Why is "videogame" a bad word?

[Ourph]

For certain, different generations of players will bring their own styles to the games, but we all seem to go through the same cycles. No one out there who has played D&D can tell me they've NEVER in their lives played at least one straight "dungeon crawl" session for fun - and if they did tell me that, I'd suspect them of not telling me the truth.

I try to play all my games that way.

However, a P&P RPG hack-n-slash dungeon crawl isn't necessarily videogamey by definition. It depends upon how the DM and players approach the game.

 

[barsoomcore]

There is a key philosophical difference between the two activites, however.

Video games can't help but reward players for matching the expectations of the designer. If you do what the designer of the game thinks is the best thing to do at any given moment, you will succeed. If you try to do something that the designer never anticipated, you will fail. The point of all video games, ultimately, is to figure out the correct sequence of buttons to push and then to be able to push them when prompted.

Tabletop RPGs are not fundamentally about that. The GM need not have any expectations at all about what the players will do. The players are not constrained to solutions that were programmed into the rules. The fact that modern video games have so much detail in them that they appear to allow any solution does not mean that they do. Those constraints are still there, and cannot be taken away.

D&D is not PRIMARILY a puzzle-solving game. Video games are. The puzzles get incredibly complicated, but they're still puzzles. D&D is a lot of things, but it's not in and of itself a set of puzzles to which the players must provide pre-defined solutions in order to be rewarded. A DM might run a campaign in which the players are presented with one puzzle after another, and might refuse to allow any solutions other than the ones he thinks are best, but that's just one way to run the game. A video game is NECESSARILY like that.

THAT'S the big difference, thought I'll admit it's not usually what people are talking about when they use the term as a disparaging comment on someone else's playing style.

And I'm not being disparaging about either, here. Just pointing out that the two activities are fundamentally different.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I've seen video gamey used derogatorily on the board fairly often Diabloesque is another common comparison.

Now, myself, I think Diablo II would make a pretty decent D&D campaign as long as you filed the serial numbers off, added a few more options, and toned down the random combats to be suitable for a multiplayer role-playing game rather than a real-time, top-down strategic shooter. The majority of the quests and settings as well as the progression, however, would make for a good game.

As for the justifiable use of the term, I think it refers to a play style--not necessarily hack and slash, but rather like the beginning adventurers you can subcontract one of the Baldur's Gate II Throne of Bhaal quests to, an attitude that expects things to always be salvagable, and wants to save the game and try every apparent option to see what happens if you do. (For those who don't remember or haven't played the game, your party discovers some wannabe adventurers in the lair of one of the villains and, after casting stone to flesh on them, sends them to get some stuff. They defeat the kobolds and come back. When they get back, they've made a couple levels and the wizard can cast two magic missiles, so they decide to try and kill the party. When they fail, the screen goes blank, they "load" the game and give you the stuff). It's the kind of logic that leads to killing Drizz't for his scimitars in the original Baldur's Gate. One of my friends played Neverwinter Nights the same way: check every quest ending to see what gave him the best stuff and make sure to give enough gold to beggars to keep his alignment "good." (IIRC, it came back to bite him in the end because he always did the short term evaluation and if a particular resolution method meant losing xp and gold immediately but pointed to a longer-term reward, he would miss it). In normal D&D without save games, I don't see how that would really apply.

However, I do really dislike the "rest after every fight so we're at full power" style which is more popular in video games because events are generally scripted based on location rather than in-game time progression. I don't think that's specific to video games, however, and it certainly isn't a universal feature of them. (In fact, I tend to have my NwN and BG II PCs rest about as often as I would pen and paper PCs).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Infinite Options

3. As a player, you have a certain limited number of options when it comes to what your character can do to resolve any specific situation. If you're trapped in a room, you MUST find the key. If you're faced with a monster guarding a treasure, you MUST kill the monster to get the treasure. etc.

This is probably the key point for me. Video games are more limited in what you can do than D&D. D&D with a good DM is open-ended and can embrace an infinite variety of PC actions. Slaying a dragon? Solving puzzles? Ruling a kingdom? Running a mercantile scam? Seducing a paladin? It's so versatile. Video games have gotten better but are still much more limited.

And even within a given feature such as combat or exploring, PCs seem to have more options in D&D. PCs have a marvelous tendency to take unexpected routes. When faced with a maze, there's a chance they'll try to fly over it, break through the walls, or turn into a dire badger and tunnel underneath. A DM who does not let players sometimes get away with this anti-railroading impulse is not, in my opinion, a DM I want to play with. Similarly, the number of possible deceptions one can use in espionage or counter-espionage is vast, given the spell and skill lists. It seems to me that computer games could embrace a number of the options, but not all.

