Whats Wrong with Ganking CRPG Stuff???

[DandD]

D&D 3.x functions like a computer-game that doesn't need a computer, but can be substituted by a human monkey, called the Game Master. It does allow in some instances more freedom, but is terribly slow if it tries to calculate numbers and has to search for modifiers.
However, the D&D rules make lousy computer RPG-rules, as proven by the various D&D-Computer games. Stupid magic item inflation and ridicoulus high numbers proved that the pen-and-paper rules were more than suboptimal when translated to another medium.

 

[Henry]

I can think of two reasons why emulating computer RPGs have a stigma associated with them:

1) A tabletop game is almost completely imagined -- it's as grand as each player conceives it in their heads, and hides a multitude of visual mediocrity that way. Same reason why some people rail against miniatures and mapboards, and other things used to make the experience more "real." Comparatively, a CRPG is almost completely visualized -- what you see is EXACTLY what you get, and short of participants "imagining" things while they sit at their screens, if your avatar can't intersect with it, it's not there.

2) The more a tabletop ruleset emulates a closed and finite set of computer game rules, the more finite the tabletop set becomes -- the same argument as some people who denounce rules-heavy games use.

Therefore, the reasoning goes that the more ideas are literally translated from a CRPG to a tabletop game, the less open-imagined the tabletop set becomes, and the more literal the players become in interpreting rules, in trying actions, and in visualizing the action in-game itself.

One can deconstruct the arguments and offer counter-reasons all day long, but it won't change the above perception for those who believe it. TO an extent, I can see it. I'm all for borrowing good ideas, but if the ideas change the themes of the game, then they may not be good changes. Of course, most changes are going to leave some unhappy ones behind. Me, I'm as likely to include 3E right alongside 4E and play each one for its own merits and worth, just like I do 1E now.

 

[KingCrab]

Some ideas, like that of a particular class or style of adventure can translate well from computer games to role playing games. Some ideas only limit the boundaries of what a RPG can be. There isn't a need to constrict tabletop gaming further with things like "quest" cards. Quite often the motivations of a group of PCs can be far more complex than anything that can be represented on a card. In a CRPG, you don't have much choice about this. There's no reason to extend such restrictions.

 

[Rechan]

Some ideas, like that of a particular class or style of adventure can translate well from computer games to role playing games. Some ideas only limit the boundaries of what a RPG can be. There isn't a need to constrict tabletop gaming further with things like rules. Quite often the motivations of a group of PCs can be far more complex than anything that can be represented by rules. In a CRPG, you don't have much choice about this. There's no reason to extend such restrictions.

FIFY.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I can think of two reasons why emulating computer RPGs have a stigma associated with them:

1) A tabletop game is almost completely imagined -- it's as grand as each player conceives it in their heads, and hides a multitude of visual mediocrity that way. Same reason why some people rail against miniatures and mapboards, and other things used to make the experience more "real." Comparatively, a CRPG is almost completely visualized -- what you see is EXACTLY what you get, and short of participants "imagining" things while they sit at their screens, if your avatar can't intersect with it, it's not there.

2) The more a tabletop ruleset emulates a closed and finite set of computer game rules, the more finite the tabletop set becomes -- the same argument as some people who denounce rules-heavy games use.

Therefore, the reasoning goes that the more ideas are literally translated from a CRPG to a tabletop game, the less open-imagined the tabletop set becomes, and the more literal the players become in interpreting rules, in trying actions, and in visualizing the action in-game itself.

One can deconstruct the arguments and offer counter-reasons all day long, but it won't change the above perception for those who believe it. TO an extent, I can see it. I'm all for borrowing good ideas, but if the ideas change the themes of the game, then they may not be good changes. Of course, most changes are going to leave some unhappy ones behind. Me, I'm as likely to include 3E right alongside 4E and play each one for its own merits and worth, just like I do 1E now.

I know you say that deconstructing these arguments won't do any good, but I will go ahead and do so anyway.

As a whole, #1 just seems like a statement that "tabletop RPGs are better than computer RPGs because they let you use your imagination". As a whole, that is an opinion that I don't share at all, but it really isn't something I can argue against easily (it being a pure subjective opinion and all). However, it is a statement that does not apply to rules, just presentation and DMing style. It can't be logically used as the basis for arguing against the inclusion of a rule.

