Whats Wrong with Ganking CRPG Stuff???

[Scribble]

"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."

Well that depends on the DM...

I mean it could just be like

Rules lite:

DM: "Well, I'd say trying to run up it's back would give it a free attack on you.."

Player: "No way dude I'm awesome."

DM: "It's kind of hard to run up somethings back without it caring... "

Player: "Fine whatever."

DM: Plus, it's not so easy, so I'd say you only make it about half way up this round... And make a balance check.. cause that's not something you normally do...

Player: "Dude I so do this all the time I'm an elf, it's what we do!"

DM: "Do you have to argue with everything???"

Player: "I just think I should get there quicker, being an elf and all. We run up on trees and stuff all the time."

DM: "Trees don't try to knock you off!"

Player: "You're forgetting my buckets of awesome!"

DM: "Just make the damn roll."

Player: "Screw it, I hit him with my sword."

 

[Rechan]

Well that depends on the DM...

So, care to give an example of a Rules Heavy?

 

[Piratecat]

I think the stigma comes from something pretty basic. We're damn proud and protective of our game. Originally, many computer games were based on D&D, and that felt kind of cool. Now, we're embarrassed and insecure that D&D is borrowing design aspects of video games. We're no longer the innovator. The balance of popularity has changed, and it's galling.

For me, anyways.

 

[Reynard]

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!"

Not true at all. I like video games and CRPGs. They provide a certain kind of entertainment that I enjoy. However, what they provide is not what table top RPGs provide. Electronic gaming does things TT can't, and vice versa. Trying to make one do what the other does best creates bad games on either side of the equation.

D&D (and other RPGs) is a wholly unique form of entertainment. It needs to play to its strengths, not try and ape the strengths of another medium. Getting back to basics and creating a versatile, entertaining and engaging play experience is far more likely to create success than any attempt to woo a croiwd that already has a medium that provides them with their preferred kind of fun.

Though not without its problems, 3E did this at launch and was wildely successful for it. It didn't just draw new players, it brought back scores of players that had abandoned it for other games or even other forms of entertainment. It did so by carefully changing rules and adjusting the assumed setting, to create a D&D experience that was very like the one that a lot of grognards remembered. Over the course of the last couple of years, though, 3E has changed and become bloated and full of options and rules that run counter to the very same "core D&D experience" that made 3E a hit. And 4E appears to be embracing those last couple of years -- or rather, those last couple of years were a test run.

That 4E is going the way it is going says something about the consumer base, of course, and it indicates that the consumer (not player) base is less interested in the "core D&D experience). The question is, though, can 4E cover the losses of the "3E grognards" who, thanks to d20 and the OGL, have more than they'll ever need to play forever? Can they make up the loss by drawing from a market that is already invested in its preferred gaming medium?

 

[Cadfan]

I congratulate you, Rechan, on writing a post arguing that D&D is becoming too much like video games without actually saying "D&D is too much like video games" and without actually mentioning anything about D&D that you think is like video games. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

In a way, your post is the perfect example of what I described. You don't like the way D&D is changing, you say its becoming like video games, you say that's bad, but you don't seem to have an actual reason. The part where you say you don't like the way D&D is changing is fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The rest is tacked on for reasons unknown. I can only theorize that it is either in attempted insult, or perhaps in an attempt and making your opinion sound like its based in some kind of objective standard.

 

[KingCrab]

FIFY.

I guess there is a slippery slope argument you can use here (if we're quantifying combat, why not mechanize motivations as well), but I think the addition of assigned motivations on cards is a line I wouldn't want to cross.

Suppose the characters are going to meet "Baron Snottgard" in his castle. You could say that meeting him is the quest, you could say (to the character that wants to learn from him) that the actual goal is to get him to agree to teach you Snott's unique combat style. The other player doesn't trust Snottgard at all so his goal might be to try to prove Snottgard isn't really as good a guy as everyone thinks he is. There might very well be a different motivation for every PC in the group. When you mechanize it down to a card with a quest, instead of trying to act in the role of your character, that's when I think that the line has been crossed

Keep in mind, in general, I don't think that taking ideas from video games is necessarily a bad thing. Certain aspects of video games should not be adopted.

 

[Wolfspider]

I congratulate you, Rechan, on writing a post arguing that D&D is becoming too much like video games without actually saying "D&D is too much like video games" and without actually mentioning anything about D&D that you think is like video games. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

In a way, your post is the perfect example of what I described. You don't like the way D&D is changing, you say its becoming like video games, you say that's bad, but you don't seem to have an actual reason. The part where you say you don't like the way D&D is changing is fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The rest is tacked on for reasons unknown. I can only theorize that it is either in attempted insult, or perhaps in an attempt and making your opinion sound like its based in some kind of objective standard.

What the heck? Rechan has only posted a few sentences in this thread so far, and most of them have been against the anti-computer influence posters.

You're able to make quite an interesting analysis there based on such a small sample.....

 

[Reynard]

What the heck? Rechan has only posted a few WORDS in this thread so far. You're able to make quite an interesting analysis there based on such a small sample.....

I think he was talking to me.

Even though the words he said didn't make any more sense in that context.

 

[Wolfspider]

I think he was talking to me.

Even though the words he said didn't make any more sense in that context.

(Clarified my own rather fragmented response.)

Yeah.

 

[Rechan]

I congratulate you, Rechan, on writing a post arguing that D&D is becoming too much like video games without actually saying "D&D is too much like video games" and without actually mentioning anything about D&D that you think is like video games. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

In a way, your post is the perfect example of what I described. You don't like the way D&D is changing, you say its becoming like video games, you say that's bad, but you don't seem to have an actual reason. The part where you say you don't like the way D&D is changing is fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The rest is tacked on for reasons unknown. I can only theorize that it is either in attempted insult, or perhaps in an attempt and making your opinion sound like its based in some kind of objective standard.

...

Huh?

Are you referring to this:

Because if D&D uses anything from a Computer Game, then it'll ALL be a computer game, and it won't be D&D anymore, just some Computer Game all Out Loud.

When I was asked to clarify, I replied this:

I don't know; ask someone who believes it. But that seems to be the impression I'm getting from "But that's VIDEO GAMEY" or "But that's ANIME" crowd.

I was being facetious.