# A bit tired of people knocking videogames...



## Glade Riven (Mar 23, 2011)

This is one of those things that goes in the _I don't understand the problem_ category. I keep seeing complaints that "_x_ is too much like a videogame."

The problem I find is that pencil and paper RPGs have had a huge influence on videogames and videogaming culture. Sure, there is the whole RPG genre (whether the typical turn-based rail-roading JRPG or more open games such as the Elder Scrolls series), but beyond that, RPG elements have shown up in platformers, first person shooters, Real Time and Turn Based Strategy games...name a genre, and RPG elements have influenced it. While not a new phenominon, many developers are wanting to grow the communal aspect. Some are even looking into heading towards collective storytelling.

So something feels like a videogame when you play it. Well, that comment is left rather undefined. _How_ does it feel like a videogame?

If your game feels like a multi-hour long grind-fest for the sake of grinding, you're probably running it wrong. Go pick up some Paizo APs or something.

If your game feels like an intricatly designed Zelda dungeon with crazy puzzles, traps, and unique combat opertunities, you're probably running it right.

I came late to the roleplaying party. But I know good gameplay, and I know good level design when I see it. And I know this stuff because of videogames, and the influence that good game design has across multiple mediums (pencil & paper and videogames being separate mediums). There's more opertunity for freedom with pencil & paper, although with videogames there is the advantage of _deus ex machina_ behind the curtain.

Sure, cultural elements from popular gaming culture will find it's way into pencil & paper, as well as practical game design elements. But to me it just looks like a bit of chocolate in my peanutbutter.

So I don't get the problem.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> This is one of those things that goes in the _I don't understand the problem_ category. I keep seeing complaints that "_x_ is too much like a videogame."



Part of that is that the people saying that probably have different expectations of videogames and the game or style of game in question.




> So something feels like a videogame when you play it. Well, that comment is left rather undefined. _How_ does it feel like a videogame?



Without getting specific in this thread, I know that when I make such a complaint, I can be quite specific.  If I don't in a particular post, it is because I've probably covered that ground with the other posters in that thread before.

I can also say that when the guys in my current game group made complaints along those lines about certain games, they, too, were quite specific.



> So I don't get the problem.




Well, again not specifying the exact RPG, the guys in my group criticized a game as being videogamey and got very detailed.  The overall reason they disliked it on those grounds was that it required players to track things that they'd rather a computer did.  They felt it added to their workload.

And since most of these guys are both serious computer gamers and veteran P&P gamers- including at least one who is a professional computer game designer- I took them at their word.

In my case, I criticized the same game of having mechanics that reminded me of certain arcade games- games I really, really enjoyed.  This diminished my immersion in the P&P RPG.  I don't play RPGs to simulate arcade games, generally speaking.  Despite attempts by fans of the game to persuade me otherwise, the mechanics have still not lost that vibe for me, years later.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

There are people who complain that "This tabletop roleplaying game is too video-gamey!" when what they actually mean is "This tabletop roleplaying game has too many game-like elements!" Video games are the popular scapegoat because a) people are very familiar with them, b) they are contemporary, and c) there are some pretty strong elitist WoW-is-for-losers, video-games-don't-let-me-do-whatever-I-want, my-entertainment-medium-of-choice-is-better-than-yours threads running through the tabletop gaming community.

Immersion is _incredibly_ overrated.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

In my experience there are a couple of reasons why computer roleplaying games are compared unfavorably to tabletop roleplaying games.

I think the most significant is that no computer game yet programmed can match the flexibility of gamers. Tabletop games which feel like they limit that inherent flexibility too much seem to be the one's most often hit with the 'computer game' tag; what is 'too much' is a subjective experience, and thus disagreements arise over whether or not a that tag is fair or not, reasonable or not.

I can give you an example from your own post.







Transbot9 said:


> If your game feels like an intricatly designed Zelda dungeon with crazy puzzles, traps, and unique combat opertunities, you're probably running it right.



If _all_ a tabletop roleplaying game offers is this experience, then I would disagree that this is 'running it right.'

If I can't say, "Right, I'm not interested in searching this hole for the Boggle of Zoon any longer. Let's go enslave some orcs and conquer the Duchy of Fiffifth instead," then the game is going to feel too limited to me. If I can't keep a handful of sand in my pocket to toss in some sniveling git's eyes without the 'Improved Sand Throwing' feat or the 'Come Get Some . . . Sand in Your Face' encounter power, then the game is going to feel too limited to me. If I can't say, "Okay, I've maxed out Use Rope, so I'm going to rig a Tyrolean traverse to get us across this bog without getting our boots wet," then the game is going to feel too limited to me.

A favorable comparison between encounter design in computer roleplaying games and tabletop roleplaying games actually highlights why some tabletop gamers aren't enamored of the influence of computer games.

_Mes deux sous_ . . .


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

90% of the time they mean "look I dislike video games and I dislike this tabletop game so _it's just like a video game_."

Note how often the comparison turns to *shambles* once you ask them what elements of the game it reminds them off.  I'm often intrigued of this strange form of World of Warcraft that exists in another timeline in which nobody ever raids, the spells and abilities are timed on an encounter scale, and none of the classes have mana/rage/focus/energy.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> If I can't say, "Okay, I've maxed out Use Rope, so I'm going to rig a Tyrolean traverse to get us across this bog without getting our boots wet," then the game is going to feel too limited to me.




You must've *hated* D&D before 3e came along.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You must've *hated* D&D before 3e came along.



On the contrary, I'd just pull off my shoelaces and show the dungeon master how it's rigged, and we'd be across the bog before you could say Len Lakofka.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

> 90% of the time they mean "look I dislike video games and I dislike this tabletop game so it's just like a video game."




I honestly don't recall seeing this position _ever._


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> On the contrary, I'd just pull off my shoelaces and show the dungeon master how it's rigged, and we'd be across the bog before you could say Len Lakofka.




But then you aren't using your Use Rope skill!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I honestly don't recall seeing this position _ever._




Really?  Because judging as how hilariously fast the "too video gamey" arguments crumble to the ground once asked _how_ things are too video gamey, I'd say that's about the only position I see on the topic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

Doesn't match my recollection at all.

I mean, that doesn't match my position nor that of the guys in my group.  None of us has revised our position, either.

And I don't recall seeing anyone saying they hated WoW and game X was so WoW-like that they hated game X, for instance.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Mar 23, 2011)

It seems to me like people can't come up with much of an argument, so they toss the videogame insult out there. Im not sure why people feel the need to intrude on other games instead of playing their own. Ya know?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Doesn't match my recollection at all.
> 
> I mean, that doesn't match my position nor that of the guys in my group.  None of us has revised our position, either.
> 
> And I don't recall seeing anyone saying they hated WoW and game X was so WoW-like that they hated game X, for instance.




"What is said" and "what is meant" are two different things.

I've yet to see "this is too video gamey" used towards a tabletop game that meant anything other then "Vague statement of disapproval!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

Then you have not read (or possibly, understood) my posts...including those in this thread.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But then you aren't using your Use Rope skill!



Once upon a time, what a player knew was no less important than what was on the character sheet.

Shocking, I know.

In any case, Use Rope was introduced as a non-weapon proficiency in 1e _AD&D_ about twenty-five years ago; yes, Virginia, _D&D_ had rules for doing stuff long before 3e was a wiggle in Monte Cook's epididymis.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I think the most significant is that no computer game yet programmed can match the flexibility of gamers. Tabletop games which feel like they limit that inherent flexibility too much seem to be the one's most often hit with the 'computer game' tag; what is 'too much' is a subjective experience, and thus disagreements arise over whether or not a that tag is fair or not, reasonable or not.




The disagreement is much more basic than that. I disagree that flexibility is a boundless goal. Flexibility is not worthwhile beyond those bounds at which the game will reasonably run. I'll elaborate further down.



> If I can't say, "Right, I'm not interested in searching this hole for the Boggle of Zoon any longer. Let's go enslave some orcs and conquer the Duchy of Fiffifth instead," then the game is going to feel too limited to me.




And here we have it. As a player, it's occasionally nice to have the illusion of freedom to do whatever you want with the game world. That illusion, of course, is shattered by the reality that you're playing a game with other people. If you were playing by yourself in your own head with nothing but your imagination, enslaving orcs and conquering duchies would be no big deal. But you're not. You're playing with a bunch of other people, and the guy in charge of the world usually has his own idea of how the game will progress.

As a DM, I am under no obligation to allow you to enslave some orcs. While I may have the capacity to let you do that (even by simply saying "Okay, you enslave some orcs."), I probably won't. Functionally, this is no different than if your computer game didn't have the ability to allow you to enslave some orcs.

As the DM, I outline expectations of my players - among which is included the understanding that you will participate in the story that has been prepared. Some DMs run things "sandbox" style, but you're still playing in _their _sandbox. In this manner, flexibility - the sort of flexibility you seek - can be _damaging_ to the game.

You clearly don't like "artificial" boundaries in your games. I'm sure the invisible wall trope of video games infuriates you. Believe it or not, though, those same invisible walls exist in tabletop gaming. You just don't get the visceral experience of physically bumping into one. Instead, depending on the skill and patience of your DM, you will wind up being subtly steered back to the plot, or tolerated as the DM scrambles to improvise, or yelled at for deliberately jumping the rails.

Flexibility is nice. It's great to have different solutions to the problem of retrieving the Boggle of Zoon. It encourages creative thinking. There's plenty of room for this sort of creative thinking in most video games. Many encourage it. But if your idea of flexibility is having the freedom to say "My character decides to retire from adventuring life and start a vegetable stand in the local market," I doubt you're going to find your average tabletop gaming group any more accommodating than a video game.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I don't recall seeing anyone saying they hated WoW and game X was so WoW-like that they hated game X, for instance.




I saw this exact argument - _exact_ argument - last night on the Pathfinder RPG subforum of ENWorld.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

> D&D had rules for doing stuff long before 3e was a wiggle in Monte Cook's epididymis.




OCH, Laddie!  _MY EYES!_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I saw this exact argument - _exact_ argument - last night on the Pathfinder RPG subforum of ENWorld.




Fair enough- it _does_ happen.

But it isn't the only possible "videogamey" critique.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 23, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> So I don't get the problem.



There are people who use "like a videogame" as a non-specific slur, or to imply that people who play the game are immature, have short attention spans, are more interested in shiny bells and whistles and other visual and sound effects rather than problem-solving and role-playing, or that the game has been "dumbed down" or otherwise made into a pale imitation of the real thing its former self. 

There are (IMO) somewhat more valid complaints in which aspects of the game may appear similar to aspects of certain video games (even if they are not technically alike, the fact that they may remind one of a video game is sufficient). Here, the phrase is often used imprecisely since that aspect (i) need not be common to all video games, (ii) need not be unique to video games, or even (iii) may not even have originated with video games in the first place. Such complaints may include: 4E's defender/leader/striker/controller roles being similar to tank/dps/healer/crowd control roles in certain video games; 4E's encounter powers being similar to powers with cooldowns in certain video games; and 4E's healing surges being similar to rapid health resoration mechanisms in certain video games.

Perhaps the most significant (again, IMO) way in which a tabletop game can be "like a videogame" (apart from inflexibility, which is more a DM issue than a rules issue) is, as Dannager mentioned, gamist (or at least, non-simulationist) elements that can strain suspension of disbelief and derail immersion if not handled properly. However, even this is not a problem if you don't consider it to be a problem.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> As a player, it's occasionally nice to have the illusion of freedom to do whatever you want with the game world. That illusion, of course, is shattered by the reality that you're playing a game with other people. If you were playing by yourself in your own head with nothing but your imagination, enslaving orcs and conquering duchies would be no big deal. But you're not. You're playing with a bunch of other people, and the guy in charge of the world usually has his own idea of how the game will progress.



Back in the day, our characters tended to have a number of henchmen and hirelings, so since a single player would often be running the equivalent of a party, it was not at all uncommon for us to run one-on-one sessions between normal game nights.

Be that as it may, you're parsing the example much too closely.







Dannager said:


> As a DM, I am under no obligation to allow you to enslave some orcs. While I may have the capacity to let you do that (even by simply saying "Okay, you enslave some orcs."), I probably won't. Functionally, this is no different than if your computer game didn't have the ability to allow you to enslave some orcs.



And I'm under no obligation to continue playing with you. Functionally, this is the equivalent of your computer sprouting legs, thanking you, and politely excusing itself from your desk.







Dannager said:


> As the DM, I outline expectations of my players - among which is included the understanding that you will participate in the story that has been prepared.



Well then, I wouldn't sit down at the table in the first place, so problem solved for everyone concerned.







Dannager said:


> Some DMs run things "sandbox" style, but you're still playing in _their _sandbox. In this manner, flexibility - the sort of flexibility you seek - can be _damaging_ to the game.



Codswallop.







Dannager said:


> You clearly don't like "artificial" boundaries in your games. I'm sure the invisible wall trope of video games infuriates you.



Wouldn't know - never play 'em.







Dannager said:


> Believe it or not, though, those same invisible walls exist in tabletop gaming. You just don't get the visceral experience of physically bumping into one. Instead, depending on the skill and patience of your DM, you will wind up being subtly steered back to the plot, or tolerated as the DM scrambles to improvise, or yelled at for deliberately jumping the rails.





Wow, that's . . . wow.







Dannager said:


> Flexibility is nice. It's great to have different solutions to the problem of retrieving the Boggle of Zoon. It encourages creative thinking. There's plenty of room for this sort of creative thinking in most video games. Many encourage it. But if your idea of flexibility is having the freedom to say "My character decides to retire from adventuring life and start a vegetable stand in the local market," I doubt you're going to find your average tabletop gaming group any more accommodating than a video game.



Funny, I used the example of rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy, and somehow you turned it into tending a turnip patch.

One of these things is not like the other.

And fortunately, my experience is quite different from yours. You might be quite surprised at the effect a _veterano_ like myself has on a group of players; give them a whiff of real in-character freedom, and good luck keeping 'em on your shiny rails, conductor.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Fair enough- it _does_ happen.
> 
> But it isn't the only possible "videogamey" critique.




Nope. It's just a really popular one. WoW is a big deal right now, and it seems like everyone is qualified to provide their opinion of what WoW is all about, especially those who have never played it. Which is hilarious, because then people start saying "This thing about D&D-edition-I-hate is just like WoW!" even though the thing they mentioned doesn't bear any similarity to WoW whatsoever.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Back in the day, our characters tended to have a number of henchmen and hirelings, so since a single player would often be running the equivalent of a party, it was not at all uncommon for us to run one-on-one sessions between normal game nights.




Right. It's still a multiplayer game, even if it's just you and the DM.



> And I'm under no obligation to continue playing with you.



Exactly. You could go find another game that does exactly what you want it to do. Er, I mean, a DM who does exactly what you want him to do.



> Well then, I wouldn't sit down at the table in the first place, so problem solved for everyone concerned.



Social expectations are funny like that.



> Codswallop.



Would you like to elaborate?



> Wouldn't know - never play 'em.



Clearly, as someone who doesn't play video games, you are _amply_ qualified to judge their merits and capabilities compared to things you _do_ play.



> Wow, that's . . . wow.



Once more, would you like to elaborate?



> Funny, I used the example of rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy, and somehow you turned it into tending a turnip patch.
> 
> One of these things is not like the other.



You're right. One of those things is a situation that I wouldn't facilitate in my D&D games, and the other is running a vegetable stand.

Snark aside, they're exactly the same. If a DM decides that rounding up slaves is not something he envisions focusing his time and the time of your fellow players on, it won't happen. Similarly, if a DM decides that you running a vegetable stand is not something he thinks is appropriate for your game, it won't receive acknowledgment or support either.

I used the vegetable stand example _precisely_ to get you to try and say they're two different things. You have _your own_ preconception of where a D&D game should go. You have your _own_ boundaries. Those boundaries are not "things that are possible in a fantasy world". Instead, those boundaries are "things that I think might be interesting". Apparently, according to your boundaries, rounding up slaves is something to focus on, and a vegetable stand is not.

I mean, you defend your standpoint that rounding up slaves is something that you expect to be allowed in any D&D game you play in, then _back away_ from defending the idea that running a vegetable stand should be allowed, while at the same time trying to tell me that allowing total flexibility is a desirable thing in a tabletop game?

_Really?_

Either you agree that running a vegetable stand should be a legitimate option for someone playing D&D to expect to be able to do in your game, or you agree to the _very basic_ premise that unbridled flexibility is not inherently a desirable characteristic in a game, and that past a certain point it can become not only useless, but actually detrimental to the flow of the game.



> And fortunately, my experience is quite different from yours. You might be quite surprised at the effect a _veterano_ like myself has on a group of players; give them a whiff of real in-character freedom, and good luck keeping 'em on your shiny rails, conductor.



While I have a certain level of admiration for your desire to disrupt play experiences for the sake of demonstrating your own creativity and old-school cred, I had sort of hoped that we were well past the outdated (and fundamentally lacking) notion that adventures that follow a path are somehow inferior to the style of game you prefer.


----------



## garrowolf (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I don't recall seeing anyone saying they hated WoW and game X was so WoW-like that they hated game X, for instance.




I hate WoW and D&D 4thed is so WoW-like that I hate it.  

Sorry I just had to do that. 

Seriously I actually do dislike RPGs that take too much from video games. I understand that most video games take their ideas from RPGs but many times the concepts don't convert back all that well. 

One of the things that I don't like is Hit Points as a long track where it doesn't matter how much you have taken until you die. I hated that in original D&D. Now in a side scrolling fighting game it's fine because it's not a realistic game anyway. 

I tend to think of character types based on the cultures involved in the setting. One of the things that bothered me about D&D 4th ed was that it focused so much on roles in combat I was reminded of WoW. It had nothing to do with the background of the setting or any cultural roles. It was aspects of tactics in a video game. Every time I was trying to figure out what my character could and should do I was pulled out of the setting by this mindset. 

I understand the desire to maximize your character. However 4th ed seemed to be more of a tactical game then a RPG. 

Now I have to say that maybe I'm biased because I never liked the D&D style low tech fantasy settings. They always seemed to be very one dimensional. I don't even read those kinds of fantasy books. I read modern fantasy and scifi. 

One of the few low tech fantasy medieval games I did like was Ars Magica. My thought on Wizards running around with an adventurer group was most of the time they should work for the magic user. In fact if magic was that powerful they should be in charge of every nation in these settings. 

Sorry I think I started rambling. I feel like an old man shaking his cane at "you kids and your damn video games!"


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

garrowolf said:


> Seriously I actually do dislike RPGs that take too much from video games. I understand that most video games take their ideas from RPGs but many times the concepts don't convert back all that well.
> 
> One of the things that I don't like is Hit Points as a long track where it doesn't matter how much you have taken until you die. I hated that in original D&D. Now in a side scrolling fighting game it's fine because it's not a realistic game anyway.




Uhhh...this isn't something that RPGs took from video games.

Also, in what way is any version of D&D a "realistic" game?



> I tend to think of character types based on the cultures involved in the setting. One of the things that bothered me about D&D 4th ed was that it focused so much on roles in combat I was reminded of WoW. It had nothing to do with the background of the setting or any cultural roles. It was aspects of tactics in a video game. Every time I was trying to figure out what my character could and should do I was pulled out of the setting by this mindset.



Then ignore the names of the roles?



> I understand the desire to maximize your character. However 4th ed seemed to be more of a tactical game then a RPG.




Do you believe that these things are mutually exclusive?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

> Now in a side scrolling fighting game it's fine because it's not a realistic game anyway.
> _<snip> _
> Sorry I think I started rambling. I feel like an old man shaking his cane at "you kids and your damn video games!"




Bah! I'm probably older than you are, whippersnapper.

Anywho- its funny you should mention side-scrollers: as hinted at by FireLance's (i) in his second paragraph, that's the origin of _my_ "videogamey" problem first arose, not with online RPGs...because I don't play those at all.  The last fantasy CRPG I bought was Ultima 3...no- it was the "Gold box" D&D stuff from the early 1990s.

Even though I love side-scrollers, I just don't want that kind of feel in my P&P RPGs.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Once upon a time, what a player knew was no less important than what was on the character sheet.
> 
> Shocking, I know.
> 
> In any case, Use Rope was introduced as a non-weapon proficiency in 1e _AD&D_ about twenty-five years ago; yes, Virginia, _D&D_ had rules for doing stuff long before 3e was a wiggle in Monte Cook's epididymis.




First off, NWPs were _optional _rules ;p

Secondly, let me explain the dissonance.

Let's not beat around the bush - 4e is what we're mostly talking about here.  And one of the prime complaints for 4e has been "But there's no _x_ skill!  How can I make a character who forges weapons without a forging skill?!  How could I make a character that brews his own beer without Profession?  It's just like a video game!"

And here's the gigantic dissonance, and it's why "it's lilke a video game" is utterly meaningless - it's a just-so statement.  4e doesn't have the skill?  It's like like a video game, it doesn't have non-combat skills!  It does have the skill or the ability?  It's just like a video game, you have to roll for everything!

4e has leaders, strikers, defenders, and controllers!  Nevermind that fits entirely to meet out with "Cleric, rogue, fighter, wizard," the quissential D&D team, _it's now like a video game!_  4e HP is an abstract, just as every edition's HP is?  _It's now like a video game!_

2e had the Diablo book, and 3e was called Diablo.  3e had the World of Warcraft setting - not once, but *twice!* - and 4e is called World of Warcraft.

Me?  I want to see what Blizzard game gets a 4e book, so I can accurately predict what the next edition will be called by people desperate to knock it down a peg.

"It's video gamey" doesn't work because every edition has been called video gamey.  Every_thing_ is called video gamey.  4e is like a video game?  Wow, that's entirely different from when 3e was called a video game!  Nihil novi sub sole.  _Especially_ when gamers start to whine.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> 90% of the time they mean "look I dislike video games and I dislike this tabletop game so _it's just like a video game_."
> 
> Note how often the comparison turns to *shambles* once you ask them what elements of the game it reminds them off.  I'm often intrigued of this strange form of World of Warcraft that exists in another timeline in which nobody ever raids, the spells and abilities are timed on an encounter scale, and none of the classes have mana/rage/focus/energy.




You've never asked me that. I could explain quite easily how 4E is video-gamey to me. I think I already have many times. 

If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns". 

Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game. Attack me or you are going to have problems, so my friends can beat on you and I can absorb all the damage. Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?

And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey. 

No one said 4E was exactly like _World of Warcraft_. All some of us said is that it has some mechanics and an overall feel like a MMORPG with the defined roles and threat mechanic as well as the power system.

To put it specifically point by point:

1. The roles feel analogous to the following:

Defender (Tank)
Leader (Healer)
Controller (Crowd Control)
Rogue and such (Damage dealer/DPS)


2. Defender threat mechanic feels like taunt.

3. Power system:

Encounter powers (MMORPG powers with 1 minute to 5 minute cooldown. Usually an encounter)
Daily Powers (powers with 30 minute to 1 hour cooldown. Several encounters)


4. Every power working:

Powers work in MMORPGs. Doesn't matter the creature often times. They work, even if it doesn't make sense. 4E has a lot of that such as being able to blast undead with psychic damage, even though their minds are dead.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 23, 2011)

Necromantic privileges must, almost by definition, be abused. So... arise, O thread of evil! We shall harvest more souls votes, and see what can't be achieved.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> You've never asked me that. I could explain quite easily how 4E is video-gamey to me. I think I already have many times.




Haha what, you and I have had this argument a billion times.  But why not, let's do it again.



> If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns".




Powers in D&D have always had cooldowns, they just had cooldowns of "one day."  The samurai kit in 2e has a daily power.  Barbarians in 3e have daily limits on their rages.



> Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game. Attack me or you are going to have problems, so my friends can beat on you and I can absorb all the damage. Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?




No, the taunt ability that the 3e Knight class was straight out of a video game.



> And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey.




No, they're narrative, unless you can show _how it's a video game_.



> 1. The roles feel analogous to the following:
> 
> Defender (Tank)
> Leader (Healer)
> ...




False.  There is no Crowd Control character in WoW.  Nor are Leaders "healers" by default.



> 2. Defender threat mechanic feels like taunt.




PHBII from 3e is now a video game.



> 3. Power system:
> 
> Encounter powers (MMORPG powers with 1 minute to 5 minute cooldown. Usually an encounter)
> Daily Powers (powers with 30 minute to 1 hour cooldown. Several encounters)




Spellcasters, 3e barbarians, 3e paladins, 3e rogues with certain advanced talents, 2e samurai, are all video games.



> 4. Every power working:
> 
> Powers work in MMORPGs. Doesn't matter the creature often times. They work, even if it doesn't make sense. 4E has a lot of that such as being able to blast undead with psychic damage, even though their minds are dead.




False.  Multiple abilities in WoW only work on specific targets.  Undead are immune to fear.  Seduce only effects humanoids.  Banish only effects demons.

That was fun!  Catch you next time I need to literally prove every statement you make wrong?


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> It's still a multiplayer game, even if it's just you and the DM.



Yes, which is why I play with referees who enjoy the same things I do in a game, and don't play with those who don't.







Dannager said:


> Would you like to elaborate?



One of the whole points of running a 'sandbox' type setting is to offer as much freedom as practicable to the players and their characters, so the idea that exercising that freedom is "damaging to the game" is codswallop.







Dannager said:


> Clearly, as someone who doesn't play video games, you are _amply_ qualified to judge their merits and capabilities compared to things you _do_ play.



Was what I wrote about the capability of a computer game not matching the capacity for adaptation of a human being not true? And must I play computer games to know this?







Dannager said:


> Once more, would you like to elaborate?



In *Dannager*-world, the responses of players going off the reservation is to force them back on, yell at them erm, or tolerate them.

Any room in there for gamers who _enjoy_ this sort of thing, who actually seek out players who _want_ to be in the driver's seat rather than connecting plot points to satisfy the 'storyteller?'







Dannager said:


> Snark aside, they're exactly the same. If a DM decides that rounding up slaves is not something he envisions focusing his time and the time of your fellow players on, it won't happen. Similarly, if a DM decides that you running a vegetable stand is not something he thinks is appropriate for your game, it won't receive acknowledgment or support either.
> 
> I used the vegetable stand example _precisely_ to get you to try and say they're two different things. You have _your own_ preconception of where a D&D game should go. You have your _own_ boundaries. Those boundaries are not "things that are possible in a fantasy world". Instead, those boundaries are "things that I think might be interesting". Apparently, according to your boundaries, rounding up slaves is something to focus on, and a vegetable stand is not.



They are different things because rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy moves the lives and careers of the adventurer and the history of the setting forward and sitting on his arse in a turnip patch doesn't.







Dannager said:


> I mean, you defend your standpoint that rounding up slaves is something that you expect to be allowed in any D&D game you play in, then _back away_ from defending the idea that running a vegetable stand should be allowed, while at the same time trying to tell me that allowing total flexibility is a desirable thing in a tabletop game?



I _never_ said it shouldn't be allowed; I said it's not the same thing.

If a player wants to retire his adventurer to grow turnips, or make shoes, or tend a pond of water lilies in the prince's garden, then the player has the freedom to do so; if I'm the one behind the screen, I'm going to focus the majority of my attention on the _non_-retired adventurers who are actively doing stuff, of course, so it's not going to make for much of a game-night for the guy running the root farmer or cobbler or groundskeeper, unless he finds some way to make his character's retirement more interesting than what the other adventurers are doing, such as sitting around waiting for the plot to arrive.







Dannager said:


> While I have a certain level of admiration for your desire to disrupt play experiences for the sake of demonstrating your own creativity and old-school cred, I had sort of hoped that we were well past the outdated (and fundamentally lacking) notion that adventures that follow a path are somehow inferior to the style of game you prefer.



Judging from the young gamers I met this weekend at an event organized through Dragonsfoot, your notion of "outdated (and fundamentally lacking)" reflects a limited view of the hobby.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns".




These are silly complaints. Those roles already existed before 4e, they just weren't labeled. And adding "Encounter" to the list doesn't change the fact that "Daily" was already a cooldown.



> Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game.




Actually, the 4e marking mechanic is pretty much _nothing_ like how aggro is handled in video games.

In video games, aggro is typically determined by a threat table, with each participant in the combat having a personal level of threat generated by their actions - healing, damage, special abilities, etc. Players have _precise_ control over threat in video games, so much so that managing threat is one of the basic skills required for participation in group play.

In D&D, there's no precise control. Marking provides a mechanical incentive for enemies to operate according to the defender's preferences, but they don't have to. The DM can choose to ignore the mark and attack whoever he feels like. There is no threat table beyond whatever the DM wants to attack next (which, coincidentally, is how it's _always worked_).

So, I mean, I'm gonna chalk this one up in the "criticisms of WoW that actually don't have anything to do with WoW or really any other video game at all" column.



> Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?




lawl



> And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey.




Yes, just like in games like WoW!

Oh, wait. Creature type matters in WoW. And most other video games.

If I tell a group that I'll drop a sap on those skeleton warriors, I'll probably be laughed at (and maybe group-kicked).

That column is getting pretty crowded.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> False.  There is no Crowd Control character in WoW.  Nor are Leaders "healers" by default.



Had to look up the first one - turns out all the classes have some kind of "CC", so yeah, no CC class, _per se_.

As for Leaders - note: I've not played a MMORPG, or 4e for that matter - wouldn't they more, um... "Buffers"? Apologies if my terminology is way off, but yeah.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Let's not beat around the bush - 4e is what we're mostly talking about here.



I really couldn't say; until a couple of weeks ago, I'd never so much as opened a 4e book, and even now the only section I've read is the one on skill challenges.

The only analogy between 4e and crpgs that resonated with me was the idea of at-will powers being like hammering the arcade game fire (or jump or whatever) button. I have no idea how true that may be, but it did create a pretty distinct picture in my mind of what the poster was talking about.

I personally find 3._x_e to be more like a ccg in the way that feats, class abilities, and so forth create a sort of Rochambeau effect in play, the, "You have fire resistance so I'll attack with a sound-based class ability," sort of thing.  While this existed in every edition of _D&D_, 3._x_ turned the volume to eleven, in my experience.

Oh, and I never played 2e, either, so comparisons with that and video games tend to be lost on me as well.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Had to look up the first one - turns out all the classes have some kind of "CC", so yeah, no CC class, _per se_.
> 
> As for Leaders - note: I've not played a MMORPG, or 4e for that matter - wouldn't they more, um... "Buffers"? Apologies if my terminology is way off, but yeah.




Kinda.

Leaders do a variety of things, with some being better at some things then others.

_In general_, leaders excel at doing three things: Setting up other party members to be awesome, shoring up defenses, and healing.

The first is really varied.  Bards have a ton of powers that move and shuffle allies around so the battllefield is always shifting to the best conditions for the team.  Warlords shout and inspire allies to attack multiple times, and to encourage them to make use of their action points.

In general, leaders, well, _lead_, at least once you hit the battlefield.  If the controller's job is to suppress control of the baddies and make things terrible for them, the leaders' job is to encourage control of the good guys and make things awesome for them.  The inspiration is closer to pre-3e clerics and 3e bards then anything else, looking more at how spells like Bless and Aid and _especially_ Defensive Harmony, or abilities like Inspire Courage, and how these things stack with the team as a whole.

The most important thing to remember with 4e is that it is *100%* a team based game.  The only really "selfish" character is the striker...but then, what do you expect from rogues and thieves and warlocks? ;p


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> One of the whole points of running a 'sandbox' type setting is to offer as much freedom as practicable to the players and their characters, so the idea that exercising that freedom is "damaging to the game" is codswallop.




Ahhh, interesting that we see the "as practicable" qualifier in here.



> Was what I wrote about the capability of a computer game not matching the capacity for adaptation of a human being not true?




You can no more control the limits of a computer game than you can control the limits of another person.

But yeah, it is relatively awesome that you're trying to justify comparing a tabletop game to a video game without really having any clue what you're comparing to.



> In *Dannager*-world, the responses of players going off the reservation is to force them back on, yell at them erm, or tolerate them.




"Tolerate", in this case, simply means any response that allows the players to continue on their off-the-rails adventure. So I'm pretty sure that I just about covered all the bases there.



> They are different things because rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy moves the lives and careers of the adventurer and the history of the setting forward and sitting on his arse in a turnip patch doesn't.I _never_ said it shouldn't be allowed; I said it's not the same thing.




How is that distinction important to this argument?



> If a player wants to retire his adventurer to grow turnips, or make shoes, or tend a pond of water lilies in the prince's garden, then the player has the freedom to do so; if I'm the one behind the screen, I'm going to focus the majority of my attention on the _non_-retired adventurers who are actively doing stuff, of course, so it's not going to make for much of a game-night for the guy running the root farmer or cobbler or groundskeeper, unless he finds some way to make his character's retirement more interesting than what the other adventurers are doing, such as sitting around waiting for the plot to arrive.




Right. You will not waste your time and the time of your other players focusing on the whims of a single player unless that single player is engaged in whatever you deem interesting and of value to the furtherance of an adventurer's career.

I'm not saying that's weird. That's what everyone does. My point is that this is an example of restricting flexibility towards a worthwhile end.



> Judging from the young gamers I met this weekend at an event organized through Dragonsfoot, your notion of "outdated (and fundamentally lacking)" reflects a limited view of the hobby.




That the idea that your style of play is better than someone else's is lacking or outdated isn't predicated on its popularity amongst the younger crowd. It's based on the idea that this sort of unapologetic elitism is just kinda sad and probably not all that healthy for the hobby as a whole.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Every single "video game" comment makes me think of how 3e was "nothing more then Diablo as a tabletop game."

But then again, a lot of negative commentary towards 4e reminds me of the exact same commentary that was made towards 3e by 2e fans


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The most important thing to remember with 4e is that it is *100%* a team based game.  The only really "selfish" character is the striker...but then, what do you expect from rogues and thieves and warlocks? ;p




Even then, their contribution is indirectly beneficial to the party dynamic. Dealing damage to the enemy reduces its numbers, which in turn reduces the enemy's ability to deal damage, which in turn lessens the amount of damage the party as a whole has to absorb.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> Had to look up the first one - turns out all the classes have some kind of "CC", so yeah, no CC class, _per se_.
> 
> As for Leaders - note: I've not played a MMORPG, or 4e for that matter - wouldn't they more, um... "Buffers"? Apologies if my terminology is way off, but yeah.




I don't know why everyone focuses just on WoW when comparing tabletop RPGs to video games. City of Heroes has controller characters.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I don't know why everyone focuses just on WoW when comparing tabletop RPGs to video games. City of Heroes has controller characters.



Um, neither do I (if that's so). You might take that up with someone who, you know, _does_ do that. 

I was merely responding to someone else, who _might_ be "guilty" thereof.

IOW, not quite sure why you quoted my post, with that particular observation following it.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 23, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Perhaps the most significant (again, IMO) way in which a tabletop game can be "like a videogame" (apart from inflexibility, which is more a DM issue than a rules issue) is, as Dannager mentioned, gamist (or at least, non-simulationist) elements that can strain suspension of disbelief and derail immersion if not handled properly. However, even this is not a problem if you don't consider it to be a problem.




Are you suggesting that video games are inherently gamist as opposed to simulationist? You can certainly find video games that are far more simulationist than it is possible to be in a tabletop game. There's nothing inherently gamist about how video games play, or simulationist in tabletop games. 



Celtavian said:


> Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game. Attack me or you are going to have problems, so my friends can beat on you and I can absorb all the damage. Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?




So: an aggro mechanic in a video game forces mobs to attack a particular target. The 'aggro' mechanic in 4e leaves people who don't attack that target at a disadvantage. It is indeed a very videogame like mechanic. The video games in question being sports simulations. And they of course are simulating real life, where marking is a significant factor in many team sports.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> IOW, not quite sure why you quoted my post, with that particular observation following it.




Maybe because I joined in the conversation _after_ you and didn't want anybody reading along at home to lose the thread of the topic? Is that rude or something?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 23, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So: an aggro mechanic in a video game forces mobs to attack a particular target. The 'aggro' mechanic in 4e leaves people who don't attack that target at a disadvantage. It is indeed a very videogame like mechanic. The video games in question being sports simulations. And they of course are simulating real life, where marking is a significant factor in many team sports.




Expecting D&D fans to understand how team sports works might be a bit much, I'm afraid


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> First off, NWPs were _optional _rules ;p




If you cannot grasp the concept that ALL tabletop rules are optional then you will never see the difference between them and video games.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 23, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> You've never asked me that. I could explain quite easily how 4E is video-gamey to me. I think I already have many times.
> 
> If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns".




You mean like daily spells?



> Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game. Attack me or you are going to have problems, so my friends can beat on you and I can absorb all the damage. Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?




Except it isn't.  3e Knights had a "threat" mechanic.  Defenders are actually threatening.  A "threat" mechanic is a form of mind control saying the monster _must_ attack the chosen target.  



> And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey.




Except it isn't.  Video games have a much easier time with circumstantial modifiers for monster type.  It's the _opposite_ of a well designed video game here.



> No one said 4E was exactly like _World of Warcraft_. All some of us said is that it has some mechanics and an overall feel like a MMORPG with the defined roles and threat mechanic as well as the power system.




I think you'll find it's like D&D and that's why it's like an MMO.



> To put it specifically point by point:
> 
> 1. The roles feel analogous to the following:
> 
> ...




That's not the role differentation I'm familiar with in _any_ MMO (either DPS or CC drop out of the equation in my experience).  It is, however, analogous to Fighter/Cleric/Magic User/Thief.  Which is about as pure as D&D gets.



> 2. Defender threat mechanic feels like taunt.




Having used both, all I can say is this is a world away from my experience.  Marking and defender aura make me feel big and strong and that people have to keep their eye on me or I will kill them.  Taunt feels like mind control.  Literally.



> 3. Power system:
> 
> Encounter powers (MMORPG powers with 1 minute to 5 minute cooldown. Usually an encounter)
> Daily Powers (powers with 30 minute to 1 hour cooldown. Several encounters)




So your problem is that people need to catch their breath?  Because daily powers are all over the place in older versions of D&D.  Like _every single spell_.  Now the method of expression might be MMOy.  But cooldowns are far more common in older editions of D&D than in 4e.



> 4. Every power working:
> 
> Powers work in MMORPGs. Doesn't matter the creature often times. They work, even if it doesn't make sense. 4E has a lot of that such as being able to blast undead with psychic damage, even though their minds are dead.




Except this isn't my experience of video games.  Video games can and do have far more modifiers than tabletop games because it doesn't drive the DM crazy to keep track of them all or slow the game down. 

Ultimately your list tells me that you appear not to play either computer games (let alone MMOs) or 4e.  Now the _language_ of 4e resembles an MMO for exactly the same reason the language of classic D&D resembles a tabletop wargame.  Using language your target demographic is likely to understand helps.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 23, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> If you cannot grasp the concept that ALL tabletop rules are optional then you will never see the difference between them and video games.




"I want to play a 6th level barbarian with rage powers."

"We're playing Heroquest. There are no levels."

"That's an optional rule!"

The whole point of the G part of RPG is that it's a Game. It has rules. Some of those rules are so intrinsic to how the game plays that leaving them out makes it a different game. Monopoly has been made with many boards for different places, but every version has to have a board.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 23, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> You mean like daily spells?




Except that they really weren't dailies. Slots may have been daily, but individual spells could have been prepped or cast spontaneously any number of times up to the limit of those slots. 
Harkening back to The Shaman's posts, it's a difference between more freedom to make choices and more constraints. In a video game, those constraints are necessitated by the medium. Table-top RPGs are generally much less restrained, ideally only where absolutely necessary.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> And I'm under no obligation to continue playing with you.
> 
> Functionally, this is the equivalent of your computer sprouting legs, thanking you, and politely excusing itself from your desk.
> 
> Well then, I wouldn't sit down at the table in the first place, so problem solved for everyone concerned.




