Whats Wrong with Ganking CRPG Stuff???

[Henry]

I can only imagine two different ideas that a tabletop RPG can take from a videogame: rules and inspiration for settings, plots, and characters.

Don't forget imagery and memes, too. Along with specific game rules (such as mana or feats) there is also the imagery of such influences. Remember the backlash over impossibly huge swords in fantasy art of the early 2000's? A lot of detractors traced that back to good ol' Cloud Strife from FF 7 (the game that made me buy a Playstation, btw). And don't forget that with multiplayer RPGs like World of Warcraft and Everquest, there comes the imagery of "d00d, buff me!!!", "my alt toon is a 70 lock!!!" and "U can 50000g for just $349!!!" Say "video game" to a lot of tabletop players, and these are some of the negative images that come to mind for them.

In other words, people are just using electronic RPGs are a scapegoat/buzzword in a fight about other debates about preference in DMing style. In this case, can you clarify why it is videogames that are the problem, instead of "he is playing the game like it was a movie" or "he is running the game like it was a book"? Videogames are far more open-ended and flexible than those mediums, yet people on these boards love taking ideas from books and movies, but hate videogame inspirations. It seems nothing more than an unjustified prejudice to me.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you, but my thought is that it is in part due to the connotations I mentioned above. Note also that "video game," dumbing down," and "for the kiddies" are phrases that are all usually drug out at the same time.

I never argued that the options of a videogame were infinite. I just said that they compared to a game of D&D in openness. You see, so long as a game of D&D is run by a human being with finite inspiration and preparation time, and is playing for a group of people with certain preferences, characters, and limits on inspiration, a game of D&D is just as finite as anything else in possibility.

Humans might get stuck if a player pulls an off-the-wall action, but they'll get stuck FAR less than a computer will. You can find a decent GM for far cheaper than you can find a computer game programmed for nearly anything off the map -- at least, for now.

Your logic contradicts itself in these two sentances. D&D evolved out of boardgames and boardgames, but videogames evolved out of D&D. If you want a good demonstration of this claim, check out this link (make sure to check out all three parts of that article). As such, wouldn't D&D taking inspiration from videogames be an evolution, rather than a regression?

Also, you are showing your own bias of D&D superiority here... I reject that entirely, myself.

That obvious, huh? I do admit I find tabletop superior to computer RPGs in almost every way; I play a good bit of World of Warcraft, Civ, and Star Wars KOTOR, but if someone wanted to play a tabletop RPG in that same space of time, I'd drop the computer game in a heartbeat -- it just doesn't compare on any scale. About the only thing computers do better in my opinion is being ready any time I feel like it.

I totally agree with video games evolving from D&D, but why would taking inspiration from video games be an evolution? Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I can't see video games adding a lot of variety to RPG's -- rather computer RPGs seem to strip out the best parts of tabletop innovations and put them to best use in its medium. Per-encounter resources certainly didn't come from computer games, and neither did mana points or feats, to my knowledge. There may well be some innovations that originated from computer games alone without first starting at the tabletop, but I can't think of any.

Of course, monster spawn points, aggro rules, and monster trains are all artifacts of a particular subset of videogames, and exist because of the requirements and problems of the medium itself, rather than being something that would ever be ported over to a different medium.

I agree, which is why I said if they start getting into tabletop games, it's time to take a step back and say "whoa, Nelly."

The per-encounter shift, though, is something that has absolutely nothing to do with videogames, and has everything to do with making a change based on the particular needs of D&D as its own medium. There is no preference among videogames for per-day or per-encounter balancing. I can name many videogames that use either or both of those different systems, and make them work well. However, per-day balancing is something that creates balancing problems in D&D campaigns that are not built around dungeon exploration (like every one I have ever played in), and from what I hear, disrupts the flow dungeons just as much. Meanwhile, per-day balancing works great in videogames, because the game design can enforce the dungeon as a setting, and prevent the kind of abilities which would lead to abuse. As such, the movement towards per-encounter balancing has nothing to do with videogames.

I think you are just leery of change, rather than the influence of videogames.

If I were leery of change, I'd be playing AD&D still. And the per-day and per-encounter stuff is fodder for whole other voluminous threads on the subject. It's got some nice advantages, especially to designers, but having played a good bit of the new Star Wars, for me the jury's still out on all its supposed benefits.

