What on earth does "video-gamey" mean?

[TwinBahamut]

As you say, the influence of Vance, Leiber, and Moorcock was huge on D&D, which in turn influenced many other works and so on down the line. Although their current audience is much smaller than the plethora of offspring, their influence is nonetheless enormous!

Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.
-blarg

This is certainly true to an extent, but I think it is easy to overstate the influence of Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, etc, and forget how the influence being carried on has been diluted and altered in the process. There is a certain point where great giants tend to crush the giants they are standing on...

To put this clearly, let me use Shakespeare as an example.

Shakespeare was not the first man to write a play about star-crossed lovers from Verona named Romeo and Juliet. Many well-versed play-goers from Shakespeare's time would be well aware of the story. But Shakespeare took some different versions of that story, and radically altered it into his own version. For example, some older versions had the romance between Romeo and Juliet be a drawn-out affair over a course of months or years, but Shakespeare turns that around and makes the idea of "love at first sight" central, so much so that Romeo and Juliet get married the second time they meet face to face. These days, Shakespeare's version is so well known and well regarded that most people have no idea that he didn't create it himself, and the idea of "love at first sight" is permanently entwined with the story.

I guess to put it in other words, modern movie adaptation like Romeo + Juliet and the recent Gonzo anime series take their inspiration from Shakespeare and only Shakespeare, and don't care about the existence of older versions.

As another example, let us look at Vance. One of Vance's most significant influences upon D&D was the magic system, based around pre-set spells with particular known names, which can only be used a limited number of times per day after being prepared (and apparently forgotten after being cast). Early versions of D&D imported this almost in its entirety. However, things which borrowed from D&D took the idea of "spells with given names and set effects", but did not borrow much, if any, of the "Vancian system". What was taken of the Vancian system tended to be D&D Spell Levels, rather than proper Vancian preparation/memorization. Now, 4E has turned around and accepted that change, keeping set spells but further abandoning the "Vancian system". Vance has had an influence, but the truly influential ones were D&D's mechanical adaptation of Vance and the systems which were made as an adaptation of D&D's mechanical adaptation.

Ultimately, just as Tolkien's inspirations are merely a historical footnote for Tolkien's achievements, and Shakespeare's inspirations are merely a historical footnote for Shakespeare's achievements, D&D's inspirations will ultimately be (or already are) merely a historical footnote for the achievements of D&D.

Here is the deal. You make a post with links to the interviews of your modern fantasy creators where they say they were influenced/inspired by Gygax/D&D and I'll make a post listing my links to the hundreds of books and films being put out today (and in the past) that lists their influences. None of mine will be Gygax. They will all be authors (dead and alive) of books and a ton of them will list the authors you have listed in your thread here as being not an influence.

You admit to not knowing these authors writings and histories but you still say they are not as influential as Gygax/D&D. How do you know this if you don't know their history? I say you are way out of touch with the creators of your "modern fantasy". I bet a bunch of them will list a number of authors on my list of influential authors.

This is trivially easy. Keep in mind that I said that you should not limit fantasy to "written works" and that I am a big fan of videogames... The creators of my favorite "modern fantasy" are hardly authors.

The original Final Fantasy is one big D&D rip-off. It had pseudo-Vancian D&D-style spellcasting (spell levels per day, like the 3E sorcerer). The default party is a Fighter, a Thief, a Black Mage (Wizard), and a White Mage (Cleric). A major ally is the dragon god Bahamut (this is 100% taken from D&D). Two major enemies include Tiamat (a multi-headed evil dragon), a Lich, a Kraken, and a Marilith (a D&D Marilith down to the last detail). Some common enemies include Mind Flayers (actually given that name and the Mind Blast ability in later games), and a Dark Elf (who looks like a Drow).

Final Fantasy, along with the Dragon Quest series (which is similarly provable as a D&D rip-off), form the central backbone of the entire Japanese RPG genre. Meanwhile, the entire American videogame RPG genre is classically dominated by Licensed D&D products. As a note, Final Fantasy 7, a continuation of a series that started as a D&D rip-off, is one of the single most influential and important videogames of all time.