That said, I do like my CRPGs. They have gotten much better (though I still love Bard's Tale II) and are excellent for what they are. Star Wars:KOTOR is great, with combat, roleplaying, and puzzle-solving. But again, your choices are limited.

 

[Squire James]

I should probably note that most of those little irritating videogame tropes came about because the game was trying its best to emulate D&D!

 

[Remathilis]

So many of us forget that most of us STARTED with this self-same video-game style - we played to get the +1 sword, and the next character level, because we were young. Same deal now - 99% speaking, those who start young, will play young. As they mature, they inject other elements in their play. This is to say nothing of how the play style comes back around full circle every now and again - witness threads from those players who have gathered with some of their friends to "kick it old-school" every now and again.

Proving its all cylindical really. HnS gives way to RPing, which makes one remember the old days and havea a HnS again until this gets boring. Repeat.

Personally, my main attaction to D&D from videogame RPGs (and the reason I started D&D) was the fact that I wanted my own character. I wanted to design his look, powers, and dialog. Classic RPGs made you assume the role of a particular character, I wanted to break that mold and design my OWN stories...

MMORPGs, coming much later into my D&D career (I didn't try one til Final Fantasy XI). Proved the opposite problem: my character was nothing. I couldn't donate hours out of every day to kill orcs to level, and my character wasn't special or unique. I rarely even spoke in character! MMORPGs made me feel like I was playing a game, not role-playing a character. How some people marry over EQ is unknown to me.

IMHO, I think the two, while sharing similar elements, are going to remain totally different animals. NWN, with its DM tool, didn't replace meeting my friends on Sunday to game. There might be good ways to get one audience exposed to the other, but to assume one is poaching on the other smacks of elitism. There is plenty of room for both.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I should probably note that most of those little irritating videogame tropes came about because the game was trying its best to emulate D&D!

And you're not the first to note it, but it is a very very good point. Maybe we should called video games D&Dy?

Actually, while I have seen the Diablo comment and video game comments directed towards campaign styles, I haven't seen those for a very long time. It seems that more recently, videogame is being used as a 'bad word' to describe the rules themselves. Of course, this may just have been a side effect of the many edition wars thread phase ENWorld seems to have(hopefully) passed out of.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The only "problem" with video games is that they compete with D&D for the entertainment time (and money) of gamers. If too many people take up video games over D&D, the game will suffer and will increasingly be compelled to change its image to attract video game players. IMO, that's bad. Remember, video games are just one step up from vegging out in front of the TV (but RPGs are a whole two steps up! ).

 

[diaglo]

Remember, video games are just one step up from vegging out in front of the TV (but RPGs are a whole two steps up! ).

in the 12 step method, the first step is to admit it is a problem.

 

[Belen]

I admit that I use video games as a negative comparison to DnD. I do play them, but more for mindless entertainment and to have something to do rather than real passion.

IME, those people who treat DnD like a video game are those who follow the gamist approach to DnD. These are people who revel in combat, roll for every social encounter, and spend hours pouring over their books to find new combos. It's just like spending hours searching for all the hidden quests in a game to help you get all the stuff.

Unfortunately, the "gamist" philosophy is in ascendance at the moment.

Video games are great, but I can play those anytime. I want something more out of DnD and I think that a lot of people want more as well. Gamism sells books, but I do not believe that it will turn the newer players into lifelong gamers, which is why I think the auidence is graying for DnD. Very few people understand the kernal that makes DnD great.

Gygax and Arneson looked at their bland wargame and wanted something more and they succeeded. Now, it seems that "something" is being taken away in favor of the wargame.

The gamist approach really needs to be coupled with character.

Rules that make sense are important. Rules with character, style and flavor are the tools that make a lifelong gamer.

I do not believe that 3e will stand the test of time. In the end, this edition has followed the crunch and catered to the gamist. How many of these books will you keep as references for futures games? How many of them spark the imagination and would be something that you wanted to keep a lifetime?

I still use my Legends and Lore, my Bard's Handbook, and 1e DMG. Once the rules change, my 3e books will be obsolete. There is nothing there that would cause me to keep referencing them. I will just "upgrade" to the next edition.

Yet, I will still use my Bard's Handbook as a source of inspiration when I want to play a bard. In the end, 3e is a great game, but the elements that make it transcend from game to lifestyle are missing.