3E was cool as heck seven years ago; it was bright, promising, and expanded areas that 2E had really seen no innovation in, with additions from other RPGs that had some great ideas. If a computer game has a good idea, I'm all for it; but it needs to be a good idea, rather than just being a good idea because it worked in lots of computer games.

 

[Nifft]

all usually drug out at the same time.

ITYM: "all usually drug out at the same time, mang."

Cheers, -- N

PS: Video games, anime, whatever -- if a single word can be used to imply both "immature" and "inferior", it will be used thusly by detractors.

 

[Rechan]

PS: Video games, anime, whatever -- if a single word can be used to imply both "immature" and "inferior", it will be used thusly by detractors.

D&D is becomign so Nifft.

 

[Nifft]

D&D is becomign so Nifft.

STOP POSTING MY WET DREAMS!!!

Tease. -- N

 

[Henry]

Is that why if something is cool, it's called Niffty?

 

[Ahglock]

Don't forget imagery and memes, too. Along with specific game rules (such as mana or feats) there is also the imagery of such influences. Remember the backlash over impossibly huge swords in fantasy art of the early 2000's? A lot of detractors traced that back to good ol' Cloud Strife from FF 7 (the game that made me buy a Playstation, btw).

.

That's why I bought a PS as well. I was living in Sacramento and one of my friends visited with it and a PS, I was like son of a gun I'm waiting tables to pay my way through college, I got rent, and now I got to gets me a Playstation, way to go dude.

Does it make me a bad person that if FF7 came out remade for the PS3 looking like it did in there graphics demo of the PS3 I'd have to plop down the money for a PS3 now as well. Though I do have more disposable income now though so it wouldn't be that bad.

 

[Ahglock]

One thing I've discovered is that at least half the time someone says something is "obviously" bad, it isn't. We had cries that the Mystic Theurge would destroy the games they were allowed in. The same thing with the Warlock. Time has shown that they weren't game destroyers except maybe in some very specific campaigns.

How did we determine this? By playing them and testing them to see if they caused problems. I want designers that will test something and see how it works. I don't want designers who look at a suggestion and say "that's obviously not going to work, don't bother with it."

I'd point out that there is a difference in not being able to judge balance at first sight and knowing that stepping in front of a train is a bad idea.

As a side note in my game the Mystic Theurage did in fact break the game. He sucked for a while and sucked hard which wasn't good, he became balanced which was good, and then he was hands down the most powerful character in the group by a very large margin. We played 1-23 and the combination of 9th level wizard spells and 7th level cleric spells was just too much.

 

[Glyfair]

I'd point out that there is a difference in not being able to judge balance at first sight and knowing that stepping in front of a train is a bad idea.

And I'll submit that there is nothing that remotely comes close to that analogy in trying a mechanic derived from a MMORPG in D&D. At least nothing the designers would seriously consider (something like having a mechanic that required a computer to adjudicate at the table might approach it, but no designer would consider it).

 

[TwinBahamut]

Don't forget imagery and memes, too. Along with specific game rules (such as mana or feats) there is also the imagery of such influences. Remember the backlash over impossibly huge swords in fantasy art of the early 2000's? A lot of detractors traced that back to good ol' Cloud Strife from FF 7 (the game that made me buy a Playstation, btw). And don't forget that with multiplayer RPGs like World of Warcraft and Everquest, there comes the imagery of "d00d, buff me!!!", "my alt toon is a 70 lock!!!" and "U can 50000g for just $349!!!" Say "video game" to a lot of tabletop players, and these are some of the negative images that come to mind for them.

Imagery is something that I count under "inspiration", so I didn't really forget it. And honestly... What is so wrong with oversized swords?

Also, the whole thing about "d00d, buff me!!" and the other phrases you mention is that such things exist in D&D already, if various threads here on ENWorld are any indication. People have been complaining about stuff like Monty Haul campaigns and wierd players who brag about their "uber" wizards for a long time, probably a lot longer than they have been blaming Everquest for the problem. The memes come from the players, not the game, and there isn't a huge difference between videogame players and D&D players.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you, but my thought is that it is in part due to the connotations I mentioned above. Note also that "video game," dumbing down," and "for the kiddies" are phrases that are all usually drug out at the same time.