Similarly, Record of Lodoss War, one of the classic fantasy anime series, is based on a transcript of what was essentially a heavily houseruled D&D campaign. The original Japanese tactical RPG, Fire Emblem, is basically an attempt to make "Record of Lodoss War: the Game".

Anyways, you seem to have misinterpreted a point I was making. I never said "Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, etc" never had any influence other than D&D. I am merely saying that they will not have any lasting influence on their own. As I said, I have never once seen any of their works myself. Since it is relevant, I will say that I am 24 years old, so I never really had a chance to see those authors works when they were current. I mostly grew up reading Mercedes Lackey (deny her D&D influence, I dare you), Isaac Asimov (a true classic author who will endure), Piers Anthony, and Anne McCaffery, though I was aware of a few others, like Robert Jordon and Terry Brooks. It bears repeating, but I never saw a single thing published by Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, or the like, and I still don't when I go down to Borders or Barnes and Noble to buy manga. Unlike many authors I have seen, they do not seem to be currently in print, and it doesn't seem like there will be any major remakes of their stories in any form any time soon. There is no "Dying Earth: the Videogame", no "Elric Saga: the Movie", and no "Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser: the Comic", and there will not be anytime soon. Frankly, I did not know these people and their stories even existed until I started posting on ENWorld and saw a bunch of people a lot older than me talking like they were common names.

Vance, Leiber, and Moorcock may have had a lot of influence 20 to 30 years ago, and a large influence upon people who grew up 20-30 years ago, but to people like me who have grown up in my generation, they don't even exist anymore. An author who is 40 years old may cite them as an influence, but people in my generation and generations to come will probably cite current authors like J. K. Rowling and Steven King as an influence. This is how things like that work, after all. Unless a lot of people keep reading the same stories and keep those works in wide circulation, they just fade away and get forgotten.

Christopher Marlowe may have been a great influence upon the people who have seen his plays in his own era, as great of an influence as his contemporary, Shakespeare, but you can't claim that his influence is as enduring as Shakespeare's. I would not blame a person in the modern day for not knowing who Christopher Marlowe is, but I would be shocked to find someone who didn't know Shakespeare.

 

[blargney the second]

Fafhrd and Grey Mouser Comic

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

As much as I hate video games, I can't jump aboard this bandwagon. I have to point out the obvious here. D&D predates video games. D&D invinted that tacky, irritating video game feel - the video games copied it from D&D, not the other way around.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Anyways, you seem to have misinterpreted a point I was making. I never said "Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, etc" never had any influence other than D&D. I am merely saying that they will not have any lasting influence on their own.

Moorcock named SFWA Grand Master

Tribute to Michael Moorcock: Note some of the names therein: Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, China Mieville.

Hell, the word "multiverse" arguably wouldn't be as prevalent if not for Moorcock.

I think you're seriously misinformed if you believe that Moorcock (and Leiber, and Vance) won't have any lasting influence. They already have.

In all of the time I have wandered libraries and bookstores, I have never even once seen a book written by Leiber, Vance, or Moorcock. Not once.

Have you actually looked for books by them, or were you just expecting them to jump out at you?

It bears repeating, but I never saw a single thing published by Vance, Leiber, Moorcock, or the like, and I still don't when I go down to Borders or Barnes and Noble to buy manga. Unlike many authors I have seen, they do not seem to be currently in print, and it doesn't seem like there will be any major remakes of their stories in any form any time soon.

Vance, admittedly, I have only ever found in libraries and used bookstores. Leiber and Moorcock still have plenty of stories in print- but you won't find them in the Manga section, surprisingly. They'll be in the fiction section.

White Wolf printed huge collections of Moorcock's stories several years back, in fact.

...no "Elric Saga: the Movie",...

Been optioned for many a year, but hasn't yet seen the light of day, although...

Status of Elric Movie in 2008- it is looking more and more like it will happen soon.

Also, in addition to Mignola's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser comics, Elric (and variations of Moorcock's multiverse) have seen many recent comics about them.

