...

No they don't. As I can both play through Diablo till its end, and I can play the same campaign over again by recursively using my end-game character as the starting character of the next iteration of the campaign. But even more importantly toward refuting this objection, the idea that they contradict each other involves focusing on some area that wasn't the focus of my #5 and comparing it something that was the focus of #4. The fact that it allows endless iterations of play was NOT the focus of point #5. The fact that with BALANCED MATH (how I titled the section) it would play basically the same at level 1 or level 10 was the focus. In fact, points #4 and #5 aren't even directly comparable because 'Balanced Math' and being 'Closed Ended' aren't even directly related to each other, much less contridictory. They may be indirectly related to each other in some cases (Diablo), but things that are indirectly related to each other would not be opposites by definition. Balanced math could allow for either open ended or close ended games. Close ended games may or may not have balanced math.

, but I'd point to name level, or the explicit endgames you find in many indy games for the close ended design.

First, at no point was 'name level' ever an end state. At no point was it ever implied that once you hit name level the game ended, and that no further advancement or adventuring was possible. And secondly, to the extent that some indy games have a close ended design, I would find this a 'videogamey' element.

Point 5 covers really only a subset of cRPGs where the world scales with you, but even then the game maths tends to shatter hiliariously at higher levels in many of these too - see Morrowind or Oblivion for easy examples. Even then, we see in D&D that higher level monsters will have, in general, a better AC, more hitpoints, more damage, better defenses - but again the whole concept of "levels" of player characters and their enemies derives from D&D.

Are you under the false impression that for something to be 'videogamey' it must be utterly ubiquitous amongst all videogames? So, for example, if I say something is 'American', then it must be the case that it is an aspect of every Americans social and cultural life, and if it is not, then it can't be said to be 'American'? Because, if that is so we must discount baseball and hamburgers as being American. It's not necessary that all video games feature something promentently before we can speak of this think as being of the provenance of video games, or of being more like the normal experience of video games (solo play without a moderator, for example) than of traditional RPGs.

 

[SKyOdin]

From what I have seen in these discussions, the use of the term "videogamey" is often used as a negative, and usually towards some new aspect of the game. People rarely use it to describe any of the traditional core fundamentals of D&D, despite how often those fundamentals have been copied and integrated into videogames.

For example, I have never seen anyone claim that classes are videogamey, despite the fact that numerous videogames ranging from MMOs to console FPSs have class systems. I have never seen the concept of ability scores decried as videogamey, even though the vast majority of videogame RPGs have equivalent concepts. In general, the similarity between classic D&D elements like classes and ability scores and various videogame mechanics are much more apparent than anything brought up in these arguments such as healing surges. Why are healing surges videogamey but not classes?

So, I am generally of the opinion that people decry stuff as videogamey for the simple fact that it is new and unfamiliar, rather than anything remotely objective.

 

[Woas]

I guess the term videogamey means pretty much just 4th Edition D&D to me.

 

[Celebrim]

Njall: You are confusing the term 'realistic' with 'genre versimlitude' in ways that seriously undermine your point. 'What is realistic for the fantasy genera' is not the same in this case as 'what is realistic'.

Also I'm not at all sure that 'realism' per se was made a significant component of anyone's definition of 'video gamey', at least not 'realism' as it is normally meant when applied to RPGs. So I'm not sure what arguing for or against the 'realism' of something is supposed to get you.

With healing surges, suddenly HP make sense...

Well, I have no idea how to respond to that claim, except that I'm glad you've found a narrative structure for hit points that you are comfortable with. If this is going to turn into a discussion of the realism of hit points, maybe its best to fork to a new thread.

And, really, healing surges are the closest a game has ever come to simulating fatigue, for me: if you run as fast as you can, for example, you'll be exhausted after awhile. Take a short rest, catch your breath and you can run again for awhile.
If you do this over and over, though, you'll tire out pretty quickly, and, in the end, you'll need a long rest to recover.
Healing surges are pretty much the same thing, except that they represent how long you can defend yourself before you're too tired to parry or dodge another blow.

That might make some sense if being heavily encumbered or otherwise doing anything fatiguing caused you to take lethal damage each round.

Seriously, the basic problem you have here is that things like 'hit points' and 'healing surges' have many attributes and interactions with the game. Not all of those aspects and interactions might be 'videogamey', and certainly in the case of something like 'hit points' there precense in video games doesn't make them 'videogamey' because there provenance is in traditional PnP games. If you focus on the aspects of the example that aren't 'videogamey', then you are rather much missing the point.

Now, as I've said, I think its fairer to call healing surges 'Gamist' than it is to call them 'videogamey'. They have clear gamist motivations and they don't have clear connections to videogames. However, if we look at the larger outcome of the 4e healing system rather than the particular details of the implementation, then that we might argue is rather 'videogamey', especially when we also notice the elimenation of all long term conditions in the design of the game.