As I've gotten older, I've found myself walking away more and more frequently from rpg games of various types.

I've walked away from sandbox type games, as well as railroad type games.

I've resigned the DM chair quite a number of times over the years too.


I suppose my tolerance level in regard to playing rpg games, has become more and more exacting as I've gotten older.  I would rather spend 4-5 hours watching television, than being bored playing an rpg game with particular individuals who I prefer not to be around with.

Life is too short for dealing with undesirable people whom I prefer not to deal with.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 23, 2011)

I realized that one of my video games combat systems seems a lot like what I know of D&D 4e. Well, nobody has daily or encounter powers, but at will seems covered.

The video game in question is Ephemeral Fantasia. Each ability your character has costs action points to use, and action points refresh at a constant rate. More powerful abilities cost more AP. And when the main character copies one of his allies abilities, when he uses it it costs him his HP. Magic uses a mana system, which I think also has a refresh rate.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 23, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> "I want to play a 6th level barbarian with rage powers."
> 
> "We're playing Heroquest. There are no levels."
> 
> ...




Yes, there need to be rules in place in order for the activity to be a game. 
Some, none, or all of those rules can come from a rulebook. The only important ones are those that the participants choose to follow. 

I enjoy playing videogames and tabletop rpgs. Each form has its own benefits and drawbacks. There are certainly concept crossovers between them but some elements translate better than others. This is similar to the relationship between books and movies. What works well in one medium might not be a great thing in the other. 

I accept the limitations of videogames because they provide enjoyable experiences despite those limitations. The strengths of the medium are convenience, eye candy, and instant gratification. I can turn on WOW or Dragon Age and just play without needing to schedule time, coordinate with others, etc. 

Tabletop rpgs offer a different kind of enjoyment. There is more effort involved, scheduling needs to be done, and so forth. The experience itself is still worth the effort because all limitations and possibilities within the game are decided by those of us playing. 

Bringing videogame elements onto the tabletop is no benefit tradeoff. 

1) Limitations on what can be accomplished via coding (RAW)

2) No pretty graphics to look at. 

3) Scheduling and coordination still need to be done. 

Overall, its a losing proposition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 23, 2011)

For my part, I believe that the Shaman's first post in this thread pretty much nailed it, and everything thereafter is a footnote.  

The videogame things I don't want my tabletop games to emulate include:

1.  Railroad.  The plot of Legend of Zelda is going to be the plot of Legend of Zelda no matter what you do.  To succeed in the game, you will visit these places, in that order, and do those specific things.  Success is dependent not upon what you wish to do, but upon how well you intuit what the programmer wished you to do.

2.  Limitations on Action and Role-Playing.  If the designer didn't think of it (i.e., write code or a rule for it), you can't do it.

3.  Boss Fights.  Yes, you are going to have major opponents in all kinds of gaming, but I never want it to feel as though I have discovered the "boss" of the "level", ala Zelda or Turok.

Now, I don't play a lot of video games, so bear with me here.  Because there are some things that I definitely do want:

1.  Cool terrain like those which appeared in Turok -- log bridges over cliffs, dark caves, jungles, etc.  Some very cool stuff.

2.  Phantom shifts like those in Silent Hill.  Cool, moody, atmospheric.

3.  Players getting excited over _*anything*_; it doesn't matter to me whether it is because it reminds them of something in a movie, a book, or a video game.

My dislike of some mechanics has a lot more to do with feel, or setting implications, than with whether or not they appeared in a video game.

Tabletop games do an open environment better than video games do.  That is their greatest strength and, IMHO, something that the creators of said games should be doing all they can to exploit.  And this doesn't occur at the rulebook level, but at the adventure level.  Adventures should, IMHO, be made capable of shifting with circumstances arising from play as much as possible.  IOW, they should be the opposite of the current Delve format.

4e isn't "too video-gamey"; the Delve is.



RC


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The videogame things I don't want my tabletop games to emulate include:
> 
> 1. Railroad. The plot of Legend of Zelda is going to be the plot of Legend of Zelda no matter what you do. To succeed in the game, you will visit these places, in that order, and do those specific things. Success is dependent not upon what you wish to do, but upon how well you intuit what the programmer wished you to do.




By this logic, a Paizo Adventure Path is more videogamey than Shogun 2 Total War. Or than Mount & Blade, if you require a cRPG example.



> 2. Limitations on Action and Role-Playing. If the designer didn't think of it (i.e., write code or a rule for it), you can't do it.




Correct. Of course, some GMs aren't terribly flexible either. 



> 3. Boss Fights. Yes, you are going to have major opponents in all kinds of gaming, but I never want it to feel as though I have discovered the "boss" of the "level", ala Zelda or Turok.




The literary precedents for Boss Fights date back at least as far as the Iliad.



> Now, I don't play a lot of video games, so bear with me here. Because there are some things that I definitely do want:
> 
> 1. Cool terrain like those which appeared in Turok -- log bridges over cliffs, dark caves, jungles, etc. Some very cool stuff.




Hardly unique to videogames. I might not be a great GM in most ways, but my geographic features are usually good. Or so my players tell me. 



> 2. Phantom shifts like those in Silent Hill. Cool, moody, atmospheric.




OK



> 3. Players getting excited over _*anything*_; it doesn't matter to me whether it is because it reminds them of something in a movie, a book, or a video game.




 do it for me. 



> Tabletop games do an open environment better than video games do. That is their greatest strength and, IMHO, something that the creators of said games should be doing all they can to exploit. And this doesn't occur at the rulebook level, but at the adventure level. Adventures should, IMHO, be made capable of shifting with circumstances arising from play as much as possible. IOW, they should be the opposite of the current Delve format.
> 
> 4e isn't "too video-gamey"; the Delve is.




Why pick on the Delve format? It's not the case that it has to be unadaptable. It's just one way of presenting information.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 23, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Except that they really weren't dailies. Slots may have been daily, but individual spells could have been prepped or cast spontaneously any number of times up to the limit of those slots.




I see no difference between this and daily powers other than that you can customise what your daily cooldowns are once per day.



Raven Crowking said:


> 3. Boss Fights. Yes, you are going to have major opponents in all kinds of gaming, but I never want it to feel as though I have discovered the "boss" of the "level", ala Zelda or Turok.




My imediate reaction to this is "There go the Dragons..."



> 4e isn't "too video-gamey"; the Delve is.




And here I see the point


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 23, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> By this logic, a Paizo Adventure Path is more videogamey than Shogun 2 Total War. Or than Mount & Blade, if you require a cRPG example.




Sorry to say, I don't know the video game references.  BUT, yes, a Paizo Adventure Path is videogamey in that exact sense.  And, while I am currently using Savage Tide as a playtesting base, I've got a lot of other threads going, and if the players choose not to follow the path, well, I'm able to roll with that.

OTOH, it works in pretty well with my idea that the world will be destroyed by Cthulhuesque horrors shortly after the date of the actual "final" RCFG release, so that I can concentrate on a multi-group sandbox.



> Correct. Of course, some GMs aren't terribly flexible either.




Yeah, well, does that make you happy?  If X and Y are both crap, then X and Y are both crap.  I accept the limitations on video games because they are necessary limitations of the format.  Those same limitations are not necessary in a tabletop game.



> The literary precedents for Boss Fights date back at least as far as the Iliad.




And probably farther.

I'm not talking about "fighting tough battles"; I'm talking about the form those battles are staged in.

I'm sure you've read a lot of complaints about the Skill Challenge format.  X wins before Y failures is contrived, and reduces the immersion of many.  But those Skill Challenges that I find evocative, at least, remain so by being faithful first to the fictional environment, and second to the mechanics.

The "Boss Fight" structure I am talking about is analogous to the Skill Challenge format, when that format is used in the way that normally generates those complaints.  Having harder fights occur when they make sense to, or when the PCs seek them out?  All for it.  Have a single Boss lurking at the bottom of every "level", that must be bypassed to get to the next?  (Shudder)  No thank you.

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]:  So, you can keep dragons, just don't use them as choke points to the next level.  Or use them on occasion as such.  It is only when each level (or the preponderance thereof, and it doesn't have to be a literal level) has a "Boss Fight" to proceed to the next, that it begins to feel very artificial.

Again, I'm no video game expert, but IME it seems that many boss fights exist to ensure that you've mastered some part of the controller, as it applies to a given game, before allowing you to continue into an area where said mastery is critical.

That is not, IMHO, the best model for tabletop gaming.  It should go without saying that YMMV, but, in case it does not:  YMMV.



> Hardly unique to videogames. I might not be a great GM in most ways, but my geographic features are usually good. Or so my players tell me.




No, cool terrain is not unique to video games.  But, I never go "Cool terrain?  That's so video-gamey!"  Take inspiration where you can get it, I say, and then adapt that inspiration to the medium you are using.



> Why pick on the Delve format? It's not the case that it has to be unadaptable. It's just one way of presenting information.




Because I believe it fails to reinforce the strengths of tabletop games, while directly undermining those strengths.  And, as I have gone into long rants elsewhere about exactly why I think this is so, I will not do so again now.  Suffice to say, this isn't limited to Delve in 4e; the 3e Delves suffer just as much.

EDIT:  The Jester brought up another thing I dislike, in another thread, that seems "video-gamey" to me:  Rate of progress over time.  From this post:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/5504757-post45.html



			
				the Jester said:
			
		

> couple of related issues to the 15-minute adventuring day (which I will henceforth call the 15MAD) are the one-day level (1DL) and the one-month career (1MC).
> 
> If you have approx. 8 encounters/level and you have 8 encounters in a day, you have a level per day.
> 
> ...




RC


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Ahhh, interesting that we see the "as practicable" qualifier in here.





If my character is 7th or 8th level, then rounding up a tribe of orcs to raid the duchy is a lot easier than if my character is 1st level, yes?







Dannager said:


> You can no more control the limits of a computer game than you can control the limits of another person.
> 
> But yeah, it is relatively awesome that you're trying to justify comparing a tabletop game to a video game without really having any clue what you're comparing to.



Please, turn me on to this MMORPG with an AI so sophisticated that it's indistinguishable from a human referee.







Dannager said:


> "Tolerate", in this case, simply means any response that allows the players to continue on their off-the-rails adventure. So I'm pretty sure that I just about covered all the bases there.



"Tolerate" =/= enjoy or encourage in any definition with which I'm familiar.







Dannager said:


> How is that distinction important to this argument?



First, "These things are different" =/= "This isn't allowed."

Second, an adventurer adventuring =/= an adventurer _not_ adventuring.







Dannager said:


> You will not waste your time and the time of your other players focusing on the whims of a single player unless that single player is engaged in whatever you deem interesting and of value to the furtherance of an adventurer's career.
> 
> I'm not saying that's weird. That's what everyone does. My point is that this is an example of restricting flexibility towards a worthwhile end.



Once again, that's just wrong.

It's not "restricting flexibility." The adventurer is free to do what the player wants him to do. The difference is, we can probably sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying, while the adventurers who are storming the castle take up most of the rest of the evening.







Dannager said:


> That the idea that your style of play is better than someone else's is lacking or outdated isn't predicated on its popularity amongst the younger crowd. It's based on the idea that this sort of unapologetic elitism is just kinda sad and probably not all that healthy for the hobby as a whole.



Yeah, there's no telling how much damage my unapologetic elitism could do to the hobby. Why, who knows how many carefully crafted adventure paths could be ruined - RUINED! - if my sad ideas about player choice and referee flexibility were allowed to spread unchecked?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 23, 2011)

I enjoy both.

However, there are some weaknesses that a video game has. Such as you're usually playing alone.

However, one of the strengths of a video game is that you can often save before a difficult spot and you can try try try again and again until you get it right and not have to worry about creating a new character.

But one of my biggest complaints about a computer game is that if they don't want you going to some place or area, you just can't go there. Such as in WoW if you don't have a flying mount you can not climb over hills or mountains ever.

It's also annoying to see a door that there is absolutely no way to open. It always frustrates me because why have a door there if there's no room with something in it?


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2011)

Without having read the thread (yet) it comes down to one word: *imagination. *There is little to no use of imagination in playing a video game, while in RPGs the potential is great. This is not to say that everything must include the use of imagination to be a valid activity, but one of the main reasons that I, and presumably many others, engage in RPGs is the play of imagination in a shared mind space. You don't get that in video games; actually, in some ways you get the opposite: the play of visual-auditory senses in a simulated virtual space.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> It's also annoying to see a door that there is absolutely no way to open. It always frustrates me because why have a door there if there's no room with something in it?




To further enhance the illusion that you're in a real world.

Some people appear to be under the impression that a human DM is inherently better at providing this illusion than a video game is. I believe that not only is this matter up for debate, but that when the dust settles, the average video game will provide a better illusion than a human DM will.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Please, turn me on to this MMORPG with an AI so sophisticated that it's indistinguishable from a human referee.




Games like the Neverwinter Nights series and the Left 4 Dead series allow you to play the part of the director/narrator/DM in a video game environment - controlling NPCs, making plot-related decisions out of sight of the PCs, adding elements to the game world, etc.

But, y'know, again, this is clearly not a subject matter that you are adequately familiar with if you're planning on drawing meaningful comparisons.



> "Tolerate" =/= enjoy or encourage in any definition with which I'm familiar.




Actually, the _first two_ definitions of "tolerate", according to the American Heritage English Dictionary, are:

*1. * To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
*2. * To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).

Note that definition 1 _easily_ encompasses any range of enthusiasm you care to ascribe to your decision to go along with the party's actions.

It isn't until you reach the third definition...

*3. * To put up with; endure.

...that we see "tolerate" in the light that you're probably seeing it: to begrudgingly allow something to take place.

Maybe double-check those definitions next time.




> First, "These things are different" =/= "This isn't allowed."




_Really?_



> Second, an adventurer adventuring =/= an adventurer _not_ adventuring.




_Really?_



> Once again, that's just wrong.
> 
> It's not "restricting flexibility." The adventurer is free to do what the player wants him to do. The difference is, we can probably sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying, while the adventurers who are storming the castle take up most of the rest of the evening.




Well, you _could_ sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying. Of course, you could also intricately simulate the turnip farmer/vegetable stand owner/street walker/bar performer/rat catcher's activities using a set of rules developed on the fly, while relegating the other adventurers' activity (storming the castle) to a few minutes of roleplaying.

You are no more providing the tools for the player who wants to be a vegetable stand owner to enjoy himself than a video game might provide the tools for _you_ to enjoy yourself "going off the rails".



> Yeah, there's no telling how much damage my unapologetic elitism could do to the hobby. Why, who knows how many carefully crafted adventure paths could be ruined - RUINED! - if my sad ideas about player choice and referee flexibility were allowed to spread unchecked?




See, that's intended as sarcasm, but from where I stand it has merit delivered seriously.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 23, 2011)

> To further enhance the illusion that you're in a real world.




Except for one thing. In a real world any door can be opened with the right equipment, or explosives.

Not true in a CG world. 

So it doesn't really further enhance the illusion of being in a real world, but rather breaking the rules of a real world with the designers saying "HA HA! let's see how badly we can mess with the player's minds."


> it comes down to one word: *imagination*




I find no lack of imagination and there are lots of impressive visuals in a game to see. I  really don't see how this lacks imagination.

Example:








That is a rest an resurrection shrine in DDO. The rest shrine heals you and restores your mana and some of them can be used multiple times in a dungeon.

The resurrection shrines simply resurrects you if you die in a dungeon. Provided a friend or hireling can pick up your soul stone and take you there.

How is that not imagination in use? AND where can you find something like this in a Pen & Paper rpg? Many RPGs do not allow for resurrection at all. D&D does, but it's a pretty powerful ability and not available to lower level characters.

Now, sometimes a cg rpg can restrict your options in a dialogue with an NPC, and you can only win against a boss if you do certain things, like say break all the coffins to take away his damage reduction ability, but other than that, I really don't see how cgs takes away the imagination.

It's just a different form of imagination, and sometimes even seeing things like this can inspire other people to have their own thing in a RPG.


----------



## KahnyaGnorc (Mar 23, 2011)

I don't see D&D as a game.  I see it as a toolbox from which a DM crafts a game.  In the video game analogy, D&D is a game engine.

The biggest difference between video games and table-top is improvisation.  In a table-top, a player can try to do something outrageous and unexpected, with the DM improving the world's response.  All options that a player in a video game has must be preconceived by the designer and granted to the player.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Except for one thing. In a real world any door can be opened with the right equipment, or explosives.




Right, which is why it's an illusion. It is not a perfect simulation of a real world. Rather, it is designed to be superficially similar enough that a moderate level of suspension of disbelief allows you to enjoy it.

As long as you accept that it's impossible to have something meaningful behind every door in every town, you'll be fine.

Similarly, you do not have the same expectation of tabletop RPGs (or, you shouldn't). If you go up to a random door in a random town and tell the DM, "I open the door," you can't reasonably expect something meaningful to be behind it because the DM probably hasn't prepared anything for the interior of that house/store/building. The DM will be forced to make up something on the fly, and only a very small number of DMs will be able to do so with a level of quality indistinguishable from the material that they _have_ prepared, which is its own challenge to suspension of disbelief.

So yes, video games don't fill in the buildings behind every door. But neither do DMs, for the same reason: it's more work than it's worth. If you challenge this basic assumption, you're going to have your suspension of disbelief challenged in _both video games and tabletop games_: in the video game, the door won't open; in the tabletop game, the door _might_ open, but the level of meaningful content behind it will very likely be poor compared to prepared areas.

Both will feel artificial and contrived.

This isn't a function of video games vs. tabletop games. This is a function of the fact that we only have so many resources to dedicate to fleshing out a fake world, and neither the average human mind nor current video game programming can produce content on the fly of quality on par with that which can be had by sticking to the intended, "prepared" areas of the game world.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 23, 2011)

Well, I'm still a little confused.

Most of the focus has been on the limitations of videogames and having them show up in a pencil & paper RPGs. But as I understand it, these limitations are not inherit to the newer RPGs. Good Roleplaying and good DMing fix these problems.

In the games I DM (no matter what the system), you have freedom of choice. But not freedom of consiquence. To use an example earlier in the thread, you want to go conquer a dutchy instead of enslave orcs at level 2, fine. But that doesn't mean that the dutchy doesn't have better soldiers than you and the party. And when I use the +5 rusty spiked cluebat to let you know it's a bad plan, it's your own fault for getting yourself killed.

I usually don't have it that cut-and-dry, but if you're suppose to be heroes doing heroic things and you insist on causing problems for the town watch in a town of decent people, you'll create problems for yourself. And I won't stop you from digging the hole deeper.

Want to throw sand in someone's face, roll an attack or CMB. Maybe a straight 20, no modifiers, with a dice check set at 10. Why do I need to have a rule set or a feat for such things? I don't remember any specific rule in 3.5 or 4e dealing with such, although I'll admit that I don't have every fiddly rule memorised.

So characters have a role. That you are playing. Wait, isn't that the _point_? You play a fighter because you want to smash things with a weapon. You play a wizard because you want to cast spells. Party dynamics are at the core of any D&D system, if not every system.

I do see the point about aggro and encounter powers vaguely resembling mimorpigan mechanics. Not sure _why it's a problem_, though.

You just don't like it? That's fine. Each is entitled to their own opinions. But to use videogames as a generic slur against something is inaccurate and makes for a poor argument, especially with the wide array of games within the medium. Especially when someone is unfamiliar with the vast array of games in a particular medium. Using that slur with poor backing causes me to dismiss the validity of your argument.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> So characters have a role. That you are playing. Wait, isn't that the _point_? You play a fighter because you want to smash things with a weapon. You play a wizard because you want to cast spells. Party dynamics are at the core of any D&D system, if not every system.





This is one of those odd assumptions that has lead to bad design decisions, IMO, where the "role" in roleplaying is being reduced to the "role" in combat.  While this is how it has to work in CRPGs (videogames), generally speaking, it is not how it is limited to manifesting in tabletop RPGs except through limitations in the rules or the people at the table.  The rules for tabletop RPGs should not only facilitate but also encourage roleplaying beyond combat situations and without the formulaic use of dice to resolve every situation (streamlining) in an effort to get back to the next combat situation.  Roleplaying is not limited to the white zone only. If someone has to roeplay, they should not be designated to only using the white zone.[/Zappa]


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Games like the Neverwinter Nights series and the Left 4 Dead series allow you to play the part of the director/narrator/DM in a video game environment - controlling NPCs, making plot-related decisions out of sight of the PCs, adding elements to the game world, etc.



In which case this is not an AI, is it? It's a human referee using the tools provided by the game to script an adventure. The flexibility comes from a _human being_, not the computer, and the dude scripting for _NWN_ is still limited by what the programmers included in the available options, unlike a tabletop referee who can change the rules to do whatever he needs them to do, or the players who can come up with stuff the referee never considered but needs to adjudicate on the fly.

CRPG AI =/= human referee. _Really!_


Dannager said:


> Actually, the _first two_ definitions of "tolerate", according to the American Heritage English Dictionary . . .



. . . do not include the words 'enjoy' or 'encourage.'

The closest you get with your dictionary definition is "respect," but that still doesn't get you to enjoy or encourage.

I respect the heck out of *Barastrondo* and *pemerton* - I've no doubt in my mind that they are excellent gamemasters, that their players have a wonderful time in their games, and that the advice they give to others is often quite good.

That said, I have no desire to play in their games, nor they, I believe, in mine. While we have a number of points of overlap in our approaches to running a roleplaying game, there are also some essential, fundamental differences regarding expectations and experiences, so while I respect them and their skills tremendously, I would not enjoy the games they run.

Tolerate =/= enjoy and encourage.







Dannager said:


> _Really?_





Dannager said:


> _Really?_



_Really!_

A =/= B, and fish =/= bicycle.







Dannager said:


> Well, you _could_ sum up what the turnip farmer is doing in a few minutes of roleplaying. Of course, you could also intricately simulate the turnip farmer/vegetable stand owner/street walker/bar performer/rat catcher's activities using a set of rules developed on the fly, while relegating the other adventurers' activity (storming the castle) to a few minutes of roleplaying.



Your dogged persistence in trying to prove that an adventurer raising a humanoid army and sacking a duchy and a "retired" _non_-adventurer growing tubers are the same thing was fun for awhile, but now it's just getting repetitive and increasingly silly.







Dannager said:


> See, that's intended as sarcasm, but from where I stand it has merit delivered seriously.





I'm done. The last word is yours to take if you want it.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 23, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> This is one of those odd assumptions that has lead to bad design decisions, IMO, where the "role" in roleplaying is being reduced to the "role" in combat.  While this is how it has to work in CRPGs (videogames), generally speaking, it is not how it is limited to manifesting in tabletop RPGs except through limitations in the rules or the people at the table.  The rules for tabletop RPGs should not only facilitate but also encourage roleplaying beyond combat situations and without the formulaic use of dice to resolve every situation (streamlining) in an effort to get back to the next combat situation.  Roleplaying is not limited to the white zone only. If someone has to roeplay, they should not be designated to only using the white zone.[/Zappa]



Worth repeating.

And would someone please be so kind as to drop an XP on *Mark CMG* for me?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 23, 2011)

> But to use videogames as a generic slur against something is inaccurate and makes for a poor argument




Well, as someone who has specific gripes and knows others who are likewise specific, I agree that as a generic complaint, it may be frustrating...but remind you that not everyone who says that word is being unspecific.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 23, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> This is one of those odd assumptions that has lead to bad design decisions, IMO, where the "role" in roleplaying is being reduced to the "role" in combat. While this is how it has to work in CRPGs (videogames), generally speaking, it is not how it is limited to manifesting in tabletop RPGs except through limitations in the rules or the people at the table. The rules for tabletop RPGs should not only facilitate but also encourage roleplaying beyond combat situations and without the formulaic use of dice to resolve every situation (streamlining) in an effort to get back to the next combat situation. Roleplaying is not limited to the white zone only. If someone has to roeplay, they should not be designated to only using the white zone.[/Zappa]



So if you want to be casting spells in combat, why are you playing a fighter?


Never said it was the only aspect; the point is to play a role, both inside and outside of combat. If you choose to play a fighter, you are limited to what you can do in combat. If you choose to play a wizard, you are limited to what you can do in combat. Likewise outside of combat. The fighter is unlikely to get into a metaphysical argument with a group of wizards over the nature of a particular spell. The wizard is unlikely to train peasantry how to defend themselves against the coming hoard through the use of martial weapons.

_Part _of party dynamics is what role a character plays not only outside of combat, but inside of combat. As I understand it, this has been that way since RPGs were invented.


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 23, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> I find no lack of imagination and there are lots of impressive visuals in a game to see. I  really don't see how this lacks imagination.
> 
> Example:




Cool picture. But when you are looking at it you aren't imagining it - you are perceiving it. "Imagining" is creating images within. Now this doesn't mean that an image like that can't inspire you to create your own images, craft your own worlds, etc, but as long as you are within the simulated experience you are not imagining, you are perceiving. One is internal and self-generative, the other is external and coming from something outside of oneself.



Diamond Cross said:


> That is a rest an resurrection shrine in DDO. The rest shrine heals you and restores your mana and some of them can be used multiple times in a dungeon.
> 
> The resurrection shrines simply resurrects you if you die in a dungeon. Provided a friend or hireling can pick up your soul stone and take you there.
> 
> How is that not imagination in use? AND where can you find something like this in a Pen & Paper rpg? Many RPGs do not allow for resurrection at all. D&D does, but it's a pretty powerful ability and not available to lower level characters.




It is not a bad idea, but the player of the game requires little to no imagination to play it. You could even argue that some of the best designers and creatives are in the video game industry - that is where the money is, after all - so some of the _ideas _of video games are more richly imaginative than RPGs, but I am talking about the _experience.

_


Diamond Cross said:


> It's just a different form of imagination, and sometimes even seeing  things like this can inspire other people to have their own thing in a  RPG.




I can buy that, although I would say that it is a _lesser _form of imagination, in a similar way that porn is lesser than real sex. Actually, in some ways video games are like porn and RPGs like the real thing. Nothing wrong with porn but it isn't "real" - you're simulating an experience, you aren't actually having sex. Now you could argue that all forms of gaming are pornographic in that they are all playing make believe, but the thing I'm getting at is that in the pornographic experience you can only access what is out there, what is given to you by your senses. In a sexual encounter (a good one, at least!) anything can happen, each moment will be different from the one before - one is alive and spontaneous.

Perhaps the main reason I don't like video games is because there is a feeling of limitation for me, like playing in a garden that has a wall. Cool, that's fine - but I want to explore the _wilderness _where anything can happen, where there aren't a finite number of pre-programmed options. Actually, as cool as that image you posted is, it somewhat exemplifies this. It has a quality of teasing - you want more, you want to go deeper into the experience, but all you get is more external images, perceptions, no internal experience, no Mystery.

In the same sense that with porn you don't experience true intimacy. There are other aspects of sexuality that are vital and wonderful, but when it comes down to it, the deep intimacy, the love, is the real jewel. Everything else, no matter how wonderful, plays a second fiddle.

IMHO, of course


----------



## Dannager (Mar 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I'm done. The last word is yours to take if you want it.




Sweet!


----------



## FireLance (Mar 23, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Are you suggesting that video games are inherently gamist as opposed to simulationist? You can certainly find video games that are far more simulationist than it is possible to be in a tabletop game. There's nothing inherently gamist about how video games play, or simulationist in tabletop games.



Good point.

Ha! My own prejudices are showing!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 23, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Some people appear to be under the impression that a human DM is inherently better at providing this illusion than a video game is.




Some _are _under such an impression. 

Some of us actually are, no contest.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 23, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> The fighter is unlikely to get into a metaphysical argument with a group of wizards over the nature of a particular spell.





That's not a rules restriction.  And it sounds like some fun RPing.




Transbot9 said:


> The wizard is unlikely to train peasantry how to defend themselves against the coming hoard through the use of martial weapons.





Nor that. And while not ideal, it might be the best chance to help the peasants win.




Transbot9 said:


> _Part _of party dynamics is what role a character plays not only outside of combat, but inside of combat.





The use of the hedge "Part of" changes the discussion we have verged off toward but what I describe above has increasingly become a matter of how the D&D rules are written, whereas combat has become increasingly central to the game and RPGing outside of combat has become decreasingly a focus of the books as written.




Transbot9 said:


> As I understand it, this has been that way since RPGs were invented.





I would disagree but let's set this aside and stick with D&D since the Eighties since your premise is tied to videogames.


----------



## baradtgnome (Mar 24, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> On the contrary, I'd just pull off my shoelaces and show the dungeon master how it's rigged, and we'd be across the bog before you could say Len Lakofka.




Even better, the character takes off their shoe laces and uses them in game to as an attempt to solve the problem.  A DM in any edition should be able to use the rules in any edition to handle this.  Or just invoke Rule 0 and give them a fair shot at it.  This is where video games don't excel, and table top RPGs should.

If a table top RPG, or a DM, can't deal with things outside what are explicitly identified by the rules... are they too video gamey?  Perhaps that is this generations comparison.  What did we call it back in the day before video games ruled the earth?  Some called it anal, but that is just not very nice.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 24, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> I enjoy both.
> 
> However, there are some weaknesses that a video game has. Such as you're usually playing alone.




If you're playing alone, then chances are you're doing it because you want to.  Multi player games are becoming if not already are the norm.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 24, 2011)

There have been a lot of assumptions made within the past 5 pages of this thread that don't fit with my observations or experiences (they may fit with others, but they're pretty foreign to me).

I LOVE videogames. I have not one, but TWO world of warcraft accounts that I play several hours per day. I was an avid videogamer in college.


But, here's the important part: _I play rpgs because there are elements that I enjoy that are not present in videogames._


I'm not going to share what those elements are, in part because I may not be able to name them all, but moreso because whatever I list, someone will be able to provide (somewhat of) a counterexample. Yes, SOME videogame somewhere might just capture some of the elements that I like in rpgs. ANOTHER might capture a different element. Video games can do a number of things very well...better than TT-RPGs in a lot of cases. However, there are elements that face to face, real person, imagination, storytelling, and character immersion TT-RPGS provide that are superior to videogames.


In the end, TT-RPGs are low tech, require math, can be hard to schedule, sometimes require knowledge of dozens or hundreds of rules, may have slooooowww combats, may have long periods when it's "not your turn", etc. 

So why play em over videogames? Everyone here plays them. Why? 


*Because the experience of a TT-RPG is different from a videogame.*


(Note, I want to point out I'm not setting up a false dichotomy here of "you can only enjoy one or the other"...I'm stating that you (like me) can enjoy both, but they are not the same...and the fact that you choose to spend your time playing TT-RPGs when you could be playing video games shows that it has something different to offer.)


EDIT: Forgot to answer the OP (doh!). When I say an RPG is "videogamey", what I'm usually referring to is that it has more of a focus than I would like on elements that model things I enjoy in videogames and less of a focus than I would like on the elements that I enjoy in my TT-RPGs. I also like boardgames. If I found an rpg that was too similar to the experience of  "battleship" or "risk" (and not similar to the other rpgs I enjoy) then I might refer to it as too "boardgamey."


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 24, 2011)

I'm also an avid video-gamer as well as a tabletop RPG'er. I love both hobbies with a passion.

WoW and its peers has taught me huge amounts about encounter design, character balance, player synnergy, world-building, narrative, pacing, and many other things too numerous to mention.

There are *spectacularly* talented people at work in all corners of the gamer industry, learning from each-other, building on each-other's work, crafting a modern and changing notion of interactive games and what they mean. This is something, I hope, that will never change, because to suggest that D&D can't learn anything from WoW or any number of other video games is ridiculous.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 25, 2011)

When my players are calling me a newb, bragging about how their PC is beast, naming their PCs things like Sir Mario, and drawing anime pictures of their characters holding oversized weapons, then obviously the game is videogamey.

Besides, I'm tired of hearing people get butthurt over the term videogamey. What about people like me, who get butthurt when people call my video games "RPGs"? We're not roleplaying, we're not using pens & paper, we're not referencing stats in books, and we don't have a gamemaster. So stop calling my video games RPGs!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 25, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> ...and drawing anime pictures of their characters holding oversized weapons, then obviously the game is videogamey.




...So, when your players draw pictures stylized after a type of animation, then the game is videogamey.

...What.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 25, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> What about people like me, who get butthurt when people call my video games "RPGs"? We're not roleplaying, we're not using pens & paper, we're not referencing stats in books, and we don't have a gamemaster. So stop calling my video games RPGs!




I have found that the term "video game RPG" is a meaningless buzzword that marketing attaches to some games in hopes that it will make the game more attractive to certain demographics, and leaves off of others for the same reason.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 25, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Besides, I'm tired of hearing people get butthurt over the term videogamey. What about people like me, who get butthurt when people call my video games "RPGs"? We're not roleplaying, we're not using pens & paper, we're not referencing stats in books, and we don't have a gamemaster. So stop calling my video games RPGs!




Video games had a perfectly valid term for these games before they decided to call them "RPGs": Adventure games. Why did they feel the need to change that?

No GM? Sure you do, it's called the code. ;-)



ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So, when your players draw pictures stylized after a type of animation, then the game is videogamey.
> 
> ...What.




I think this has to do with "JRPGs" having the hero use a sword that needs its own zip code, and that would weigh more than the character in real life. Which is not to say that some anime doesn't also have this problem.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 25, 2011)

Zhaleskra said:


> I think this has to do with "JRPGs" having the hero use a sword that needs its own zip code, and that would weigh more than the character in real life. Which is not to say that some anime doesn't also have this problem.




Having an improbably large sword is a huge mainstay in western mythology too, though.  Olso Big Knife had, er, a really big knife.  Beowulf wielded a sword made for a giant.

Hell, we had them in *real life*.  Zweihander, anyone?

I will never stop being amused at people pointing at things that exist both in real life and in western mythology and decrying it for being anime.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 25, 2011)

Yes, and in the theatrical combat trope I was in we had a huge sword. Its use in actual combat would have been to resist a charge or to cut the legs off a horse. Whereafter it would be abandoned for a more practical sword.

So just because they did exist, didn't mean they made a good choice for a head to head fight. And two handers weren't designed to be ridiculous.

Beowulf is justified: Strength of 30 men.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 25, 2011)

> although I would say that it is a _lesser _form of imagination




Sorry, but I just can not agree with that. The problem is that argument is only thinking from a singular perspective, and even at that a limited one, and as a player only. And of course what must be true for one must be true for all. Which is simply not the case.

It takes a lot of imagination and work to create a CRPG.

And I just can't believe it takes away from a persons' imagination.

You can make the exact same argument for movies and books. A book shouldn't be made into a movie because the movie takes away from the imagination. You might as well not have art in an RPG book as well with that argument.

It's just a more visual form of imagination. And more ralized since the concepts are produced on paper or digital programs.

The thing a CRPG does is do things like restrict actions and dialogue. Such as if the CRPG doesn't want you to open a door then it's completely impossible to open a door and only the right pattern of dialogue will reveal needed information.

I wouldn't say greater, but definately equal, and just different. And it does take a lot more work to create a computer game than to create a module. One person can create a module. You don't even need to be an artist to create a module. For a game you need programmers and artists to work together. Especially for huge games like WoW and DDO.

Saying it's lesser is bad form, imo.


----------



## kinem (Mar 25, 2011)

Chess is good game. Blackjack is a good game.

So ... they come out with Chess 2.0. Thing is, it plays much like Blackjack.

How could you not say "This Chess is too much like Blackjack?" They are supposed to be different and each has its place and its fan base.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 25, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Having an improbably large sword is a huge mainstay in western mythology too, though.  Olso Big Knife had, er, a really big knife.  Beowulf wielded a sword made for a giant.




(1)  Who the heck is "Olso Big Knife"?  What I got from Google was "Your search - "olso big knife" - did not match any documents."

(2)  How is two examples (one until I find out who "Olso Big Knife" is!) "a huge mainstay"?


RC


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 25, 2011)

kinem said:


> Chess is good game. Blackjack is a good game.
> 
> So ... they come out with Chess 2.0. Thing is, it plays much like Blackjack.
> 
> How could you not say "This Chess is too much like Blackjack?" They are supposed to be different and each has its place and its fan base.




That would be a better analogy if all taabletop RPGs played the same way, and all video games played the same way. They don't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2011)

I'm drawing a blank on figures from western lore (besides Beowulf & Osla) with improbably large weapons, too.  There IS a difference between unusually large and "How is he CARRYING that thing?"

A big knife, after all, may be quite large, but it isn't bigger than something someone could normally wield.  (I'm reminded of the challenger on _Iron Chef Japan_ whose Chef's Knife was about 2' long, and almost as broad at the bolster as a typical cleaver.)


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 25, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Hell, we had them in *real life*.  Zweihander, anyone?



So these look the same to you, do they?


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 25, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> So, when your players draw pictures stylized after a type of animation, then the game is videogamey.




Yep, when they are using an anime style *video game* as reference. Anyway, it was a joke.



ProfessorCirno said:


> I will never stop being amused at people pointing at things that exist both in real life and in western mythology and decrying it for being anime.




I will never stop being amused when people think of a couple obscure examples and decide everyone else is wrong based on that.



Raven Crowking said:


> (2)  How is two examples (one until I find out who "Olso Big Knife" is!) "a huge mainstay"?




That's exactly what I was thinking. So I suppose because some people in real life have big googly eyes, we're not allowed to decry big googly eyes as being anime.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 25, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> So these look the same to you, do they?




Yeah, of course they do. He wouldn't have used his real life examples if they were not the same as the gigantic weapons that a lot of anime characters wield. He's trying to defend his anime and prove everyone wrong. Obviously they are the same thing, duh.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 25, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> So I suppose because some people in real life have big googly eyes, we're not allowed to decry big googly eyes as being anime.




Some people wear school uniforms, too.......



(EDIT:  That smiley up there?  That's for you, JW.)

((EDIT to the EDIT:  Sorry, forgot to add  and  ))


----------



## Dannager (Mar 25, 2011)

kinem said:


> Chess is good game. Blackjack is a good game.
> 
> So ... they come out with Chess 2.0. Thing is, it plays much like Blackjack.
> 
> How could you not say "This Chess is too much like Blackjack?" They are supposed to be different and each has its place and its fan base.




They're not "supposed to be" anything. You're trying to rationalize your opinion with an argument that doesn't actually has a basis in rational thought.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 25, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> I have found that the term "video game RPG" is a meaningless buzzword that marketing attaches to some games in hopes that it will make the game more attractive to certain demographics, and leaves off of others for the same reason.




A video game RPG typically has one or more elements of measurable, mechanical character progression (levels, skill points, attributes, perks, etc.) rather than a static protagonist. This is distinct from other games in which the most meaningful change in the main character's ability stems directly from picking up a new gun. In this sense, calling a video game an RPG definitely _does_ have meaning.

You can complain that this isn't True Roleplaying (tm), but the reality is that no one person gets to decide what is and what isn't roleplaying, or a roleplaying game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 25, 2011)

Dannager said:


> In this sense, calling a video game an RPG definitely _does_ have meaning.




And 



> the reality is that no one person gets to decide what is and what isn't roleplaying, or a roleplaying game.




Are sorta funny together.

If you really believe the second, then the first is no more meaningful than the claim that it is not an rpg, and the word "definitely" is definitely wrong.

