Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3899581" data-attributes="member: 158">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.</blockquote>

Verification