 

[Garthanos]

Does anybody have the old quote from Gygax saying it was a mistake assuming hit points (everything but "maybe" the last few represent wounds) I think it was written back in the 70s in an early DMG. He called thinking high level fighters were getting really stabbed dozen times and wandering about unimpaired ridiculous or something (he wasnt always polite)
But the HP definition has stayed true in every edition of the game.

I have always liked house rules where proper wounds were added to D&D.

Die hard is used because periodically McClane seems to be burdened by his injuries but he roars back in to action these seem like a lag point right before a second wind (and maybe even an action point use) kicks in. The core of healing surges are that the targets deep resources are being triggered by various mechanisms. A hero can normally only trigger one such on himself in a fight and that is far from insta-heal so

However hit points are so abstract who knows... its about what it feels like when your character gets a second wind and says "bring it on" spends an action point and things go wild it feels very like the movies.

 

[SKyOdin]

1) 'videogamey' can serve as short hand for a whole bunch of interrelated ideas, for example see Oryan77 Today 02:58 and my post at 11:23 AM. If I want to discuss these ideas with Oryan77, I don't want to have to repeat an entire essay whenever I refer to the ideas in question. I note clear overlap in several areas that Oryan77 considers videogamey and areas I consider videogamey. We used different vocabulary to name and describe these different areas, but the ideas under discussion are clearly related.

2) 'videogamey' can serve as an instinctive way of describing a feeling that person has which they are not yet able to articulate clearly. This is hardly surprising considering the way the human mind works. It's entirely possible for someone to pick up on some aspect of his surroundings without being able to name it or even describe it. In this sense the person is saying, "It gives me the impression that I first experienced or most associate with playing video games. I haven't yet analyzed why I would get this impression thoroughly that I can articulate what the linkage between the two experiences are, but I'm calling my impression 'videogamey' and after I wrestle with the problem a while I hope to be able to explain this in more detail."

Both senses are completely valid.

I completely disagree. In both cases, all the use of the word "videogamey" does is cause confusion and anger people. If neither the writer nor the reader understand what is being written, then no communication is happening. All that happens is that the thread degenerates into confusion or even a flame war.

If someone doesn't like healing surges, it is much more productive for everyone involved if they just say that they don't like healing surges, and why. If someone just doesn't like the feel of something, they should just say that and leave it at that, rather than hide behind some claim that such and such game or mechanic is "too videogamey".

 

[Garthanos]

Wow, it's strange how people can react differently to the same mechanic.
To me, "healing surges" were something that made the game more realistic, rather than more "video gamey".
HP never made sense for me: I accepted them as a game construct, a necessary evil if you will.
Let me explain: since the beginning, Gygax made clear that HP didn't represent actual health; rather, they were a mixture of luck, skill, physical health and plot immunity.
Ok, that makes sense. If someone slashes at you, it doesn't really make sense that you can take the full force of the blow and survive unless you're really lucky, and the chances that you can take 5, 6 swings in a row and walk away on your feet are pretty slim.
However, it took an experienced fighter days, if not weeks, to regain his defensive prowess after even a moderately challenging fight, barring magical healing. Furthermore, since HP were influenced by Con and Class while natural healing was a constant value, the toughest fighter's wounds were proportionally slower to heal than the frail magic user's, and it took him a lot of time to fully recover from fatigue.
This...didn't really fit the genre, IMO, and I don't even saw how it was realistic at all. In fantasy novels, the main characters don't spend days recovering after a minor fight, and the tough, experienced combatant is back on his feet way before his frail companions.
With healing surges, suddenly HP make sense: recovering from a tough fight doesn't take days or weeks simply because you're not really wounded: you're just bruised and battered ( and, considering that no edition of D&D ever supported long lasting injuries, crippling wounds or mutilations, this doesn't really break my suspension of disbelief...after all, if I can assume that a sword slash will never cut one of my hands off, I don't see why I can't assume that it's not going to deliver a grievous wound no matter what).
And, really, healing surges are the closest a game has ever come to simulating fatigue, for me: if you run as fast as you can, for example, you'll be exhausted after awhile. Take a short rest, catch your breath and you can run again for awhile.
If you do this over and over, though, you'll tire out pretty quickly, and, in the end, you'll need a long rest to recover.
Healing surges are pretty much the same thing, except that they represent how long you can defend yourself before you're too tired to parry or dodge another blow.
In addition, they tie the amount of HP healed to the recipient rather than the healer, meaning that healing you from 0 to full will take the same number of healing spells at both 1st and 30th level.
That's pretty consistent with Gygax's original explanation, IMHO, and I don't really see how it's more "video-gamey" than needing a pocket healer to keep you alive fight after fight, but I guess it's a matter of opinion

QFT

Completely agree here 4e hit points and fast inter battle healing even the inspiration definiiton of healing done by Poets, Priests and Politicians (Bards, Clerics and Warlords) fits closer and do correspond better to the things Gygax defined as hit points. Abstracted hit points were originally one of the elements of D&D I didnt like at all.. Along side amnesiac mages and a couple incompetent DMs I found other games more interesting back in the early 80s.