Conversely, if you believe the first to be true, there must be some way for a person to validate that calling something an rpg has, or does not have, meaning, in some definite sense.  In which case, the second part is wrong.

(Me, I'd go with the second part being right, were I you.  Especially because, if you don't grant that an avatar in a computer game is really more of a "character" in the tabletop rpg sense than a checker is in a game of checkers, your "measurable, mechanical character progression" also would apply to pieces in checkers.)

EDIT:  I can easily see how one could approach play in a tabletop game as though it were constrained as is a video game.  I have never, however, seen a video game that can handle play as occurs in my tabletop game.  There is a difference, even if you choose not to partake in it.


RC


----------



## kinem (Mar 25, 2011)

kinem said:


> Chess is good game. Blackjack is a good game.
> 
> So ... they come out with Chess 2.0. Thing is, it plays much like Blackjack.
> 
> How could you not say "This Chess is too much like Blackjack?" They are supposed to be different and each has its place and its fan base.






Bluenose said:


> That would be a better analogy if all tabletop RPGs played the same way, and all video games played the same way. They don't.




There are enough similarities among them - which others have discussed here, and which are well known, so I will not get into that now - that the point applies.

But in any case, the tabletop RPG in question is usually D&D.



Dannager said:


> They're not "supposed to be" anything.




Sure they are. Chess & blackjack play distinctive roles in society. Go ask people and you'll see what is supposed of them.

A chair is supposed to be useful to sit on. That doesn't mean a sky fairy declared it so, but people have good reason to suppose it will be and to want it to be. If it isn't, don't call it a chair.



Dannager said:


> You're trying to rationalize your opinion with an argument that doesn't actually has a basis in rational thought.




Dannager, that comment doesn't add anything to your first false claim other than making you look like a pretentious jerk. Just so you know.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 25, 2011)

This is for adding "realism" to the conversation:


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 25, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> So these look the same to you, do they?




You're right - the real one is bigger then the fantasy one 

Also I typo'd, it's Osla Big-Knife.

I gave two examples because I couldn't be bothered to list more, knowing it'd just be ignored anyways.  Woops look who was right!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 25, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Also I typo'd, it's Osla Big-Knife.




I managed to find reference to the character in Wikipedia.  He apparently appears in two Welsh Arthurian romances (one of which is a dream), and may have been based off of a real person (authorities suggest more than one candidate).  

If based off a real person, this would be an exaggeration, one imagines, of a real weapon -- rather like that anime sword in the picture is an exaggeration of a real weapon.  



> I gave two examples because I couldn't be bothered to list more, knowing it'd just be ignored anyways.  Woops look who was right!




Unless "responded to" = "ignored anyways" in your lexicon, "Woops look who was right!" must refer to someone other than yourself.

Now, I can name the platypus and the spiny echidna.  Are you willing to accept that egg-laying is a "huge mainstay" of mammalian reproduction, or do you have more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_swords#Swords

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_swords

Best of luck.


RC


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 25, 2011)

Nope.

How about this: BFS - Television Tropes & Idioms

Hey look a bunch of things that are neither anime nor video games that have big swords.

In the end the disgust for big swords is little more then an excuse to classify some fans as being "not as good" as other fans.  Congrats on that, I guess.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 25, 2011)

Looked at the list:

Of the 7 mythology cites, the split is even between West & East, with the Biblical reference singled out by noting that a "giant sword" by the standards of their tech would be about the size of a 2-hander...so it's kind of on the fence.

Of the literary cites, most are post-1980s- after anime was starting to make serious inroads into Western genre markets- and show Asian influences.  One of the earliest references in Western lit is to Stormbringer, which, while a largeish sword, is really not out of scale for some of the bigger RW 2 handers.  It is also clear that the writers of the section feel it's primarily an Eastern trope, since they often make an effort to point out when one of the instances are Western.

As for the rest- the more I read, the more Asian names I saw.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Mar 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Nope.
> Hey look a bunch of things that are neither anime nor video games that have big swords.
> 
> In the end the disgust for big swords is little more then an excuse to classify some fans as being "not as good" as other fans.  Congrats on that, I guess.




Just because a weapon existed in real life doesn't mean it was practical. That sword in the club I mentioned? Blade is 6-6.5 inches wide, 4.5 feet tall, and the handle's another good foot and a half or two. Thing weighed 15 pounds. In 3.5 terms, it was a Greatsword.

I'm strong, but even I had trouble with that sword, mostly as a matter of leverage and balance point. You send your biggest, dumbest guy out with that. He gets one shot, if he misses he dies.

I'm willing to make exceptions for things that are obvious magic, even if I still think it's stupid. Zabuza's sword is a better example here than Cloud's. But there are also anime that don't go to such extremes. The sword D uses in the fight with A-ko is perfectly suited to her size. When A-ko gets it, it's huge to her, but still no problem because she has super strength. I really like what Code Lyoko implied about people who need BFSes with William.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 26, 2011)

Who said anything about practicality?

The claim was made that large weapon = anime.

If that's the case, Beowulf was an anime.

Of course, it really just comes down to someone saying "This guy did a thing I don't like so it's *anime* and thus *bad* and he is *not allowed to have fun!* *VIDEO GAAAAAAAAMES!*"  At that point he left his computer to shake his fist at the sky woefully.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2011)

That the concept exists elsewhere doesn't mean that anime hasn't become its predominant wellspring.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The claim was made that large weapon = anime.



No, the claim was ' . . . "JRPGs" having the hero use a sword that needs its own zip code . . .'; that would be Japanese roleplaying games, not anime.

The same poster said that '_some _anime' has this problem as well (emphasis added).







ProfessorCirno said:


> If that's the case, Beowulf was an anime.



_Non-sequitur_.







ProfessorCirno said:


> In the end the disgust for big swords is little more then an excuse to classify some fans as being "not as good" as other fans.





ProfessorCirno said:


> Of course, it really just comes down to someone saying "This guy did a thing I don't like so it's *anime* and thus *bad* and he is *not allowed to have fun!*"



"I don't like this," is not automatically followed by, ". . . and therefore you musn't, either."

You're not a victim. Unless you choose to be.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Of course, it really just comes down to someone saying "This guy did a thing I don't like so it's *anime* and thus *bad* and he is *not allowed to have fun!* *VIDEO GAAAAAAAAMES!*"  At that point he left his computer to shake his fist at the sky woefully.




Why do people get all bent out of shape about this? What is it to you if someone says D&D is too video gamey or that they don't like big swords in their D&D game cause it is similar to anime? It's nothing more than a way to explain what they don't like in their D&D game. It's not some personal jab towards what anyone else likes. This whole thread is silly.

I don't even believe it is an insult to video games or anime. I like both, a lot. Yet I'll call things video gamey or anime if it helps me describe the content I'm talking about.

I don't like sci-fi in my D&D games. If I say that I don't want cyborgs in my D&D game, I'm not saying that sci-fi sucks. If I say that I don't like slapstick in my roleplaying, I'm not saying Jim Carey sucks. People take this crap way too personal.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 26, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> I don't like sci-fi in my D&D games. If I say that I don't want cyborgs in my D&D game, I'm not saying that sci-fi sucks.



Why do you hate, *Oryan77*? WHY DO YOU HATE!?!



This is the obligatory, "This is snark," disclaimer for the literal minded.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Why do people get all bent out of shape about this? What is it to you if someone says D&D is too video gamey or that they don't like big swords in their D&D game cause it is similar to anime? It's nothing more than a way to explain what they don't like in their D&D game. It's not some personal jab towards what anyone else likes. This whole thread is silly.




If someone told you that they don't like Thing X (that you like) because Thing X is either a) too much like something it is not actually like at all, or b) too much like something that _everything else_ is also like, you wouldn't step in to point these things out?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> And
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're approaching this from the wrong angle. If someone says "All of these things are Blicketyblox, and all of _these_ things are _not_ Blicketyblox," it is reasonable to examine each group to determine the traits that differentiate one from the other.

Similarly, game designers use the term "video game RPG" and its variations to distinguish a game that has the elements I described from other video games which do not have those elements.

Does that mean that they get to individually _define_ what an RPG is and isn't? No, but that's not what they're doing. They are each saying that _their product_ falls into either the "this is an RPG" category," or the "this is _not_ an RPG category," and over time it has become clear that they have collectively established that certain characteristics are descriptive of a video game RPG.

Again, this doesn't mean that any one person is defining what is and isn't an RPG. They probably _all_ disagree on this. A hypothetical Japanese console RPG developer might believe that stat progression is all it takes, while a Western RPG dev might believe that giving the player impactful choices to make that shape the game world is a requirement. And, of course, within these broader groups there will be disagreements on what exactly counts as an impactful choice, and so on. At the end of the day, language is still a cowpath. Only once a piece of language has been sufficiently used can someone say "Okay, that's really what we have established as its meaning."


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

kinem said:


> Sure they are. Chess & blackjack play distinctive roles in society. Go ask people and you'll see what is supposed of them.




I'm so glad you disagreed. Steve Jackson would have words with you.

The moment we say "These two things are sacred! Thou shalt not defile them through experimentation lest you disrupt our closely-guarded mentality of exactly what _should_ and _shouldn't_ be," is the moment we take aim at creativity. Things evolve - just because they evolve in ways some of us might sometimes dislike, doesn't mean that they are disrupting some sort of holy balance.



> Dannager, that comment doesn't add anything to your first false claim other than making you look like a pretentious jerk. Just so you know.




I was sort of hoping it would give you pause to examine the logic behind your claim, since it boils down to "These things should not be like each other because they're not supposed to be because they're not supposed to be because they're not supposed to be because they're not supposed to be because they're not supposed to be..."


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Mar 26, 2011)

Video games equating to an insult is funny. It just illustrates the dogmatism in the gamer community. Arguing with such people who use this terminology is like banging your head against a brick wall. They'll stay stuck in whatever views they hold and you'll get a headache.

Let change pass them by while everyone else has fun with the fiddly, animey, video gamey, new shiney that dilutes the very fabric of quality gaming.


----------



## Celtavian (Mar 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Haha what, you and I have had this argument a billion times.  But why not, let's do it again.




Don't recall having it with you.




> Powers in D&D have always had cooldowns, they just had cooldowns of "one day."  The samurai kit in 2e has a daily power.  Barbarians in 3e have daily limits on their rages.




They do. But I prefer the daily limit. Allows a wider narrative range. As a DM I find it more intereseting to plan my encounters around daily powers so that a player can go "all out" if he needs to versus the encounter power mechanic where players always used their encounter powers even if they didn't need to.

Using the daily limit feels more organic to storytelling since players were more likely to save their uses for a strong fight.

The 4E encounter power mechanic is my primary video-gamey gripe. Felt like low cooldown powers that video gamers pop whenever they are up regardless if they are necessary. 

When my players are popping their encounter powers "just because" even when a fight is well-handled, don't even try to sell me on the narrative of that. Encounter powers are not a good story telling mechanic.




> No, the taunt ability that the 3e Knight class was straight out of a video game.




One thing I will give you, 3E had so many books they started putting out goofy stuff. I never used that dumb mechanic. No one every played a knight.





> No, they're narrative, unless you can show _how it's a video game_.




Hit your button and the power works regardless if it makes sense. That is video-gamey.

_Come and Get Me_ being the absolute worst culprit. I honestly can't think of any more glaring example of video-gamey then that powers.

Oozes? come and get me

Undead? Come and get me.

Can't speak the language? Come and get me.

There were others that didn't make much sense like the weapon damage aura dailies where you were supposed to imagine the character swinging his weapon around endllessly for an entire fight. Didn't matter what the creatures AC was, didn't matter how long the fight went on, didn't matter what his Con was, he could swing his weapon around for 5 minutes or until the fight ended.

I prefer other mechanics which I think better simulate a narrative.




> False.  There is no Crowd Control character in WoW.  Nor are Leaders "healers" by default.




Dedicated Crowd Control comes from _Everquest_. We're not solely focused on WoW are we? Is that the only MMORPG you have any experience with?





> PHBII from 3e is now a video game.




Never picked it up. 3E suffered from having to constantly produce new books. It eventually reached absurdity. 4E will most likely do the same if it is out too long as the designers are forced to come up with new ideas even if the well has run dry.





> Spellcasters, 3e barbarians, 3e paladins, 3e rogues with certain advanced talents, 2e samurai, are all video games.




Don't agree.



> False.  Multiple abilities in WoW only work on specific targets.  Undead are immune to fear.  Seduce only effects humanoids.  Banish only effects demons.




You're takling crowd control powers. True enough. 

I was thinking more along the lines of taunt powers which seem to work on even gods in video games just like 4E's defenders taunt power works on gods.

I was thinking of fire damage working on creatures in a place called Molten Core. Though I think maybe devils have immunity to fire in 4E. I can't recall. 

Things work in video games regardless if it makes sense. Like powers in 4E that do things like mind control undead, knock back giants and dragons regardless of size, make a god-like demon focus on the fighter threatening him or take a penalty, and the like. Or you going to argue this with me too? Got an argument?

3E never incorpoared such mechanics until much later. And they always tried to take into account size, con, and the like at least a little bit.

Not quite sure why you pick something like crowd control in WoW to focus on rather than the plethora of other mechanics in WoW that don't make sense as to why they work. Just like many of the powers in 4E.

Powers are very video-game like to me.




> That was fun!  Catch you next time I need to literally prove every statement you make wrong?




You didn't prove a single one wrong except in your own opinion.

You cherry-picked a few responses that you seem to think support your argument. 

I just tossed a bunch back at you which destroy your argument. You are wrong. Always been wrong. And always will be wrong.

In fact, you seemed to have missed where the 4E designers themselves stated that 4E mechanics were built to better interface with video game design. You miss that statement by the designers? 

One of the main intentions behind 4E was to create a game that was still playable as a tabeltop RPG but with a ruleset far more friendly to video game design. Amazing that a 4E booster like yourself would have missed that interview with the 4E game designers.

But you're so full of yourself, you would probably tell the game designers they didn't design 4E to better interface with video games aka video-gamey.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that 4E was designed with video games in mind moreso than any other edition. Just on this board "video-gamey" became code for "4E not good". So you feel you have to rail agaisnt the idea of 4E being video-gamey even when the evidence including the stated goals of the design team are contrary to your statement.

I think 4E will make a very good video game. Much better than 3E or any previous edition of D&D.

All previous editions of D&D were poorly designed for video games. Which is why even when they did design games around previous mechanics, they had to make major changes to get it done. Doesn't make one game better or worse.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

Cirno will undoubtedly handle the rest of this, but I blinked a few times when I saw a couple of these.



Celtavian said:


> The 4E encounter power mechanic is my primary video-gamey gripe. Felt like low cooldown powers that video gamers pop whenever they are up regardless if they are necessary.




The only place that anyone holds back on their readily available upgrades in power until they've managed to convince themselves that it's absolutely necessary is on Power Rangers. Surely that's not the narrative feel you're reaching for.



> Undead? Come and get me.



Yeah, because _zombies never get distracted_, right?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 26, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> They do. But I prefer the daily limit. Allows a wider narrative range. As a DM I find it more intereseting to plan my encounters around daily powers so that a player can go "all out" if he needs to versus the encounter power mechanic where players always used their encounter powers even if they didn't need to.
> 
> Using the daily limit feels more organic to storytelling since players were more likely to save their uses for a strong fight.
> 
> ...




Daily powers aren't any better of a storytelling mechanic.  Your argument here comes down to "I like this but not this." That doesn't make one "Video gamey."



> Hit your button and the power works regardless if it makes sense. That is video-gamey.
> 
> _Come and Get Me_ being the absolute worst culprit. I honestly can't think of any more glaring example of video-gamey then that powers.
> 
> ...



It's not video-gamey, it's narrative.  All you're showing here is that your players lack creativity.



> There were others that didn't make much sense like the weapon damage aura dailies where you were supposed to imagine the character swinging his weapon around endllessly for an entire fight. Didn't matter what the creatures AC was, didn't matter how long the fight went on, didn't matter what his Con was, he could swing his weapon around for 5 minutes or until the fight ended.
> 
> I prefer other mechanics which I think better simulate a narrative.



Are you really going to start throwing stones at D&D not having a mechanic to show someone being tired after fighting?  Because you're in a glass room inside a glass house which is in of itself inside a larger glass house.



> Dedicated Crowd Control comes from _Everquest_. We're not solely focused on WoW are we? Is that the only MMORPG you have any experience with?



No, it's the only one people refer to when they talk about 4e.



> Don't agree.



And look at all that evidence



> You're takling crowd control powers. True enough.
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of taunt powers which seem to work on even gods in video games just like *4E's defenders taunt power works on gods.*




What taunt power?  Go on, name the "taunt power" that all 4e defenders have.  I'd love to hear this.  I know it can't be marks, because marks don't work that way.  Well, I suppose marks work that way if you have no idea how marking works, but you say you've DM'd 4e.  So tell us what the taunt power that all defenders have.



> I was thinking of fire damage working on creatures in a place called Molten Core. Though I think maybe devils have immunity to fire in 4E. I can't recall.



There's a feat in 3e that lets you do this.  And a PrC for cold damage, to boot.



> Things work in video games regardless if it makes sense. Like powers in 4E that do things like mind control undead, knock back giants and dragons regardless of size, make a god-like demon focus on the fighter threatening him or take a penalty, and the like. Or you going to argue this with me too? Got an argument?



Ok, so it's narrative.

This isn't a video game thing.  You're taking something that's a part of storytelling and claiming only video games do it.  Do _you_ have an argument?  All your seem to say right now is "This is a thing video games do."  That's nice, but video games do a lot of things.  Video games have wizards in them - are all tabletop games with wizards now a video game?



> 3E never incorpoared such mechanics until much later. And they always tried to take into account size, con, and the like at least a little bit.



Until magic was involved, because *3e is primarily* *a gamist system*.  4e is narrative, 3e is gamist.  3e is "Here are rules that can _never be broken_ unless you use magic."  4e is "Here are the rules, now here are the narrative abilities the characters have that can override the rules."



> Not quite sure why you pick something like crowd control in WoW to focus on rather than the plethora of other mechanics in WoW that don't make sense as to why they work. Just like many of the powers in 4E.
> 
> Powers are very video-game like to me.



No more then any of the daily mechanics on barbarians or rogues or paladins or any other class were in 4e.

Again, your argument comes down to "I like this so it's not video gamey, but this _exact same thing_ is in a system I don't like, so it is."



> In fact, you seemed to have missed where the 4E designers themselves stated that 4E mechanics were built to better interface with video game design. You miss that statement by the designers?



Prove it.



> One of the main intentions behind 4E was to create a game that was still playable as a tabeltop RPG but with a ruleset far more friendly to video game design. Amazing that a 4E booster like yourself would have missed that interview with the 4E game designers.



Prove it.



> But you're so full of yourself, you would probably tell the game designers they didn't design 4E to better interface with video games aka video-gamey.



Prove it.



> It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that 4E was designed with video games in mind moreso than any other edition. Just on this board "video-gamey" became code for "4E not good". So you feel you have to rail agaisnt the idea of 4E being video-gamey even when the evidence including the stated goals of the design team are contrary to your statement.



Prove it.



> I think 4E will make a very good video game. Much better than 3E or any previous edition of D&D.



Prove it.



> All previous editions of D&D were poorly designed for video games. Which is why even when they did design games around previous mechanics, they had to make major changes to get it done. Doesn't make one game better or worse.



P
R
O
V
E

I
T


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 26, 2011)

You know what the funny thing about all this hooey is?

Pen and paper RPGS came long before there was swords and fantasy video games.

And had a huge influence on them.

The first video game of course being pong.

D&D was certainly not the first, although it is the most famous and influential.

I'm just tired of these either or tribalism from people.

you can either like Star Wars or Star Trek.

You can like either Garfield or Heathcliff.

You can either like Tea or coffee.

I'll have none of it and I'll go my own way and like whatever I want to like, thank you very much.


----------



## enpeze66 (Mar 26, 2011)

My take on this: Of couse I am in the camp of the slow food fans. I despise 3rd and 4th edition. Its not D&D anymore and I am not sure if they are roleplaying games at all. At least not more than those self styled video "rpgs". 

Funnily the more "video" the rpgs become the slower and tedious is the combat. It becomes self purpose and not just "story tool". 

This is perfectly evident if one reads a 4e board. Most of the posts are about builts and combat tactics or other "how-to-get-another +1" tipps and not about adventures or setting.

So why is a game like 4e perceived as "video" game? Thats simple. Formulaic redundant options which are presented in tons of narrow rules. And using one of these options  feels like pressing a button each combat round or once per minute till the cooldown expires. Then repeat and repeat.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 26, 2011)

Sigh.

Just sigh.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 26, 2011)

You know what? I think computer games have had an overall positive influence on the making of TTRPGs. Also, coding in general (has too, I mean).

There. I said it.

And sure, it so happens I'm not keen on 4e, but that's due to what I perceive as fundamental system flaws, system elements that don't appeal, aesthetics that turn me off, and various other things, including WotC's attitude here and there.

Plus, it's redundant anyway - mind you, I'd have bought it if it hadn't repulsed me. *shrug* But yeah, redundant because if I want to play D&D, I already have a number of options right here for that - yes, they might well be a bit weird, and full of holes, but that works for cheese, right? Gotta have food metaphors when discussing RPGs... And if I want a generic fantasy RPG, I've got plenty of options there too.

It's not because I believe 4e to be _particularly_ video-gamey. Or board-gamey. Or "just a tactical minis game".

Why? Well, it's a TTRPG. That's why. It quacks like one, etc.

That said, I've not played 4e - or any MMORPG. But I _have_ played a few CRPGs, and _read_ the first three 4e corebooks anyway, so... I feel that I more or less know what I'm on about here. 

tl;dr: In answer to the OP's closing line - *neither do I*.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Mar 26, 2011)

Just from reading the 4e PHB I totally get where people come from with 'videogamey'. Some have said it reads like a tech manual; that it's fluff anemic. Now, I like that (regardless of how newbie unfriendly it may or may not be), because it made the task of learning the rules easier. I do, though, get why many consider it lame (my 13 year old self probably would've considered it lame).

When I saw people claiming 4e was videogamey, here and elsewhere, that's what I thought they meant -- how clearly they can see the clockwork turning, so to speak. I thought they meant that kind of loss of immersion. That's fine. It's arbitrary, of course, but it's all arbitrary anyway.

I didn't read it as people necessarily dissing video games.

(Some people are always going to take the stand of 'What I like is better than what you like'. Such is life. You can either take the same stand or move on.)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 26, 2011)

enpeze66 said:


> My take on this: Of couse I am in the camp of the slow food fans. I despise 3rd and 4th edition. Its not D&D anymore and I am not sure if they are roleplaying games at all. At least not more than those self styled video "rpgs".
> 
> Funnily the more "video" the rpgs become the slower and tedious is the combat. It becomes self purpose and not just "story tool".
> 
> ...




I would just slap you across the head with a rulebook for this gibberish but it wouldn't do any good, you regenerate 3hp/round anyway.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 26, 2011)

Dannager said:


> A video game RPG typically has one or more elements of measurable, mechanical character progression (levels, skill points, attributes, perks, etc.) rather than a static protagonist. This is distinct from other games in which the most meaningful change in the main character's ability stems directly from picking up a new gun. In this sense, calling a video game an RPG definitely _does_ have meaning.
> 
> You can complain that this isn't True Roleplaying (tm), but the reality is that no one person gets to decide what is and what isn't roleplaying, or a roleplaying game.




You have gotten the argument wrong. I am not arguing about some mythical "true roleplay", I am arguing about marketing, because "video game RPG" really is an arbitrary label.

Consider Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (a game where you can go around and get guns ). It has ALL of the elements of mechanical progression that one would associate with RPGS: customization,  skill points, attributes that actually determine your characters body shape, and even factions! But it was toted as an "action-adventure" instead of an RPG, for _marketing reasons_.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 26, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> They do. But I prefer the daily limit. Allows a wider narrative range.




And 4e has not only a daily limit, it has an encounter limit.  Allows a wider narrative range still.



> As a DM I find it more intereseting to plan my encounters around daily powers so that a player can go "all out" if he needs to versus the encounter power mechanic where players always used their encounter powers even if they didn't need to.




And as both DM and player I find it more interesting when the PCs have interesting things to do when they aren't going all out as well as when they are.



> Using the daily limit feels more organic to storytelling since players were more likely to save their uses for a strong fight.




And using the encounter limit feels more interesting to storytelling as players are doing different things within that fight.  And then choosing whether to save their daily resources (and remember that it's not just the spellcasters that get daily resources in 4e).  Also because dailies are fewer it matters more for storytelling.  Finally variation in what's done as a fight feels more organic as people get tired.

In short in 4e I have _exactly_ the advantage you claim for 3e, brought further forward - and other advantages.



> The 4E encounter power mechanic is my primary video-gamey gripe. Felt like low cooldown powers that video gamers pop whenever they are up regardless if they are necessary.




You mean opening challenges in a fight.  Or is your objection that PCs don't behave like the characters on Power Rangers?



> When my players are popping their encounter powers "just because" even when a fight is well-handled, don't even try to sell me on the narrative of that. Encounter powers are not a good story telling mechanic.




It depends at what scale.  Encounter powers are not a good tension building mechanic but make the narrative of the fight itself more interesting. Or get boring fights out of the way faster.



> _Come and Get Me_ being the absolute worst culprit. I honestly can't think of any more glaring example of video-gamey then that powers.




The one power always brought up.



> There were others that didn't make much sense like the weapon damage aura dailies where you were supposed to imagine the character swinging his weapon around endllessly for an entire fight. Didn't matter what the creatures AC was, didn't matter how long the fight went on, didn't matter what his Con was, he could swing his weapon around for 5 minutes or until the fight ended.




And here I thought that you were in favour of resource management and there being mechanics in which people pulled out all the stops.  The fighter is already a cold eyed bastard with fast reflexes and the skill to exploit any weakness.  Rain of Steel isn't whirling around like a madman with a ball and chain.  It's the sword flickering out at any target.



> I prefer other mechanics which I think better simulate a narrative.




Okay.  So you don't like a couple of the powers.  Come and Get It (always the contraversial one and with good reason) and Rain of Steel.  That's all you've shown.



> Dedicated Crowd Control comes from _Everquest_. We're not solely focused on WoW are we? Is that the only MMORPG you have any experience with?




Party roles and the Fighter/Cleric/Magic User/Thief party come from _Dungeons and Dragons_.  Not everquest.  Not WoW.  Dungeons and Dragons.  And were then incorporated into MMOs because they are a good idea.  And many controllers would be surprised to be called "Dedicated Crowd Control"; the Hunter can only at most attack a 3*3 area at once and that just does damage.  On the other hand it can mess up and hurt bad guys very well thank you.



> I was thinking more along the lines of taunt powers which seem to work on even gods in video games just like 4E's defenders taunt power works on gods.




4e does not and has never had a taunt power.  Taunt is mind control.  4e simply has people who are fast, accurate, and understand the flow of battle well enough that you take your eye off them at your peril.

4e marking and defender auras?  If an attack can hurt a God, then why shouldn't it be able to distract the God - or cut in when the God is trying to attack someone else?  And why shouldn't this cause them a penalty to hit.

Believe it or not, unlike in 3e, in 4e taking your six second turn and then standing around like a stuffed lemon waiting for it to come back to you again isn't the default.  It's the representation.  But Fighters are smart and the master of the battlefield.  They pick their moments within the six seconds represented by their turn, choosing when the bad guy's eye is off them to attack.  And this distracts the bad guy.  If the bad guy were to instead ignore the fighter, the fighter would get a pretty huge bonus to hit.



> I was thinking of fire damage working on creatures in a place called Molten Core. Though I think maybe devils have immunity to fire in 4E. I can't recall.




Immunity?  Rarely.  And why should people who live somewhere hot have immunity to blow torches.  Hell, even fire elementals should be no more _immune_ to fire than flesh elementals are to being punched by a fist.  It just isn't the way to do it.  Now if you were to give them resistance to fire as opposed to immunity, yes.  That would make sense.  But immunity is worse simulation than no resistance at all.  (I'm also not sure why you think all devils live somewhere hot).



> Things work in video games regardless if it makes sense.




Except they don't.



> Like powers in 4E that do things like mind control undead,




Depends how you think they are animated.



> knock back giants and dragons regardless of size,




Depends on your power.  Some do, some don't.



> make a god-like demon focus on the fighter threatening him or take a penalty,




Make a god-like demon focus on the fighter threatening him or take three feet of steel to the gut when the fighter does his job?  How is the fighter actually being good at picking the right time to attack a _problem_ with simulation?



> and the like. Or you going to argue this with me too? Got an argument?




See above. 



> I just tossed a bunch back at you which destroy your argument.




You just tossed back a bunch of responses that demonstrate one thing clearly.  You do not understand 4e.  You do not understand marking.  You do not understand taunt.  You do not understand fighters.  You do not understand encounter powers.  Given how little you understand about 4e, you have problems destroying _anyone's_ argument.



> In fact, you seemed to have missed where the 4E designers themselves stated that 4E mechanics were built to better interface with video game design. You miss that statement by the designers?




You miss the fact that there have always been D&D video games until 4e.  4e is the hardest version of D&D to port to a video game because it doesn't have the "Standing round like a stuffed lemon" effect.  3e can be done very simply as turn based assuming you restrict the spell and skill uses (as you need to in any video game for any system - one of the weaknesses about video games).



> One of the main intentions behind 4E was to create a game that was still playable as a tabeltop RPG but with a ruleset far more friendly to video game design. Amazing that a 4E booster like yourself would have missed that interview with the 4E game designers.




And if that was one of the intentions, _they failed_.  3.X is _easy_ to port.  4e you need to play with the timings.  You need smarter monsters.  The turn-based + interrupts system doesn't port well.  On the other hand they learned a lot from video games.



> I think 4E will make a very good video game. Much better than 3E or any previous edition of D&D.




Of course.  That's because the video game designers will need to actually put work into it rather than simply dumping a bunch of tabletop wargame rules into the computer and saying they are done.



> All previous editions of D&D were poorly designed for video games.




All previous editions of D&D were designed based on tabletop wargame rules.  Turning a tabletop wargame into a video game is _trivial_.  You just make a computer do the rolling.  That doesn't make it a good computer game.  It makes it easy to turn into a turn based computer game.  Hell, it's not too hard to turn it into a real time game either.  4e with its staggered turn based metric is much harder.



> Which is why even when they did design games around previous mechanics, they had to make major changes to get it done. Doesn't make one game better or worse.




What changes?  Restricting the spell lists?  And they will need to work hard to get 4e working well (although e.g. the Essentials Knight will be much easier to port than the PHB Fighter - and is much more like a classic Fighter.  This is not a coincidence.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Nope.
> 
> How about this: BFS - Television Tropes & Idioms




"A common trope to both video games and anime"



> Hey look a bunch of things that are neither anime nor video games that have big swords.




A very, very few things.  If that is the total list you could come up with, you have done an excellent job of proving that your "huge mainstay" idea is entirely wrong.



> In the end the disgust for big swords is little more then an excuse to classify some fans as being "not as good" as other fans.  Congrats on that, I guess.




Oh, boo hoo, ProfC.  I hope you don't expect anyone else to join you in your self-pity party.

Some people do not like X =/= "disgust for" X.

Some people do not like X =/= classifying those who like X as "not as good" as anything.

Really, is this just poor rhetorical technique, simple disregard for your own sources, low self-esteem, or what?  Do you really feel put upon because (1) BFS is not a "huge mainstay" of the Western tradition or because (2) some people don't like what you do?

Either way, whether this is just simply posted as hyperbolic rhetoric, or if you really cannot distinguish the difference between having a preference and having disgust for anyone with a different preference, it suggests something rather unpleasant.



RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

Leatherhead said:


> You have gotten the argument wrong. I am not arguing about some mythical "true roleplay", I am arguing about marketing, because "video game RPG" really is an arbitrary label.




Except it's not. The term "video game RPG" carries an expected meaning with it. Of course any company can call any of their products a video game RPG, or _not_ call it a video game RPG, but that doesn't mean that the term itself is meaningless. If a video game is called an RPG, it is reasonable to expect that it will emphasize certain elements of gameplay.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

enpeze66 said:


> My take on this: Of couse I am in the camp of the slow food fans. I despise 3rd and 4th edition. Its not D&D anymore and I am not sure if they are roleplaying games at all. At least not more than those self styled video "rpgs".




Ew, elitism.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 26, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> You know what the funny thing about all this hooey is? Pen and paper RPGS came long before there was swords and fantasy video games.




     I suppose text-based adventure games on the computer don't count as video games, then? Colossal Cave Adventure came out in 1976, followed by the likes of Zork . If you want graphics, one could play Haunted House on the Magnavox Odyssey in 1972 (granted, you taped the graphics, printed on a clear sheet of plastic, over your TV and then played a lit white square on the screen).

     I started playing D&D (Basic) in 1979, the same year I was introduced to home computers (Apple II+). These days I rarely have time for video games, but still run my role-play heavy/combat light 3.5e game, with an emphasis on story over stats, online every Sunday.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 26, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> I suppose text-based adventure games on the computer don't count as video games, then? Colossal Cave Adventure came out in 1976, followed by the likes of Zork . If you want graphics, one could play Haunted House on the Magnavox Odyssey in 1972 (granted, you taped the graphics, printed on a clear sheet of plastic, over your TV and then played a lit white square on the screen).
> 
> I started playing D&D (Basic) in 1979, the same year I was introduced to home computers (Apple II+). These days I rarely have time for video games, but still run my role-play heavy/combat light 3.5e game, with an emphasis on story over stats, online every Sunday.




Dungeons And Dragons started in 1974.







The first Basic set was in 1977.

Before any of that it was a miniatures game called Chainmail, published in 1971.

Pong, 1972.

And I haven't made my mind up on it, but I'm leaning towards no at this point because those games are pure text.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 26, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Before any of that it was a miniatures game called Chainmail, published in 1971. Pong, 1972.




Though not available for the general public, the predecessor to Pong was a prototype console out in 1971 and was shown in the movie "The Omega Man". So... it's a tie  

Though at this point there are a lot of gray areas... Zork was an adventure game, though without graphics some would not call it a video game. Later games featured text beneath static images. Were those video games?

Do graphics have anything to do with describing an RPG as "videogamey"?

When characters are given descriptors such as "controller", defender" and the like, THEN it feels like a video game, to me. Granted, some people have always done this, with terms like "tank", "meat shield", etc. I never did that.

When PCs speak of things like armor class and hit points, THEN it feels like a video game, to me. Players know of such things, characters do not.

And then there is the matter of miniatures. Yes, Chainmail/D&D began as a war game. But I never treated it as such. I haven't used minis in my game since the late 80s. When one HAS to use miniatures, THEN it feels like a video game, to me.

However, even referring to something as "videogamey" is dicey at best. What sort of video game? A mindless bloodbath like Halo or GTA? A tactical battle-based game like WoW? A graphics-heavy adventure/exploration game like Myst/Riven/Uru?

No two people with hear the words "video game" and envision the same experience. Nor will two people heard the words "role-playing game" and think of the same game.

In the end, it's all good. At least we aren't out shooting (real) people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2011)

> However, even referring to something as "videogamey" is dicey at best. What sort of video game? A mindless bloodbath like Halo or GTA? A tactical battle-based game like WoW? A graphics-heavy adventure/exploration game like Myst/Riven/Uru?




Yep- you really need to know the speaker.  In my group, it was usuall an umbrella term for a variety of different MMORPGs...whereas for me, it was a comparison to things like _Tekken_ & _MK_.  There because our experiences differed as did what bugged us.  In some cases, we were bugged by the same elements, but has no common reference points, so what may have been "videogamey" to them was just namelessly annoying to me.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2011)

5 is nothing like 1.  Anyone claiming 5 is 1 can be demonstrated to be wrong.

If you absolutely demand 10, then 5 not being 1 does nothing to mitigate the fact that 5 is no more 10 than it is 1, and 1 and 5 are both fully "not 10".

If you simply prefer 10, then 5 is much better than 1, but it is still to "1y" to be preferable to 10 itself.

You can play absolutes or you can play relatives.  It makes no difference.

And there is nothing wrong with thinking 5 is the grand optimum.  But you can't change that 5 is too much like 1 for someone else whose grand optimum is 10.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> However, even referring to something as "videogamey" is dicey at best. What sort of video game?



That is certainly true.  Trying to understand what someone else is expressing is the first step.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> That is certainly true.  Trying to understand what someone else is expressing is the first step.




That's why I believe that no one is served by saying things like "This is too videogamey," or "This is too anime," or "This doesn't feel like D&D." These are statements that confuse the discussion more than they inform.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 26, 2011)

I think that's pretty clear: something reminds the utterer of videogames or anime in a way they don't like.

Is it _precise_?  No.  But as an opening statement, it doesn't have to be.  The listener at that point is free to inquire as to details, conform the statement to their own understanding of things, or let is slide by as a statement of preference or emotional content.  Each has advantages...and disadvantages.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2011)

Dannager said:


> That's why I believe that no one is served by saying things like "This is too videogamey," or "This is too anime," or "This doesn't feel like D&D." These are statements that confuse the discussion more than they inform.




I disagree completely.  It only doesn't work if you refuse to accept that people are speaking for themselves and have a right to their own views.  

Ultimately, you are free to ignore other people's comments.  But if you are going to pay attention, then you have to put some energy into actually listening.  The common exchange I've seen is something like....

A: I think 4E is too videogamey because X, Y, Z,.....
B: You said "videogamey". You aren't contributing to the conversation!!!

I'd say fixating on natural generalizations as a debate tactic, rather than addressing the reasons given confuses the conversation.  And frequently I tend to think that some people prefer a confused conversation to trying to address X, Y, and Z.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 26, 2011)

Any talk of 'Video games' really seems to bring out a lot of vague, but passionate feelings about Video games, or RPGS or Pen and paper games, or combinations of the three. 

Frankly, I find Pen and Paper and Video games to be totally different animals. I play each for different reasons and do not expect overlap. I would not sit around a table with my friends to do a video game, and playing pen and paper games by myself is no fun at all, to be simplistic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I disagree completely.  It only doesn't work if you refuse to accept that people are speaking for themselves and have a right to their own views.





As is so often the case.  

Far too many discussions on EN World and elsewhere end with this realization.


RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I disagree completely.  It only doesn't work if you refuse to accept that people are speaking for themselves and have a right to their own views.
> 
> Ultimately, you are free to ignore other people's comments.  But if you are going to pay attention, then you have to put some energy into actually listening.  The common exchange I've seen is something like....
> 
> ...




No.

"I think 4e is too videogamey because X, Y, Z," isn't the whole picture. What they _actually mean_ is "In my opinion, 4e does X, Y, and Z. Also, in my opinion, these things are representative of video games. Video games are bad/don't belong in tabletop games because I said so. Therefore, things X, Y, and Z are bad."

The problem is that what they _ought_ to be saying is "In my opinion, 4e does X, Y, and Z, and I don't like that it does those things because they negatively impact my game, and here's a list of reasons why that is the case."

When someone starts bringing something like how _videogamey_ something is into the picture, rather than focusing on _the actual issues_ they have with the game, the entire discussion becomes confused; we don't know what makes something videogamey to you, and inevitably when we try to narrow it down (by bringing up counter-examples that might help us determine what exactly is and is not videogamey, and why being videogamey is bad), it turns out that you don't actually dislike things that are videogamey.

For instance, if you had the following argument:

1) Powers are a video game element.
2) Video game elements are bad in tabletop games like 4e.

1,2: 3) Therefore, 4e should not include powers.

