What on earth does "video-gamey" mean?

[Tsyr]

Or is this just a general trend in gaming? That maybe computer-games first picked up, but is just a kind of evolution in general gaming sensibilities?

"We don't want to just hit enemies with pointy things, if the wizard gets to blast them, teleport, contact otherworldly creatures and flies around. Let us at least "dance" around the battle-field..."

It might even be happen outside of gaming. The Matrix was a pretty successful action movie - but was the action the standard "Hulk Smash" fight, or did the "Fighters" have special abilities?
Or Last Samurai? Was this "ordinary" sword-play, or more? And what's with all those superhero movies these days?

(We could even go back, to the "swash-buckling" movie era - how simple was the sword work there - there might have been less over-the-top action, but over-the-top witty dialogue was common. So maybe that's not actually a trend, but just a shift. And the Fighter is in D&D is finally getting there where the fiction has always been?)

I don't see it, really. Taking a look at 3E, for example, which I think represents kind of the pinnacle of DnD at this point, fighters had options - power attack, weapon finesse, etc - as to how they wanted to handle their combat, but it was still a different mechanic from wizards.

Now, it's like an MMO. The only difference between a melee and a caster character is that one wears a dress. They both play the same basic way. Or, to quote a friend of mine when we were trying out 4E, "I play fighters because I don't want to be casting spells. Why am I casting spells, Tsyr?"

 

[Tsyr]

I think that is a worthwile concept to import into a tabletop rpg. I even think that the 4e rendition of this concept (via marking) has gone not far enough.

By contrast, I think it is an abysmal concept front to back. It feels very artificial.

If you wanted crowd control, there were already options - casters had plenty of options, fighters in 3E could grapple or trip, etc.

Heck, if you really, reeeeally wanted to implement agro control, you could have house ruled something in 2 seconds based off an intimidate check or something.

What I did not want to see, but we ended up with, is the concept being stolen almost wholecloth from how it works in MMOs.

 

[Henry]

http://rpgworldcomic.com/ - Perfect example.

I have no shame in admitting I've missed the example/demonstration/joke.

 

[Tsyr]

I have no shame in admitting I've missed the example/demonstration/joke.

I think the joke is supposed to be that people complaining about videogameness are just stupid, misguided idiots throwing claims around with no basis. But, to quote Homer Simpson, I have a history of missing the point of things like this.

 

[TimeOut]

By contrast, I think it is an abysmal concept front to back. It feels very artificial.

That depends on the implementation and description. Based on a 4e example: If you just say "The kobold is marked and gets a -2 on all attacks, except for attacks against the fighter", that is a completely gamist description. But you could redo the same description like "The kobold is locked into a brutal melee with the fighter, their weapons clash and one tries valiantly to find an opening in the others defense. Their struggle is so intense, that it has become really hard for the kobold to focus its attention elsewhere."

Suddenly you have a much better description of aggro control.

If you wanted crowd control, there were already options - casters had plenty of options, fighters in 3E could grapple or trip, etc.

Crowd control is not the same as aggro control. Crowd control disables monsters, while aggro control helps control who they will attack.

Heck, if you really, reeeeally wanted to implement agro control, you could have house ruled something in 2 seconds based off an intimidate check or something.

Yes, maybe. I never said that the 4e approach was any good, but it is still better then nothing.

What I did not want to see, but we ended up with, is the concept being stolen almost wholecloth from how it works in MMOs.

Why not? There is no shame to steal from MMOs or other genres, games or media, if the concepts are good. If you dislike the concept, don't steal it.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

1) Everything is about combat now.

At least a large section of the rules is about combat, and I think that's where the focus should be on. I don't need rules for how to have my character say "Good Morning" to an NPC but I need rules to determine if my character successfully attacked the orc.

By contrast, bards are gone (Yeah, to return, if you wanna pay more for them), because they aren't as strong a combat class.

My gut reaction is that they were in the core because the class needed more work. I played a Bard in my groups last campaign from level 1 to 27 (there was multiclassing and PrCing in there) and I'm guessing the number of times my character sang a song other than Inspire Courage could be counted on one hand. Inspire Competence might push the total over 5 but it would be close. I remember one time that he sang a countersong but I think that's the only time I didn't use Courage or Competence... in 27 levels!!!

If a class's main ability that sets them apart isn't working they would need a little more work. Don't get me wrong, I had a blast with the character - after all, I played him for 27 levels - but the Bardic Music ability did need a complete overhaul.

2) I think the powers system draws a lot of these complaints. "More Abilities = More Fun"

For me this is very true. I don't play MMORPGs (just don't have the time) but for me choosing 'Attack' in mysingle player CRPG or saying 'I hit him with a stick' over and over again gets really old really fast. Me? I like options.

3) Agro control abilities.

Yea!!! This means my guy in armor, who has the job of helping protect the squishies can actually help protect the squishies. Before he would have to try and kill the bad guys in one hit or risk them running past him to get to the wizard. Now he can make it a real pain in the rear to try and get past him. Front liners can actually do their job now! I'm happy.

 

[med stud]

2) I think the powers system draws a lot of these complaints. "More Abilities = More Fun" seems to be the growing trend in MMOs... Fighters in early MMOs were like fighters in past versions of DnD. They hit stuff with sharp things. Now fighters in current MMOS don't hit things with sharp stuff, they perform "Dance of the Seven Blades" or "Lunging Doomsday Thrust". The focus on the "class role" seems to be kind of the same thing.

3) Agro control abilities. Meh.

I can't see the fault in gaining something every level. I get the vibes sometimes that people view RPGs as something that builds your character, that players get spoiled when they don't level 4 times without anything happening. Since RPGs are entertainment, I can't see the point.

 

[Psion]

Seriously - video games are a HUGE and diverse collection. How is calling something "video-gamey" supposed to mean anything?

Okay. Obviously, people aren't talking about a given RPG being like Bejewled or Pac-Man.

But what some people are concerned about is an RPG that doesn't give you any experience you couldn't get out of a video game. Such games really don't leverage the strength of the tabletop setup.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

What I did not want to see, but we ended up with, is the concept being stolen almost wholecloth from how it works in MMOs.

I'd argue the "wholecloth" thing. I see the similarity in concept (having the PC limit the options available to the NPC) but other than the general overarching concept I just don't see the connection to the name 'aggro'.

I have played FFXI in the past but not WoW, so maybe my concept of aggro is lacking... but I always thought that the concept of aggro is that the monster attacks the one who is causing the most damage (in FFXI there is a control if a White Wizard is healing too much as well - or at least there used to be - it has been a while).

In 4e there are "attack me or else" abilities. This doesn't stop the DM from choosing "or else" for its action. So while I see where the connection with aggro is coming from (monster control) I just don't see it as the group working together and saying "the monster WILL do X". The critter always has other choices.

 

[Tsyr]

Yea!!! This means my guy in armor, who has the job of helping protect the squishies can actually help protect the squishies. Before he would have to try and kill the bad guys in one hit or risk them running past him to get to the wizard. Now he can make it a real pain in the rear to try and get past him. Front liners can actually do their job now! I'm happy.

I repeat: It feels artificial. Just like it does in MMOs.

Goblin: "Durrrrr, this fighter guy here isn't really a threat to me, but that wizard over there is killing us all... But for some reason I JUST GOTTA KEEP HITTIN THIS GUY!"

Now, I know, 4E isn't quite like that, while MMOs are. But it still feels artificial to me. Sorry. I wouldn't pull that on my players, I'm not going to have my players pulling it on me.