Hell, Moorcock is still writing to this day. Several new Elric novels have come out in recent years, not to mention his Second Ether trilogy that came out in the early years of this century.

Vance, Leiber, and Moorcock may have had a lot of influence 20 to 30 years ago, and a large influence upon people who grew up 20-30 years ago, but to people like me who have grown up in my generation, they don't even exist anymore.

Possibly, and if so, it's a damn shame.

An author who is 40 years old may cite them as an influence, but people in my generation and generations to come will probably cite current authors like J. K. Rowling and Steven King as an influence.

Steven King really isn't generationally separate from Moorcock, guy. He's only 8 years younger. Moorcock's just been writing longer (because he's brilliant). Maybe not your best example.

I would not blame a person in the modern day for not knowing who Christopher Marlowe is, but I would be shocked to find someone who didn't know Shakespeare.

Same person, by some accounts.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Here are my two copper pieces, based on my own personal views. Feel free to take them with a grain of salt, as I don't game, and use D&D more as an inspiriation for my own personal fantasy writings and imagination than anything else. But anyway...

Over and over again, opponents to the "video-gamey" accusation have asked for a definition of what exactly this means. Based on my own personal observations, I'll try and clarify exactly what this means, at least to a certain extent.

I think we can all agree that one of the rules of good video game design is that the designers will always ensure the players face challenges specifically tailored to their levels of power. The power level creeps up as the game progresses, but a good design team is always careful to ensure that the player has a reasonable opportunity to overcome the challenge. Exceptions such as bonus dungeons or extremely hard-to-kill monsters, designed for hardcore players, are different from what I'm talking about here.

Now, one trend that's come up more and more in RPGs is the player getting the option of tailoring his characters in different ways. Different series, from Final Fantasy to Might and Magic are obviously going to do it in different ways, but the player has the opportunity to decide how to best "build" their characters. Especially flashy powers and attacks are also increasingly common.

Some video games have magical "buffs" that can be cast to augment the characters' abilities. In a video game like Final Fantasy XII these buffs can be repeatedly cast, and it's common practice for most players to do so.

Now, turning to 3E, you see elements of this in the CR system. In some ways, monsters have to be, or are encouraged to be, specifically balanced to match a party of a given level. PCs are expected to level up after a specific number of combats, gaining XP and treasure appropriate to their level. In some ways, this is a lot like a video game-players level up at specific times, and the items they get are supposedly tailored to their level, the way they are in video games.

It's even been said by some that play balance in 3E specifically requires that the PCs have a specific amount of magical items to have a chance against specific monsters, and to me that wrecks the versimilitude of the setting. Then there's the question of magic shops-I remember one argument I had with another guy on this board about magic shops and how I as a DM would refuse to allow them in my setting. While it may not be a hard and fast thing, there's little question in my mind that 3E, as is, is skewed towards a specific style of play, including setting elements, such as magic shops, that leave a bad taste in my mouth, ruining the kind of setting I have in mind.

Next, we have the concept of character "building". This has become much more prevalent in 3E, with skills, feats, prestige classes, etc. There have been debates, both on this forum and elsewhere, about people who "powergame", versus people who play for "fun" and deliberately make sure their characters aren't the most powerful on the block. This shows that, in some players' minds, there's a tendency towards building the perfect killing machine, without regards to character development. Take three levels of this, two of that, a feat here, a magic item there...all for the perfect damage dealer.

Now, I'm not talking about those players who have a very clear idea of what they want their character to develop into from a role-playing standpoint, and tailor their choices appropriately, but rather those players who choose skills, powers and prestige classes simply to do as much damage as possible, without taking the time to necessarily explain just why, from a plot point of view, their character has developed that particular combination of abilities.

Both MMO RPGs and console RPGs have a tendency to do this, and apparently some people think it's being repeated in 3E, and now 4E. I can't speak to 4E, but with some of the threads I've seen (not all, of course!), this is fairly clear to me in 3E.