That would be _fine_. That is a clear argument with a strong rational foundation.

That's _never the argument_, though.

What the argument _actually _ends up like:

1) Powers are a video game element.
2) Some video game elements are bad in tabletop games but some aren't, and the distinction between the ones that are _good_ and _bad_ is either arbitrary or non-existent.

At this point, you can no longer proceed to step 3, because its statement no longer follows. It has not been shown that powers are a bad thing in a tabletop game, because the justification used for their "badness" was rooted in the premise that video game elements are bad for a tabletop game. When it's shown (through counter-examples people like Cirno and I have brought up to try and determine what the heck people mean by "videogamey") that video game elements _aren't_ inherently bad for a tabletop game, and that what determines that rule element's "badness" is something else entirely that has nothing to do with whether or not it came from a video game, we realize that we just wasted a tremendous amount of time trying to determine why someone would rail against video games when it's clear that video games were never the issue to begin with.

Do you see how this makes discussions like this way more trying than they need to be? If we started with "I don't like X because it makes my game less enjoyable, and this is why:" instead of "I don't like X because it's videogamey and video game things are bad for tabletop games, don'cha know," we'd have _much _more productive discussions.

tl;dr Stop saying "X is videogamey!" when you actually mean "X is like something from a video game but it is also something that I think is bad for tabletop games because there are plenty of things that I like about tabletop games that have roots in video games that I don't complain about as being videogamey, despite the fact that the word 'videogamey' implies that the reason I don't like it is that it comes from video games when that is clearly not the reason I don't like it because I do like some things that come from video games." Instead, say "X is bad for tabletop games," and explain why.


----------



## Aspect of Veles (Mar 26, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Games like the Neverwinter Nights series and the Left 4 Dead series allow you to play the part of the director/narrator/DM in a video game environment - controlling NPCs, making plot-related decisions out of sight of the PCs, adding elements to the game world, etc.




Is this not simply a human DM?  I saw this just skimming through, and being an avid role-player and PC gamer (I _love_ the Neverwinter Nights games), I'm a little confused as to how this argues for either side, it seems instead to be a form of compromise.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 26, 2011)

Aspect of Veles said:


> Is this not simply a human DM?  I saw this just skimming through, and being an avid role-player and PC gamer (I _love_ the Neverwinter Nights games), I'm a little confused as to how this argues for either side, it seems instead to be a form of compromise.




The point that it implies (and that I should have made explicit) is that, in games like Left4Dead, playing through the game with a human Director and playing through with an AI director are essentially interchangeable experiences. It's not a big point, but it does torpedo the argument that there is a fundamental difference between a game experience controlled by a human and a game experience programmed into the game. They _can_ be different, but they can also be indistinguishable.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The point that it implies (and that I should have made explicit) is that, in games like Left4Dead, playing through the game with a human Director and playing through with an AI director are essentially interchangeable experiences. It's not a big point, but it does torpedo the argument that there is a fundamental difference between a game experience controlled by a human and a game experience programmed into the game.





The only difference is that you're changing programmers, from the programmer of the AI to the end-user using the program's scripting tools.

The players are still limited to actions permitted by the software. They do not have the same freedom they do in a tabletop game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

> No.
> 
> "I think 4e is too videogamey because X, Y, Z," isn't the whole picture. What they actually mean is "In my opinion, 4e does X, Y, and Z. Also, in my opinion, these things are representative of video games. Video games are bad/don't belong in tabletop games because I said so. Therefore, things X, Y, and Z are bad."




No.  You're obviously not understanding what people have actually written _in this thread._

"I think 4e is too videogamey because X, Y, Z," means that X, Y and Z remind the speaker of a videogame or games that, _whether or not they like X, Y and Z in those games_, they don't care for them in _their_ TTRPG experiences.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.  You're obviously not understanding what people have actually written _in this thread._
> 
> "I think 4e is too videogamey because X, Y, Z," means that X, Y and Z remind the speaker of a videogame or games that, _whether or not they like X, Y and Z in those games_, they don't care for them in _their_ TTRPG experiences.




Did you even read what I wrote?

I don't think you did. I didn't say _anything_ about whether the person in question liked X, Y, and Z in the video game they're from. Re-read my post.


----------



## Aramax (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannager said:


> There are people who complain that "This tabletop roleplaying game is too video-gamey!" when what they actually mean is "This tabletop roleplaying game has too many game-like elements!" Video games are the popular scapegoat because a) people are very familiar with them, b) they are contemporary, and c) there are some pretty strong elitist WoW-is-for-losers, video-games-don't-let-me-do-whatever-I-want, my-entertainment-medium-of-choice-is-better-than-yours threads running through the tabletop gaming community.
> 
> Immersion is _incredibly_ overrated.



 This is me totaly-guilty


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 27, 2011)

This whole thread is making me want to design a multi-layered dungeon with a giant gorilla throwing barrels on the top level.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No. You're obviously not understanding what people have actually written _in this thread._
> 
> "I think 4e is too videogamey because X, Y, Z," means that X, Y and Z remind the speaker of a videogame or games that, _whether or not they like X, Y and Z in those games_, they don't care for them in _their_ TTRPG experiences.



Here's the problem: Typically, what is said is "I don't like _x _because it is too much like a videogame." Very little exposition is typically given as to 1._ Why_ it feels like a videogame and B. Why feeling like a videogame _in this instance_ is a _bad thing_.

Now, some of the posts in this thread do go into it and break it down. But when the phrase "I hate it because it feels like a videogame" tossed around and _treated like an insult_ to a particular product (which happens in the edition warring that goes on), it lacks the exposition needed to place the phrase in a context that makes any sense beyond just ragging on something.

So what we have is a "sound-bite" that becomes an oft-repeated reason for why something sucks. If there is a _lack_ of additional context, it just becomes an insult that _implies any influence_ from videogames to P&P RPGs is a bad plan and ruins the roleplaying experiance.

And if someone isn't willing to put the context in there to support their complaint, I'm going to wonder just _What in Bigby's Green Trunk of Doom_ you're talking about, because I don't have that negative association. I may reject your argument, but will agree to disagree.

Otherwise, "I hate this because this is like a videogame" becomes about as informative as two politicians claiming the other hates working families. It's emotive but ultimatly pointless to the argument, and _at best_ turns the argument into a joke.

Oh, and Carthage must be Destroyed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Did you even read what I wrote?
> 
> I don't think you did. I didn't say _anything_ about whether the person in question liked X, Y, and Z in the video game they're from. Re-read my post.




I _did_ read your post and found: 

1) "Video games are bad".  That's a judgement of the source material that does not necessarily follow from the statement about being "videogamey."

2) "because I said so.". Here, you're making us sound arbitrary, petulant and demanding that our preferences be catered to.  We are not- we are expressing an opinion of elements we don't like in the game, much like some don't like the "Elf Proliferation Treaty" that seemed to require that there was a unique kind of elf for every ecosystem.

3) "Therefore, things X, Y, and Z are bad." Again, a judgement not supported by the statement.  We do not necessarily feel that X, Y, and Z are bad, just that we don't like them in our TTRPGs.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 27, 2011)

> What they actually mean




100% of internet conversations would be less contentious if those engaged listen to what the other actually says rather than trying to analyze what the other "actually means." 

That said, people are free to determine that they don't like something for whatever reason they want.

I do think that videogames get a bit of an unfair rep, but I'm much more interested in talking about the benefits and problems with the XYZs than I am in defending videogames from ill repute to D&D nerds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

> Here's the problem: Typically, what is said is "I don't like x because it is too much like a videogame." Very little exposition is typically given as to 1. Why it feels like a videogame and B. Why feeling like a videogame in this instance is a bad thing.




I covered this upthread: treat it like any other opening statement to a dialog.  Expecting someone to lay out their entire detailed assessment in their opening statement is unrealistic.

If you want to know the particulars, ask.  You may also assume that you know what they meant.  Or you can accept it on it's face as a statement of opinion and emotion.

The problem usually arises when people choose the second option, assuming that the word "videogamey"  was an indictment of videogames, of playstyles or what have you.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 27, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> This whole thread is making me want to design a multi-layered dungeon with a giant gorilla throwing barrels on the top level.




LOL!!  I beat you to it. I ran a BD&D game at a local gameday that featured a long sprial staircase leaging up to a room with a large guardian ape. The PCs triggered the alarm on the stairs and the trained ape began throwing barrels down the stairwell which the PCs had to either dodge or destroy as they went through.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 27, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> LOL!!  I beat you to it.



As have many others.

Before that dungeon masters often ran a labyrinth featuring a magic chalice and the dragons Grundle, Rhingle, and Yorgle.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you want to know the particulars, ask. You may also assume that you know what they meant. Or you can accept it on it's face as a statement of opinion and emotion.



Yes. I am to blame for other people's poor communication skills on the internet. *rolls eyes* 
FYI, that was sarcasm. Just making sure to note this 'cause it doesn't always come across in text. 

If I _wasn't confused and annoyed_, I wouldn't have started this thread, which has mostly devolved into very narrow arguments that start veering somewhat tangental between a few people like most long, controversial threads on EnWorld.

Oh, and Carthage must be destroyed.


----------



## Wik (Mar 27, 2011)

Good god.  Someone says, in a non-accusatory way, that anime swords are oversized or something.  And then someone has to say this is not the case, because god forbid someone say even remotely negative about a preferrred subject, even if it's true.

Someone else is annoyed that people compare 4e as being too "videogamey", because they like video games, and god forbid someone else doesn't like videogames.

Sheesh, people.  Can't everyone just get along?  What's with all the sniping?  

Anyways.

I like video games.  I don't like 4e.  Why?  Because a lot of the things I like about video games I like because there's no work involved in seeing those things done.  I get annoyed with 4e (and 3e) because those games involve a lot of calculations, and I don't think RPGs should concern themselves with that.  

I think, for RPGs to survive, they need to distance themselves from video game mechanics, not emulate them.

I've never really accused 4e of being too videogamey, but when people do, I know what they mean - limited options, straitjacket roles, and repetitive combats.  And here's where I show my work:

Limited Options:  You can say that a 4e character has more options than a 1e character.  And you'd be right - mechanically, there ARE more options.  However, there is a problem.  In a 4e game, you are generally restricted to your powers.  And that means that you use those powers... over and over again.  

There's a great scene in Firefly where Jayne Cobb throws a dagger at a guy, charges him, and beats him up.  This is awesome.  But if Jayne did that every time he got into a fight, he'd be a boring character.  4e characters seem to be an extension of that - every fight, using the same few moves, over and over again.  Sure, we can fluff the powers differently each time, but they FEEL different than in 1e, where "I attack" often felt a bit more cinematic than the different encounter powers.

Straitjacket Roles:  I'm not big on MMOs, and here's why:  whenever I tried to play a character, people told me exactly how to play that character.  And if my healer hadn't optimized for healing, or tried to fight a monster instead of focusing on healing the group, I'd get kicked from the group.  Every class had certain roles to play in a fight, and if you broke those rules, the group would get mad.  

4e isn't as bad as all that.  But if you're a defender who doesn't mark often, or a controller who tries to heal, the group will hate you.  And maybe that's rightfully so.  But there's something annoying about being in a supposedly "cinematic" game where every fight you're doing a variation on the same thing - controlling the minions, defending so the strikers can deal damage, etc.  Sometimes, when I'm the wizard, I just want to slam my staff into the ground and shout "You shall not pass!", and character roles get in the way of that too often for my taste.

Your mileage will probably vary, and that's cool.

Repetitive Combats:  There are few real resistances or immunities in monsters.  And nothing will stop your powers from working on all monsters more or less the same.  Once your group has their options figured out, most every combat will play out the same way - the power results are predictable, and while the monsters are wild cards, we can usually guess that the way to defeat them is to divide and conquer.  In every fight, the same encounter powers will be used again and again.  The same feats.  PCs will be in the same rough approximate position (defenders up front, the archer in the back, etc), unless the unexpected happens, in which case the goal of the game is to get back into your expected position.  

You can level this at all RPGs.  But the thing is, when you have more input sources (as in 4e and 3e), and these input sources are homogenized, it tends to feel more repetitive than a game with only one input source ("I attack").  I don't know why that is, but it is.  At least in my experience.

So there.  If I say "4e is too videogamey" that's what I'm saying.

People will try and prove me wrong.  Thing is, they can't.  That's my opinion, and they're entitled to theirs.

Oh, and anime swords are too big.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

> If I wasn't confused and annoyed, I wouldn't have started this thread, which has mostly devolved into very narrow arguments that start veering somewhat tangental between a few people like most long, controversial threads on EnWorld.




In the real world, if you hear someone say: "I don't like Wal-Mart, it's too much like Crazy Ralph's Emporium," do you get pissed that they didn't tell you any particulars, do you assume you know what they mean or do you ask them what makes them make that connection and why they don't like it?

I'm betting you don't pick the first option.  And if that is the case, why choose that option when someone uses the word "videogamey" re:4Ed?


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 27, 2011)

[MENTION=40177]Wik[/MENTION]: See, now _that_ is a post that makes some bloody sense, especially in context to my original post.

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]: There is a significant difference between "confused and annoyed" and "pissed." And in the Real World, if I am confused about someone's opinion and it irritates me, I do ask for them to elaborate and they are usually happy to oblige. Actually, usually people are happy to oblige without asking because they won't shut up about it. In which case I ignore them once I get the gist.

Plus Carthage must be destroyed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

Then treat the online conversation the same way.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 27, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Before that dungeon masters often ran a labyrinth featuring a magic chalice and the dragons Grundle, Rhingle, and Yorgle.




Did they also include the invisible pixel which allowed access past the secret door, into the room where the credits were hidden?   I played Adventure online a few weeks back. It was still loads of fun.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then treat the online conversation the same way.



I don't know where you're going with this *switching my mood towards this thread from annoyed to curious*. After all, that's why I started this thread; _I've already done what you are saying I should do_.

I have a slight flaw where I over-think stupid little things that shouldn't be over-thought. That's probably how I ended up with a BFA: Art. I am also aware of the whole futility of arguing on the internet (but sometimes it's still fun).

There is also a point behind _Carthage must be destroyed._


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 27, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> I am also aware of the whole futility of arguing on the internet (but sometimes it's still fun).




M:  An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A:   No it isn't.
M:  Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A:   Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. 
M:  Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A:   Yes it is!
M:   No it isn't!


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 27, 2011)

> Good god.  Someone says, in a non-accusatory way, that anime swords are  oversized or something.  And then someone has to say this is not the  case, because god forbid someone say even remotely negative about a  preferrred subject, even if it's true.




Some people like to argue for the sake of being right is serious business.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 27, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Some people like to argue for the sake of being right is serious business.




Some people just like to hear the sound of their own voice, whether it is arguing, monologue, lecturing, etc ....  (Both figuratively and literally).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> I don't know where you're going with this *switching my mood towards this thread from annoyed to curious*. After all, that's why I started this thread; _I've already done what you are saying I should do_.




Actually, by starting this thread with title, you really havent- you've dredged up what people who don't have that viewpoint _THINK_ those with that viewpoint are saying.

You should have asked something more directed: "Those who say 4Ed is too videogamey, what do you mean?"



> There is also a point behind _Carthage must be destroyed._




I'm aware of the origins of that sentence, but following my own advice, I let it pass.


----------



## Glade Riven (Mar 27, 2011)

_And_ drudged up a response of people who want to correct those with "false" assumptions (which I, myself have seen as the reasoning to hate (typically) 4e blatently stated by posters in the past). Sure, there's a lot of unnecessary snipping and it takes a bit to separate what I was looking for from the chaff, but that's forums for ya.

I've found that half-baked rants-when-I'm-tired are more likely to (eventually) generate a useful response than a more thought-out post ment to generate discussion (like this one).

Carthage still must be destroyed, though. They hate working families.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 27, 2011)

Protip: sometimes repeating the same thing over and over again can be annoying to some people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 27, 2011)

It's the art of formulating questions: do it right, and you get more wheat than chaff.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 28, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> There is also a point behind _Carthage must be destroyed._



A point? Or just an Asterix*?

* Yes, I know I'm mixing references.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 28, 2011)

Wik said:


> Limited Options:  You can say that a 4e character has more options than a 1e character.  And you'd be right - mechanically, there ARE more options.  However, there is a problem.  In a 4e game, you are generally restricted to your powers.  And that means that you use those powers... over and over again.
> 
> There's a great scene in Firefly where Jayne Cobb throws a dagger at a guy, charges him, and beats him up.  This is awesome.  But if Jayne did that every time he got into a fight, he'd be a boring character.  4e characters seem to be an extension of that - every fight, using the same few moves, over and over again.  Sure, we can fluff the powers differently each time, but they FEEL different than in 1e, where "I attack" often felt a bit more cinematic than the different encounter powers.




I don't get this.

Not only is there nothing stopping you from doing this, 4e encourages off the wall stunts far more then any previous edition.  The emphasis on interesting terrain in fights and the presence of Page 42 means you have more support then _ever before_ to be creative with things.



> Repetitive Combats:  There are few real resistances or immunities in  monsters.  And nothing will stop your powers from working on all  monsters more or less the same.  Once your group has their options  figured out, most every combat will play out the same way - the power  results are predictable, and while the monsters are wild cards, we can  usually guess that the way to defeat them is to divide and conquer.  In  every fight, the same encounter powers will be used again and again.   The same feats.  PCs will be in the same rough approximate position  (defenders up front, the archer in the back, etc), unless the unexpected  happens, in which case the goal of the game is to get back into your  expected position.




How is endlessly just saying "I full attack" any different?

So many of the complaints about 4e that I see, apply just as much if not more so to previous editions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 28, 2011)

FireLance said:


> A point? Or just an Asterix*?
> 
> * Yes, I know I'm mixing references.




I always loved reading Asterix at my pal's house.  Good times.


----------



## Wik (Mar 28, 2011)

I'll answer the questions to the best of my ability, but remember that part of this just comes from personal play experiences and whatnot.  Really, I can summarize it thusly - while 4e seems to have more options and capacity than other editions, that capacity is actually diminished in real play.  

This has been my experience;  I fully accept that it may not be yours, and I'm not in the business of making blanket statements.

That being said, to answer some questiosn!



ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't get this.
> 
> Not only is there nothing stopping you from doing this, 4e encourages off the wall stunts far more then any previous edition.  The emphasis on interesting terrain in fights and the presence of Page 42 means you have more support then _ever before_ to be creative with things.




Yes.  Except, as I'm sure you've heard, page 42 is kind of a flawed example, because many of those rules basically encourage PCs NOT to use them.  Or, rather, they are a great resource, but the game really rewards encounter power usage more, because those powers usually have better effects (and even if they don't, players are more likely to use them because they know the results of the power, and may have feats + magical items that heighten those powers' effects).

While terrain powers are GREAT, and I fully support them, an unfortunate side effect is that sometimes GMs tend to disregard terrain that doesn't have terrain powers written for them.  Also, an unfortunate side effect I've seen is players not wanting to use terrain effects that they know were put there by the GM, because those powers often feel contrived and "balanced", and would rather use their own encounter powers.  

Not to mention, in older editions, it was the very vagueness of the terrain that encouraged players to think outside the box.  there was a bit more negotiation between players and GMs (again, in my own experience, I'm sure other experiences will conflict).  However, with pre-written powers, that negotiation can slip - the game becomes a matter of the GM staying on his side of the screen, and the players staying on theirs.  



> How is endlessly just saying "I full attack" any different?




In some ways, it's not.  But in others, it's a huge difference.  Because player's DON'T endlessly say "I attack" all the time.  Sometimes, they describe their powers in glorious detail.  Or at the very least, they're visualizing their attacks in different ways.

A player could say "I attack" fifty times in a session, and in his head, each attack could be something else.  In real play, this is probably not the case - he might visualize a few sword slices, or have some vague idea of attacks.

My problem is, if in a 4e game the PCs get in three fights, in each fight, when the fighter says "I use Come and Get It", he is visualizing that in the exact same way.  Because that power is a named attack, and one that in most players' logical minds would repeat in a similar way.  So, every encounter, he uses that power, and it looks exactly the same in his mind's eye.

So, while "I attack" might seem much more boring mechanically, in the minds of players, that doesn't necessarily translate.  



> So many of the complaints about 4e that I see, apply just as much if not more so to previous editions.




This may or may not be true.  Sometimes, an edition change highlights problems that never seemed as big in older editions.  I never heard a complaint about _sleep_ until 3rd edition came out, when it was actually nerfed in comparison to older editions.  And yet, sleep has always been a very important spell in D&D.  Ditto for (low-level) undead - undead were never considered "weak" monsters in my group of friends until 3rd edition came out... and then we played BECMI and the undead were easily the less threatening monsters out there (unless we count the few that have level drain).  

However, just because we may be able to see traces of those complaints in past editions... it doesn't mean they don't exist in the new edition.  Quite often, it's changes in the new edition that are highlighting these problems we never saw in earlier editions.

We didn't care much about sleep because wizards didn't have too many spells.  Suddenly, wizards get more spells at the start of the game, and sleep becomes a game-changer, even though it's actually been weakened.  And no one complained about undead being weak in earlier games because players were oftne more in the dark about the monsters' mechanics... but in 3e, where they could see some of the mechanics of the monster during play, the easiness involved in killing low-level undead became readily apparent.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 28, 2011)

Wik said:


> Yes. Except, as I'm sure you've heard, page 42 is kind of a flawed example, because many of those rules basically encourage PCs NOT to use them. Or, rather, they are a great resource, but the game really rewards encounter power usage more, because those powers usually have better effects (and even if they don't, players are more likely to use them because they know the results of the power, and may have feats + magical items that heighten those powers' effects).




To quote GURPS rules, if sand in the face always worked then people would give up carrying weapons and instead wander round with bags of sand.  Improvising isn't generally as good as muscle memory and the most effective things PCs can do.



> While terrain powers are GREAT




Your experience of the drawbacks doesn't match mine.



> My problem is, if in a 4e game the PCs get in three fights, in each fight, when the fighter says "I use Come and Get It", he is visualizing that in the exact same way.




You may be.  But I'm not.  I'm visualising roughly the same approach applied to whatever the situation is.  I think across the course of the first three levels I repeated descriptions twice with my wizard and once with my monk.  (My Warlord a bit more because he tended to spam Powerful Warning ("Duck!" - although that was different based on the incoming attack) and Direct the Strike (naming moves from the PCs katas with a different naming convention for each PC he used it for))


----------



## BryonD (Mar 28, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The emphasis on interesting terrain in fights and the presence of Page 42 means you have more support then _ever before_ to be creative with things.



I have never considered one page of rules of thumb to be serious support for creativity.  The idea that you can put a different coat of paint of a single page of "one size fits all" mechanics for every situation is a hallmark of the homogeneity of 4E.  IMO.



> How is endlessly just saying "I full attack" any different?



Is this an accurate description of how you played 3E?  And, if so, why do you think your comments are meaningful to my play experience?

Or are you not being honest about 3e?  And, if so, why do you think your comments are meaningful to my play experience?


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I have never considered one page of rules of thumb to be serious support for creativity.  The idea that you can put a different coat of paint of a single page of "one size fits all" mechanics for every situation is a hallmark of the homogeneity of 4E.



You could also call it consistency.

I definitely prefer a universal approach to a plethora of wildly different subsystems. 

This is one of my main criticisms of the 3rd edition of Earthdawn: Too many subsystems make the game difficult to DM. If it wasn't for them it would be my preferred ruleset for epic fantasy gaming.

Runequest on the other hand does an excellent job of applying the same mechanisms to a wide variety of situations. It's one of the few systems where you can quickly memorize the entire ruleset.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I have never considered one page of rules of thumb to be serious support for creativity. The idea that you can put a different coat of paint of a single page of "one size fits all" mechanics for every situation is a hallmark of the homogeneity of 4E. IMO.




My experience from behind the DM screen is almost the reverse.  The very shortness of page 42 is an indication that you should just go with the flow and improvise - if it was massive it would be hamstringing and I would continually feel I was doing it wrong because it was against the actual letter and spirit of the rules.  About all I want to add is a condition equivalency guide.



> Is this an accurate description of how you played 3E? And, if so, why do you think your comments are meaningful to my play experience?




In my experience the people who just list power names and those who endlessly say "I full attack" are the same once they reach equivalent levels of familiarity with both systems - as are those who fluff in both systems.  (Of course there's a slightly higher hurdle to 4e familiarity for non-casters and a lower one for casters).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2011)

Page 42 may be a good thing, but it is not the Holy Grail of gaming.  

I have no doubt that it spurs some to creativity, just as to others it seems a suboptimal afterthought to simply using class powers.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 28, 2011)

That's the thing about personal experiences i can't stand. Everybody thinks their personal experiences is true for them and must be true for everybody else and anybody who doesn't match them must be lying.

Which is a bunch of hooey.


----------



## amerigoV (Mar 28, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> To quote GURPS rules, if sand in the face always worked then people would give up carrying weapons and instead wander round with bags of sand.  Improvising isn't generally as good as muscle memory and the most effective things PCs can do.





This has me thinking about Savage Worlds and the Tricks/Test of Wills mechanics. The throwing sand in the eyes trick is, well, a Trick. You do not see those the strong combat machines do that very often. You do see "weaker" combat characters do them more often (I had a R2-like droid significantly impact a combat using tricks since he was not a combat charcter). It's Savage World's way of letting character concepts that are not combat oriented to still have an impact in the fight scenes.

I missed just about all of 2e, but going 1e to (hiatus) to 3e really struck me how every class was now effective in combat. There were still a few disparities, but they really had narrowed. In my 1e days the fighters and the MU killed everything, the cleric was first aid and turn undead, and the thief was for the troublemaking player  (not really a combat dude, but an exploration specialist).

Although I have only played a modest amount of 4e, I can see why Page 42 may not be used often since 4e has more optimized combat for all classes/roles.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 28, 2011)

Ah, yes the age old debate between using the rules to do something and improvising doing something.  Here's a link to bring up an interesting point.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Is this an accurate description of how you played 3E?  And, if so, why do you think your comments are meaningful to my play experience?
> 
> Or are you not being honest about 3e?  And, if so, why do you think your comments are meaningful to my play experience?




Let me get this straight. In 3e, you had (functionally) pretty much one solid way to attack each round: the full attack. In 4e, you have a number of choices of roughly equal strength whose effectiveness might vary situationally.

In 3e you felt like you had the freedom to imagine your full attacks however you want, because you weren't being "straight-jacketed" by power names, and in 4e you feel restricted by your powers, despite the fact that you _actually_ have more good choices.

Am I getting this right? I just want to make sure.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2011)

Dannager said:


> In 3e, you had (functionally) pretty much one solid way to attack each round: the full attack.






No idea what game you mean by "3e", but my experience with Dungeons & Dragons is very different.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 28, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> You may be.  But I'm not.  I'm visualising roughly the same approach applied to whatever the situation is.  I think across the course of the first three levels I repeated descriptions twice with my wizard and once with my monk.  (My Warlord a bit more because he tended to spam Powerful Warning ("Duck!" - although that was different based on the incoming attack) and Direct the Strike (naming moves from the PCs katas with a different naming convention for each PC he used it for))



Indeed. I don't think the claim that you visualize the same power the same way holds any water. At the very least, if you're using Come and Get It against an ooze, would you really imagine it the same way as when you use it against a human bandit?

3E has many equivalents. Does the fact that a fighter uses Power Attack mean he imagines his attack the same way every time. Or a paladin using Smite Evil?


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 28, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I always loved reading Asterix at my pal's house.  Good times.





I got talked into test driving the new electric Ford Asterisk*.






*Flatteries not included.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 28, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> I got talked into test driving the new electric Ford Asterisk*.




Did you crash into an obelisk?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I have never considered one page of rules of thumb to be serious support for creativity.  The idea that you can put a different coat of paint of a single page of "one size fits all" mechanics for every situation is a hallmark of the homogeneity of 4E.  IMO.




How is this any different from the complaints of 2e fans that 3e's d20 system does the same thing?


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 28, 2011)

Dannager said:


> If someone told you that they don't like Thing X (that you like) because Thing X is either a) too much like something it is not actually like at all, or b) too much like something that _everything else_ is also like, you wouldn't step in to point these things out?




I haven't kept up with this thread in a few days, so I'm a bit late responding to this. But in case you may still read this...

What better comparison should people use when they explain the things they don't like in their D&D game when it is similar to video games or anime? Using those terms is meant to help establish what you are about to start talking about in order to help get you on the same line of thought, even though it may not always work.

If something reminds me of a video game, then I'm going to refer to video games as being similar. To tell me that it isn't similar is your own opinion and you have the right to say that if you disagree. But remember that the similarity is my opinion, and we don't all think alike. To actually get annoyed, bothered, and upset that people use that comparison is really kind of childish.

It's as pointless of a thing to get annoyed by as if you think Angelina Jolie is the hottest woman alive and I tell you how I think she looks like a Mr. Potato Head. Yer not going to run around complaining about how I keep insulting Mr. Potato Head (video games) and your favorite actress (D&D). Just explain how you don't agree and then be understanding in knowing that we see it differently. But to rant about how so many people keep "knocking" Mr. Potato Head?

There's nothing wrong with comparing things to video games and anime if someone actually thinks they are similar. And obviously plenty of people think it is a legit comparison. So who is to say that they are wrong? Maybe you're wrong and they are really similar; you just refuse to accept that.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 28, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> What better comparison should people use when they explain the things they don't like in their D&D game when it is similar to video games or anime? Using those terms is meant to help establish what you are about to start talking about in order to help get you on the same line of thought, even though it may not always work.




You should probably take a look at some of my other posts in this thread. They basically directly address this question. This post particularly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 28, 2011)

The tldr version of which post is, "Don't use one word as shorthand/intro to this topic, but instead give me the specifics right from the first."



Personally, I don't know that people are going to change a common linguistic habit for this one topic.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 29, 2011)

Well, to keep people from letting their head explode because I used video games as an example when giving my opinion, I think I will just say "board games" instead. Just remember though that when I say "board games" I'm really talking about "video games". But at least not seeing the word _video_ should keep a lot of people from whining.

Wait, but then people who like board games are going to think I'm saying that I don't like board games! Oh no, why does everything have to be so difficult?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The tldr version of which post is, "Don't use one word as shorthand/intro to this topic, but instead give me the specifics right from the first."
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't know that people are going to change a common linguistic habit for this one topic.




What we're saying is that it's usually ridiculous to say something like "X is bad because it's from video games," because it's often _not_ from video games, and when it _is_ from video games it's also from _everything else_, which makes it abundantly clear that the fact that it's from video games has nothing to do with why you dislike it, which means that _we end up having to guess at why you dislike it_.

So, instead, explain the _real_ reasons why you dislike a particular game element, rather than hammering away at the "videogamey" horse.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The tldr version of which post is, "Don't use one word as shorthand/intro to this topic, but instead give me the specifics right from the first."
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't know that people are going to change a common linguistic habit for this one topic.





It's unlikely to change but usually it is used in such a context that most people who accept it as shorthand pick up on the deeper, more specific explanation of the moment. The people who tend to want it to be changed are generally the people who don't accept it as shorthand at all, let alone care that they do or don't understand it in context. They're offended simply by the association which is problematic with colloquial words and phrases that are on the rise or in common usage.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Also, if you aren't allowed to say it, it makes it that much harder to think it, and it makes it almost impossible to share those thoughts with others.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> So, instead, explain the _real_ reasons why you dislike a particular game element, rather than hammering away at the "videogamey" horse.




Who's hammering away? It's no different than using other terms to give the listener an idea of what you are about to start mentioning. I hear people use the term sandbox a lot in D&D. As far as I can tell, their campaign world does not take place in a sandbox, and I've never seen anyone playing D&D in a sandbox. But if I use the term sandbox, you're going to have a _general_ idea to what I'm referring to. 

I also doubt you are going to think that I don't like sandboxes if I don't like to run a sandbox type of campaign. Hell, I can completely explain why I do or don't like a sandbox type of game without ever needing to use the term sandbox. Which is basically what you are asking people to do when they want to use the term videogamey. So should we just stop using all of these terms? Cause really, we don't _need_ to use any of them.

I think the term video gamey is just a general "feel" that you get from content that you may get from a video game and not necessarily want to use it in your pen & paper game. It's not a knock at video games or an insult to anything. If it was something I absolutely don't like, then why do I play video games?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2011)

> What we're saying is that it's usually ridiculous to say something like "X is bad because it's from video games," because it's often not from video games, and when it is from video games it's also from everything else, which makes it abundantly clear that the fact that it's from video games has nothing to do with why you dislike it, which means that we end up having to guess at why you dislike it.




Except to the speaker, it IS something from videogames.  That may ultimately untrue due to a lack of exposure to the true origins of whatever, but the speaker is not trying to obfuscate or lie.  It's like someone thinking Blondie did the first version of "The Tide is High."

And in many cases, such as my personal experiences or those of my friends, the origins ARE from videogames.

What WE'RE saying is don't guess, ask.  Or if that's too much, ignore.  Don't ask us to change terminology because you don't like it.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Who's hammering away? It's no different than using other terms to give the listener an idea of what you are about to start mentioning. I hear people use the term sandbox a lot in D&D. As far as I can tell, their campaign world does not take place in a sandbox, and I've never seen anyone playing D&D in a sandbox. But if I use the term sandbox, you're going to have a _general_ idea to what I'm referring to.




Right, a sandbox game is a widely accepted and understood term. The term "videogamey", or even just saying "This feels like a video game," _has no widely accepted meaning_. We have to _guess_ at what you might mean by that unless you explicitly tell us what you mean - _and_, nine times out of ten, when we actually get to the point of examining the complaint itself, it turns out to have _nothing_ to do with video games in particular. You could just as easily skip over the whole allusion to videogamey-ness and just explain what you don't like and why.

HINT: "It's like a video game," isn't a reason dislike something, unless you dislike video games (and, therefore, you can be reasonably expected to dislike things that are _like_ video games).

More worthwhile discussion, less "I hate it because it's like WoW!" please. (And yes, if you're responding to this thread you're probably not exacerbating the issue very much, but there are a lot of people who do, even here on ENWorld.)


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> HINT: "It's like a video game," isn't a reason dislike something, unless you dislike video games (and, therefore, you can be reasonably expected to dislike things that are _like_ video games).




Or you like video games but prefer for certain tendencies of theirs to be confined to the video game medium rather than influence refereed RPGs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The term "videogamey", or even just saying "This feels like a video game," _has no widely accepted meaning_.




Funny how that happens only whenever a term provides a convenient shorthand for something someone dislikes, and how what is meant is not understood only by the people who really like the same thing and/or have a vested interest in no one having such a convenient shorthand.



> HINT: "It's like a video game," isn't a reason dislike something, unless you dislike video games (and, therefore, you can be reasonably expected to dislike things that are _like_ video games).




The steering console of this vehicle is like a video game controller =/= that I don't like video game controllers; merely that I think they are inappropriate to steer a car with.


RC


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The term "videogamey", or even just saying "This feels like a video game," _has no widely accepted meaning_.




Just because you don't accept it or you don't understand what a person may be referring to when they say it does not make it any less accepted or even less widely accepted. "Widely" is subjective. If it wasn't widely accepted, then why is it such a popular term to use? Enough people use it that it bothers you. As far as I'm concerned, it is a "widely accepted" meaning. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't an accepted legitimate term.

If someone told me, "It's a bit too videogamey", I will understand exactly what he's referring to. I don't need to know any specifics even if I wouldn't agree with his criticism on those specifics. I still understand where he's coming from when he says it. You may not know what he's referring to, and you may need to know more specifics about why he doesn't like it, but we understand his meaning. That's when we would ask him, "Oh yeah? What parts feel that way to you?" and the conversation begins.

See watch, I'll show you...

Hey Dannyalcatraz, healing surges are too videogamey. I don't like using them in my D&D world. What exactly do you think it is that I don't like about them? 

I'll use the term all day long to describe content that I feel belongs only in a video game regardless if it has ever even been in a video game. The specific history of the content is meaningless to me. That does not mean I do not like video games. It also does not mean I would not like that content in a video game. It doesn't even mean I think people are stupid if they do use that content in their own game. It simply means I think of D&D in a different way than video games and I like to preserve that flavor.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 29, 2011)

> Hey Dannyalcatraz, healing surges are too videogamey. I don't like using them in my D&D world. What exactly do you think it is that I don't like about them?




Well, if you're like me, they remind you of how characters in games like _Tekken_ or _MK_ can heal a bit during combat, and some can do so by executing certain moves.  Kinda blech in an RPG, IMHO.

They sure do rock in arcade fighter games, though.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Right, a sandbox game is a widely accepted and understood term.





Not really.  It's a term that means many things to many people. When taken in context, its meaning in the moment is usually understood.  It's a lot like the term "videogamey" in those respects.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, if you're like me, they remind you of how characters in games like _Tekken_ or _MK_ can heal a bit during combat, and some can do so by executing certain moves.  Kinda blech in an RPG, IMHO.
> 
> They sure do rock in arcade fighter games, though.




I gotta spread the xp around? WTF, Dannyalcatraz is the only person worthy of getting my xp. Who do I have to talk to around here to just simply get all of my xp transferred over to Dannyalcatraz's account?

Anyway, that's pretty much what I would have said if someone asked me about healing surges. It's been explained to me how hitpoints are not supposed to be a representation of a characters health, so therefore healing surges _can_ make sense. Even though I don't believe that was the designers intent when implementing the rule, even if that is how I should think of it, I don't like it. Similar to what Dannyalcatraz said, it reminds me of seeing my screen go red when I get shot in Call of Duty and then the red slowly fades away and I'm full health again. 

People may not like that opinion, but it doesn't mean I can't use the term videogamey to express that opinion. It makes sense to people even if other people don't understand.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 29, 2011)

Healing Surges is too video gamey!

*plays previous editions*

*Takes no penalties whatsoever when at low HP*

*As long as you have 1 you're at full strength!*

*Plays like *every video game ever* that works the same way*

**Feels no dissociation**


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 29, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Healing Surges is too video gamey!
> 
> *plays previous editions*
> 
> ...



*Compares too unlike things*

*Misses point*


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 29, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> *Compares too unlike things*
> 
> *Misses point*




No, the point is that this is precisely why "too videogamey" is a worthless criticism: It can mean anything.

How is HP too "video gamey?"  Because, one argument goes, just like in basically every video game ever, as long as you have 1 HP, you have no problems!  And if that's not what you mean, then _perhaps you need to be a bit more specific._


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Or you like video games but prefer for certain tendencies of theirs to be confined to the video game medium rather than influence refereed RPGs.




In which case your reason _is not_ "It's like a video game!" but rather "I don't like certain video game-like elements in my tabletop game!" which, _itself_, is also not really a reason since it _immediately_ begs the question: "Why is it that you're okay with _some_ video game-like elements in your game, and you're _not_ okay with _other_ video game-like elements in your game?"

Are you starting to see where we're coming from?


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, if you're like me, they remind you of how characters in games like _Tekken_ or _MK_ can heal a bit during combat, and some can do so by executing certain moves. Kinda blech in an RPG, IMHO.
> 
> They sure do rock in arcade fighter games, though.




In arcade fighter games that is a simulationist mechanic. Increased confidence as you get on top, energy from adrenaline, that sort of thing. I'm not certain that it's a good thing to have in D&D, any more than the 'death s[iral' some people want to see as characters lose hit points.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 29, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> It's been explained to me how hitpoints are not supposed to be a representation of a characters health, so therefore healing surges _can_ make sense. Even though I don't believe that was the designers intent when implementing the rule



Eh? Of course it was their intent. HP haven't purely represented physical wounds in D&D since forever.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 29, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Hey Dannyalcatraz, healing surges are too videogamey. I don't like using them in my D&D world. What exactly do you think it is that I don't like about them?




