D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[triqui]

I am finding it kind of appalling that there is more than one person who actually continues to believe that video games have nothing to offer tabletop RPGs in terms of mechanical inspiration despite the provided, demonstrable evidence to the contrary.

It says a lot about the sort of person who believes that.

What I find hilarious is some armchair developer saying Paizo is subpar. You know, the current market leader is subpar, because he says so. Talking about ivory towers and high horses.

Its a doublefacepalm.

 

[triqui]

Doublepost

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not sure why you think your own bold claims from your own ivory tower are any better than his, but I'd like to point a few videogame mechanics that have improved RPG. For example, the Dragon Age RPG is quite good, and D&D 3e borrowed a lot from videogames. Whirlwind feat was sued to be "videogamey" and "diablesque" back then by the ADnD grognards in the first edition war. The Talent Trees in StarWars Saga are a direct rip off from Diablo, WoW and other games Talent Trees. The already mentioned achievement feats have been explored, even if poorly executed. And so on.

There's an awful lot more which could be taken from videogames, though not necessarily from cRPGs. Visibly, some of the Pathfinder "Nation-building" mechanics in their Kingmaker path are so much like some RTS/TBS mechanics as to make it look like they come from a videogame. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering how much playtesting videogames get compared to tRPGs.

What I find hilarious is some armchair developer saying Paizo is subpar. You know, the current market leader is subpar, because he says so. Talking about ivory towers and high horses.

Its a doublefacepalm.

Ford sell a lot more than Rolls Royce. This is not necessarily because Ford make higher quality vehicles.

 

[B.T.]

What I find hilarious is some armchair developer saying Paizo is subpar. You know, the current market leader is subpar, because he says so. Talking about ivory towers and high horses.

Its a doublefacepalm.

>2012
>thinking that popularity reflects quality
ISHYGDDT

Pathfinder's success largely comes from the continuation of the 3e system and a fat art budget. Mechanically, the game is a mess, to the point where the designers routinely demonstrate ignorance of how the game functions and cogent design principles (Prone Shooter, Death or Glory, and vow of poverty monks are some of the more egregious examples).

 

[Argyle King]

And what I'm trying to say, is that it doesn't really matter. Rock, scissors, paper doesn't have any numbers on it, yet there is an optimal way to play it, and a lot of suboptimal decisions you can make.
Whatever game you have, there's a course of action that is optimal, and a lot that there isn't.
If being the God of Music make that character unable to play in everyday life, then that's a suboptimal character. In minmaxing, the "min" part is so important as the "max" part. It's maximum benefit, for minimum cost. A god of music unable to tie his shoes is not minmaxed. A demigod of music which is fairly competent in everything else, is minmaxed.

It is my belief that having a game in which a wider variety of solutions are acceptable as legitimate ways to solve a problem makes it more difficult to have a set number of builds which are viewed as 'right.' This is in contrast to certain D&D options which -in my opinion- are not legitimate options because choosing them puts you much further behind where the game expects you to be than choosing something else. I feel that is a problem which is due to the current level structure of modern D&D. There is too much emphasis on the metagame constructs of things such as level; wealth by level; item dependency; etc. There are too many times when what I want to do is at odds with what the game says I should do.

 

[Umbran]

It says a lot about the sort of person who believes that.

Oh, really?

Would you like us to now dissect what it means about you that you'd turn to this tactic? I don't think you'd like it, as the results would not be at all complimentary....

We have said this a bazillion times. I will say it again, in large letters, so you are unlikely to miss it:

DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL.

Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Turning discussion on games into an attack on someone's character is a pretty crappy thing to do.

Anyone have questions? Take 'em to e-mail or PM. Thank you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am finding it kind of appalling that there is more than one person who actually continues to believe that video games have nothing to offer tabletop RPGs in terms of mechanical inspiration despite the provided, demonstrable evidence to the contrary.

It says a lot about the sort of person who believes that.

Mod Note: See my post below, please. ~Umbran

Personally, i haven't been very impressed by things that look like attempts to incorporate video game elements into RPGs (and I avoid specifics here because what is video game inspired and what is not is so contentious). Just my opinion, but I think RPGs have more to offer video games than the reverse. I have never played a video game and thought it was doing something that RPGs desperately need to do as well. They are different mediums.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

personally, i haven't been very impressed by things that look like attempts to incorporate video game elements into rpgs (and i avoid specifics here because what is video game inspired and what is not is so contentious). Just my opinion, but i think rpgs have more to offer video games than the reverse. I have never played a video game and thought it was doing something that rpgs desperately need to do as well. They are different mediums.

qft!

 

[triqui]

It is my belief that having a game in which a wider variety of solutions are acceptable as legitimate ways to solve a problem makes it more difficult to have a set number of builds which are viewed as 'right.' This is in contrast to certain D&D options which -in my opinion- are not legitimate options because choosing them puts you much further behind where the game expects you to be than choosing something else.

It does not. Whenever you have more than one way to solve a problem, you are going to have a ranking of solutions, and one of those is the best one. The thing about "right" builds is efficiency. You can have a D&D fighter which is "right", and gets the job done, but then that other fighter over there went to Char Op forum and gets the job done better. Just like in videogames. It's not that you can't play the game with whatever build you want. It's that other builds are better.

That's true for videogames, rpg, rock-paper-scissors, poker, magic the gathering, chess, and any other games where you have options. Whenever you have to make choices, some choices are marginally better than others, and therefore there is an optimal subset of choices that is better than the suboptimal ones. The only way to avoid that, is making a game where choices don't matter (pure random games) or making a game with so little popularity nobody cares about it high enough to study it's math and find a minmaxing.

 

[triqui]

>2012
>thinking that popularity reflects quality
.

2012.
Thinking personal opinion reflects reality as if it were fact. Then acusing other people about making claims from an ivory tower.