Well, I don't see why they would be connected... The average videogame player is a fairly intellgient person (games tend to help coordination, reflexes, and analytical skills, after all), and studies have already shown that videogame players tend to be adults. The average age of videogaming is pretty much identical to the average age of D&D players.

Videogame only has such connotations if you are already pre-disposed against videogames.

Humans might get stuck if a player pulls an off-the-wall action, but they'll get stuck FAR less than a computer will. You can find a decent GM for far cheaper than you can find a computer game programmed for nearly anything off the map -- at least, for now.

Actually, they won't get stuck, they would simply disallow it and it won't come up in the first place. Honestly, that is an equally valid option. It leads to a quicker game, after all.

That obvious, huh? I do admit I find tabletop superior to computer RPGs in almost every way; I play a good bit of World of Warcraft, Civ, and Star Wars KOTOR, but if someone wanted to play a tabletop RPG in that same space of time, I'd drop the computer game in a heartbeat -- it just doesn't compare on any scale. About the only thing computers do better in my opinion is being ready any time I feel like it.

I totally agree with video games evolving from D&D, but why would taking inspiration from video games be an evolution? Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I can't see video games adding a lot of variety to RPG's -- rather computer RPGs seem to strip out the best parts of tabletop innovations and put them to best use in its medium. Per-encounter resources certainly didn't come from computer games, and neither did mana points or feats, to my knowledge. There may well be some innovations that originated from computer games alone without first starting at the tabletop, but I can't think of any.

I was just trying to follow your logic. You stated that since D&D came from wargames and boardgames, borrowing from them would be a regression. But since videogames came from D&D, why would that logic lead to them being a regression?

Also, this may be a bit blunt, but the reason you can't see the potential variety from videogames is because you don't play enough videogames.

But first, to address what you specifically mentioned... First, if videogames did not invent Mana Points, then who did? I know that system goes back at least as far as Dragon Quest in 1986, so if an RPG used that mechanic before then, I would like to know. Second, per-encounter balancing is fairly common in videogame RPGs, and has a much longer history there than I have seen in D&D. D&D's per-encounter balancing pretty much starts with stuff made for 3.5E, but there were many videogames made before then, like Chrono Cross, which use a purely per-encounter combat resource scheme. As was being discussed in another thread, a likely inspiration for feats came from the videogame Fallout.

Also, there are many videogames being made constantly that have entirely original systems and creative elements, that are completley unlike anything seen before in videogaming, let alone the relatively static tabletop RPG market. Skies of Arcadia, Ar Tonelico, Atelier Iris, .hack//G.U., Wild ARMs, etc, all have elements that make for fun and interesting games that are completely unseen in tabletop RPGs.

As a whole, I don't think your belief that videogames have nothing to contribute has any validity at all.

I agree, which is why I said if they start getting into tabletop games, it's time to take a step back and say "whoa, Nelly."

You completely missed my point... Such things don't make sense in a tabletop RPG concept, and only fools would think they do. I don't know many people who think they are a good solution to the problems of MMORPGs, just a solution. Spawn camping wasn't even part of the original intent of Everquest, and I still don't think the designers officially recognize its existence... either way, they are such a small part of the videogame RPG experience, I am not sure why so many people fixate on these elements so much in these discussions.

If I were leery of change, I'd be playing AD&D still. And the per-day and per-encounter stuff is fodder for whole other voluminous threads on the subject. It's got some nice advantages, especially to designers, but having played a good bit of the new Star Wars, for me the jury's still out on all its supposed benefits.

3E was cool as heck seven years ago; it was bright, promising, and expanded areas that 2E had really seen no innovation in, with additions from other RPGs that had some great ideas. If a computer game has a good idea, I'm all for it; but it needs to be a good idea, rather than just being a good idea because it worked in lots of computer games.

We are not talking about people bringing in bad ideas just because they are used in videogames, we are talking about people hating any ideas that come from videogames simply because they come from a videogame. I don't think the latter is defensible, at all.

 

[Ahglock]

And I'll submit that there is nothing that remotely comes close to that analogy in trying a mechanic derived from a MMORPG in D&D. At least nothing the designers would seriously consider (something like having a mechanic that required a computer to adjudicate at the table might approach it, but no designer would consider it).

Nothing to you. To some the agro testing was more of the stepping in front of a train bad idea than the can't judge balance idea. You may disagree with them, but it doesn't make there feelings and thoughts on the subject any less valid than yours.