If "Too videogamey" is the only objection you have to healing surges, then the thing I think you don't like about them is that they are newfangled and not like the D&D you grew up with.  And because you have no better way of expressing it than that you use the words "too videogamey" rather than saying something direct and unambiguous.

And for the record, PC hit points have _never_ been a direct representation of physical damage.  If they had been and had any sort of simulationism at all, there would be impairment and shock penalties and it wouldn't be the case that the only hit that actually impaired someone was the one that took them from 1hp to 0.  What they have always been is a mix of luck, skill, and hits not actually connecting but being close enough shaves to rattle people.  Which makes taking a quick breather or inspiration far _more_ simulationist than not being able to.  And if you want something that reminds me of a video game in a bad way, the ability to accept healing spam and keep going until you wear the buttons off the control pad without your character's body saying "too much" comes to mind.



> I'll use the term all day long to describe content that I feel belongs only in a video game regardless if it has ever even been in a video game.  The specific history of the content is meaningless to me. ... It simply means I think of D&D in a different way than video games and I like to preserve that flavor.




In short "too videogamey" has nothing what so ever to do with actual video games of any sort.  It's simply a complaint that things are newfangled and not like the D&D you grew up with.



> You may not know what he's referring to, and you may need to know more specifics about why he doesn't like it, but we understand his meaning. That's when we would ask him, "Oh yeah? What parts feel that way to you?" and the conversation begins.




The thing is I don't understand.  Which is why I ask what parts feel that way to the writer.  And almost invariably the conversation continues by demonstrating that the writer is talking about something as too videogamey "regardless if it has ever even been in a video game".  They don't care whether too videogamey has anything to do with real video games.  Which makes the term as a well defined objection meaningless and the complaint one about things being newfangled and not like the D&D the writer grew up with.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 29, 2011)

I eagerly await the next revolution in entertainment technology so that the next generation of gamers can refer to game elements they don't like as "too holodecky".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, the point is that this is precisely why "too videogamey" is a worthless criticism: It can mean anything.
> 
> How is HP too "video gamey?"  Because, one argument goes, just like in basically every video game ever, as long as you have 1 HP, you have no problems!  And if that's not what you mean, then _perhaps you need to be a bit more specific._




You know, this would only be a valid argument if some people didn't agree with you here.  There are people who think that the 1 hit point thing is garbage, and there are people who came to it from video games first.

Congrats!  You thought you demonstrated one thing, while actually demonstrating the opposite.

Yet again!



RC


----------



## BryonD (Mar 29, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, the point is that this is precisely why "too videogamey" is a worthless criticism: It can mean anything.
> 
> How is HP too "video gamey?"  Because, one argument goes, just like in basically every video game ever, as long as you have 1 HP, you have no problems!  And if that's not what you mean, then _perhaps you need to be a bit more specific._



Actually, that is a valid critical comment.

If someone told me they didn't like Pathfinder because it was "too videogamey", and this is there reason why, then I would have to accept their opinion as valid. I don't share their opinion.  

But I'm not going to call their critism worthless just because I disagree.  Valid complaints are valid and getting emotionally defensive about it doesn't change that.

I think Pathfinder is awesome.  If someone thinks it is too videogamey, I might be curious why thye think so.  I probably don't care.  But I might be curious.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 29, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Actually, that is a valid critical comment.




Which is a valid critical comment?  The comment about hit points is a valid critical comment.  The comment about it being videogamey is about as valid as one about it being too jabberwock-y.  It actively impeeds communication.



> But I'm not going to call their critism worthless just because I disagree. Valid complaints are valid and getting emotionally defensive about it doesn't change that.




But you aren't comparing like with like.  The criticism of being too videogamey is a completely non-specific one.  And except in a very few cases has in my experience almost invariably meant "it's newfangled and not like the D&D [the writer] grew up with".



> I think Pathfinder is awesome. If someone thinks it is too videogamey, I might be curious why thye think so. I probably don't care. But I might be curious.




An equivalent to the too videogamey criticism would be criticising Pathfinder for not being D&D.  And on further investigation this turning out to be because it doesn't have the D&D logo on the box.  Is that a valid criticism?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The comment about it being videogamey is about as valid as one about it being too jabberwock-y.  It actively impeeds communication.




Only if you have some reason to make it so.




(Which, BTW, also communicates something.)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> An equivalent to the too videogamey criticism would be criticising Pathfinder for not being D&D.  And on further investigation this turning out to be because it doesn't have the D&D logo on the box.  Is that a valid criticism?





Why would it not be?  

People aren't allowed to prefer the D&D logo on the box now?


----------



## racoffin (Mar 29, 2011)

*Too whatever*

Thing is, 'too videogamey' is as valid a reason not to like a product as anything else. One may not agree with someone's personal definition of what 'too videogamey' is, but that doesn't make their opinion any less valid, nor does it require anyone to agree with it.

Heck, my wife disliked several books just from the art alone, and wouldn't look at them at all.

Despite pages upon pages of arguments over all this, we're circling the same issue: people have their own ideas and opinions, and hammering at them to fully explain to someone's satisfaction what a term means isn't getting us anywhere. People define 'videogamey' or 'dark' or 'ugly art' in different ways.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Only if you have some reason to make it so.
> 
> 
> (Which, BTW, also communicates something.)
> ...



Exactly right.  It doesn't impede my communication, so obviously I take other's claims that it defacto causes impediment to be more informative of the speaker than the topic.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 29, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Exactly right. It doesn't impede my communication, so obviously I take other's claims that it defacto causes impediment to be more informative of the speaker than the topic.




Possibly it's the idea that video games differ a lot from each other that causes the confusion (I assume you're aware that they differ a lot from each other). Are you objecting to videogame elements in your RPG because you dislike simulationist mechanics, perhaps? You don't like sandbox games? You insist that proper RPGs must have classes? That learning skills as you use them is a horrible mechanic? Perhaps you dislike real-time combat?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> In which case your reason _is not_ "It's like a video game!" but rather "I don't like certain video game-like elements in my tabletop game!" which, _itself_, is also not really a reason since it _immediately_ begs the question: "Why is it that you're okay with _some_ video game-like elements in your game, and you're _not_ okay with _other_ video game-like elements in your game?"
> 
> Are you starting to see where we're coming from?




Not really, because you're trying to tell me what I'm saying, not ask what I'm saying. I may feel that 4e *is* videogamey - that's the description of my feelings at a general, overview level. If you want to know more about my statement, you're free to ask what about 4e makes it feel videogamey enough to make that statement. And in the course of a conversation, I'd most likely explain my reasoning.

That's the question that should follow-up any statement about an RPG being videogamey.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 29, 2011)

BryonD said:


> ... to be more informative of the speaker than the topic.




This is always the hard part, in trying to figure out whether a statement is a person's opinion or fact, or an inference.

In practice I've found that many people don't like being asked hard questions, and don't like explaining the meaning of something they've said.  (ie.  Many people don't like being "interrogated").


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 29, 2011)

Heck, I've found that most people don't like being asked questions period, because they don't like to be challenged on their personal beliefs and always take it personally when someone does ask questions. Mostly people just don't want to actually think about their beliefs, just repeat what they were taught. It doesn't matter if a person is a layman or an elitist intellectual that can use purple prose to describe a black carpenter ant, they all take it personally when they are challenged. Essentially it's the idiotic attitude that "what must be true for me must be true for all people and if not must be made to be true" attitude. And it doesn't matter if people are shown to be wrong with a hundred thousand volumes of evidence against them, they will not change their minds on the matter no matter what because once a person's beliefs are locked in it's completely impossible to change them. 

Thinking about things is just so threatening and must never be done. It's just so.... unappealing at best. For most people.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 29, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Not really, because you're trying to tell me what I'm saying, not ask what I'm saying. I may feel that 4e *is* videogamey - that's the description of my feelings at a general, overview level. If you want to know more about my statement, you're free to ask what about 4e makes it feel videogamey enough to make that statement. And in the course of a conversation, I'd most likely explain my reasoning.




Then, as I normally start out by asking when the subject comes up, would you please explain your reasoning.

This, however, normally ends up with admissions like Oryan's "I'll use the term all day long to describe content that I feel belongs only in a video game regardless if it has ever even been in a video game." Which says that his version of videogamey _has nothing to do with actual video games_. 

And one of the few clear definitions of the problem I've heard boiled down to a 2e fan claiming it was too _easy_ and too smooth and you didn't have to juggle subsystems in your head. At which point I said I liked it that way and the conversation ended amicably.



> That's the question that should follow-up any statement about an RPG being videogamey.




It _does_. And the more I ask it the more convinced I get that it amounts to "I just don't like it". Which is fine. But when every example I have yet seen shows 4e to be less like existing video games than 3e I wonder at the analysis from anyone with that complaint.

Come to think of it, there is one big change that does make it look more like a video game. The language. D&D was written using language of tabletop wargamers because that's what was around. Currently there are far more WoW players than wargamers so 4e uses language aimed at them. And if you want to say the writing in the PHB sucks, I don't disagree.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 29, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then, as I normally start out by asking when the subject comes up, would you please explain your reasoning.
> 
> This, however, normally ends up with admissions like Oryan's "I'll use the term all day long to describe content that I feel belongs only in a video game regardless if it has ever even been in a video game." Which says that his version of videogamey _has nothing to do with actual video games_.




A similar type of slur I've noticed some people using over the years, is the phrase "just like a comic book" to describe movies, books, tv shows, etc ... they don't like.


----------



## amerigoV (Mar 29, 2011)

racoffin said:


> Despite pages upon pages of arguments over all this, we're circling the same issue: ...




Thats the sad thing here. Most video games have some replay value. This thread certainly does not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

ggroy said:


> A similar type of slur I've noticed some people using over the years, is the phrase "just like a comic book" to describe movies, books, tv shows, etc ... they don't like.




Call me prejudiced, but that's exactly how I feel about Ghost World, Road to Perdition, A&E's The Walking Dead, and V For Vendetta.  Just like a comic book.

----

As for "videogamey", the use of language, as suggested by Neonchameleon, may well be a strong contributor, because the language chosen does very much affect how things feel when they are being read.

I would also, in some instances, mention artwork.  The more artwork looks like it is texture-mapped, the more it looks like a still from a video game.

Those are not necessarily bad things in and of themselves, though.  This is especially true if you have a stated goal of appealing to the MMORPG crowd.  Maybe doubly true if you are trying to create a computer-mapped VT at the same time.  Maybe triply true if you have noticed that the MMORPG subscription model is a huge revenue generator, and you'd like a slice of that pie.


RC


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 29, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The comment about it being videogamey is about as valid as one about it being too jabberwock-y.




Except that videogamey will give a person an idea about what the speaker is about to say. Jabberwocky doesn't. Just because *you* don't get what I'm referring to doesn't mean someone else won't. I can use the term sandbox when talking to two of my players. I guarantee neither of them would have the slightest clue as to what "sandbox" meant. I bet you do though. But because they don't understand the term doesn't mean that the term is not a valid term.



wedgeski said:


> Eh? Of course it was their intent. HP haven't purely represented physical wounds in D&D since forever.




I have a strong feeling that the designers implemented healing surges because it was a "cool" or "fun" game rule, *then* they figured out how to explain that rule in real world terms so they can get away with using the rule. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get that impression from a lot of rules being used in 4e D&D. Before anyone starts jumping down my throat over this opinion, keep in mind, I don't care and I don't want to argue about it. 



Neonchameleon said:


> If "Too videogamey" is the only objection you have to healing surges, then the thing I think you don't like about them is that they are newfangled and not like the D&D you grew up with.




No, not at all. I didn't explain why I don't like healing surges because it's not what this thread is about. Rest assured that I do have my reasons for not liking them and the easiest way to start off my explanation is to say it's too videogamey. 

If I like something and I think it works well in my version of D&D, then I have no problem using it. Being "new" and "different" is not a reason for me to dislike something right away. I don't mind giving new things a chance. I also don't care if other people like to use them. I'll have no problem at all playing in someone's game that uses things I don't like to use.

This thread is 15 pages long and it is obvious that people who are butthurt by this term are going to stay butthurt no matter how we try to explain it away. You guys are way too defensive about this term. It's not a knock to video games at all. I don't understand why that is so hard to accept and why you care so much. Really, it shouldn't be this big of a deal.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 29, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Which says that his version of videogamey _has nothing to do with actual video games_.




That's pretty much it. The term is used more to describe the "feel" that you do or don't want in your game. It's not a literal hatred of what a video game does.

Video games can be more relaxing and I can zone out as I play it and have a good time. I can overlook realism and not even care about "why" my characters do the crazy things they do in the video game. Nothing needs an explanation when I'm playing video games. I don't take video games as seriously as I take my D&D games, that's what I like about D&D, it's much different. If they were the same, then we'd only need to play one or the other.

So when I'm saying something is videogamey, it is just something that I'm ok with using in a video game, but I don't really want to do it like that in my D&D game. How is that possibly knocking video games?


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 29, 2011)

After 15 pages all that's really happened is people have imprecisely told the OP that his problem isn't "videogamey", it is English. Basically, this is how English is spoken. English is an imprecise language and humans are even more imprecise than English. To expect all words to have one specific meaning is to not understand English itself. The OP is tilting at windmills if he expects his rant here to convince anybody to stop using his pet peeve terminology when discussing likes and dislikes in RPGs.

Generally, when something ticks you off on an Internet forum, you should step back and understand what is ticking you off and whether you think the poster is trying to tick you off. If he is, he's a troll and feeding him is a mistake. If he is not, then you should attempt to discover why it made you mad because having ruled out it being his intent, the reason can only be within you. This does not work in practice since Humans are also emotional and emotions are just as imprecise as language.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Not really, because you're trying to tell me what I'm saying, not ask what I'm saying. I may feel that 4e *is* videogamey - that's the description of my feelings at a general, overview level. If you want to know more about my statement, you're free to ask what about 4e makes it feel videogamey enough to make that statement. And in the course of a conversation, I'd most likely explain my reasoning.
> 
> That's the question that should follow-up any statement about an RPG being videogamey.




*Yes. We know.*

And when we _do_ ask people with this complaint ("4e is too videogamey!") to provide their reasons for _why they believe it to be videogamey_, *almost invariably*, their reasons have _nothing to do_ with video games, or their reasons are rooted in traits shared by _all game media_, not just video games. Which, in turn, leads us to wonder why they bother drawing a comparison to a specific media (which tells us literally nothing and confuses the hell out of the argument itself) when they could just explain _what they don't like_ from the get-go.

Again, you are clearly not following the argument here. This is troubling in and of itself. Post after post, I have been forced to expand the logic in the hopes that you will actually follow it, and that has not happened. I will expand it further.

"I don't like 4e because it is too videogamey!" is logically sound if:

1) You don't like video games.

For most people who use the above argument, premise 1 is not true. They do like video games, or at least they like _some_ video games. So the argument "I don't like 4e because it is too videogamey!" does not have a rational grounding, and its imprecision (for goodness sakes, it even uses a totally made-up word!) makes it next to worthless in discussion.

"I don't like 4e because it contains certain elements that remind me of video games!" is _closer_ to logically sound. Let's examine. It requires:

1) You don't like video games.
2) 4e contains elements that it shares with video games.

Again, premise 1 ruins the argument from the get-go, but at least you included the second bit.

"I don't like 4e because it contains certain elements that remind me of video games, and those elements make tabletop gaming less enjoyable!" _is_ logically sound, if:

1) 4e contains elements that it shares with video games.
2) Those elements make tabletop gaming less enjoyable.

See how this argument no longer requires the "You don't like video games," premise? By clarifying that these elements are only bad when applied to tabletop gaming, you rid yourself of that ball and chain.

The problem, of course, is that the argument, while _sound_, is worthlessly imprecise. It does not explain _which_ elements it shares with video games, nor does it explain _how_ those elements make tabletop gaming less enjoyable.

As we know from _15 pages_ of back-and-forth on this very topic, no one agrees on a single set of "videogamey" elements. The following conversation is totally plausible:

Person A: "Man, 4e is too videogamey."
Person B: "I know! You don't suffer any negative effects until you hit 0 hit points!"
Person A: "What? That's not videogamey at all! That's been part of D&D forever!"
Person B: "But it's just like a video game!"

Etc.

The end result is that you have to _actually explain what you mean_ in order for there to be any productive discussion. We are arguing that it's _way easier_, and _way less inflammatory_, and involves _way fewer pointless posts_, if you'd just _skip_ the whole "4e is too videogamey!" nonsense in favor of fast-forwarding six back-and-forth posts into the future to the _inevitable_ point where you have to explain exactly what you do and don't like _anyway_. Save us the headache of trying to guess at what you mean with your incredibly imprecise terminology, and at the same time stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that _our_ hobby of choice is _far _more deserving of).


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Except that videogamey will give a person an idea about what the speaker is about to say.




*No. It doesn't*_*.*_

As we've pointed out time and again, the only idea it gives us as to what the speaker is about to say is that it a) probably won't actually have anything to do with your typical video game, or b) if it _does_ have anything to do with video games, it is probably _also_ shared by every other interactive entertainment media out there (board games, video games, older tabletop games, etc.).

Basically, saying something is videogamey, at this point, essentially tells us it probably _isn't_ videogamey at all. It has gone from descriptively worthless to descriptively _confusing_.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> "I don't like 4e because it is too videogamey!" is logically sound if:
> 
> 1) You don't like video games.




Or if I do like video games, but I don't want video game like elements in my rpgs.  I like surfing.  I also like skeet shooting.  But skeet surfing is just not my thing, Val Kilmer be damned.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Again, you are clearly not following the argument here. This is troubling in and of itself. Post after post, I have been forced to expand the logic in the hopes that you will actually follow it, and that has not happened. I will expand it further.



You are expecting logic where it does not exist. People "hate/dislike" emotionally first. You are expecting humans to act against their nature.



> The problem, of course, is that the argument, while _sound_, is worthlessly imprecise.



See my prior post. People are imprecise. Have you never noticed this before? People are bad at self-examination and self-evaluation. Have you never noticed this before?



> The end result is that you have to _actually explain what you mean_ in order for there to be any productive discussion. We are arguing that it's _way easier_, and _way less inflammatory_, and involves _way fewer pointless posts_, if you'd just _skip_ the whole "4e is too videogamey!" nonsense in favor of *fast-forwarding six back-and-forth posts into the future* (emphasis added) to the _inevitable_ point where you have to explain exactly what you do and don't like _anyway_. Save us the headache of trying to guess at what you mean with your incredibly imprecise terminology, and at the same time stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that _our_ hobby of choice is _far _more deserving of).



Or you could just accept that some people need those six back-and-forth posts to understand that videogamey is imprecise because in their mind it makes PERFECT sense to say videogamey. Unless you have some means to impose Vulcan-like logic onto a poster BEFORE he posts, you just have to deal with him being imprecise at first. That's how the world is.

Humans can hold conflicting view simultaneously without insanity because they are imprecise and inconsistent. It is also how we can lie to ourselves but can't understand how others can't see the truth right in front of their noses.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> *Yes. We know.*
> 
> And when we _do_ ask people with this complaint ("4e is too videogamey!") to provide their reasons for _why they believe it to be videogamey_, *almost invariably*, their reasons have _nothing to do_ with video games, or their reasons are rooted in traits shared by _all game media_, not just video games. Which, in turn, leads us to wonder why they bother drawing a comparison to a specific media (which tells us literally nothing and confuses the hell out of the argument itself) when they could just explain _what they don't like_ from the get-go.




It would be beneficial if people said what elements they found unfortunately (or even fortunately for people who think it's good) video gamey. But not everyone has the same communication skills or time to expound on their specific gripes every single time the topic comes up. That's true of any generalization or high level impression people make of anything. And that's why it's a conversation starter, not a thesis.

As for why people make comparisons with a specific media when a trait may be common to many samples in multiple media - you have to realize that people don't have universal experiences. If the first place I ever encountered a ridiculously large bladed sword was in anime, I think it would be quite reasonable to refer to an RPG that included similar elements as being anime-influenced. You're always going to encounter the issues of perspective and personal experience. 

I, for example, don't consider a character being unimpaired until their hit points are all gone as being video gamey at all. For one thing, I suspect it's a feature of tabletop games that didn't come by way of video games. I'm also comfortable with it as a game abstraction because there are numerous real-life cases in which an injured person had no idea they were injured thanks to the effect of hormones on the system.

In the end, frankly, what's my incentive to expound on what I mean? You'll probably just try to nitpick it to death and tell me what I should be feeling anyway. Like so...



Dannager said:


> and at the same time stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that _our_ hobby of choice is _far _more deserving of).




If I were to feel that video games will lead to the downfall of western civilization, or even if I just found the controllers to be annoying, why should I stop railing against video games? The only reason I should stop, assuming I'm doing so within the rules of this message board, is because I don't happen to feel that way, not because you think I shouldn't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> *No. It doesn't*_*.*_
> 
> As we've pointed out time and again, the only idea it gives us as to what the speaker is about to say is that it a) probably won't actually have anything to do with your typical video game, or b) if it _does_ have anything to do with video games, it is probably _also_ shared by every other interactive entertainment media out there (board games, video games, older tabletop games, etc.).
> 
> Basically, saying something is videogamey, at this point, essentially tells us it probably _isn't_ videogamey at all. It has gone from descriptively worthless to descriptively _confusing_.





And yet, somehow, only the Select Few continue to find it confusing........ 

If you are willing to argue that what is meant by the speaker cannot possibly be what the speaker means, despite anything the speaker says, until you cannot possibly understand the meaning of a phrase -- any phrase! -- you shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand what is being said.

Moreover, you shouldn't be surprised that others do understand, despite your protestations to the contrary.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:
			
		

> stop railing against video games as though they're the red-headed stepchild of the interactive entertainment world (a title that our hobby of choice is far more deserving of).




This is, AFAICT, the substance of all of your posts in this thread.



RC


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 29, 2011)

If it feels like playing a video game, it's not worth it usually because, while I like video games, it's much longer between my turns now. People in general (not all, mind you) like a more immersive and simulationist approach in their tabletop RPGs that video games cannot provide. It doesn't have to be even majorly simulationist, but if it feels like a video game to them, in any general sense, it's a drawback. Why should they play it, when they can just play a video game and have their turns accrue at a constant rate, rather than wait in combat for it to come back around again?

The issue isn't with whether or not video games are good or bad, it's about whether or not it feels like something that you don't want in your tabletop RPG, which is highly subjective. So, while you may like a video game feel in your game, or you may not, others will always disagree with you, to varying degrees, and in different proportions.

That's fine. However, saying something feels like something else communicates just that: a feeling. It's akin to saying "my job feels like I'm playing a game, not working." It's not necessarily a bad thing when you communicate feeling. Yes, if you said "seeing my family feels too much like going to my job," it'd have a negative connotation, just like when people say something is too "video-gamey." However, it doesn't mean they dislike video games, just that it's not what they're looking for right now.

Example, building on the above: I have varied interests, from playing games to philosophy to writing short stories. Right now, I want to talk about philosophy, and I'm debating where to go. First, however, here are some givens about my life:

1) My job feels like I'm playing a game, not working. I enjoy my job quite a bit.
2) Seeing my family feels too much like going to my job. I enjoy seeing them, but it's always just playing games.
3) My friends have similar interests to me.

Looking at the above, we can see that while I enjoy going to my job or going to see my family when I'm in the mood to play a game, I probably wouldn't want to do so when I'm writing short stories or when I want to discuss philosophy. It's not that I dislike my job or my family- in fact, it's quite the opposite. It's just that when a certain mood strikes, it's no longer ideal, and my enjoyment can be met by pursuing another activity, such as seeing my friends.

Saying that something is "too video-gamey" might rub you the wrong way, but it's supposed to get across a feeling. It's not any sort of slight against video games inherently. Yes, many people who say that will not enjoy video games, though it's not inherent to the statement itself. And, even if you feel it's not specific enough (even though it's usually used to communicate feeling or mood, which is hardly something that is easily discussed logically in dialogue), if you ask for reasons, it does indeed enhance communication, rather that detract from it.

Of course, these are just my views. Everyone has their own. In the end, though, play what you like


----------



## racoffin (Mar 29, 2011)

*Videogamey*

From what I recall of the original and subsequent discussions back years ago, some posters were equating 4E with Diablo or World of Warcraft for a variety of reasons that may/may not have been real, but were rather the way the game play/rules made them feel.

Whether that is the way poster X or Y feels about it is beside the point. The posters in that time and even now are equating whichever game to whatever 'video game' that they are somewhat familiar with as a way, a shortcut, to describe how they perceive the rules/game play rather than having to post out a 10 paragraph essay each time on what they mean.

As several other posters have pointed out, people describe things differently, use words that make sense to them but not to everyone else. Sure, ask questions and follow up with, perhaps, "What video game does it remind you of? Pong? Pole Position? Donkey Kong? WoW?" *That* would be far more productive and get more responses than continuing to say 'it isn't anything like video games, you are wrong' or telling them that the term doesn't make any sense.

It is far more likely that the term, or the way they are using it, doesn't make sense to you (whomever you may be), but makes perfect sense to the poster. And that's OK, we don't always have to make sense to each other. Does it really matter if they think that and you think X game is the bee's knees, in the end, as long as you both can play whatever you want and have fun?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Or if I do like video games, but I don't want video game like elements in my rpgs.  I like surfing.  I also like skeet shooting.  But skeet surfing is just not my thing, Val Kilmer be damned.




Reading the _whole post_ would be a good place to start. I literally outlined _exactly that_ as my next expansion of logic in the very post you quoted.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> You are expecting logic where it does not exist. People "hate/dislike" emotionally first. You are expecting humans to act against their nature.




No, I'm just expecting that when they come to participate in an open, online discussion on a topic that is _years_ old, they should probably make a bit of effort to post sensibly.



> Or you could just accept that some people need those six back-and-forth posts to understand that videogamey is imprecise because in their mind it makes PERFECT sense to say videogamey.




Or they could read this thread, whose message is: "We know you are tempted to call it videogamey and be done with it, but that's not going to cut it because we aren't inside your head and have no idea what you mean. So how about skipping it and getting straight to the part that matters?"

I mean, you have essentially just agreed with the entire point of this thread.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> And yet, somehow, only the Select Few continue to find it confusing........




No, you (meaning the collective you who call X videogamey) find it confusing, too. You just don't _disagree _with it. There are a bunch of people who are all "4e is videogamey!" "Yeah, it's videogamey!" "Yeah, hit points don't make sense!" "What?! Hit points make perfect sense! That's not what I mean by 'videogamey'!"

We just recognize the confusion one step earlier.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

racoffin said:


> It is far more likely that the term, or the way they are using it, doesn't make sense to you (whomever you may be), but makes perfect sense to the poster. And that's OK, we don't always have to make sense to each other.




So you don't believe that we ought to make an effort towards accessible communication when we're involved in online discussions? I do.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I mean, you have essentially just agreed with the entire point of this thread.




That "you could just accept that .... in their mind it makes PERFECT sense to say videogamey."?


----------



## racoffin (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> So you don't believe that we ought to make an effort towards accessible communication when we're involved in online discussions? I do.




No. I believe that we shouldn't belabor the point. People have explained both on this thread and in the past what they have meant. The argument seems to be that they aren't explaining enough, and that is frankly not a requirement.

My personal belief in all this is that regardless of the word used or argument given, some people aren't going to agree or like it. It's the internet, after all, and people will argue about the wetness of water and the colour of the sky. The same points are being hit on over and over and neither side is giving in nor believes they are being unclear.

I guess my counter-question would be, how accessible does the communication of an opinion need to be? How far does the poster need to break down their opinion or is it alright in this medium to leave it where is sits?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> That "you could just accept that .... in their mind it makes PERFECT sense to say videogamey."?




We don't disagree with this. When someone says something, _of course_ they know what they mean by it. But that doesn't mean others will. We're letting you know that the word "videogamey" or even a statement like "4e is like a video game" does _not_ have a widely understood meaning (as much as people might want to believe it does; just because two people both call 4e videogamey doesn't mean they are both thinking of the same thing, which is _part of the problem_), and that if you want to actually have a productive discussion, you should _very strongly consider_ actually explaining your thoughts rather than condensing them to a made-up word and expecting everyone to nod their heads and say "Ohhhhhh."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> No, you (meaning the collective you who call X videogamey) find it confusing, too. You just don't _disagree _with it.




(1)  You have no idea whether or not anyone other than yourself finds it confusing.  Well, I guess from this thread you could accept that ProfC does as well.  But, if you take his word that he finds it confusing, why wouldn't you take the word of all of those who say they do not?

(2)  You have no idea whether or not I agree or disagree with it.

(3)  Your example of recognizing "the confusion one step earlier" is not, AFAICT, an example of the term being confusing, but rather an example of disagreeing whether or not the feeling is justified.  You understand how the person feels; you disagree that the hit point example justifies that feeling.


RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

racoffin said:


> No. I believe that we shouldn't belabor the point. People have explained both on this thread and in the past what they have meant. The argument seems to be that they aren't explaining enough, and that is frankly not a requirement.




No one is talking about requiring anything. We're saying it would be _super great_ of these people to explain exactly what they mean, rather than relying upon everyone understanding a common meaning for a made-up word that no one agrees on the contextual meaning of.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  You have no idea whether or not anyone other than yourself finds it confusing.  Well, I guess from this thread you could accept that ProfC does as well.  But, if you take his word that he finds it confusing, why wouldn't you take the word of all of those who say they do not?




I think it is safe to say that when the following conversation takes place:

Person A: "4e is too videogamey!"
Person B: "Yeah, I know! It plays just like a video game!"
Person A: "Yeah, hit points make no sense, how can someone at 1 hp fight as well as someone at 40 hp?!"
Person B: "What? That's not videogamey at all! That's been in D&D since the beginning!"
Person A: "But it's just like something out of a video game!"

...that the observers aren't the only ones confused.



> (2)  You have no idea whether or not I agree or disagree with it.



Man, I even went through the effort of making it clear that I wasn't talking about _anyone_ in particular but rather a collective group who matches the traits I listed, and _even still_ you decide that I must be talking about you individually. Unbelievable.



> (3)  Your example of recognizing "the confusion one step earlier" is  not, AFAICT, an example of the term being confusing, but rather an  example of disagreeing whether or not the feeling is justified.  You  understand how the person feels; you disagree that the hit point example  justifies that feeling.



When two people point at something and say "That thing is red," and then one of them says "Yeah, just like an apple," and the other says "What? That's nothing like the sort of red an apple is," it is _abundantly clear_ that there exists some confusion and ambiguity attached to the word "red" (or, feasibly, to the word "apple") that is leading to pointless argument.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 29, 2011)

There have been many elements of many versions of RPGs that have video game feeling elements - that were easy to remove.  4e makes it harder - everyone casts spells (or has abilities, whatever) healing surges, combat roles.  Incredible amounts of money and magic REQUIRED at levels in order to play.  Just remove the magic items from the mix and see how long your world holds together in RAW.  

I think the big thing here is that the CORE rulebooks of every edition started small and added things that certain players wanted.  4e started with all the Wire-fu, video game stuff built in and it makes it that much harder to get past.  Yes there are some things that the edition got right like rituals, but OVERALL, the FEEL, yes FEEL, (not a specific rule, the FEEL) is that of a video game transported to a table top RPG.    And that's fine if it's what you want, I don't.

I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked.  Most of what I've seen in this thread is supports of 4e saying show me how it's video-gamey and those that feels that way complaining that those that disagree aren't listening.  And to an extent that's true.  

So let me spell it out - IT FEELS LIKE A VIDEO GAME....
I like video games, but I can play those, by myself, anytime.  When I get together with my friend to play an RPG, I want there to be a difference - no wire-fu moves, no outrageous amounts of required magic items, no 3 million GP requirements for treasure (Astral Diamonds, really).  

I like a BIT of realism in my D&D and up until this edition it was easy to drop certain things, or ignore add-ons to get it to that sweet spot.  It's _nearly _impossible to do so without altering the rules to the point of re-writing the PHB and really, who wants to do that.  So, is THAT clear enough?


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1)  You have no idea whether or not anyone other than yourself finds it confusing.  Well, I guess from this thread you could accept that ProfC does as well.  But, if you take his word that he finds it confusing, why wouldn't you take the word of all of those who say they do not?




For what it's worth, I find it confusing.

But that's true for most RPG discussion.  With all our made-up jargon (that no one really agrees on) and the fact that there are so many different ways to play the same game, it can be hard to understand other people's experiences.

Talking face-to-face helps to clear things up, though.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> There have been many elements of many versions of RPGs that have video game feeling elements - that were easy to remove.  4e makes it harder - everyone casts spells (or has abilities, whatever) healing surges, combat roles.  Incredible amounts of money and magic REQUIRED at levels in order to play.  Just remove the magic items from the mix and see how long your world holds together in RAW.




Inherent bonuses.



> I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked.



PCs are only healed to full if they have the resources to do so (healing surges remaining). Similarly, PCs in previous editions are healed to full if they have the resources to do so (Wand of Cure Light Wounds).

So, I mean, _questions asked_.



> So let me spell it out - IT FEELS LIKE A VIDEO GAME....
> I like video games, but I can play those, by myself, anytime.  When I get together with my friend to play an RPG, I want there to be a difference - no wire-fu moves, no outrageous amounts of required magic items, no 3 million GP requirements for treasure (Astral Diamonds, really).



So the 200,000 gp required to get a maxed-out sword in 3.5/PF is fine, but the 3,000,000 gp required to get a maxed-out sword in 4e just ruins the immersion for you, huh. Somewhere between 200,000 and 3,000,000, _they crossed the line_.



> I like a BIT of realism in my D&D and up until this edition it was easy to drop certain things,



You mean like how they actually let you drop magic items completely and still keep the math perfectly intact using inherent bonuses, unlike previous editions of the game? 



> So, is THAT clear enough?



The only thing that was clear from this post was that you have some very odd ideas about how 4e must work, and that I'm not sure you have anywhere near the familiarity required to pass off any kind of credible criticism of the game.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> No one is talking about requiring anything. We're saying it would be _super great_ of these people to explain exactly what they mean, rather than relying upon everyone understanding a common meaning for a made-up word that no one agrees on the contextual meaning of.




I'm going to quote Transbot9 (the original poster) from a post he made in this thread, with a bit more than I find relevant, but enough to leave the context clear. I'm going to add emphasis, so that I might make a point following the quote. I do not intend for this to affect the reading of the following quote: 



> Here's the problem: Typically, what is said is "I don't like x because it is too much like a videogame." Very little exposition is typically given as to 1. Why it feels like a videogame and B. Why feeling like a videogame in this instance is a bad thing.
> 
> Now, some of the posts in this thread do go into it and break it down. *But when the phrase "I hate it because it feels like a videogame" tossed around and treated like an insult to a particular product* (which happens in the edition warring that goes on), it lacks the exposition needed to place the phrase in a context that makes any sense beyond just ragging on something.
> 
> So what we have is a "sound-bite" that becomes an oft-repeated reason for why something sucks. *If there is a lack of additional context, it just becomes an insult that implies any influence from videogames to P&P RPGs is a bad plan and ruins the roleplaying experiance.*




From the first area I've emphasized, I'd like to point out that his reasoning is not completely aligned with the post of yours I quoted. Yes, he thinks that additional information would be helpful for communication, as you do (if I've read your posts correctly in this thread).

However, Transbot9 goes on to say that he also feels it is an insult at video games. I don't believe this is true, as I noted on my previous post in this thread (one page back now). Even Transbot9 uses the phrase "I hate it because _it feels like_ a videogame" in his example, which, as I pointed out, is not inherently negative or insulting. I'd put forward the idea that getting away from taking something descriptive (whether or not you think it's adequately so) as insulting is probably a good thing, especially when someone can claim it is so without actually meaning any insult at the comparison.

As an example, I heard complaints (some time ago, so this isn't _that_ contemporary) that the new Metal Gear games felt too much like movies. I know for a fact that the people who made the complaint do not dislike movies (as we've watched movies together on many occasions over the years), and yet their complaint communicated a feeling.

Yes, there's usually a few things that cause this feeling. However, at the end of the day, it's still a feeling, and as such -for better or worse in practical dialogue- it transcends conventional logic. Something can have a certain feel to it that just rubs you the wrong way. I can dislike D&D for the feel it gives in one incarnation of the game, and like D&D for the feel it gives in another incarnation. It does not mean that I dislike the other things that I may compare it to.

That's the disconnect, I think. There are statements that saying something "feels too much" like something else implies that the subject compared to is somehow bad. It's not, inherently, and I think that taking offense or insult when it is used as a comparison is probably illogical. That's okay, to an extent, as the person saying something "feels" a certain way is also being illogical, to an extent.

Yes, you can discuss the specifics of the problem. However, the likely answer in the end -even if you speak about things completely logically- is that something still "feels too much like" something else. It's about a theme, really, that someone feels when they play something, and then how much that theme resonates with them and their style and preferences.

These things are subjective, and people see things in different ways. At the end of the day, play what you like


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I think it is safe to say that when the following conversation takes place:
> 
> Person A: "4e is too videogamey!"
> Person B: "Yeah, I know! It plays just like a video game!"
> ...




Don't know; I've never seen anything remotely like that, outside your example.

Person A: "4e is a role-playing game!"
Person B: "Yeah, I know! It plays just like a role-playing game!"
Person A: "Yeah, healing surges are so cool, they let someone at 1 hp fight really get back into the fight!"
Person B: "What? That's not role-playing at all!"
Person A: "But it's something out of a role-playing game!"

I guess the term "role-playing game" is too confusing to use.  Shall I go on with the terms that are too confusing to use?



> Man, I even went through the effort of making it clear that I wasn't talking about _anyone_ in particular but rather a collective group who matches the traits I listed, and _even still_ you decide that I must be talking about you individually. Unbelievable.




If that's really the case, within the context of the quote, your statement makes no sense.  Or, rather, it is recursive.

Person A:  No, you (meaning the collective you who call X videogamey) find it confusing, too. You just don't disagree with it.
Person B:  How do you know that?  Maybe we do disagree with it, and still don't find it confusing.
Person A:  Nuh uh.  Because, remember, I defined you collectively as people who don't disagree and who find it confusing!



But my response doesn't require that you must be talking about me individually.  It is still true.  You don't know that the collective who call X videogamey find it confusing.  Nor do you know that the people who don't find it confusing actually agree that X is videogamey.

It would be comforting to you if you did; your conclusion might then be a rational one (although still not a rational one as you've constructed it).



> When two people point at something and say "That thing is red," and then one of them says "Yeah, just like an apple," and the other says "What? That's nothing like the sort of red an apple is," it is _abundantly clear_ that there exists some confusion and ambiguity attached to the word "red" (or, feasibly, to the word "apple") that is leading to pointless argument.




It is abundantly clear that both parties have a very solid idea of what they mean by "red" and what they mean by "apple", but that there is some disagreement between their two conceptions.

That doesn't mean that Bob or Angie (our two speakers) are at all confused by what they mean.

Moreover, if Rita and Stewart and John and Cassie and Mike and Romana all seem to understand what Angie means, and seem unable to fathom Bob's confusion, one might draw the conclusion that Bob's confusion is an artifact of Bob, rather than an artifact of the terms "apple" or "red".

This is doubly true if we believe, from previous or concurrent statements, that Bob has some reason to believe that likening things to the colour of apples is objectionable.