Finally, I'm sure we can all recall debates about the "scry/teleport/buff" threads that certain gamers have complained about. In this case, it seems, players spend a lot of time min/maxing the exact amount of damage they can do, what kind of buffs are available to them, and things like that, before they decide how they'll fight the dragon. This kind of min/maxing is often very useful in RPGs, but in tabletop RPGs, I guess it can spoil the mood for some.

Please note that many of the examples cited above are from threads I've seen, but I can't remember the exact posters who wrote them. If you recognize something you talked about in this thread, please do so. I'd be especially interested in hearing from the person, whoever he or she is, who said that they were very frustrated by the 3E mechanics, because they couldn't fit a lot of the ideas they had into the system.

Hopefully, you'll get a better idea of what some people mean by "video-gamey": structured progress (whereas before the exact types of magic items you'd get would vary widely from DM to DM), min/maxing, and buff casting.

Those are, I think, specific examples of how 3E plays like a video game. I won't say anything on 4E, mostly because I haven't seen it, but I'm sure you can draw similar parallels from what I post here in the 4E mechanics, or other video game tendencies you might see repeated in video game RPGs.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't want to derail this thread that much more with an ever-more off-topic discussion, so I will make this my last post on this particular matter.

Moorcock named SFWA Grand Master

Tribute to Michael Moorcock: Note some of the names therein: Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, China Mieville.

I think you're seriously misinformed if you believe that Moorcock (and Leiber, and Vance) won't have any lasting influence. They already have.

None of these things prove a thing regarding what I am talking about. They prove that he is a celebrated author in his own time, but nothing else. A lot of those names of SFWA Grand Masters are people far more obscure than Vance. Some are lasting notables (Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C, Clarke, and Heinlein, for example), but many others are very obscure in of themselves.

In the end, all you talked about was influence upon their contemporaries. If you want to prove something about continuing direct relevance to the modern idea of fantasy (the entire point of this discussion), it would be a lot more significant to talk about particular elements of their works that recur constantly, as well as recent sales numbers of their books and the like.

Have you actually looked for books by them, or were you just expecting them to jump out at you?

Vance, admittedly, I have only ever found in libraries and used bookstores. Leiber and Moorcock still have plenty of stories in print- but you won't find them in the Manga section, surprisingly. They'll be in the fiction section.

You are just being rude here. Of course I looked in the fiction section! Do you think I am an idiot? It doesn't change the fact that I have never seen them. I see tons of other kinds of fantasy novels, and a million and a half Forgotten Realms novels, but I can't recall ever seeing or reading one of their works.

I mined out every local library I had access to during my childhood, seeking out every fantasy novel I could find since I enjoyed reading and loved the fantasy genre. I did not encounter the works of these people even once.

You can't contradict me just by implying that I am blind. If you want to say something, pull out sales numbers or the like. I will believe those, but I won't just take your word for it that their works are all that famous and popular.

White Wolf printed huge collections of Moorcock's stories several years back, in fact.

White Wolf, huh? Honestly, that makes me even more skeptical. When it comes to book publishing, White Wolf isn't all that impressive. If this guy was a legend, I would expect him to have his collections published by a much larger company...

Been optioned for many a year, but hasn't yet seen the light of day, although...

Status of Elric Movie in 2008- it is looking more and more like it will happen soon.

Well, I think it is healthy to be a bit skeptical about a movie that has been optioned for years... Besides, even if it were made there is no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be a B-film that is quickly forgotten. I would have to see either a great film or a film that is part of a much larger continuation of new interpretations and wide fandom for it to match something like Conan (which is the level where it starts gaining lasting relevance)...

Also, in addition to Mignola's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser comics, Elric (and variations of Moorcock's multiverse) have seen many recent comics about them.

Really? I don't pay much attention to American comics, really. They don't have much of a presence at all at anything but a dedicated comic shop, so it is hard to really know about them unless you are a fan dedicated to learning more about them. Since I am not, it disappears beneath my radar (which is pretty much my entire point).

Hell, Moorcock is still writing to this day. Several new Elric novels have come out in recent years, not to mention his Second Ether trilogy that came out in the early years of this century.