 

[Celebrim]

I completely disagree. In both cases, all the use of the word "videogamey" does is cause confusion and anger people. If neither the writer nor the reader understand what is being written, then no communication is happening.

And in this case, in the context of this thread, you are objectively wrong. Because if we cut out of this thread all the posts where the people say that the people using the term 'videogamey' are bad wrong people for using the term, and if we cut out all the posts where someone says that the term has no meaning, and if we cut out all the posts where someone says that the offered meaning is wrong just because, and we just look at the few posters who actually answered the original poster's question we find a remarkable amount of agreement.

a game which resembled Atari's "Adventure",

Atari Arcade | Adventure

with characteristics like:

- the player can only hold one object at any one time
- the player can only die from being eaten by a dragon
- a bat keeps on stealing/exchanging objects
- too much like "capture the flag"
- the game can be "reset" with everything in its previous place, but with the dragons coming back to life

I've always felt that "videogamey" was a continuum. Particularly regarding player options, where the more and more a player was restricted in what the character could do based on a finite list of defined actions and an economy of actions per turn . . . then the game has become ever more videogamey.

A roleplaying game is videogamey if the possibilities and activities within the game are limited largely by factors other than the people actually playing the game.

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

And it's hard to pare either my own or Oran77's definition down to a nice shortable quote, but I think that if you read both you'll find the idea of reducing player choice and DM dependency are aspects of both of our definitions. So very clearly, amongst the people who wrote all the above, there is some clear idea of what they mean and communication is taking place between us. Furthermore, there are several people that tried to answer the question with examples, whose objections to the examples would I think fit into one or more of the attempts by others in the thread to generalize.

The fact that you don't understand what is meant is not proof that the rest of us don't.

All that happens is that the thread degenerates into confusion or even a flame war.

And if this thread degenerates into a flame war, the cause will be those that are saying, "I don't know what it means, but it can't mean that!!!" Those that have a definition (even a vague) one are generally not arguing amongst each other. Instead, they are being shouted down by those that lack a definition and insist therefore that everyone else should also lack one.

If someone doesn't like healing surges, it is much more productive for everyone involved if they just say that they don't like healing surges, and why.

And it would, except that the discussion isn't about or limited to 'healing surges'.

f someone just doesn't like the feel of something, they should just say that and leave it at that, rather than hide behind some claim that such and such game or mechanic is "too videogamey".

Since when are we not allowed to label and publicly explore our responces to something and the reasons for it, and since when is that 'hiding'?

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not even sure I would consider "healing surges" gamist.

Like I stated before and Njall wrote, to many of us, it is actually a GENRE staple and actually FITS D&D better given what it corresponds to.

The REGULAR HP model though...that's pure gamist IMO.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not even sure I would consider "healing surges" gamist.

Like I stated before and Njall wrote, to many of us, it is actually a GENRE staple and actually FITS D&D better given what it corresponds to.

The REGULAR HP model though...that's pure gamist IMO.

Well, they certainly aren't either narrativist or simulationist. I'm not sure why it matters though that I agree that hit points (in any form) are pure gamist constructs. They are a very good example of a pure gamist construct that is not 'video gamey' because despite their ubiquitousness in video games (in fact, they are even more common in video games than in RPG systems generally and found in things that aren't even RPGs at all), you can't call them 'video gamey' because there origin is in D&D rather than the reverse. Hitpoints aren't ideas that have gone out into the computer gaming world and come back in different or more mature forms to influence RPGs. They are ideas that went from RPGs to computers (and stuck hard).

And I would argue that they stuck hard precisely because as pure gamist constructs they are more suited to the strengths of a computer, which are gamist rather than simulationist or narrativist. Simulationist and narrativist games tend to be inherently open ended in ways that computers currently can't cope with - although there have been valiant attempts over the years from Elite in the early days to Grand Theft Auto. The limited space of a rules based 'game' though is perfectly suited for implementing in a computer program.

Be as that may, it doesn't have a very direct bearing on the question of 'what does videogamey mean to you'. I'm happy to concede that 'healing surges' are not a very good example of videogamey things, and am utterly uninterested in arguing over whether they are more or less gamist than hit points as a whole. I'm happy to believe that they are both gamist AND that they are genera emulation, especially of a self-referential sort (in the sense that 'Die Hard' and similar movies are themselves easily described in RPG terms, as so could be said themselves to be 'RPG-y' or 'videogamey'). And I'm nearly equally happy to concede either or neither if it would move us past that point.

For my example, one that I think is a more straight forward example, I would argue that the point where a game is conceptually over but where the character is not dead but has 'won the game', where there is nothing left for this character to explore and no further advancement is possible, is 'videogamey'. The idea that you reach the end of the game is not part of traditional RPGs, and is an idea that I think comes back to RPGs from their computer offspring or at least which can be recognized as more typical of computer games than of traditional PnP games.