----------



## racoffin (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The only thing that was clear from this post was that you have some very odd ideas about how 4e must work, and that I'm not sure you have anywhere near the familiarity required to pass off any kind of credible criticism of the game.




And this is why people shy away from giving more detailed responses. 

What I'm seeing is less a need to have a word defined and more a desire to have points to pick at, which is sort of a poor way to go about a discussion.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Don't know; I've never seen anything remotely like that, outside your example.
> 
> Person A: "4e is a role-playing game!"
> Person B: "Yeah, I know! It plays just like a role-playing game!"
> ...




Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. I have the _exact same issue_ with people who say things like "You can't roleplay in 4e!" Inevitably, when forced to examine what exactly they mean by "roleplay", we reach the same level of confusion: no one agrees on what roleplaying is, and we'd be better served by actually breaking it down into easily understandable criticisms.

Thunderfoot did a great job of outlining specific complaints (even if some were not exactly accurate) that could be easily addressed.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

racoffin said:


> And this is why people shy away from giving more detailed responses.




...because they might be shown that the things about the game that cause them to believe it's like a video game _aren't actually the case at all_?

_That's_ why people shy away?

Because, yeah, that's pretty much what we figured was the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. I have the _exact same issue_ with people who say things like




I know you do.  Personally, I think it is an artifact of Bob.

Even when you post things I agree with, I have noted this "artifact of Bob"ness about your posts that has made me reluctant to XP them.

You can role-play using 4e.  Absolutely.  Any statement to the contrary is wrong.

BUT the reasons why people feel 4e (or 1e, or any ruleset) impede _*their*_ ability to role-play?  Not wrong.  They are allowed to feel as they do, and the things that impede them need not impede you.  

Somewhere out there, there is someone for whom chess is the perfect role-playing game, and who are we to tell him no?  Somewhere out there, there is someone who can't role-play using any edition of D&D, and who are we to tell him that the assumptions of those rulesets are not an impediment, to him?


RC


----------



## racoffin (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> ...because they might be shown that the things about the game that cause them to believe it's like a video game _aren't actually the case at all_?
> 
> _That's_ why people shy away?
> 
> Because, yeah, that's pretty much what we figured was the case.




No. More that some equally ill-defined terms are brought out, such as "credible criticism", for example, or "anywhere near the familiarity". 

Both of those are opinions and require knowing what you mean by those terms. For that matter, much of the debunking of his points of view are based on your opinion of the game, much as his is.

So, no, people shy away because they don't feel like being nitpicked or criticized for not having a "credible" opinion or having to have passed some nebulous bar before their opinions become valid.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 29, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Inherent bonuses.
> 
> PCs are only healed to full if they have the resources to do so (healing surges remaining). Similarly, PCs in previous editions are healed to full if they have the resources to do so (Wand of Cure Light Wounds).
> 
> So, I mean, _questions asked_.



That's assuming a DM is dumb enough to allow one.  Obviously you've seen it, I feel sorry for you.



Dannager said:


> So the 200,000 gp required to get a maxed-out sword in 3.5/PF is fine, but the 3,000,000 gp required to get a maxed-out sword in 4e just ruins the immersion for you, huh. Somewhere between 200,000 and 3,000,000, _they crossed the line_.



 A maxed out sword has never made it into my games, players earn what the get, not expect it handed out ala Monty Hall



Dannager said:


> You mean like how they actually let you drop magic items completely and still keep the math perfectly intact using inherent bonuses, unlike previous editions of the game?



Son, your problem is you want balance and as I've stated before balance is for communists....



> The only thing that was clear from this post was that you have some very odd ideas about how 4e must work, and that I'm not sure you have anywhere near the familiarity required to pass off any kind of credible criticism of the game.



And you completely ignore the forest for the trees - so I'm done with you.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 29, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> BUT the reasons why people feel 4e (or 1e, or any ruleset) impede _*their*_ ability to role-play?  Not wrong.  They are allowed to feel as they do, and the things that impede them need not impede you.




Absolutely. No one disagrees with this. They feel as they do, and feelings are not inherently right or wrong.

But _everyone_ has reasons that they either actually have, or that they _tell themselves_ are their reasons for feeling a certain way, and _those_ can be examined.

For instance, Thunderfoot listed a number of reasons he _felt_ that 4e is too videogamey. As it turned out, of course, a number of those reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game. When people _justify_ their feelings to themselves (and to others) with things that are not true, those justifications deserve to be addressed.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> That's assuming a DM is dumb enough to allow one.  Obviously you've seen it, I feel sorry for you.




Allowing a wand of cure light wounds makes someone a dumb DM? I'll make sure to share your opinion with _every 3.5 DM I've ever met_. 

But, hey, that's cool. Just replace "wand of cure light wounds" with "the party Cleric" and it remains a valid point.

Unless DMs who allow Clerics are dumb, too. I suppose it's _possible_ that you believe that to be the case as well.



> A maxed out sword has never made it into my games, players earn what the get, not expect it handed out ala Monty Hall




Then why do you care how much a maxed-out magic item costs?

I don't think this actually has anything to do with what we were talking about.



> Son, your problem is you want balance and as I've stated before balance is for communists....



You said that you wanted a way to remove magic items from the game without requiring a rewrite of the PHB. I explained that such a way exists in 4e, but not in any other edition of the game. And your response (wait for it)...was to criticize the idea of _balance?_

Where did _that_ come from?



> And you completely ignore the forest for the trees - so I'm done with you.



Oh, guess we'll never know.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> For instance, Thunderfoot listed a number of reasons he _felt_ that 4e is too videogamey. As it turned out, of course, a number of those reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game. When people _justify_ their feelings to themselves (and to others) with things that are not true, those justifications deserve to be addressed.



There is something to this, I think. People do tend to have a need to justify their preferences somehow, some category of thing to classify it under. "Videogamey" is one such category, and as an actual definition tends to break down when actually examined. But as you say, there's no need for these categories.

You can simply dislike something. And if you want to discuss particular reasons for it, so be it. But throwing out a term like "videogamey" does nothing for the discussion, because it has no precise meaning _and _is known to be taken as an insult by many, even if it is not intended as such.

I really don't like OD&D (though it is still *awesome*). I don't really care to discuss the reasons for it, though I'm sure I could specify some if I thought about it. I can just leave it at that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> For instance, Thunderfoot listed a number of reasons he _felt_ that 4e is too videogamey. As it turned out, of course, a number of those reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game.




You *may be* correct -- I don't have enough working knowledge of the current state of 4e to know for certain -- but I do know for certain that I trust Thunderfoot to be honest in his postings, rather than being dismissive as a knee-jerk reaction.  So, for the moment, I'm going to say "Not Proven".

Get someone who is knowledgeable about 4e, and who also has a track record of being able to admit error and/or demonstrably has an open mind, to back you up, and I will accept that a number of Thunderfoot's reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game.

But just because you say it?  Sorry, that doesn't make it so.  As I said before, even when you post things I agree with, I have noted this "artifact of Bob"ness about your posts that has made me reluctant to XP them. 

It also makes me *very* reluctant to accept your conclusions at face value.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 30, 2011)

It is still valid for someone to say "X is too videogamey" if, in fact, it reminds them of videogames.  The connection may be based on inaccuracies, but the mental connection between the two is still made.

This is not to say that said inaccuracies shoulndn't be corrected, but, IMHO, they should be corrected giving the benefit of the doubt to the peson making that statement that it was not done with intent to obfuscate.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> *No. It doesn't*_*.*_




You're right. The thousands of people that use the term are all idiots. We think we understand each other via a single term, but as you point out, that is impossible (because *you* don't get it).

At this point, all I care about is getting this thread to page 20. This entire thread is videogamey.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> But just because you say it?  Sorry, that doesn't make it so.  As I said before, even when you post things I agree with, I have noted this "artifact of Bob"ness about your posts that has made me reluctant to XP them.
> 
> It also makes me *very* reluctant to accept your conclusions at face value.




Ooooh, now _this_ is interesting. You trust what I have to say _less_ than your typical poster, then?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> You're right. The thousands of people that use the term are all idiots. We think we understand each other via a single term, but as you point out, that is impossible (because *you* don't get it).




I'm sure some people who use it share a common understanding, and their minds are in perfect sync. Many do not. Be clearer, and everyone will be happier.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The only thing that was clear from this post was that you have some very odd ideas about how 4e must work, and that I'm not sure you have anywhere near the familiarity required to pass off any kind of credible criticism of the game.




This is an issue that comes up often.  People get asked to clarify "opinions" and as soon as they do, they get those points shot down as if they were "facts".

I wouldn't clarify my opinion either if every time I did I was told I was wrong.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Ooooh, now _this_ is interesting. You trust what I have to say _less_ than your typical poster, then?




Well, I wouldn't take it too personally.

When I look at another poster, I don't mind if they come from a strongly held position, but I do look to see if they are actually seeming to read and understand the other side.  There's nothing wrong with not being convinced by the other side, mind you, if you are able to comprehend it first, and don't appear to be dismissing it out of hand.

IME, many things that seem true can look...odd....from other points of view, and many things that seem odd might appear quite sensible to a lot of other people.

Your posts come across as being angry and/or dismissive.  They come across as though you don't actually value the opinions of the other side.  And, again, if true, that's your look-out.  There are peoples' opinions on EN World and elsewhere I couldn't give two figs for, because they have demonstrated that there is no reason to.

And I accept that my "reader filter" might be making me misread you.  If I was the author of your posts, though, it would be because I was angry and dismissive.  So, when I read your posts, I keep getting an "angry and dismissive" vibe, and it colours what I read.  Even when I agree with you, I am not at all sure that we agree on the basis of evidence.

I'll admit that I trust a poster far less who goes out on a limb, has his "facts" blown out from under his feet, and that poster never has the grace to say, "You know what?  I was wrong."  Or even, "I disagree with you still, but I was wrong to go about it the way I did."

And I'll admit even further that any poster who wants to take control of the terminology used (Thou Shalt Not Say Videogamey) pings my radar.  And I have been that poster (as I recall, over the issue of "fluff" vs. "crunch"), and I had to admit to myself that it isn't really the terminology, but the ideas behind the terminology, that were the issue.

Anyone who's been on this board long enough knows that I am capable of some knee-jerk stupidity.  Anyone reading my posts is fully justified in thinking, "Has he thought this through, or is this just some new piece of knee-jerk stupidity?"

But, when I realize that something is knee-jerk stupidity, I can admit that it is what it is, and I can apologize for it.  Probably not often enough, but I can do it, and I will do it when it seems warranted.  I am also capable of changing my mind when the evidence is against my currently-held position.

I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, until they have proven they don't deserve it.  I like to assume that they have something to express, even if they are having difficulty expressing it.  I like to give every post the "best possible reading", although I often fall short in the attempt.

That's all pretty long-winded and rambling, but the short version is this:  I think you have intelligent things to say.  But I have read a lot of your posts, and I don't think you are honest with yourself.  I could be wrong -- I hope I am -- but if I were the author of your posts.......well, I guess I have been the author of similar stuff, and I'm glad someone finally called me on it.

(And it's perfectly okay to say this train of thought reflects more on me than on you.)

RC


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 30, 2011)

Why do people think video games are overall less realistic?  By sheer computing power, they can take into account every variable that might exist.  Dwarf Fortress is considered a highly simulationist game.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You *may be* correct -- I don't have enough working knowledge of the current state of 4e to know for certain -- but I do know for certain that I trust Thunderfoot to be honest in his postings, rather than being dismissive as a knee-jerk reaction.  So, for the moment, I'm going to say "Not Proven".




I don't think Thunderfoot has revealed inaccurate knowledge of the game.

Healing Surges are hard to remove from the game; Wands of Cure Light Wounds are not.

The game hands out treasure based on party level, not individual choices made by the players.

Some - not most, but some - of the powers are "wire-fu".

I'd guess that Thunderfoot would like a game where you have to work for what you get, bad stuff lurks around every corner, and your choices are the difference between success and failure.  Of course, I can think of video games that are like that (Rogue-likes and X-Com), which is why I think the term is confusing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Thanks LostSoul.  I appreciate your input here.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Get someone who is knowledgeable about 4e, and who also has a track record of being able to admit error and/or demonstrably has an open mind, to back you up, and I will accept that a number of Thunderfoot's reasons were rooted in inaccurate knowledge of the game.



My name is Saeviomagy. I know and play 4e. I've been wrong quite a bit in threads all over these boards.


			
				thunderfoot said:
			
		

> There have been many elements of many versions of RPGs that have video game feeling elements - that were easy to remove. 4e makes it harder - everyone casts spells (or has abilities, whatever) healing surges, combat roles. Incredible amounts of money and magic REQUIRED at levels in order to play. Just remove the magic items from the mix and see how long your world holds together in RAW.



Dannager is totally right here. 4e lets you remove the magic items and retain balance.

If you don't care about balance, just remove them without compensation. The world holds together exactly as well as any previous edition where the same thing was done: the DM has to compensate for it or his game will fall apart.


> I think the big thing here is that the CORE rulebooks of every edition started small and added things that certain players wanted. 4e started with all the Wire-fu, video game stuff built in and it makes it that much harder to get past. Yes there are some things that the edition got right like rituals, but OVERALL, the FEEL, yes FEEL, (not a specific rule, the FEEL) is that of a video game transported to a table top RPG. And that's fine if it's what you want, I don't.



I'm not sure how 4e is more wire-fu than previous editions because wire-fu is another very vague term. Does it actually mean doing flashy aerial moves? Because 3e had pretty much identical jumping rules and previous editions didn't have much in the way of rules for jumping at all (that I recall), so it's a very nebulous thing back then.


> I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked. Most of what I've seen in this thread is supports of 4e saying show me how it's video-gamey and those that feels that way complaining that those that disagree aren't listening. And to an extent that's true.



Full healing after all combats was pretty common in previous editions, it's just that it required a cleric to do it. Again, you can feel free to reduce or eliminate surges from the game if you don't care about balance.


> I want there to be a difference - no wire-fu moves, no outrageous amounts of required magic items, no 3 million GP requirements for treasure (Astral Diamonds, really).
> 
> I like a BIT of realism in my D&D and up until this edition it was easy to drop certain things, or ignore add-ons to get it to that sweet spot. It's nearly impossible to do so without altering the rules to the point of re-writing the PHB and really, who wants to do that. So, is THAT clear enough?



That is. Well, except for what you mean by wire-fu.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

SkidAce said:


> This is an issue that comes up often.  People get asked to clarify "opinions" and as soon as they do, they get those points shot down as if they were "facts".




We're not shooting down opinions. We're shooting down the facts that people decide to use to justify their opinions.

For instance, Thunderfoot's opinion was that 4e is bad (roughly speaking). To support this opinion, he declared that you couldn't remove magic items without rewriting the PHB. This is an attempted statement of fact. I countered with the _fact_ that the game actually _includes rules_ for removing magic items from the game.

Don't confuse the refutation of things presented as facts with shooting down opinions.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I don't think Thunderfoot has revealed inaccurate knowledge of the game.
> 
> Healing Surges are hard to remove from the game; Wands of Cure Light Wounds are not.




Right, you could remove wands of Cure Light Wounds. Of course, you'd also have to remove: healing potions, staffs with healing magic, clerics, druids and bards.

But yeah, I'm sure removing those things is no big deal and is _certainly_ something that Thunderfoot does in order to make sure that his party doesn't heal up between fights. 



> The game hands out treasure based on party level, not individual choices made by the players.




3.5 has an expected Wealth By Level set of guidelines. 4e has similar guidelines, but it also provides a framework that allows the DM to easily meet those guidelines.

So, really, it's like 3.5 except it actually helps the DM follow the game's rules better.



> I'd guess that Thunderfoot would like a game where you have to work for what you get, bad stuff lurks around every corner, and your choices are the difference between success and failure.  Of course, I can think of video games that are like that (Rogue-likes and X-Com), which is why I think the term is confusing.




I could run a 4e game like that with _absolutely no difficulty_. It wouldn't be much fun, from my perspective (mostly because of the bad-stuff-lurks-around-every-corner part). I think, unfortunately, Thunderfoot is under the impression that 4e prevents him from running the game he wants, or that it makes it harder to do so than 3.5 does.


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Just replace "wand of cure light wounds" with "the party Cleric" and it remains a valid point.





Dannager said:


> Right, you could remove wands of Cure Light Wounds. Of course, you'd also have to remove: healing potions, staffs with healing magic, clerics, druids and bards.



A _wand of cure light wounds_ isn't the same thing as a cleric or other spellcaster with curative magic.

*Thunderfoot* said nothing about removing _all_ curative magic from the game. "I don't like A" doesn't mean "I don't like B, C, or D, either, despite sharing a common element with A."


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I think, unfortunately, Thunderfoot is under the impression that 4e prevents him from running the game he wants, or that it makes it harder to do so than 3.5 does.




Exactly! It's too videogamey for him!


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> A _wand of cure light wounds_ isn't the same thing as a cleric or other spellcaster with curative magic.




It's not _exactly_ the same, but it's the same in the only sense that counts in this discussion: it's a limited resource that allows the party to heal to full between combats.



> *Thunderfoot* said nothing about removing _all_ curative magic from the game.




No, he said that DMs who allowed wands of cure light wounds were _dumb_. Presumably (since that's what we were talking about) because it allows the party to heal to full between combats, just like healing surges do (and clerics, and potions, and druids, and staffs, and bards, and etc.).

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Exactly! It's too videogamey for him!




The difference being that when he calls it too videogamey, the discussion is dead in the water. When he explains the actual reasons behind his thinking, we suddenly have something to discuss. It's almost as if _that's the point_.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> People in general (not all, mind you) like a more immersive and simulationist approach in their tabletop RPGs that video games cannot provide. It doesn't have to be even majorly simulationist, but if it feels like a video game to them, in any general sense, it's a drawback.




Microsoft Flight Simulator. Are you claiming it is:
a) Not immersive. 
b) Not simulationist. 
c) Not a video game. 



Thunderfoot said:


> I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked. Most of what I've seen in this thread is supports of 4e saying show me how it's video-gamey and those that feels that way complaining that those that disagree aren't listening. And to an extent that's true.




See, here's part of the problem. What you're saying you see in 4e and don't like (I've no objection to you not liking it) is not something that is true of all video games. If characters are healed to full after every encounter, that's videogamey. If players aren't healed to full after every encounter, that's videogamey. Different videogames, of course. About the only legitimate videogamey constant is the lack of a GM to adjucate what happens for when players go off-piste. Otherwise, I can pretty much guarantee that mechanics that appear in a tabletop RPG will appear in one video game or other.



MichaelSomething said:


> Why do people think video games are overall less realistic? By sheer computing power, they can take into account every variable that might exist. Dwarf Fortress is considered a highly simulationist game.




I'm pretty certain it's a refusal to acknowledge the existence of differences between videogames.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The difference being that when he calls it too videogamey, the discussion is dead in the water. When he explains the actual reasons behind his thinking, we suddenly have something to discuss. It's almost as if _that's the point_.




I'd like to point out that the person you're quoting is admittedly trolling this thread. Just report him and don't reply (unless replying helps others in the thread understand your point, which I don't think this does).

I'd just chip in that it's about feeling, or theme. It's not so much about specifics. I'm not going to go into a long post about it, as I've posted my thoughts twice on the matter over the last three pages.

I'd ask everybody (this is not aimed at Dannager, despite me quoting him, as I did that to communicate my first paragraph) to please keep the discussion civil. I think both sides expressing their honest opinions can be done in a healthy way, and I think understanding (if not agreement) can be reached. There are hostilities rising, and, worse than that, there are two sides to this discussion. When a debate breaks out, and two sides appear to be in the thread, it nearly universally leads to unproductive argumentation rather than communication. I'd like to lightly prod us back towards communication, rather than argumentation.

But I have no authority, and I am really not trying to tell anyone what to do. Just making my plea, as it were. In the end, we all have different opinions on things, no matter how aligned we are on certain topics. Just play what you like, and what your group likes, and we can all be happy 



Bluenose said:


> Microsoft Flight Simulator. Are you claiming it is:
> a) Not immersive.
> b) Not simulationist.
> c) Not a video game.




Honestly, I'd say not immersive. I've yet to meet someone who has played one who seems to feel like they do when they actually fly a plane. I have met roleplayers who seem to feel the joys or the sadness, the anger or the pain that their characters experience. Admittedly, my experience with pilots is limited to a very small handful of people, and also that my input is subjective. However, I think that's the point of my post, in a general sense, which I'm sure you picked up on


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'd like to point out that the person you're quoting is admittedly trolling this thread. Just report him and don't reply (unless replying helps others in the thread understand your point, which I don't think this does).




Fair point.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Honestly, I'd say not immersive. I've yet to meet someone who has played one who seems to feel like they do when they actually fly a plane. I have met roleplayers who seem to feel the joys or the sadness, the anger or the pain that their characters experience.



Exactly.
Microsoft flight simulator is great at simulation, but only of one really specific thing.  

If we are discussing simulation and immersion in table top role playing games and some one points at MSFS as an equivalent, then that tells me they don't know what they are missing.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 30, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Honestly, I'd say not immersive. I've yet to meet someone who has played one who seems to feel like they do when they actually fly a plane. I have met roleplayers who seem to feel the joys or the sadness, the anger or the pain that their characters experience. Admittedly, my experience with pilots is limited to a very small handful of people, and also that my input is subjective. However, I think that's the point of my post, in a general sense, which I'm sure you picked up on




So do most people who use weapons as part of the various re-enactment groups feel the same immersion with a tabletop RPG? I don't, and people I know don't. I can however certainly point to people who have developed emotional reactions to situations in video games. 



BryonD said:


> Exactly.
> Microsoft flight simulator is great at simulation, but only of one really specific thing.
> 
> If we are discussing simulation and immersion in table top role playing games and some one points at MSFS as an equivalent, then that tells me they don't know what they are missing.




That's the point of simulation. You don't have to simulate everything. If you're trying to in a tabletop RPG, you fail. A computer can keep track of massively more data than a human GM. It's the improvisation of a human GM that's the strength of tabletop RPGs, not the idea that somehow it's more immersive to fail to simulate more things.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 30, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So do most people who use weapons as part of the various re-enactment groups feel the same immersion with a tabletop RPG? I don't, and people I know don't. I can however certainly point to people who have developed emotional reactions to situations in video games.




Developing emotional reactions to situations in video games is not the same as immersion. It's similar, however, and based in the same arena. For example, I know someone who literally cried when Sephiroth killed Aeris in Final Fantasy 7 (even though I disliked the game). Obviously, this person felt honest emotion because of the game. Now, while they didn't feel like they were any one person involved in the story (which is really what immersion is, in a general sense -at least, according to my personal "definition," insofar as I'm willing to give anything a concrete definition [which is, to say, I like to think of things in terms of concept, rather than in semantics]), they certainly had a certain amount of empathy involved, and that tied them to the current story.

Even though I dislike FF7, especially the characters of Cloud and Aeris, I didn't disagree with how this person felt. I may not feel that way, but it's a valid feeling, even if I had a somewhat more joyous reaction myself. Feelings are something that generally need to be respected, in my experience, if civil discussion is to be had. Of course, YMMV 



> That's the point of simulation. You don't have to simulate everything. If you're trying to in a tabletop RPG, you fail. A computer can keep track of massively more data than a human GM. It's the improvisation of a human GM that's the strength of tabletop RPGs, not the idea that somehow it's more immersive to fail to simulate more things.




If you recall, I did indicate that it was a combination, and feel of something, more than any one aspect. It's not exclusively about simulation. In my experience and, more importantly (to me!), according to my preference, it's about immersion more than simulation, though that's usually somewhat necessary, to differing levels.

Most important is the feel of the game. Does it not feel like what you want out of it? Was that feeling like a video game? Is this particular activity feeling like a video game objectionable? If so, then people are validly expressing their emotions regarding their dislike of something feeling "video-gamey."

It's not a slight on video games, much like people saying that Metal Gear games feel too much like movies isn't a slight against movies. It's gets an emotion across, and you are free to either ask for specifics, or to ignore it. Either way, you're asking about a feeling, which is not based in logic, it's based in emotion. As long as both sides recognize this during discourse, I doubt much of a problem will be had during the ensuing discussion


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 30, 2011)

Something I'd like to point out / concede.

*3e, my game of choice, and its close variants (e.g. 3.5, pathfinder) have elements that are too videogamey.*

I also agree that a character who is injured dozens of times in fireballs and sword thrusts and still is as effective as when at full health is videogamey (hit points, as they are in all forms of D&D, is videogamey to me).


However, when I say "x is too videogamey for me", even "4e is too videogamey for me", I don't believe that statement to be meaningless to me or to whomever might be in my intended audience. Might it need clarification? Sure.

But, the fact of the matter is that I find some elements, including, but not limited to, mechanics like healing surges and "Joe hit the baddie, so now Sally heals 5 hit points" too videogamey for me.


*Showing that 3e has videogamey elements doesn't disprove that 4e is too videogamey for me and 3e is not too videogamey for me.*


Here's the thing. I'm willing to overlook certain elements in favor of gameplay I enjoy. I've seen "more realistic" 3pp variants of wounds and negative effects when injured that I could use in my 3e game. But, while hp are videogamey, I'd rather just play without this level of realism and deal with the gameyness. I'm not willing to overlook other elements because those elements take me (me personally, I don't mean "people" here) out of the roleplaying and immersion and are a constant reminder that I'm playing a game (rather than roleplaying a character).


So, in short, while many types of videogames have many types of elements, and many types or rpgs have many types of elements, when too many of the ones that feel out of place _to me_ it feels too videogamey.

I think the emphasis here is on "too" in "too videogamey". Because, in a sense, all RPGs are somewhat videogamey.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Dannager is totally right here. 4e lets you remove the magic items and retain balance.
> 
> If you don't care about balance, just remove them without compensation. The world holds together exactly as well as any previous edition where the same thing was done: the DM has to compensate for it or his game will fall apart.




Thanks for your input.

However, I'm not at all sure that "remove the magic items" sums up Thunderfoot's point at all.  I think there is also the matter of quasi-magical stuff, like CaGI and healing surges as written.  In fact, I believe that healing surges were a major part of his point (and he can correct me if I am wrong).

Earlier editions made it easier to moderate what resources were available at the table regarding magic.  3e took a big step toward making DM resource management difficult.  4e followed that with another step in the same direction.  The size of 4e's step doesn't really matter for some folks; 3e was already standing at the edge of the cliff.

In another thread, there are people advocating giving warriors similar powers to wizards as a balancing factor to the warrior/wizard power gap.  It seems to me (and, it seems to me, to these posters) that 4e does this.  I believe that is a source of both the "wire-fu" and the "full healing" comments.

IMHO, and IME, full healing between all encounters was not common to any prior edition.  An argument that relies upon the idea that it is fails for me on that basis.

Also, I know that LostSoul has done many (if not all) of the things Thunderfoot brings up in the creation of his own houseruled version of 4e.  As a result, I accept that he has a clear understanding of how difficult he found it to be.

[MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION]:  My understanding is that, in 3e, WbL guidelines are not rules, so, in this case, binding them more tightly to the ruleset does not help the DM follow the rules better.  It takes something that was once a guideline, and turns it into a rule.

Or else you misspoke?


RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 30, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> There have been many elements of many versions of RPGs that have video game feeling elements - that were easy to remove. 4e makes it harder - everyone casts spells (or has abilities, whatever)




Yeah, whatever.  Because there's no difference between swinging a sword and casting a fireball.  Next?



> healing surges,




Which means at long last there is a _limit_ on the amount of healing someone can receive.  They can't keep going like the energiser bunny as long as there's someone with the right wand.



> combat roles.




Just like classic D&D.  Fighter/Magic User/Cleric/Thief.



> Incredible amounts of money and magic REQUIRED at levels in order to play.




Just like 3e.  There's wealth by level.  And incredibly expensive magic items required.



> Just remove the magic items from the mix and see how long your world holds together in RAW.




That depends.  Am I allowed to use the _rules that are presented in 4e for removing magic items?_  The ones that nailing the mathematics so thoroughly makes easy to implement?



> I want dark, gritty and deadly; hard to do if players are healed after every encounter to full, no questions asked.




And that is a valid reason for not liking 4e and preferring Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or GURPS.  If you were to say you like gritty and deadly RPGs no one would object.  And for the record you are wrong about healing up to full health.  *Your surges are a part of your health.*



> So let me spell it out - IT FEELS LIKE A VIDEO GAME....




Video Game != Not Gritty.



> I like video games, but I can play those, by myself, anytime. When I get together with my friend to play an RPG, I want there to be a difference - no wire-fu moves,




Ban the monk.



> no outrageous amounts of required magic items,[/quot]
> 
> You must have _hated_ 3E with its "Big 6".  But because the magic items are so clearly laid out, it's _trivial_ to remove most of them.  And the rules are right there in the DMG2.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 30, 2011)

> "4e is too like a video game" is attempting to pass itself off as a fact.




Sorry, but you lose here: that is every bit as much an opinion as someone saying "That soup is too spicy." or "Garlic smells bad."


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> It's not _exactly_ the same . . .



A lot like the way people use the word, "videogamey."







Dannager said:


> . . . but it's the same in the only sense that counts in this discussion: it's a limited resource that allows the party to heal to full between combats.



Y'know, if you're going to make an argument, you need to spell this out in the first place, rather than making people draw it out of you, because then we can discuss if your premises make sense or not.

That should actually sound familiar to you.

And your premises are wrong; wands and spells of _cure_ x _wounds_ provide a variable amount of healing per the rules through 3._x_, so it's not guaranteed that a character can "heal to full between combats." My character spent most of our game-day adventure with a crossbow and one hit point because we were low on magic.







Dannager said:


> No, he said that DMs who allowed wands of cure light wounds were _dumb_.



I'm one of those referees who didn't make _wands of clw_ available, either, so I can understand where *Thunderfoot*'s coming from. Potions and scrolls, yes, but wands felt wrong to me.







Dannager said:


> Presumably (since that's what we were talking about) because it allows the party to heal to full between combats, just like healing surges do (and clerics, and potions, and druids, and staffs, and bards, and etc.).



Except, of course, that's not necessarily true, not for clerics, druids, staves, and bards and not even for healing surges, which are also a finite resource that can be expended before an adventurer is done for the day.







Dannager said:


> Am I missing something here?



More than you seem to realize.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> No, I'm just expecting that when they come to participate in an open, online discussion on a topic that is _years_ old, they should probably make a bit of effort to post sensibly.



You expect too much. Seriously.


> Or they could read this thread, whose message is: "We know you are tempted to call it videogamey and be done with it, but that's not going to cut it because we aren't inside your head and have no idea what you mean. So how about skipping it and getting straight to the part that matters?"



I've said people are inconsistent and lazy when it comes to critical thinking skills and will just say the first thing that comes to mind no matter how much YOU think making a thread like this could change them. If you think this thread will prevent even one person from using the term "videogamey" you are sadly naive. What makes you think anyone would even FIND this thread before they typed "I hate 4e, 5e and 6e because they're too videogamey?" NO ONE will ever see this thread again once it falls off the front page because no one would ever sit down and say, "Hey I think XXX is videogamey I WONDER IF ANYONE ELSE AGREES WITH ME I'll google it before I post my own opinion." Snowball in Hell are far more likely. People post without thinking. People never read FAQs. Where have you been?


> I mean, you have essentially just agreed with the entire point of this thread.



Agreed with your point? I find your point silly and your assumption that people are logical comical. There are *video games* that I find too "videogamey". I hope that doesn't burst a blood vessel.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Video Game != Not Gritty.




That I am not sure I can agree with.  My knowledge of video games is admittedly limited, but I am not familiar with any video game that is as gritty as a tabletop game can be.  Even the horror ones, like Silent Hill and Resident Evil, don't seem very gritty (even if they are enjoyable).

To me, "videogamey" implies a great number of things, only one of which is a dealbreaker -- an artificial constraint on the possible action.  For me, this problem arises from the following:

1.  Any combat system that requires so long to resolve a combat that the action becomes artificially constrained to "only important combats".  This includes the systems of both 3e and 4e.  As a funny aside, although artificial constraint in action is something I associate with video games, _*this particular form of artificial constraint*_ is something no video game I have ever played has included.  Video games have no problems whatsoever dealing with minor combats.

2.  Skill Challenges as presented in the (early?) rules require artificial constraints in terms of complication and resolution.  These artificial constraints may actually spur creativity for some groups -- I have read some excellent examples of the same -- but they are still artificial constraints.  Note also that I am aware that a good DM can rise beyond the book presentation; I like the Jester's "Sodden Ghoul Lake" SC, for example.  It doesn't feel artificially constrained to me, at all.

3.  Limitations on how many times a day you can attempt *any* mundane (i.e., non-magical) task.  This includes the Barbarian "Rage" ability from 3e, and is covered pretty well in the "Jump Card" discussion on another thread.

4.  The Delve Format, starting in 3e, sets up encounters in a way that reinforces, rather than mitigates against, artificial constraint.

5.  This may seem strange, but the lack of natural constraints in some rules, to me, really reinforces the artificial constraints in others.  I can push a giant who weighs several tons, but I am limited in how often I push a kobold.  I can make an emotionless supergenius leave his position of tactical cover, but I am limited in how often I can do the same with some moronic mook.

6.  Any "game balance" that has a very narrow range of threat levels that can be both interesting and that can impact the outcome of the adventure as a whole.  This also began in 3e, and was increased AFAICT in 4e by a considerable amount.  A fight should not have to seem like a set-piece battle (potentially lethal, requiring pulling out most if not all of the stops) to be engaging, IMHO.  This directly ties into how a game handles resource management, IMHO, and whether or not you can loose significant resources without the chance of utter defeat.​
Now, you can say (and you may well be right) that _*the factors leading to that sense of artificial constraint*_ do not actually exist in video games (or in most video games).  That's fine; I'm not saying that those particular factors do; I am saying that the sense of artificial constraint does.

And, the #1 thing that tabletop games do better than video games is remove that sense of artificial constraint.  IMHO, a tabletop ruleset that enhances that sense of artificial constraint, rather than glorying in freedom from it, is shooting itself in the foot.  The computer can do it better.



> That argument is made of straw.  And it's obviously made of straw if you've actually been following this thread for one obvious reason.




It is a very close paraphrase of the "evidence" given.  The initial statement I reworked had the people agreeing that X was videogamey, and then discovering that they did not know what the other meant by the same.  This is something I have never, ever seen.



> And here you're involved in serious special pleading.  Rita, Stewart, John, and Cassie all understand what Angie means.  But Mike and Romana mean something else by the term.  And Mark, Peter, Sarah-Jane, and Amy are all confused - and getting different answers from the two groups.




Nah.  I am not arguing that there is no group Y who is confused; I am arguing that Dannager is dead wrong when he presupposes that, because he is in group Y, that there is not also some group X who is not confused by what they are saying.



> "I don't like 4e" is an opinion.  "4e is too like a video game" is attempting to pass itself off as a fact.




Erm, no.  You've actually got those turned around.

"I don't like 4e" is, if you don't like 4e, a statement of fact.  If you say it and you do like 4e, it is a false statement.  It is a statement about an opinion, but the statement itself is either true or false.

"4e is too like a video game", OTOH, is a statement of opinion, expressed as a statement of opinion.  If you are unclear, those words "too like" express a valuation.  Valuations, by their nature, are subjective.

A statement about valuation is always an opinion.  A statement about the valuations you hold is always true or untrue (though there can be degrees of truth or untruth).



> And in my mind it might make perfect sense to say Jabberwocky.  This doesn't mean I'll use it somewhere I know it's (a ) very simmilar to a deliberate put-down and (b ) not going to be understood by much of the readership.




Actually, "I find the term videogamey to be too Jabberwocky" makes perfect sense to me, assuming that you are referring to the poem, which contains made-up nonsense words.

If I am offended that you think "videogamey" is a made-up nonsense word, there is no way that you can express that thought without my being offended.  It is my belief that, in this case, and in many other similar cases of similar EN World threads, it is the thought expressed that is actually deemed offensive.  This was, IMHO, true for Pokemount.  It was true for my objection to the term "fluff".  It is true for videogamey.

I am also not convinced at all that (b) is the case, or is the case anymoreso than any other term used in gaming parlance.  I am convinced that some people, who are offended by the idea the term encapsulates, would like us to believe that (b) is the case so that we will stop talking about that idea.

But, then, I haven't yet read anything that explains why it should be deemed so (more than any other term, as LostSoul points out) that isn't either too Jabberwocky, or that doesn't rely on some rather Carrollian logic.


RC


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 30, 2011)

> your assumption that people are logical comical



Yeah, the intellectual elite who think people are logical do not watch shows like "Operation Repo" or "Bait Car" on TruTv.

Because you'd think these people when caught doing something wrong red handed and on video tape would just sit down and admit they were caught. That would be the logical thing to do wouldn't it?

But instead what do you get?

In "Operation Repo" you see the team being confronted while repoing a vehicle of some sort. The cameras are rolling. The owners of the vehicle sometimes responds with violence, _while the cameras are rolling_. You'd think those people would be smart enough to realize two things:

The vehicle is not yours until you've paid it off entirely and the contract says the company can take it back if they've missed payments. 

And secondly, they'd realize that they are on tape and any violence they do to the repo guys is admissible in a court of law. And since the repo guys have the paperwork and everything on videotape, they are very likely to win the case against the owners if it goes to court.

In "Bait Car" the police set up a car that is specifically designed to catch car thieves. It is wired with a hidden camera and a shut off. The camera catches the car thieves on tape and in some cases when caught red handed, _even while being shown the tape_, still continue to deny that they did it.

I ask you, how are these things logical?

Short answer they are not. It's entirely emotional ebcause these people think they did nothing wrong and do not want to be in trouble and want to avoid trouble.

Logic is something akin to caviar, it is an acquired taste and most people must be trained to use it, which is what intellectual elitists fail to understand and forget. While some individuals might have some natural talent for logical thinking, most people will go by how a person sounds and looks rather than what is actually being said. The details are often unimportant, and any addressing of them will be taken personally as an insult against themselves.

And that is the same thing for most people who say things like it's too videogamey. Because that's how it sounds and feels to them. Even though they may be unaware or even don't give a hoot about the details. And that's simply not logical.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 30, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> In "Operation Repo" you see the team being confronted while repoing a vehicle of some sort. The cameras are rolling. The owners of the vehicle sometimes responds with violence, _while the cameras are rolling_. You'd think those people would be smart enough to realize two things:




Some people aren't smart enough to realize something else (BTW, I am joking and don't actually mean you are not smart, I just had to say it)....

I take it you are not aware that Operation Repo is completely 100% fake? It's a scripted show man.  It got it's start on a Mexican station in southern California before it got on network tv.

I'm pretty sure Bait Car is fake too but I haven't found proof. The people are way too happy to be caught.

Most of the "reality" tv shows are fake. Cheaters is another one that is completely fake. My favorite episode was when the idiot host got stabbed by a jealous boyfriend on a boat and had to be "rushed" to the hospital. That episode proved it was fake.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The difference being that when he calls it too videogamey, the discussion is dead in the water.




This is the entire reason why your argument is kind of BS. You're so set on proving everyone wrong rather than looking in and considering the fact that maybe you are not entirely right. You think that because *you* don't understand the term, then the rest of us are morons for using the term. If you think it is a stupid term, that's fine. But just because you think it is stupid doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to people.

The discussion is dead in the water to *you*. Please, somehow, try to understand that. There is nothing wrong with that. If after 20 pages of people trying to explain the term to you (that they completely comprehend) and you still don't get it, then I would think that any intelligent person would think to themselves, "Well, maybe this is just one of those things that is over my head."