Your second argument is simply illogical. So long as there is a DM to interpret events and rules, and there is freedom to create houserules, then tabletop RPGs will always maintain a less closed and finite set of rules than a videogame (though because of flexible rules, the possibility of modding, and simple player agreements to do things a certain way, I don't think videogames are so closed and finite as this argument assumes). Also, boardgames like chess and the wargames that D&D evolved from are far more closed and finite than videogames are, yet there is not such a backlash against their influence on the game here in these forums.

In addition, I don't agree that there is any single rule or set of rules that could possibly affect the closedness or openness of the game rules of D&D. That sort of thing depends entirely on the medium and the players of the game. Individual rules are irrelevent, it is completely determined by individual playstyle and personal preferences.

As such...

I have no objection whatsoever to game designers taking every good idea they can get from videogames.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You could say "D&D is getting too Blabooy"

It's been too blabooy since 2E, IMO.

I think what some people are angry over is that many CRPGs have a different "feel" than D&D did from the 70's and 80's when many posters first learned to play?

I think that's it. I certainly had a bit of vertigo the first time I checked out 2E, about midway through its life cycle.

"This isn't MY D&D!" I cried, clutching my (duo-tone only!) 1E modules to my chest as a talisman against the strange new tone of the 2E AD&D rules. I ended up liking a fair amount of the fixes in 2E (and wincing at its many problems), but never really liked the tone, even to the end.

And it's not wrong to dislike the apparent tone of 4E, but just like I didn't use the 2E tone, no one's forced to use the 4E tone, either. My games will still be slightly steampunky 1E in tone, and I imagine there will people who will continue on with spiky dungeonpunk or whatever else they like.

There may even be a few people who want the 2E tone for 4E.

 

[Cam Banks]

D&D has a very, very tough challenge ahead of itself.

In a market dominated by CRPGs, both MMORPG and consoles, why should anybody play D&D?

I suspect the current designers feel that they can steal back some of the thunder from the WoW-market by aping many of the same processes, especially those that drive play. But why should somebody choose D&D over the CRPG that does this automatically, anyway?

I'd like to know what major things 4e will do - things that 3e didn't - that AREN'T derived from CRPGs, things that only a tabletop game experience can provide. What's the big hook? What's the draw? How do you steal back the thunder in a meaningful, competitive fashion?

I would probably be more comfortable with the CRPG-ganking if I knew what the big answers here were. I still don't like the CRPG-speak that's drifted over, but what can you do.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Scribble]

My question though is what's the fundamental difference between a rules light system (where a DM comes up with something on the fly as to how a character achieves a goal) and a rules "heavy" system?

They both have a rule... The rules heavy one just has it spelled out for you.

(My point to this is how can D&D be ruined simply by adding rules? It already has them, they just aren't always spelled out...)

 

[Cadfan]

Its just an insult.

There are people who don't like the way the game is/has been changing. They want to level an insult at the game. They pick something they know they don't like, which they know other people like, and say "The game is becoming too much like that thing I don't like!"

There's an actual opinion behind it all, regarding the differences between editions, and perceived changes in the player community, but you can never find it because they've ossified it behind a wall of gamer-prejudice leveled at younger gamers who don't play the way they do, all wrapped up into a convenient buzzword.

Then, having used that buzzword so many times, they become committed to the idea that it actually represents something. So a person might start by declaring that D&D was becoming too much like WoW because D&D has "defenders" and that's just like WoW's use of tanks, which if course an obviously ridiculous opinion. That person then gets attacked for their gamer-prejudice disguised behind a ridiculous opinion, and defends themselves by becoming the absolute police of anything remotely resembling WoW in D&D.

 

[Rechan]

My question though is what's the fundamental difference between a rules light system (where a DM comes up with something on the fly as to how a character achieves a goal) and a rules "heavy" system?

"Okay, I want to run up the monster's tail, leap on it's back, and begin shooting it in the back of the head."

Rules Heavy system. "The monster is going to get an attack against you because you entered its space. Going up its back is difficult terrain, meaning that you can only get half way up its hind quarter. Also, you need to make a balance check to succeed in the first place. Next round, you make a balance check at a higher DC just to stay on as it starts to fight back."

Rules Light system: "Okay. In fact, I'll give you a +1 for doing that."