I still never heard of him until I started coming to ENWorld, and I have never seen one of his books at a bookstore. If they are there, they certainly don't draw much attention to themselves...

Possibly, and if so, it's a damn shame.

What can I say?

Steven King really isn't generationally separate from Moorcock, guy. He's only 8 years younger. Moorcock's just been writing longer (because he's brilliant). Maybe not your best example.

Are you kidding? This has nothing to do with generation and everything to do with lasting widespread popularity. Steven King is incredibly famous and influential. I have known who he was since I was in elementary school, he has written an very large number of very popular books, many of his books are made into big-budget films, and every time he writes a new book the bookstores are more than happy to point out (in big letters) "Here is Steven King's latest book!". He is the very standard of "popular and influential in his own time".

The truth is that I always assumed Moorcock was a guy who wrote years ago and was not current, simply because I never heard of him until a lot of people a lot older than me started talking about him. The only time I ever hear him mentioned is with regard to the influence he had on D&D more than 30 years ago. It is not like I see a lot of people shouting out praise for his latest book over in the EN World Media Lounge...

Same person, by some accounts.

If Christopher Marlowe and Shakespeare were the same person, then people would actually still read Marlowe's plays. There are many people touted as "the real Shakespeare", but all of those claims are worthless. This isn't doesn't even work a counter to my basic assertion.

Edit: Anyways, to pull this back a little more on topic, let me ask some of the Moorcock fans out there a question. Has Moorcock's works remained static for the last 30 years? Has his influences remained the same? Has his style remained the same? Is there a noticeable difference in tone, style, or characterization between his earliest works and his current ones?

 

[CountPopeula]

I think (as someone born in the last year considered Generation X) that Leiber, Vance, and Moorcock are going to be remembered a lot like The Clash , The Pixies, or Sonic Youth. They have their fans, people of a certain time and place, but for the most part, they're the names that come up again and again as influences without having a substantial fanbase. They are bound to be historical footnotes, and while attempts will be made to cash in on them to follow trends, they're just not standing the test of time.

Tolkien is like The Beatles of fantasy. You may not like him/them, you may have never read his books/listened to their music, but you probably know of him/them.

Most people only know of Sonic Youth or the Pixies because Kurt Cobain listed them as his influences, and while Nirvana continues to be relevant, Frank Black, Kim Deal, Thurston Moore, and Kim Gordon are never going to be John, Paul, George and Ringo.

And this has nothing to do with quality, mind you, just exposure and changing tastes. Kind of like how my dad could never figure out why I liked Pearl Jam and Weezer more than Eric Clapton, even though Clapton is, even in my own opinion, a far better musician.

But the bottom line is Michael Moorcock is Thurston Moore and JRR Tolkien is John Lennon. Even if you like Sonic Youth more, and even though Sonic Youth heavily influenced every rock band in the 90's... Sonic Youth will never be the Beatles.

Sorry for the very odd comparisons and digression from the videogame topic, I just grew up watching 120 minutes and it warped my fragile little mind.

 

[TwinBahamut]

But the bottom line is Michael Moorcock is Thurston Moore and JRR Tolkien is John Lennon. Even if you like Sonic Youth more, and even though Sonic Youth heavily influenced every rock band in the 90's... Sonic Youth will never be the Beatles.

...

It is times like this that I feel terribly inadequate. You just made my point in a far better and diplomatic way than I was able to, in far fewer words.

Thank you for making a great point.

 

[Zogmo]

Cthulhudrew

Cthulhudrew, thank you so much for you time spent on that post.

It's no use talking to TwinBahamut. He's making statements about things that he has no knowledge of and admits to it. I originally thought what he knew about some authors history and influence was lacking but it turns out he's even lost to what's even going on today and where it came from.

TwinBahamut, what you need is time to do some research on the things you are saying because you really don't know what your talking about.

It's no longer a discussion when examples you say don't even exist are shown to you and you basically say they still don't matter.

Have fun.

 

[Hawken]

Regarding the OP, I think this "video-gamey" feel has to do with kind of "press a button to make it happen" kind of thing, where in previous editions such things were not possible.