But I have the feeling you can't admit that. We're the stupid ones, right?


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> IMHO, and IME, full healing between all encounters was not common to any prior edition.  An argument that relies upon the idea that it is fails for me on that basis.




That's a shame. I've played in a number of 2e and 3e/3.5 games, and we _always_ made a habit of healing up to or as near to full health as we could without wasting resources, just like you typically do in 4e. In my experience it is _madness_ to wander around a dungeon with significantly less than full health.



> My understanding is that, in 3e, WbL guidelines are not rules, so, in this case, binding them more tightly to the ruleset does not help the DM follow the rules better.  It takes something that was once a guideline, and turns it into a rule.




Wealth by Level guidelines are not rules. Neither is the parcel system. In fact, Essentials provided an entirely new set of guidelines by which a DM can distribute wealth/magic items to players. Calling these things "rules" places them into the same category as things like "When you reach negative bloodied, you die."


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> A lot like the way people use the word, "videogamey."




Exactly. People do not mean the same thing when they use the word "videogamey". In fact, they mean so many wildly _different_ things (and wildly _inaccurate_ things, to boot) that the term itself has gone from meaning to meaningless to _confusing and distracting_.



> Y'know, if you're going to make an argument, you need to spell this out in the first place, rather than making people draw it out of you, because then we can discuss if your premises make sense or not.
> 
> That should actually sound familiar to you.



This is an _adorable_ attempt to make me look guilty of the very thing I criticize others of. Thunderfoot knew exactly what he was getting into. He just had a terrible argument.



> And your premises are wrong; wands and spells of _cure_ x _wounds_ provide a variable amount of healing per the rules through 3._x_, so it's not guaranteed that a character can "heal to full between combats."



Yes, it is. The minimum healing a wand of cure light wounds provides per charge is 2. A fully charged wand, therefore, contains _at least_ 100 hit points worth of healing and, _on average_, 275 hit points worth of healing. As long as you keep enough wands on hand, _of course_ you'll be able to heal up to full between combats. You can't seriously be telling me that the fact that you have to _roll_ to determine how many hit points you get out of your _nigh-unlimited font of hit points_ is what makes wands/spells special.

_By the way_, since you're so high on this random element thing, healing between encounters involves rolling for hit points, too, as intelligent parties will make use of their leader's encounter healing abilities in order to boost the efficiency of their healing. So, even if rolling for hit points mattered (it doesn't), _all the games_ involve rolling for hit points.



> My character spent most of our game-day adventure with a crossbow and one hit point because we were low on magic.



Gosh, _sounds like fun_.



> I'm one of those referees who didn't make _wands of clw_ available, either, so I can understand where *Thunderfoot*'s coming from. Potions and scrolls, yes, but wands felt wrong to me.Except, of course, that's not necessarily true, not for clerics, druids, staves, and bards and not even for healing surges, which are also a finite resource that can be expended before an adventurer is done for the day.



All of these are finite resources that can be expended before an adventurer is done for the day: wands, potions, cleric spell slots, druid spell slots, bard spell slots, paladin spell slots, staffs, healing surges.

You don't have an argument here. You _really_ don't.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nah.  I am not arguing that there is no group Y who is confused; I am arguing that Dannager is dead wrong when he presupposes that, because he is in group Y, that there is not also some group X who is not confused by what they are saying.




It's entirely possible that there are a couple people who know exactly what the other means when the word "videogamey" is tossed about. It's also an _inarguable fact_ that there are plenty of people who have no idea what you're talking about, and that you'd be much better served by not obfuscating your opinions behind made-up words that a large chunk of your audience doesn't understand _because they can't read your mind_.

What is so tough about grasping this?

[cue counter-argument that ends in "What is so tough about grasping this?"]


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> This is the entire reason why your argument is kind of BS. You're so set on proving everyone wrong rather than looking in and considering the fact that maybe you are not entirely right. You think that because *you* don't understand the term, then the rest of us are morons for using the term. If you think it is a stupid term, that's fine. But just because you think it is stupid doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to people.




Oryan, we _know_ that a fair number of the people who _think_ it makes sense to them are actually thinking of something entirely different. Using a word to describe something that has _wildly_ different meanings depending on who you're talking to is an _awful_ way to communicate. It is an easily fixable problem, and happily the fix also involves getting straight to the point. It's a win-win, and it's ridiculous to argue that continuing to cloud the discussion for a number of people with words that have no accepted meaning (even among people who _do_ think it has an accepted meaning) is somehow the moral high ground.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 30, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Logic is something akin to caviar, it is an acquired taste and most people must be trained to use it, *which is what intellectual elitists fail to understand and forget*.




It's not just intellectual elitists who think this way.  I use to think this way when I was younger.

When I was a teenager, I use to naively think that most people (adults) think logically.  It took me many years to accept the fact that most people think more emotionally than logically.

What really changed my mind on this, is that over the years I've met many individuals who do very logical stuff for their day job.  These particular individuals conducted their own personal off-the-job lives in a very illogical and emotional manner.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 30, 2011)

> I take it you are not aware that Operation Repo is completely 100% fake? It's a scripted show man.  It got it's start on a Mexican station in southern California before it got on network tv.




I'd like to see some real evidence of this "fakery" other than claims. For example, I'd like to see the actual scripting of the show.

It's far too easy to make claims of something being fake so I take a very objective approach to those claims.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 30, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Raven Crowking*
> 
> 
> _IMHO, and IME, full healing between all encounters was not common to any prior edition. An argument that relies upon the idea that it is fails for me on that basis._






Dannager said:


> That's a shame. I've played in a number of 2e and 3e/3.5 games, and we _always_ made a habit of healing up to or as near to full health as we could without wasting resources, just like you typically do in 4e. In my experience it is _madness_ to wander around a dungeon with significantly less than full health.




Wait, what?

You're touting full healing between all encounters as ideal gameplay, insofar as to say it's "a shame" for that to not be commonplace?


Part of the drama of a dungeoncrawl is running low, and out, of resources. It's part of the challenge, and "easy" fights become much harder when tough choices about resource management must be made.

Healing up to full with minimal resource loss between every encounter seems kinda videogamey. By that I mean, it seems like a total reset to max, rather than (poor as they are) hit points being low forcing differences in game play (e.g. do we take on that kobold troupe? We could waste them normally.) It's the sort of thing that you don't read or see in good stories or good drama...The hero was beaten down, but then everything reset, then he was beaten down again, and everything reset. You may see the hero find something extra when he really needs it, but heros generally do get worn down.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 30, 2011)

Everything doesn't reset, of course. Healing surges are part of a character's health in 4E, not just hit points.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> That's a shame. I've played in a number of 2e and 3e/3.5 games, and we _always_ made a habit of healing up to or as near to full health as we could without wasting resources, just like you typically do in 4e. In my experience it is _madness_ to wander around a dungeon with significantly less than full health.




It isn't a shame; it is a preference.

Of course, I know that you love the Delve format, too, so there's no accounting for taste.  



> Calling these things "rules" places them into the same category as things like "When you reach negative bloodied, you die."




So you misspoke.



Dannager said:


> It's entirely possible that there are a couple people who know exactly what the other means when the word "videogamey" is tossed about.




It's entirely possible that this is the vast majority.



> It's also an _inarguable fact_ that there are plenty of people who have no idea what you're talking about




Not proven.  And I doubt it is a fact, much less an "inarguable" one.

If I am offended that you think "videogamey" is a made-up nonsense word, there is no way that you can express that thought without my being offended.  It is my belief that, in this case, and in many other similar cases of similar EN World threads, it is the thought expressed that is actually deemed offensive.  This was, IMHO, true for Pokemount. It was true for my objection to the term "fluff". It is true for videogamey.

I am also not convinced at all that "I don't understand" is the case, or is the case anymoreso than any other term used in gaming parlance. I am convinced that some people, who are offended by the idea the term encapsulates, would like us to believe that "I don't understand" is the case so that we will stop talking about that idea.

But, then, I haven't yet read anything that explains why it should be deemed so (more than any other term, as LostSoul points out) that isn't either too Jabberwocky, or that doesn't rely on some rather Carrollian logic.



RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> You're touting full healing between all encounters as ideal gameplay, insofar as to say it's "a shame" for that to not be commonplace?
> 
> Part of the drama of a dungeoncrawl is running low, and out, of resources. It's part of the challenge, and "easy" fights become much harder when tough choices about resource management must be made.




Those tough choices still get made. In fact, they are made much more often in 4e than in previous editions, because you can't simply pack "pocket Clerics" in 4e. In previous editions, running out of hit points over the course of an adventuring day wasn't really a concern; Clerics had _a bajillion_ potential hit points worth of healing past early levels, and wands/potions can easily cover for them in the event they do run out. In 4e, once you're out of healing surges, you're out. Your body and mind have taken all the punishment they can withstand, and pushing on past that limit will be _extremely_ costly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> You're touting full healing between all encounters as ideal gameplay, insofar as to say it's "a shame" for that to not be commonplace?




AFAICT, the "shame" is that "IMHO, and IME, full healing between all encounters was not common to any prior edition. *An argument that relies upon the idea that it is fails for me on that basis.*"

I've said it in other threads, and I'll say it again here:  If you approached earlier edition D&D in the same manner as 4e is designed to be approached, it's going to be much harder for you to grasp why others have problems.

But, let us say that Bob and Sue are discussing radio dramas.  Bob doesn't like them; he prefers a picture.  Sue says, "But I always closed my eyes and just listened to the TV!"

That may explain why Sue sees no real difference, but it fails utterly as a response to Bob's concern.

When Sue says, "It's a shame you didn't close your eyes, too!" it may express some desire on Sue's part that Bob share her preferences, but it also utterly fails as a response to Bob's concern.

Compound this now:  Bob says that the radio drama is too "auditory", and Sue claims that she doesn't understand what he means.  No matter how he tries to explain it, Sue just keeps coming back with (1) there was as auditory component to TV, too, and (2) although she understands Bob's position enough to dismiss it outright Bob just hasn't communicated his position clearly enough to be understood.

Let me repeat, in case the dichotomy isn't obvious enough:  _*Although she understands Bob's position enough to dismiss it outright Bob just hasn't communicated his position clearly enough to be understood.*_

It is, actually, an _*inarguable fact*_ that Bob has not communicated clearly enough to be understood.  Although, again, Sue understands just enough to know that Bob is wrong.

On top of that, Sue keeps claiming that Bob just isn't rational in his position.

Sorry, but from where I am standing, it seems to me that this is entirely Sue's problem.


RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It isn't a shame; it is a preference.
> 
> Of course, I know that you love the Delve format, too, so there's no accounting for taste.




It's always fun to track how reliably a person's opinion in one area will inform their opinion in other, seemingly unrelated areas.



> So you misspoke.




Sort of. Wealth by Level and treasure parcels are _guidelines_ because they are merely tools to assist the DM in meeting the mathematical assumptions of the game (these mathematical assumptions can more easily be called "rules", because adhering to them ensures the proper functioning of the game). The DM can ignore those guidelines in favor of guidelines he has created himself, and as long as his own guidelines provide the party with the assumed bonuses from magic equipment, the game remains perfectly intact. If the DM thinks that this is too hard to pull off, or is badwrongfun somehow, he can always use inherent bonuses instead.



> It's entirely possible that this is the vast majority.




And yet the ones you would be trying to persuade by sharing your supported opinion are those for whom this is not the case.

Again, _it's no skin off your back_ to simply skip a few steps along the way and get straight to discussing the issues. I daresay it'd make things easier on you. There is no downside, except apparently for the argument that people don't respond rationally to anything so therefore we shouldn't bother to encourage them to respond rationally (a sad, _sad_ argument that I'm pretty sure no one actually believes in anyway).



> Not proven.  And I doubt it is a fact, much less an "inarguable" one.




You've got half a thread full of them right here.



> I am also not convinced at all that "I don't understand" is the case, or is the case anymoreso than any other term used in gaming parlance. I am convinced that some people, who are offended by the idea the term encapsulates, would like us to believe that "I don't understand" is the case so that we will stop talking about that idea.




On the contrary, _we're actively encouraging you to talk about the idea_. Just, y'know, _actually talk about the idea_, rather than obscuring the entire argument behind a single made-up word.

Trust me, we're _ecstatic_ to have the opportunity to discuss exactly why you think 4e is videogamey with you (again, _collective_ you), because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination. As we've held throughout this whole thread (and was demonstrated _beautifully_ by Thunderfoot), most of the criticisms of 4e over "videogameyness" are rooted in either ignorance of video games or ignorance of 4e.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Everything doesn't reset, of course. Healing surges are part of a character's health in 4E, not just hit points.




I tried to drop you XP, because this is an excellent, and very relevant point.  IF the characters cannot take an extended rest, THEN everything doesn't reset.  

I think that the structure of 4e (for some reasons I outlined a bit upthread) makes that IF harder to achieve than it should be.  But the concept of healing surges are not inherently problematic to me.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 30, 2011)

> Quote:
> I take it you are not aware that Operation Repo is completely 100% fake? It's a scripted show man.  It got it's start on a Mexican station in southern California before it got on network tv.




I read the fine print on that show: it isn't scripted, its filmed reenactments of actual events.  Presumably, they've embellished it a bit.  But it is not scripted.

In that, it resembles shows like "I (almost) got away with it" and others in the true crime genre TV shows.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I've said it in other threads, and I'll say it again here:  If you approached earlier edition D&D in the same manner as 4e is designed to be approached, it's going to be much harder for you to grasp why others have problems.




If you approached _any edition_ of D&D in a manner contrary to the way it was designed to be approached, it's going to be much harder for you to grasp why others are enjoying the hell out of it.


----------



## racoffin (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> most of the criticisms of 4e over "videogameyness" are rooted in either ignorance of video games or ignorance of 4e.




Rather harsh terms here, and ones that are little more than _opinions_, much like the _opinion_ about "videogameyness".

I might suggest that we ramp back on insults and keep the discussion on the level. Otherwise, we may as well have this thread locked as well.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

racoffin said:


> Rather harsh terms here, and ones that are little more than _opinions_, much like the _opinion_ about "videogameyness".
> 
> I might suggest that we ramp back on insults and keep the discussion on the level. Otherwise, we may as well have this thread locked as well.




Ignorance is not in and of itself an insult, and posts throughout this thread have demonstrated that a number of the criticisms leveled at 4e (and, in turn, used to justify calling it "videogamey") _are_ rooted in ignorance of the system (see: "You can't remove magic items without rewriting the PHB.").

I mean, at a certain point - likely somewhere around where we demonstrate that 4e actually does something someone criticized it for not being able to do - that ignorance becomes totally factual.

Do not confuse the calling out of ignorance with accusations of stupidity (accusations we _have seen_ in this thread, but as usual not from the 4e supporters). It's not really possible to have a worthwhile discussion of the topic if we can't say "The things you are claiming are not true, and you are speaking from a position of a lack of sufficient knowledge of the topic."


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Exactly. People do not mean the same thing when they use the word "videogamey". In fact, they mean so many wildly _different_ things (and wildly _inaccurate_ things, to boot) that the term itself has gone from meaning to meaningless to _confusing and distracting_.



Do you also explode all over people who tell you to "Have a nice day"? Nice? What a useless word! It means different things to everybody. How in heck can you wish me a "nice" day when we haven't spent 25 pages on a forum arguing over the parameters of what "nice" is -- let alone "a nice day" is? Nice should just be banished from the dictionary. 

Once again, my advice to you is to get over it. People will use the term videogamey (and nice) no matter how much you protest.

(With apologies to the late George Carlin... who, being dead, doesn't give a damn. So I retract my apology.)


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> Do you also explode all over people who tell you to "Have a nice day"? Nice? What a useless word! It means different things to everybody. How in heck can you wish me a "nice" day when we haven't spent 25 pages on a forum arguing over the parameters of what "nice" is -- let alone "a nice day" is? Nice should just be banished from the dictionary.




You probably would have been better off with this argument if you _hadn't_ included that last sentence.

The fact that "nice" is in the dictionary makes your whole post meaningless in this discussion. Our whole argument is that "videogamey" isn't a real word, and a lot of people have no idea what you mean when you use it.

I mean, heck, not only is it _not in the dictionary_, it's not even well understood by people within this tiny little corner of the internet.

You know what _really_ cinches this whole thing for me? The fact that, _if we did settle on a definition of "videogamey"_, a number of people would have to _stop using it_ because it no longer means what they want it to mean.

Finally, if you think that any of this is "exploding all over" anyone, you should probably reconsider how you view online discussions. Read other people's posts in a calm, measured voice, and you will have something that is often much closer to the post's actual intent.


----------



## racoffin (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Ignorance is not in and of itself an insult, and posts throughout this thread have demonstrated that a number of the criticisms leveled at 4e (and, in turn, used to justify calling it "videogamey") _are_ rooted in ignorance of the system (see: "You can't remove magic items without rewriting the PHB.").
> 
> I mean, at a certain point - likely somewhere around where we demonstrate that 4e actually does something someone criticized it for not being able to do - that ignorance becomes totally factual.
> 
> Do not confuse the calling out of ignorance with accusations of stupidity (accusations we _have seen_ in this thread, but as usual not from the 4e supporters). It's not really possible to have a worthwhile discussion of the topic if we can't say "The things you are claiming are not true, and you are speaking from a position of a lack of sufficient knowledge of the topic."




By the same token, repeating the same 'facts' and dismissing others opinions is an insult. Previously I remarked that you hadn't given any indication of where the bar is on knowing enough to comment on the game system or have a valid criticism; that information was never given.

Much of the 'facts' given in the thread are opinions on game play. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds or healing between encounters or a number of other elements brought up. Is it ignorance to disagree on these elements or to call into question elements of a game that you disagree with?

I will agree on one thing from your post: it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a worthwhile discussion on the topic if we cannot say "This is my opinion. Agree or not, this is what I believe."


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

racoffin said:


> By the same token, repeating the same 'facts' and dismissing others opinions is an insult. Previously I remarked that you hadn't given any indication of where the bar is on knowing enough to comment on the game system or have a valid criticism; that information was never given.




The proof is in the pudding. If you know enough to form valid criticisms, your criticisms will be valid. If your criticisms are consistently shown to be _in_valid, your knowledge of the system will be called into question.

For instance, if someone said "You can't cast fireball in 4e!" they would be factually incorrect, their criticism would be invalid, and their knowledge of the game would undoubtedly (and with good reason) be called into question.



> Much of the 'facts' given in the thread are opinions on game play. The Wand of Cure Light Wounds or healing between encounters or a number of other elements brought up.




In what way is "You can heal up between combats using wands/potions/staffs/bards/druids/clerics/paladins in 3.5 and previous editions of the game," _anything_ but a fact? This isn't an opinion on gameplay. Someone _might_ have a houseruled version of the game where they remove _all_ of those elements from the mix, but that doesn't change anything.

By the way: _hilarious_ that you've decided to take me to task for arguing facts instead of opinions when _the very person I'm arguing with_ made it perfectly clear that everyone who doesn't share _what is very clearly his opinion_ is dumb. _Hilarious_.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> It's always fun to track how reliably a person's opinion in one area will inform their opinion in other, seemingly unrelated areas.




I'm glad you put that "seemingly" in there.  I've given a lot of thought to the Delve format, and what the format does both to the construction and play of adventures.  I've taken them apart, put them in other formats, and put parts of other modules into Delve format to see how they were effected.

I can see that, for some playstyles, the Delve might be great.  But I am firmly of the opinion that the playstyles for which the Delve is great is a much smaller number than that for which the Delve flat-out sucks.

(Mind you, I am not saying that the majority of players do not play in the playstyles for which the Delve is great; I've no idea there.)

So, yes, I do see a relationship between your stated preference for the Delve, and your stated preferences related to playstyle.

I doubt that the "dealbreaker" constraints I discussed above even ping your radar as problems, and I would not at all be surprised if you dropped a game I was running for something more interesting to your personal preferences.



> And yet the ones you would be trying to persuade by sharing your supported opinion are those for whom this is not the case.




Hold hard, friend.

IF I am trying to convince you of something, THEN I need to both meet the bar of your skepticism and put it into terms that you understand.

BUT, that "IF" is important.  IF you want to convince people not to use the term "videogamey" THEN you need to meet the bar of our skepticism.  I am not going to claim that we can't understand what you are saying.  Not only textually, but also subtextually.

Because, AFAICT, this thread is not us trying to convince you, it is you trying to convince us.  We need meet no bar of skepticism.  We need not use terms you understand.  We can just carry on doing what we're doing, using whatever terminology we like.

The onus to prove a case is not on us.  We need not defend our use of the term.  Our ability to use that term is a given.

(And that's a general "we" and a general "us"; I'm not sure I've ever used the term "videogamey" outside the context of this discussion.  But, I do know that I understand it when it is used in context.)



> You've got half a thread full of them right here.




I think you overcount.



> On the contrary, _we're actively encouraging you to talk about the idea_. Just, y'know, _actually talk about the idea_, rather than obscuring the entire argument behind a single made-up word.
> 
> Trust me, we're _ecstatic_ to have the opportunity to discuss exactly why you think 4e is videogamey with you (again, _collective_ you), because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination.




_*"Because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination."*_

Let me understand.  You are ecstatic if someone tells you why they believe X, because you believe _a priori _that you can rip their reasons to shreds in almost every case.

BUT you don't understand what they mean by X.

AND you believe that your "examination" that results in these reasons getting "ripped to shreds" is fair and impartial.

BUT you aren't targetting the idea (i.e., the reasons), only the way that the idea (i.e., the reasons) are expressed.  

YET you are ripping the ideas, not the expression thereof, "to shreds".

AND you don't understand why, simply put, you fail to pass the bar of my skepticism.



RC


----------



## racoffin (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> By the way: _hilarious_ that you've decided to take me to task for arguing facts instead of opinions when _the very person I'm arguing with_ made it perfectly clear that everyone who doesn't share _what is very clearly his opinion_ is dumb. _Hilarious_.




Well, as long as you are getting a laugh out of the discussion then all is well. 

I'm taking you to task for resorting to name calling (no matter if the other guy is or not) instead of stating your point and leaving it at that. You have stated that you wish that people would explain what they mean by videogamey, and many have said that they know what they mean and others do to, so why should they.

What else is there to be said?


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> This is an _adorable_ attempt to make me look guilty of the very thing I criticize others of.



Pot . . . kettle . . . and all that.







Dannager said:


> As long as you keep enough wands on hand . . .



And as long as your character is of high enough level, he can solo Orcus.

I can make up any number of ingenuous arguments based on contrived premises, too.


Oh, and my character trying to stay alive with a single hit point? Total kick in the ass to play. I hope to run him again this summer at our local D'foot con.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 30, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It's entirely possible that this is the vast majority.
> 
> 
> If I am offended that you think "videogamey" is a made-up nonsense word, there is no way that you can express that thought without my being offended.  It is my belief that, in this case, and in many other similar cases of similar EN World threads, it is the thought expressed that is actually deemed offensive.  This was, IMHO, true for Pokemount. It was true for my objection to the term "fluff". It is true for videogamey.
> ...




The empirical test for whether people really understand 'videogamey' as a term in the same way would be for people to independently write their definitions of what it means. Those definitions could then be PMed to someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, and then put up for comparison. Of course, getting it done independently when people are free to PM or email each other is the difficult part. 

Here's mine, anyway. "Videogamey", an attempt to describe a concept that is a matter of stylistic preference as if it's entirely a matter of the medium that the concept is presented in.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 30, 2011)

> Because in pretty much every case these reasons get ripped to shreds upon examination.



In other words, you have the complete and utter authority to determine what is credible and valid over everybody else.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 30, 2011)

"Video-gamey" is a very subjective term, and I think this seems to be the objection from those against it being used. However, it's meaning should be clear, based on context. If something "feels too video-gamey" then is stands to reason that something "feels too much like a video game." That's all the statement means.

Yes, you can now ask "in what way does it feel too much like a video game?" That's a good follow-up question. However, most of the time, when someone states a feeling, it is not to convince others that their feeling is correct, but it is to convince others that they feel a certain way.

If we all intellectually accepted that something "feels too video-gamey" was the same as "feels too much like a video game" then we'd be golden (even if the term is highly subjective). If, from there, we all intellectually accepted that the phrase was used to communicate feeling, rather than logical specifics, and that the feeling communicated was not meant to convince anyone to change their own mind, then we'd be platinum.

"Feels too much like a video game" is a theme statement. It basically means that when I play this game (whether it be 3.X, 4e, whatever), I feel like I do when I play a video game. Even if I name all the things that remind me of a video game, and they all get "shot down" by players who don't feel that way, my original statement of it "feeling too much like a video game" stands because, despite your logical arguments, when I play next week, it will still feel like I do when I play a video game.

It's not a slight on video games. It's not a slight against the game system anymore than me saying I hate mushrooms is a slight against all mushrooms. Just because I dislike it personally does not mean I think we should exterminate mushrooms. However, when I order a pizza, don't be offended when I don't put mushrooms on it, and when you ask me if I like fish, don't be offended when I say "no, the texture is too mushroomy."

At the end of the day, everyone has their own opinions, and that's honestly great. Find your group, appreciate them, have fun, and above all, play what you like


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Here's mine, anyway. "Videogamey", an attempt to describe a concept that is a matter of stylistic preference as if it's entirely a matter of the medium that the concept is presented in.




I think that making an attempt to nail down a definition would be a worthwhile experiment.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 30, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> In other words, you have the complete and utter authority to determine what is credible and valid over everybody else.




Goodness, is _that _what I said?


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 30, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> I'd like to see some real evidence of this "fakery" other than claims. For example, I'd like to see the actual scripting of the show.
> 
> It's far too easy to make claims of something being fake so I take a very objective approach to those claims.




Dude, are you serious? Without me even needing to give you proof, just watching the show doesn't prove to you that it's a fake show? The show is ridiculously over the top. The acting is terrible. The first time I watched the show, the acting is what stood out to me. Even for a "reality" show, I thought there is no way people would talk/act like that. Maybe this is news to you, but most of the "reality" shows on tv are fake. Needing proof that Operation Repo is fake is like needing proof that Star Wars is fake: 

Operation Repo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Re-enactment and authenticity
> Operation Repo consists of actual stories from repossession incidents[citation needed]; however, the show depicts scripted and dramatized re-enactments in which the cast recreates incidents using actors and staged action footage. There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the show which says: "The stories that are portrayed in this program are based on real events. The names of the characters were changed in order to protect their identities . . . and some honor." This has prompted many people to question the show's authenticity, because it is portrayed as being reality television.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 30, 2011)

All righty zen.

"Operation Repo" is semi fake because it's claimed to be based on real stories. I guess it could be called a reenactment, I suppose.

So now i'm not so sure what to make of it.

It makes me wonder how I missed that disclaimer.

Still, considering the criticism of "Bait Car" I am not convinced it is fake like O.R.

Plus there are other shows on TruTV which basically still blows the "people are logical" argument out of the water. These were just two of them.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 30, 2011)

Dannager said:


> You probably would have been better off with this argument if you _hadn't_ included that last sentence.
> 
> The fact that "nice" is in the dictionary makes your whole post meaningless in this discussion. Our whole argument is that "videogamey" isn't a real word, and a lot of people have no idea what you mean when you use it.



OMG. Nice means nothing. The dictionary tells you it is a word with highly subjective meaning. No two people really agree on what nice means. 



> —Usage note
> The semantic history of nice  is quite varied, as the etymology and the obsolete senses attest, and any attempt to insist on only one of its present senses as correct will not be in keeping with the facts of actual usage. If any criticism is valid, it might be that the word is used too often and has become a cliché lacking the qualities of precision and intensity that are embodied in many of its synonyms.




Isn't this the same issue you have with videogamey?



> Finally, if you think that any of this is "exploding all over" anyone, you should probably reconsider how you view online discussions. Read other people's posts in a calm, measured voice, and you will have something that is often much closer to the post's actual intent.



No, I assume you are raving at your display screen is utter incomprehension as to why we don't get it. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

And the last sentence is there because I cribbed most of those complaints about "nice" from a George Carlin comedy routine about wishy-washy words. English is full of them. "videogamey" is not unique in its lack of precise definition.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> OMG. Nice means nothing. The dictionary tells you it is a word with highly subjective meaning. No two people really agree on what nice means.




The difference is that the weak descriptive nature of the word "nice" makes its use relatively meaningless, but not actively confusing.



> Isn't this the same issue you have with videogamey?




No. "Videogamey" is an actively confusing term that has a variety of (occasionally) _blatantly contradictory_ meanings depending on to whom you speak.



> No, I assume you are raving at your display screen is utter incomprehension as to why we don't get it. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.




Your opinion is that I'm raving at my screen?

You do realize that rage comics are funny because they are exaggerations, right? And not something that normal people actually do?



> And the last sentence is there because I cribbed most of those complaints about "nice" from a George Carlin comedy routine about wishy-washy words. English is full of them. "videogamey" is not unique in its lack of precise definition.




And so we shouldn't do anything to discourage the propagation of words with meaningless - or worse, confusing - definitions? _Really?_


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Again, IF I am trying to convince you of something, THEN I need to both meet the bar of your skepticism and put it into terms that you understand.

BUT, that "IF" is important.  IF you want to convince people not to use the term "videogamey" THEN you need to meet the bar of our skepticism.  I am not going to claim that we can't understand what you are saying.  Not only textually, but also subtextually.

Because, AFAICT, this thread is not us trying to convince you, it is you trying to convince us.  We need meet no bar of skepticism.  We need not use terms you understand.  We can just carry on doing what we're doing, using whatever terminology we like.

The onus to prove a case is not on us.  We need not defend our use of the term.  Our ability to use that term is a given.

(And that's a general "we" and a general "us"; I'm not sure I've ever used the term "videogamey" outside the context of this discussion.  But, I do know that I understand it when it is used in context.)


RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The onus to prove a case is not on us.  We need not defend our use of the term.  Our ability to use that term is a given.




I daresay that we've done more than our ample share of presenting our case. If you haven't seen the merits of our position at this point, it strikes me as unlikely that you would see them at a later point were this discussion to continue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> "Videogamey" is an actively confusing term that has a variety of (occasionally) blatantly contradictory meanings depending on to whom you speak.




No.

Everyone in this thread who has used the term "videogamey" as a critique or an observation has used the word the same way- that the game element in question reminds them of some kind of video/computer game.

The term may be _broad_, but it isn't _contradictory_.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> And so we shouldn't do anything to discourage the propagation of words with meaningless - or worse, confusing - definitions? _Really?_



No, we shouldn't because then we would be speaking another language, you don't like THAT starting speaking another language so we we don't have to hear you prattle about our obvious inferiority.

(And if I get banned for this - it was worth it....)


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.
> 
> Everyone in this thread who has used the term "videogamey" as a critique or an observation has used the word the same way- that the game element in question reminds them of some kind of video/computer game.
> 
> The term may be _broad_, but it isn't _contradictory_.




Dannyalcatraz, the _one thing_ that I can, with absolute certainty, take away from this thread is that when someone uses the word "videogamey" to describe something like 4e, chances are it doesn't actually have anything at all to do with video games.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> No, we shouldn't because then we would be speaking another language, you don't like THAT starting speaking another language so we we don't have to hear you prattle about our obvious inferiority.
> 
> (And if I get banned for this - it was worth it....)




Quoted for classiness and flawless sentence structure.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> And so we shouldn't do anything to discourage the propagation of words with meaningless - or worse, confusing - definitions? _Really?_




If one wants to make definitions very precise, one can always write it as a set of mathematical equations.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

ggroy said:


> If one wants to make definitions very precise, they can always write it as a set of mathematical equations.




I'm all for a reasonable middle ground.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 31, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Pot . . . kettle . . . and all that.And as long as your character is of high enough level, he can solo Orcus.
> 
> I can make up any number of ingenuous arguments based on contrived premises, too.
> 
> ...




You know what's super awesome? Because our 4e party has pressing reasons not to stop for an extended rest, we're in pretty much the exact same boat: we're all on zero surges. We're all bloodied. We're pretty much all out of dailies. We're having a very stressful and fun time of it.

Most editions of D&D have allowed you to heal to full between encounters if you tried and the DM didn't explicitly take measures to prevent it. The only real difference is whether it's been viable to heal up without magic.


----------



## Herobizkit (Mar 31, 2011)

D&D came before WoW.
WoW was influenced by D&D; the creators may have even said so in an interview.

People playing WoW for the first time may not have ever seen D&D before.
People who made D&D took the concepts of WoW (et al) and converted it into print form for the purposes of tapping a 'new' market.

We old fogeys that grew up with D&D AND video games enjoy the narrative.
The young whippersnappers that grew up with ONLY video games are the target audience.

As much as we love D&D, it's still a product designed to be sold by a company.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Dannyalcatraz, the _one thing_ that I can, with absolute certainty, take away from this thread is that when someone uses the word "videogamey" to describe something like 4e, chances are it doesn't actually have anything at all to do with video games.




I'm absolutely certain you are dead wrong.

If, for some reason, someone says that spicy tacos with cheddar cheese reminds them of Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir," if they are being honest with that statement, it doesn't matter if you can't understand the connection, their mind is making that connection.

Likewise with "videogamey": the true origins of this or that element is immaterial- if it makes you think of videogames, _it makes you think of videogames._  End of story.

As a cherry on top, if the only or predominant place you have previously encountered elements that you're calling "videogamey", you're going to call it videogamey even if it actually originated from Native American dance.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> And so we shouldn't do anything to discourage the propagation of words with meaningless - or worse, confusing - definitions? _Really?_



It is not my place (or yours) to tell people they can't "feel something reminds them of a video game" no matter how vague such an utterance is or is not. No one nominated or elected me (or you) English Language Czar. (Did I miss the bloody coup?)


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Dannyalcatraz, the _one thing_ that I can, with absolute certainty, take away from this thread is that when someone uses the word "videogamey" to describe something like 4e, chances are it doesn't actually have anything at all to do with video games.




Heck no. Because it couldn't possibly be true for me to think that the Rogue utility power Cloud Jump is videogamey because it reminds me of hitting the jump button twice to make Spiderman double-jump in Marvel Ultimate Alliance. I must be wrong or something. Dannager says so.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> It is not my place (or yours) to tell people they can't "feel something reminds them of a video game" no matter how vague such an utterance is or is not. No one nominated or elected me (or you) English Language Czar. (Did I miss the bloody coup?)




No one is saying they can't feel that. We're saying that discussions would be more productive if you kept the confusing video game comparisons to yourself and instead discussed the actual issues.

No one is going Thought Police on you. It's troubling that you've managed to perceive our argument that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I daresay that we've done more than our ample share of presenting our case. If you haven't seen the merits of our position at this point, it strikes me as unlikely that you would see them at a later point were this discussion to continue.




If the quality of that presentation doesn't improve, I certainly doubt that more of the same drek is going to make a difference.  So I'm going to take Dan Savage's advice and DTMFA.  


RC


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> So I'm going to take Dan Savage's advice and DTMFA.




_So_ classy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> We're saying that discussions would be more productive if you kept the confusing video game comparisons to yourself and instead discussed the actual issues.



Productive* HOW?*

The _actual issue_ is that certain parts of the game remind certain people of videogames in this way or that.  This is a subjective thing; an opinion; a perception unique to that person.

Not everyone is reminded of the same videogames- surprise, surprise, we don't all play the same games.  Not every element so criticized elicits that response to all the persons who examine the game- surprise, surprise, we don't all have the same preferences.

But in some way, each of us is reminded of videogames by elements of 4Ed, and in such a way that we don't care for in our TTRPGs.

So if we each trot out our specific reasons why blah blah blah seems videogamey, what happens?  You assert "No, that's not videogamey at all because of yadda yadda yadda."

Which, _amazingly,_ usually does not change the complainant's perception that the element up for discussion at that point is videogamey, because it will still evoke that response.

All that gets achieved, then, by greater specificity is that people who don't agree with that person's personal perception get to yak about how wrong that person's perceptions are.

Yeah.  "Productive."  I don't think that word is one I'd use in this situation.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 31, 2011)

When you say "videogamey", do you mean going about in a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and doing whatever you feel like, even collecting books?    

Perhaps you mean embracing design ideas of yesteryear and fusing them with modern sensibilities in order to create a game that brings back the joy of youth without the flaws that came up the first time around? 

Could it be that you meant to convey an experience where you are engulfed in an  immersive experience of the world and story?     

Maybe you're referring to a bunch of heros with different classes going into dungeons?  

Of course, "videogamey" could mean being rewarded more for avoiding most fights by sneaking around and hiding from your enemies.  

Then again, what about taking the time to fully understand a subject in order to make a game that best reflects the principles of said subject?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> When you say "videogamey" do you mean..._<snip>_




I mean it reminds me of a videogame, and I'd rather not be reminded of a videogame when I'm not playing one.  If you REALLY need to know specifics, ask me in particular, and I might tell you.

Just don't expect to change my perception that what is bothering me is videogamey.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> When you say "videogamey", do you mean.....




I could do something similar with "love".  Or "role-playing game".  Or "Dungeons & Dragons".  Should we all stop using all of those terms as well?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I could do something similar with "love".  Or "role-playing game".  Or "Dungeons & Dragons".  Should we all stop using all of those terms as well?



"Cat"

"Car"

"Plane"

Lots of stuff out there with broad, broad definitions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Cat"
> 
> "Car"
> 
> ...




Dang.  I guess that, if we let the Word Police win, we won't be able to say *anything*.

Well, except what they tell us is acceptable.

This conversation reminds me of something from Star Trek:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU]There are four lights![/ame]


----------



## The Shaman (Mar 31, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> When you say "videogamey", do you mean going about in a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and doing whatever you feel like, even collecting books?



Can I buy a ship and hire a crew and some mercenaries to go conquer Akavir, building a large statue carved in my character's likeness at the place where we land?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 31, 2011)

But, the difference between videogamey and "cat", "car" or "plane" is that the latter three are neutral.

I've almost never, ever seen someone use videogamey as anything other than a negative.

But, then again, I have to give Dannager mad props for taking up this flag.  I tried a couple of times in the past and I know that the obfuscation patrol will never let it fly.  For some reason, being able to use hot button language is more important that actually communicating.

It is true that "videogamey" does convey meaning.  It says all sorts of things about the poster.  Very little about the issue at hand, but LOADS about the poster.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Dang.  I guess that, if we let the Word Police win, we won't be able to say *anything*.




Let me just say you're being a real tool here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> But, the difference between videogamey and "cat", "car" or "plane" is that the latter three are neutral.




No they're not- you've probably just never used those nouns in a negative comparison.

"I don't like that guy- he's too catlike."

"This car's ride is too planelike."

"This condo's interior is too carlike."



> It is true that "videogamey" does convey meaning. It says all sorts of things about the poster. Very little about the issue at hand, but LOADS about the poster.




Again, it does convey the exact meaning that the element in question reminds the speaker of videogames in some way.  If they add a value-laden modifier phrase such as "I hate it because" or "I like it because", then you also know the attitude of the speaker towards that element.

And that, again, is _THE _issue.  The element in question _reminds that speaker of a videogame,_ and it is unlikely that any amount of discussion will change that perception.

That some don't seem to get that says LOADS about those posters.


----------



## Oryan77 (Mar 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I've almost never, ever seen someone use videogamey as anything other than a negative.




There are lots of D&D terms that are almost always used as a negative. I'm not sure I see your point with this line of thought other than the fact that in this case, since people like to play video games, they are taking a personal insult to this term. 