1) Fighter "marking" his foes. Its an automatic effect, no save, that incurs a penalty or draws an immediate interrupt and there's nothing the target can do to avoid or negate it.
Solution: To make it less video-gamey, keep it as a free action but make it an attack against the target's Will or something. If the attack succeeds, then the target is sufficiently occupied that the target suffers the effects of the Mark. (Apply same especially to Paladin marking which also inflicts damage).

This is kind of a "point and shoot" or "press a button" thing that definitely feels video-gamey along with things like Cleave which auto hit their target regardless of the target's AC. Just about anything that affected anything else in previous editions had to make either an attack roll or allowed a saving throw and that should be the way it is for 4e.

2) Any At will powers. The ultimate "video-gamey" effect. Point: Unlimited/inexhaustible resources eliminate challenges or reduce them to the point where they are not fun.
Solution: Make at wills something that characters have to earn (reach a certain level, take certain feats, etc.), not something that gets handed to them. In ALL previous incarnations of D&D, at will abilities, even sucky ones were not acquired without significant investment.

3) Needing friends to win. This is like X-Men, Simpsons, Gauntlet, and especially the D&D video games, where you HAD to have friends to win unless you just pumped a butt-load of quarters into it--and even then, victory wasn't guaranteed.

In any other incarnation of D&D, you always had the option of solo play. Admittedly, 3E was less solo friendly, but it could still be done and 1e and 2e solo games were very viable, adventures were even made for them. This game is designed around having to have companions. Its not that I'm itching for solo play instead of gaming with friends, but its another option that was taken away from players and DMs with this edition. You can't even play this game solo without serious tweaking.

Even in MMORPGs, you still need a group (more or less). Solo play is possible, but advancing is considerably slower and many quests, tasks are just flat impossible without a group.

Tied in with HAVING to have companions, 4e forces you into a "role" based on your class much like MMORPGs do. Technically, you're not "forced" to, but if you don't play your role, you're booted from the group or end up messing up the game for others.

4) Everyone is equal. This hits on that line from Incredibles--If everyone is special, no one is. Everyone gets to do basically the same stuff (X number of at will, encounter, daily powers), just slightly different mechanics and different fluff. How is this like video games? Its like that 4 player X-Men (or really any other) game; yeah, you could play Cyclops, Colossus, Wolverine or Nightcrawler, but you had X number of moves and a special you could do every so often--they looked different, but they had basically the same effect.

In all previous editions, classes and races were different. I don't think there were really any problems until 3.0 and then 3.5 when "balance" became an issue/goal. Yeah, humans sucked when it came to racial abilities, but their benefit was that they didn't have any drawbacks. And when it came to classes, yeah, wizards were uber powerful at higher levels, but it was surviving those critical low levels that "balanced" it out. Each class and race had its high points and low and "balance" was never an issue in 1e or 2e because the emphasis was on roleplaying. Players could play solo or in a group. There were no assigned roles. Anyone could do whatever they wanted (that their characters could do) in a given fight. Sometimes the ranger and wizard would hang back and rain death on enemies, at other times they'd be right there with the fighter. Yeah, the cleric was responsible for healing, but they were right there hanging with the fighter or the wizard doing what needed to be done. In our games, no one ever really ran out of things to do to the point where they needed an at will ability and no one needed a role to fill to tell them what they should be doing during a fight.

It was a roleplaying game.

It wasn't until Attacks of Opportunity reared its ugly head as an "optional" rule in 2e--and later became an official rule in 3e that D&D started becoming video-gamey. When you "had" to have a grid map with miniatures, when you "had" to keep track of where you moved and whether you could move a certain way or what would happen if you tried, that's when it became video-gamey. Was it fun? Sure, in a way, not so much because of the game itself but for the time I was spending with friends. But the game had definitely changed at that point. No longer was it in my mind's eye how combat was unfolding. Now it was right there on the table! Now I had to count out exact 5' squares and now I couldn't move diagonally without it "costing" more. Now, I had to learn more rules (and my players or DM did too) and that made it less of a game and yet more of a game.