Which is really the only reason anyone even cares about this term. All this mumbo jumbo about "Yer not explaining yourself properly!" is just a cover up for the fact that they feel insulted as if we're saying "Video games suck!" And to be insulted by that is a little nutty.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> All this mumbo jumbo about "Yer not explaining yourself properly!" is just a cover up for the fact that they feel insulted as if we're saying "Video games suck!" And to be insulted by that is a little nutty.



And as many of us have pointed out, we actually LIKE videogames.


----------



## Dannager (Mar 31, 2011)

Hussar said:


> For some reason, being able to use hot button language is more important that actually communicating.




At least they're up front about not caring about communication. The internet is for making sure everyone knows your _opinions_, not for worthwhile discussion, don'tchaknow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> At least they're up front about not caring about communication.




We care about communication.

You seem to think were being intentionally obfuscatory; we are not.  You seem to think were being intentionally inflammatory; we are not.

We are expressing an unequivocal statement that elements of 4Ed remind us of videogames.

This is not intrinsically an insult unless _you_ want it to be.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We are expressing an unequivocal statement that elements of 4Ed remind us of videogames.



I don't think Dannager and others would have half as much trouble with this adjective if, upon examination, those who used it were as honest as this.

"4E is too videogamey!"
"What do you mean by that?"
"I don't know, it's just a feeling, I can't put it any better than that."

That's a perfectly reasonable answer to the question and end of conversation right there.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 31, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> Do you also explode all over people who tell you to "Have a nice day"? Nice? What a useless word! It means different things to everybody. How in heck can you wish me a "nice" day when we haven't spent 25 pages on a forum arguing over the parameters of what "nice" is -- let alone "a nice day" is? Nice should just be banished from the dictionary.




There is a huge difference.  Nice is not a put down (unless you are The Witch).  Video-gamey is.  Especially given 4e's history of being declared to be just like World of Warcraft.  (Or early 3e's of being just like Diablo).  It is therefore deliberately offensive or ignorantly offensive.



> Once again, my advice to you is to get over it. People will use the term videogamey (and nice) no matter how much you protest.




And the more people protest about people using thoughtless putdowns, the fewer will.  Yes, this is a silly place to make a stand.



Raven Crowking said:


> That I am not sure I can agree with. My knowledge of video games is admittedly limited, but I am not familiar with any video game that is as gritty as a tabletop game can be. Even the horror ones, like Silent Hill and Resident Evil, don't seem very gritty (even if they are enjoyable).




As gritty as a tabletop game can be or as gritty as Dungeons and Dragons (a game with an explicit raise dead spell) is?  

Also horror and grit really aren't the same thing (and IIRC Resident Evil is about blowing the heads off zombies - yes it's horror, but like most D&D it's horror of the sort where you get to kill the horrifying creatures).  For grit, try nethack.  Or some of the more simulationist strategy games (Dwarf Fortress springs to mind).



> To me, "videogamey" implies a great number of things, only one of which is a dealbreaker -- an artificial constraint on the possible action. For me, this problem arises from the following:
> 1. Any combat system that requires so long to resolve a combat that the action becomes artificially constrained to "only important combats". This includes the systems of both 3e and 4e. As a funny aside, although artificial constraint in action is something I associate with video games, _*this particular form of artificial constraint*_ is something no video game I have ever played has included. Video games have no problems whatsoever dealing with minor combats.​



​Indeed.  This is not video-gamey.  Almost the reverse.


> 2. Skill Challenges as presented in the (early?) rules


The presentation was bad.  Granted.


> 6. Any "game balance" that has a very narrow range of threat levels that can be both interesting and that can impact the outcome of the adventure as a whole.


This is an oversimplification but a good point.



> And, the #1 thing that tabletop games do better than video games is remove that sense of artificial constraint.




It took a hell of a lot of pages.  But we've finally got a decent explanation - constrained.  That one works.  I happen to disagree and could go into why, but thank you for being the _first_ person I have ever asked to come up with a decent answer to what the term means without going to crap about powers, healing surges, and the like.

And constrained is something that can be discussed without being unclear and doesn't have a history of offensive nonsense from people who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about and associated putdowns attached to it.



> Erm, no. You've actually got those turned around.
> 
> "I don't like 4e" is, if you don't like 4e, a statement of fact. If you say it and you do like 4e, it is a false statement. It is a statement about an opinion, but the statement itself is either true or false.




Point.



> "4e is too like a video game", OTOH, is a statement of opinion, expressed as a statement of opinion. If you are unclear, those words "too like" express a valuation. Valuations, by their nature, are subjective.




And point.  I expressed the problem even worse than the people talking about things being video-gamey.  The problem is that too like a video game claims to be based on something - and this should be a hook for discussion.  But I have asked repeatedly what is meant - and every time I've asked I've come to the conclusion that by the logic being used by the speaker we want a video-gamey edition of D&D, 2e is by far the most - then 1e, then 3e, then 4e.  Your post I am replying to is the _first_ time anyone's said anything that makes sense.



> Actually, "I find the term videogamey to be too Jabberwocky" makes perfect sense to me, assuming that you are referring to the poem, which contains made-up nonsense words.




As opposed to the monster in the monster manual.  There are many ways of taking it - which is why requests for clarification are made.  And normally come back with nonsense like Thunderfoot's (which, let's not forget, included a slur on the intellegence of any DM who actually used the rules of D&D 3.X rather than automatically houseruling).



> If I am offended that you think "videogamey" is a made-up nonsense word, there is no way that you can express that thought without my being offended.




Granted.  But there is a world of difference between "I think that's a made up nonsense word" and "Only an idiot would make up a nonsense-word like that".  (Or, more accurately for the context of the term, "Only a grognard who doesn't even like changing his underwear would make up a term like that" - the history of inaccurate comparisons to video games being used to put down 4e irrespective of truth values is older than 4e itself).



> It is my belief that, in this case, and in many other similar cases of similar EN World threads, it is the thought expressed that is actually deemed offensive. This was, IMHO, true for Pokemount. It was true for my objection to the term "fluff". It is true for videogamey.




And that's not what it is from this side of the keyboard.  It's the trying to sneak a classic put-down or insult (too like WoW) in under the radar.  Or the use of it by people who don't know any better.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Neonechameleon, your post deserves a longer reply, but all I can do right now is:

After my Point 1, you apparently missed the point.  It doesn't matter if the *cause* comes from video games, only if the _*outcome of that cause*_ creates a similar feeling of artificial constraint to what is felt in video game play.

Likewise, no one who says "X feels like mashing buttons on a controller" actually believes that the cause is a physical controller, or has anything to do with a physical controller.  It is the outcome that is important.

Which is (one of several reasons) why Dannager's "rip to shreds" simply need not apply.  He attacks the cause as not being videogamey, while ignoring the outcome that is being discussed.  It is a classic strawman argument at worst, and a classic failure to understand the other side at best.

And from all the posts pointing material like this out that he has blithely ignored, I am betting it is a willing failure to understand, if it is a failure to understand at all.

About the thought being offensive:  See Hussar's last post above this one.  Hell, see your own post to which I am replying.  The difference is not a broad meaning, the difference is that what is expressed is not neutral.  Was does not neutral mean?  It shows evidence of subjective valuation.  What does that mean?  It is the subjective valuation, not the broad terminology, which is offensive.


RC


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> There is a huge difference.  Nice is not a put down (unless you are The Witch).  Video-gamey is.  Especially given 4e's history of being declared to be just like World of Warcraft.  (Or early 3e's of being just like Diablo).  It is therefore deliberately offensive or ignorantly offensive.




Well, I'd disagree with this, I suppose. Video-gamey is not inherently an insult. Yes, many people say it knowing it will insult other people, even if that is not the case. However, I can say that I think that it's okay to have an African American president, and I know it will offend other people. I'm still going to express my reasonable opinion, and if someone else wants to get offended by it (even though I didn't mean it offensively), there's not much I can do about that.

Like I've said several times before in this thread, it's like when I hear that Metal Gear games are too much like movies. It's not that movies are bad, it's that certain people don't want to feel like a video game is a movie. Other people feel Metal Gear is a great game, and don't think it's like a movie at all. They can debate whether or not it feels like a movie, but at the end of the day, the first individual is still going to think it feels like a movie, because it's based on theme, rather than specifics (I go into more detail on that in previous posts).

If I dislike mushrooms on my pizza, it's not a slight against mushrooms, and I don't think that other people shouldn't use mushrooms on their pizza. If I go on to say I dislike fish, and describe fish as reminding me of mushrooms because of texture, you can debate whether or not the texture is similar, but it's still going to remind me of mushrooms. It doesn't mean I think mushrooms should be banned, blown up, or otherwise disposed of, but it does mean that it's not a good fit for me.

My point is simply that it's not inherently an insult. People may find it insulting. And, to be fair, certain people who use the term will say it knowing others will find it insulting. But, one can easily draw a comparison to something without meaning any slight against the subject which was compared to.

Again, I don't know if this is going anywhere. It still seems like we have certain extreme elements, and people lining up on one side or another. I think that's rather unhealthy to thread discussion (as it becomes Semantic Thread Debate Time), but maybe I'm wrong. It just seems like people feel the need to say that a feeling is invalid without logically backing it up, and that simply won't work, as unfair as that might be.

Things are subjective. People have different likes and dislikes. I'd say that people shouldn't take things too personally (on either side here, since there are obviously two sides), and should agree to disagree. Because, in the end, play what you like


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Neonechameleon, your post deserves a longer reply, but all I can do right now is:
> 
> After my Point 1, you apparently missed the point. It doesn't matter if the *cause* comes from video games, only if the _*outcome of that cause*_ creates a similar feeling of artificial constraint to what is felt in video game play.
> 
> RC




And at last you actually put up something that can be discussed. Artificial constraints, as an inherent feature of video games that aren't present in tabletop RPGs. And it's quite correct. This interactive creative story-telling is the area where tabletop RPGs exceed the capacity of (nearly all) other forms of entertainment. The ability of a GM to create something to handle people moving past those constraints is just such a key area. Of course, it doesn't help that 4e still has just such a mechanism in the form of a GM.

Not that this is unique to videogames. I would point out that there are a lot of other media in which artificial constraints appear when you try to interact with them in a way not intended by the creator. I can't see what is happening to the left of the lady in the Mona Lisa. Is that not an artificial constraint? Yet I don't think it's possible to describe the Mona Lisa as videogamey, without looking incredibly stupid. I can't follow the story of Cardinal Richelieu except when it interacts with that of the Musketeers, but I think most people would not accept a claim that The Three Musketeers is videogamey.

tl;dr Medium and Message are being confused.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> At least they're up front about not caring about communication. The internet is for making sure everyone knows your _opinions_, not for worthwhile discussion, don'tchaknow.




In practice, internet communication isn't much different than a "blood sport" (both figuratively and literally).


----------



## ggroy (Mar 31, 2011)

wedgeski said:


> "I don't know, it's just a feeling, I can't put it any better than that."




This sounds almost like a definition of "truthiness".  

Truthiness | Define Truthiness at Dictionary.com



> truthiness
> — n
> 
> _informal_  (of a belief, etc) the quality of being considered to be true because of what the believer wishes or feels, regardless of the facts


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2011)

Does it really matter if videogamey or any other vague term is generally used negatively or positively? I don't think so. I think the main question is whether or not the reader will respect a person's expressed feelings.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I'd disagree with this, I suppose. Video-gamey is not inherently an insult.



I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.

In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Does it really matter if videogamey or any other vague term is generally used negatively or positively? I don't think so. I think the main question is whether or not the reader will respect a person's expressed feelings.



If I'm speaking to a Martian and I say "I feel that all Martians are shifty and stupid", should said Martian respect my expressed feelings? Shifty is a pretty vague term, and stupid is certainly a negative term.

Does "I'm just expressing my opinion" get you out of needing to defend what you say, regardless of what it is?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.
> 
> In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.




It's meant as a negative, sure (in that case, and agreed, in most cases). But an insult?

"I think 4e is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too gamist."

Is gamist an insult, or a description?


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> It's meant as a negative, sure (in that case, and agreed, in most cases). But an insult?
> 
> "I think 4e is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too gamist."
> 
> Is gamist an insult, or a description?



Different situation, I'd say, because I have seen people say "I really like X because it's so gamist." Gamist is something that a lot of people say they like about their RPGs. 

The subtle insult is more about the people who enjoy 4E, not about the game itself. The game doesn't care what you say about it, it doesn't have any feelings.

If I say "I don't like OD&D because it's too childish", what am I saying about people who prefer OD&D over other editions of D&D?


----------



## racoffin (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.
> 
> In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.




So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people? 

I can certainly respect that as a request in the never-ending battle to put aside the Edition Wars weapons rather than some battle against words and opinions.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

racoffin said:


> So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?
> 
> I can certainly respect that as a request in the never-ending battle to put aside the Edition Wars weapons rather than some battle against words and opinions.



I think that's part of it, sure. Much of the Edition Wars relies on vaguely-defined terms, so that you're not committed to a specific point and can dodge around defenses more easily.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 31, 2011)

racoffin said:


> hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?




This here is where the war is already lost before it has even started.

Try getting any large group of people to agree on a singular precise definition of anything.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

ggroy said:


> Try getting any large group of people to agree on a singular precise definition of anything.



Indeed. Try "D&D" and see how far you get.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Neonechameleon, your post deserves a longer reply, but all I can do right now is:
> 
> After my Point 1, you apparently missed the point. It doesn't matter if the *cause* comes from video games, only if the _*outcome of that cause*_ creates a similar feeling of artificial constraint to what is felt in video game play.




In fact you missed a very important one of mine.  *This is the first time that explanation has been expressed clearly.*  It is normally wrapped up in a whole bunch of nonsense that often goes with misunderstanding the powers system and commonly with houseruling 3.X and then claiming that's the only way the game should be played.

After 300+ posts on this thread, you have _finally_ given something that can be discussed rather than yet more obfuscation, misunderstandings and distortions about 4e, and other junk burying your message.  The outcome may be important - but until you came along _no one had given a clear illustration of what that outcome was_.

(For the record I find 4e far less constraining than 3e and especially 2e because I find constraints on the low end of a character's abilities far more crippling than those on the high end.  YMMV.)



> Which is (one of several reasons) why Dannager's "rip to shreds" simply need not apply. He attacks the cause as not being videogamey, while ignoring the outcome that is being discussed.




And here again it's you that's ignoring what was actually being discussed.  Dannager had ripped to shreds everything being discussed.  You might all have _meant_ something about constraints but what you were actually discussing was nonsense about healing surges and the power system.  And what was being discussed was what your side claimed the problem was.



> It is a classic strawman argument at worst, and a classic failure to understand the other side at best.




It's a classic failure to understand the other side, based on a classic failure to explain and communicate.  You are, so far as I am aware, the _first_ person who compares it to a video game to move off symptoms and talk about the actual cause.  If symptoms are all you are giving to talk about then symptoms will be talked about.



> It is the subjective valuation, not the broad terminology, which is offensive.




Both are for different reasons.  And that the broad terminology is offensive (or more accurately exasperating and makes many of those who play 4e twitch towards the ignore list) is a good reason not to use it.



JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I'd disagree with this, I suppose. Video-gamey is not inherently an insult.




Possibly not.  Neither is whistling.  But go into a crowded bar in Atalanta and loudly whistle "Marching through Georgia". Tell me if you get out with all your teeth.



> My point is simply that it's not inherently an insult.




Of course it isn't.  _Context matters._  And the context of calling 4e video-gamey is the legions of idiots and trolls who kept saying "Hur-hur.  It's just like WoW."  Those you happily align yourself with based on the rest of this post.



> But, one can easily draw a comparison to something without meaning any slight against the subject which was compared to.




Of course.  But when you are told you are being unintentionally offensive, unless you have any good reason to wish to move to being intentionally offensive (as in the case of someone thinking "it's okay to have an African American president" is offensive), then the polite thing to do is stop being offensive.  The all too common thing to do is double down and switch from being unintentionally offensive to deliberately offensive.



> It just seems like people feel the need to say that a feeling is invalid without logically backing it up, and that simply won't work, as unfair as that might be.




No.  What won't work is to move from not logically backing something up to trying to back it up _and failing_.  As far as I know, honestly saying "That's just what I feel and I can't express it any more clearly than that" is not something that has caused serious issues.



> Things are subjective. People have different likes and dislikes.




People have overlapping likes and dislikes - and not everything is subjective.  The search to understand people is never meaningless even if you don't find agreement.



> Because, in the end, play what you like




And here we agree.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I think that's part of it, sure. Much of the Edition Wars relies on vaguely-defined terms, so that *you're not committed to a specific point and can dodge around defenses more easily*.




Some people genuinely enjoy this style of argument, with easily movable "goalposts".  

In general, this seems to be case universally in life (especially outside of rpg games).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> And at last you actually put up something that can be discussed. Artificial constraints, as an inherent feature of video games that aren't present in tabletop RPGs. And it's quite correct.




And not so easy to "rip apart", so there has been a stunning lack of discussion thereof from the side that supposedly just wants to "understand".  And the only response prior to yours again bangs the drum of the meaning being "insulting".

These things reinforce my belief that the point was never "I don't understand" but always "Give me something to use to rip your conclusions to shreds".

There is not one iota of evidence that, for example, Dannager, has posted here for any other purpose.  I except you from that statement, as this post is actually an attempt to communicate, rather than an attempt to "disprove without understanding" or "rip the other side to shreds".



> Not that this is unique to videogames.




It need not be unique to video games to be associated with them.  Four wheels and a steering wheel are not unique to cars, either.


RC


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that the word is inherently offensive. It's the use of the word that matters.
> 
> In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.




Actually, it was indeed stated that the word is inherently offensive. In fact, if you check the quote of mine you chose to respond to, I was replying to someone that was saying that was indeed the case:



> Originally Posted by Neonchameleon
> There is a huge difference. Nice is not a put down (unless you are The Witch). Video-gamey is.




However, the point of this thread is that using "video-gamey" as a descriptive term is indeed a slight against video games. Now, it might be used as a term to attack 4e, but that does not make it a slight against video games. My point is just that, not the validity of any stated claim.

It's not insulting video games when used comparatively as an insult to 4e. It's merely insulting to 4e. Whether or not those claims or valid logically is something I have yet to comment on. I've simply pointed out that it's not inherently insulting to video games (even if it insults 4e), and that it's a valid way of communicating feeling (if not reasoning, which is often overlooked when feelings are involved).

I'm addressing the actual topic of the thread, rather than any edition war that might be happening in the thread (which is definitely the case, though I will not be dragged into it). Because, even if I vehemently disagree with literally everyone in this thread on everything they've written, I'd still say to play what you like 



Neonchameleon said:


> Possibly not.  Neither is whistling.  But go into a crowded bar in Atalanta and loudly whistle "Marching through Georgia". Tell me if you get out with all your teeth.




Unless everyone in this forum is against the term, then I don't think it's an accurate comparison, is it?



> Of course it isn't.  _Context matters._  And the context of calling 4e video-gamey is the legions of idiots and trolls who kept saying "Hur-hur.  It's just like WoW."  Those you happily align yourself with based on the rest of this post.




Again, I've never stated my opinion on 3.x in this thread, much less 4e. I've commented on how speaking of "video-gamey" things is a statement of feeling, and that using video games as a comparison is not inherently insulting to video games. I have, in fact, said that people aligning on both sides is not productive (as it encourages edition wars), and asked both sides to remain civil (I believe I used the term "plea").

You may not like when people say "4e is too video-gamey" and that's understandable. I've never expressed my opinion, really. However, I have stated that it's not insulting to video games, and admitted that used in that context, it is an insult against 4e.

However, the point of the thread is not "is using the phrase 'video-gamey' to describe 4e bad?" It is, in fact, that using the term is a shot a video games, which is, as I've tried to explain, not inherently the case.



> Of course.  But when you are told you are being unintentionally offensive, unless you have any good reason to wish to move to being intentionally offensive (as in the case of someone thinking "it's okay to have an African American president" is offensive), then the polite thing to do is stop being offensive.  The all too common thing to do is double down and switch from being unintentionally offensive to deliberately offensive.




I agree with you if the phrase is used to attack 4e, but again, that's an attack on 4e, and not video games, as people in this thread have argued. I'm not presenting the same idea that everyone in this thread is. To attribute their ideas to my own is to misrepresent what I've put forward. I've put forward that the phrase is not a slight against video games, and that is true, even if it does insult 4e. That is a different issue, and one I have not addressed.



> No.  What won't work is to move from not logically backing something up to trying to back it up _and failing_.  As far as I know, honestly saying "That's just what I feel and I can't express it any more clearly than that" is not something that has caused serious issues.




This still comes down to people being insulted over an edition of D&D (whether that be 3.x or 4e), rather than people being insulted over people attacking video games. When people use it as a comparison, it's not an attack on video games. Which is, again, the point I've made.



> People have overlapping likes and dislikes - and not everything is subjective.  The search to understand people is never meaningless even if you don't find agreement.




All opinions are subjective, which was my point. I have, in fact, encouraged both sides to be civil, and have tried to express the fact that communication is important. We seem to be in agreement here?



> And here we agree.




And in the end, that's all that matters. I have no intention of stepping on your toes in your game, just like you have not tried to step on mine. It's about enjoyment, and to that end, I think we're both succeeding on game night


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Different situation, I'd say, because I have seen people say "I really like X because it's so gamist." Gamist is something that a lot of people say they like about their RPGs.




As a point of fact, I have a player who explicitly enjoys video games, and imagines combat in those terms.  For him, being able to do moves like in a video game is an inherently good thing.  In the case of RCFG, that is a positive.

He plays 4e, and has also described it in video game terms.  But in this case, it is a negative.  And, again, it has to do with the feeling of artificial constraint.

IME, many players want to be able to do (some of) the things they do in a video game while playing on the tabletop.  OTOH, it is a smaller set of players (I personally know none) who wants to feel that the game is constrained as though it were a video game.

IMHO, the Delve format is the largest, and easiest to fix, contributor to this problem (although I outlined others upthread).



> If I say "I don't like OD&D because it's too childish", what am I saying about people who prefer OD&D over other editions of D&D?




That they should shug, ignore your opinion, and go back to doing what they enjoy.  Because, if they argue with you about it, well, I guess what you are saying is right.


RC

EDIT:  Can someone XP JamesonCourage for me?  Thanks!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

racoffin said:


> So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?




Some folks have been trying to make that argument for pages, without, you know, actually saying it or being willing to admit that this is what they are trying to say.  

Which is rather ironic, given the circumstances.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Different situation, I'd say, because I have seen people say "I really like X because it's so gamist." Gamist is something that a lot of people say they like about their RPGs.
> 
> The subtle insult is more about the people who enjoy 4E, not about the game itself. The game doesn't care what you say about it, it doesn't have any feelings.
> 
> If I say "I don't like OD&D because it's too childish", what am I saying about people who prefer OD&D over other editions of D&D?




It is a different situation but not because someone is using a term you feel is more neutral than videogamey. When you're saying that Martians are shifty and stupid, you're talking about actual people (assuming the martians are real) and that's directly insulting and against the board rules.

But the board rules, even commonly accepted boundaries of etiquette, don't protect your affectations. You have to expect the things you like to suffer a few slings and arrows from people who feel differently from you. If that upsets you, go ahead and make your feelings known in turn. We should listen and believe you. But are your feelings sufficiently important that you should be able to prevent critics from expressing theirs? I don't think so.

Let's take this a bit broader. Would it be acceptable for me, in the Media forum, to say that "Jackass 2's humor was pedestrian and jejune," would that be acceptable? What am I saying about people who really liked the movie and laughed uproariously at it? Is that more acceptable than saying something negative about 4e/WotC/video games/3e/Pathfinder? If so, why should it be?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2011)

Hmm, so, let's see...

Folks getting personal?  Yeah.

Folks making accusations of not discussing in good faith?  Yeah.

General head-butting and abject rejection of what each other say?  Yeah.

I'm not seeing a whole lot of value here to offset the general stinkyness.

EN World is not intended as a place for you guys to fight trench-warfare, dug in and unwilling to budge.  If you aren't actually interested in learning from the person who as an opposing opinion, now would be a good time to walk away from this conversation.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Mar 31, 2011)

Good God, are people still hashing out these done-to-death-raised-as-undead-and-killed-again pseudo-arguments?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> But we've finally got a decent explanation - constrained.  That one works.  I happen to disagree and could go into why, but thank you for being the _first_ person I have ever asked to come up with a decent answer to what the term means without going to crap about powers, healing surges, and the like.
> 
> And constrained is something that can be discussed without being unclear and doesn't have a history of offensive nonsense from people who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about and associated putdowns attached to it.






Bluenose said:


> And at last you actually put up something that can be discussed. Artificial constraints, as an inherent feature of video games that aren't present in tabletop RPGs. And it's quite correct. This interactive creative story-telling is the area where tabletop RPGs exceed the capacity of (nearly all) other forms of entertainment.





If the way I was able to articulate the point made it clear to you, it doesn't mean that someone who did not, or was unable to, articulate it in the same way doesn't understand what he means when he uses the term.  Even if he means something different.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall many statements along the lines of "4E is great! It's so videogamey!" Any actual use of the term is by those putting the game down.




I've heard it once from a WoW player.  Comparing 4e to WoW with a great guild, good quests, and no griefers.



racoffin said:


> So shouldn't the argument then be "stop attacking/insulting 4E by using this term" instead of trying to hammer down a singular definition for a word that seems to invoke different responses in people?




I'm genuinely interested in what is meant - I know the term can't be meaningless because it comes up from so many sides and from people I don't expect to argue in bad faith.  There is clearly _something_ there.  Which is why I have kept trying to pick apart to see what's meant until RC came up with a good answer.  I'm more interested in learning than not being irritated by border-skirmishes on the edition wars even if I do find them irritating.  But yes, that's the other part I have been trying to get across - especially now I've understood the underlying complaint.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

wedgeski said:


> I don't think Dannager and others would have half as much trouble with this adjective if, upon examination, those who used it were as honest as this.
> 
> "4E is too videogamey!"
> "What do you mean by that?"
> ...



Here's the thing: but for one early example from another thread that was posted without some kimd of citation- as in "Poster X said Y in thread Z, and here's the link"- every poster who has used the term in this thread HAS eventually specified (at least in part) what in 4Ed feels videogamey to them.

We've had posters talk about how Healing Surges are like life bars; gameworld constraints of a CRPG gameworld vs the ability of a live DM to alter the world on the fly; how some feel the increased workload of condition tracking is something that was better left to the computer games they play- and design- as opposed to having people track them all...

I think that's pretty damn honest.



Re: statements like this (and variations):


> This is not video-gamey.




Telling someone that something "is not video-gamey" won't change someone's perspective that a game element reminds them of videogames, no matter how you say it, no matter how crafty your counterassertion.

I've seen countless discussions about the nature of HP and what Healing Surges represent, and Surges still conjure up a mental image of me playing Yoshimitsu in a Tekken game or some random sequence from a FPS and watching the little life bar change.

Each and every time I use one, even after all this time.




> In the phrase "I think that 4E is the worst edition of D&D ever because it's too videogamey" it's clearly meant as an insult, for example. And if the speaker has any experience on these forums, he knows that the term in question is likely to raise some backs from previous use of that specific term as an insult.




There is a difference between an "insult" and a "judgement"- you can only insult a sentient being.

When I say that something in a game is too videogamey- and say that I don't like that element on those grounds- I'm judging the game element, not throwing out an insult, because the game has no feelings.  I'm expressing a valid and factual observation that the element in question reminds me of videogames, and that this is something I don't prefer to have in my TTRPGs.

And as that, the term "videogamey" is no more loaded than terms like "simulationist" or "gamist".*





* BTW, WTF does "gamist" mean anyway?


----------



## racoffin (Mar 31, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm genuinely interested in what is meant - I know the term can't be meaningless because it comes up from so many sides and from people I don't expect to argue in bad faith.  There is clearly _something_ there.  Which is why I have kept trying to pick apart to see what's meant until RC came up with a good answer.  I'm more interested in learning than not being irritated by border-skirmishes on the edition wars even if I do find them irritating.  But yes, that's the other part I have been trying to get across - especially now I've understood the underlying complaint.




I can certainly understand that. From a few of my players, they felt that the way the game operated reminded them of games in the ilk of Diablo or Final Fantasy Tactics (the only thing they had to go by, not big WoW players.  ) in that it seemed everyone had a certain little tree or two of powers to draw from that they could use all the time. Whether that is a true complaint or critique of the system wasn't the point to them; they thought of it as too limiting for what they wanted to do.

As time has gone on, a few have reread the rules, listened to commentary at game stores, cons, and message boards and have come to new conclusions. Some are big 4E fans, some still are not interested in playing it for the reasons given above. 

Hope that helps in the battle for clarification.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannager said:


> No one is saying they can't feel that. We're saying that discussions would be more productive if you kept the confusing video game comparisons to yourself and instead discussed the actual issues.



And I'm saying IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO BE VAGUE. You can't fix that. 


> No one is going Thought Police on you. It's troubling that you've managed to perceive our argument that way.



It's troubling that you think logic matters on an Internet forum. Especially when the topic is emotionally charged and the poster is, most likely, RANTING about something he HATES.

The other troubling thing here is most of the people responding to you have never said "I don't like XXX. It's too videogamey." I haven't. We are the people to whom your argument is most likely to work (since we sometimes think before we post) and it hasn't. Why haven't you reevaluated your stance based on that?

Consider these questions. If you say 'no' to any of them, then you need to explain why because by saying 'no' you have lost common ground with me and I can't comprehend how your thoughts work:

Do you acknowledge that calling something videogamey does NOT imply that video games suck?

Do humans use limited facts and misinformation on which to base their opinions?

Do you acknowledge that thinking something reminds them of a video game is entirely possible? Even if the specific element that reminds them of a video game actually does not originate in video games?

Did you learn in grade school that in English add -y to a noun generally turns it into an adjective meaning "having the quality or qualities of X"?

The sentence "Y has the quality or qualities of X" does not require that Y possess ALL qualities of X, right?

Do you believe English is a living language and new words are coined every day? 

Is videogamey an English word meaning "having the quality or qualities of a video game"?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 31, 2011)

Lurks-no-More said:


> Good God, are people still hashing out these done-to-death-raised-as-undead-and-killed-again pseudo-arguments?




Being right is all that matters and absolutely nothing else.


----------



## ggroy (Mar 31, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Being right is all that matters and absolutely nothing else.




Driven solely by hubris.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 31, 2011)

> And I'm saying IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO BE VAGUE. You can't fix that.




Actually it can be fixed, but there must be an incentive of some sort and people must want it to be fixed. Like any problem, most people just can't see they're the one with the problem. The first step is always acknowledging it, but most people can't see it.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm not seeing an end to the head-butting.

Last warning.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 31, 2011)

Well, this thread has wandered all over the place, but I suppose I may as well toss my thoughts into the ring. Uh... warning, very long post, so I've used spoiler tags to help reduce the length. 

In general, I think most complaints about an RPG being "videogamey" break down into one of three different categories. 

1) A player sees something happen in a game that reminds them of a videogame, and this bothers them because it _breaks their suspension of disbelief_. You've got an order of warlocks who collect 'soul shards', and suddenly he is thinking of WoW. You have a rogue do a 'double jump' and he thinks of Spiderman. You have a fighter calling himself a 'tank' while the rogue does 'DPS', and he thinks of an MMORPG. 

[sblock]But the thing is, this isn't really tied to videogames at all. It can generally crop up just as easily with other references. A player has his 'deck' of power cards and someone is bothered because it reminds them of Magic the Gathering. The group embarks on an Underdark adventure and the writer has wittily described it as a "maze of twisty little passages, all alike". A player shows up whose character is named "Driziitz" and everyone groans. After the group sees the movie Equilibrium, the DM includes an NPC who dual-wields hand crossbows and has a martial arts style designed around using them in melee. 

Sometimes this is an issue of including an easter egg or reference to another source. Sometimes it is about drawing upon mechanics or ideas from another game. 

Either way, for some people, it is cause for complaint. Not because of the mechanic or name or reference itself, in isolation, but because of what it does - breaks the bubble of disbelief. Momentarily takes them out of the game. 

I find this, in many ways, simultaneously the most understandable complaint, but also the hardest to address. Some people like these clever references. Some people feel that good mechanics are good mechanics, regardless of the source. It is unfortunate if their presence bothers someone else, but there is really nothing that can be done about it. I certainly can't blame someone for being bothered by such a thing - but I also don't want to see the game change in response to it. 

So, sure, sometimes someone will complain about something being 'videogamey'. It isn't that videogames themselves are bad, though - it is because the person finds themselves reminded of something outside of the game. There are plenty of other things that could trigger the same sort of response. 

Sometimes, that's just the way things are.[/sblock]

2) The second type of complaint is generally about something being 'unrealistic', and the reference to video games is usually in reference to them often having mechanics that are exceptionally abstracted due to, well, that being the nature of the game. 

[sblock]The problem, of course, is that this isn't about the video games themselves, and it also really isn't anything new to D&D. 

Hitpoints have always been abstract. We've never really had an 'accurate' wound system. So when someone says, "This bothers me, because hitpoints are too videogamey in this system"... well, people tend to object. Both because 'videogamey' itself isn't a part of it, and because the problem isn't anything new. Thus, the person's complaint seems more like they are trying to justify it by implying that there is something instrinsically bad about video games, and _that _is the reason why they are objecting now, when they've had no problems with such things in the past.

Now, that said, I don't think this is always the actual case. Instead, I think this often develops because their experiences with a video game may have helped _demonstrate _to them the abstraction of mechanics they had never really thought about _before_. 

Say I play a 3rd Edition Barbarian who rages every day, which lasts a certain duration and then goes away. I see no problems with this. Then I play a video game where I have similar effects - I use a power that boosts me for a few minutes and then has a cooldown. 

Suddenly, I sit back down and play that barbarian again, and it feels 'videogamey' - but only because seeing that mechanic stripped down to the bare bones helped demonstrate the abstraction of it. The barbarian certainly wasn't designed to feel like a video game. 

Instead, the mechanics for the barbarian and for the video game just had the same design philosophy going on behind the scene. And once I become aware of it, I associate the two in my mind. And when I make a complaint about it, I thus phrase it in terms of video games, rather than addressing the underlying issue of realism vs abstraction. 

These sorts of complaints are the ones I think Dannager is trying to point out as problematic. When someone complains about something being videogamey because they find it unrealistic, they aren't complaining about it being videogamey - they are complaining about it _being unrealistic_. And thus focusing on this unrelated connection helps prevent any real discussion from taking place. 

When that discussion does take place, at its heart, video games aren't really a part of it. How much of an RPG should be abstract is a debate going back to the start of the game - and changes wildly from one person to the next based on personal preference. Video games are simply on one end of that spectrum, and they themselves cover a wide range of different approaches. 

If it wasn't for that, I could see the use of it for shorthand. But since there _are _so many different reasons folks complain about stuff being 'videogamey' - and since there isn't one default type of video game in the first place - tossing it in as a reference tends to just confuse the issue. [/sblock]

3) Finally, we have the complaint of something being videogamey referring to _character options being limited_. 

[sblock]I think this is a _stronger_ complaint to make than the others, since limits are pretty much always going to be built into a video game. If the game doesn't want to let you explore off the path, you just can't do so. If the game says you can only defeat enemies by making the basic attack (A button) or super attack (B button)... well, then you can't find a way to defeat them by grappling with them and drowning them in the swamp. If the game says the only way you get into the palace is by disguising yourself as a palace guard, that is what you have to do - even if you think you _should _be able to try stealth, violence, magic, or countless other approaches. 

Now, again, there are a great many video games, and so this reference isn't universally true - many gives plenty of options or try to accomodate as much choice as possible. But what is written into the code is ultimately an absolutely restriction, and so this comparison is probably more true than the other comparisons, and so as a reference, I think is the most legitimate one. 

Unfortunately, it also tends to be the least useful as criticism, since a roleplaying game system will almost never be enforced like this. If something is limited in such a fashion, that almost always comes down to the _DM_ more than the rules. Or perhaps you could apply it to an adventure (with the adventure writer taking the place of the DM in this case). 

So you might say, "Bob's campaign is too videogamey because we are always running into plot doors." And it could be true, he could have one solution in mind for every obstacle, and intentionally foil everything the PCs do unless it is explicitly what he has in mind. 

Or an adventure could say, "The only way to get through Crazy Eddie's Door of Torment is to say 'Wicker licorice handle', which the PCs can find out by discovering the note on the Archpriest of Ravens." And if the party tries something else, whether divination, or blowing up the door, or teleportation... then the DM has to either let it happen (and risk the adventure falling apart completely), or just declare it doesn't work (and try to come up with a reason for it, and deal with players frustrated over lack of agency.)

But a game system itself will rarely have this sort of limitation. And so if someone says, "4E is too videogamey", and this is the reason why, it tends to not make any sense. 

If they instead say, "4E adventures are too videogamey", and this is what they mean... well, that could be a more legitimate complaint. 

But at the same time, I'm not sure how much is served by comparing it to video games. For one thing, it invites confusion, given the other possible complaints that could be meant by calling something 'videogamey'. And for another... I mean, this sort of behavior has been around since the start of RPGs. Video games had nothing to do with it. It is almost more legitimate to criticize it as being too much like a novel - since that tends to be the real problem, a DM who has a single story in mind and doesn't want to let stuff play out any other way. [/sblock]

In the end, the problem is that simply dismissing something as "videogamey" reads as "This is bad because it is like video games, thus implying that video games are themselves intrinsically bad." That's pretty much never what someone actually means, though. 

They mean it is bad because it has some aspect the person associates with video games. And if that association _alone _is the problem (as in example 1), it is understandable to make that comparison. 

But usually it isn't about the association at all. It instead is about some other underlying problem, and one that usually has nothing to do with video games. And so the suggestion that one is better served by focusing on the problem itself _from the start_... well, that seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 31, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> I said said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are capable of fixing human nature? I can't top that. I'm done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> But we've finally got a decent explanation - constrained.  That one works.  I happen to disagree and could go into why




Sorry, but I meant to reply to this part, too:  "I happen to disagree and could go into why".

I have no doubt that you can do so, and that you can do so reasonably.  All games, by their very nature, include artificial constraints, and which artificial constraints one finds objectionable is going to be extremely subjective.

And that is totally cool.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]:  I was thinking of a farm tractor, but a golf cart would do, or a go-kart.  I'm sure you can think of others.

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]:  Thanks for the extremely courteous level of restraint.  You have outdone yourself in your reasonableness here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> But the thing is, this isn't really tied to videogames at all.



Sure it is- for that person.  Otherwise they wouldn't have said it.

(But, for the record, there was other stuff in that spoiler tag I agreed with.)


> In the end, the problem is that simply dismissing something as "videogamey" reads as "This is bad because it is like video games, thus implying that video games are themselves intrinsically bad." That's pretty much never what someone actually means, though.




Again- you know, we could use a "blue in the face" smiley"- you're making an inference that is not actually being implied by the speaker.

"Element X in 4Ed is videogamey, so I don't like it in my TTRPG" is not inherently a knock on videogames, it is an assertion that because X is like a videogame to that person, they don't want it in their TTRPG.  It says NOTHING about how they feel about videogames.

For example, "Your soup is too garlicky" does not imply that the speaker does not like garlic, just that the taste of garlic in that dish is too strong or is at odds with other flavors in the soup.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again- you know, we could use a "blue in the face" smiley"- you're making an inference that is not actually being implied by the speaker.




We all have a reader bias, though, that causes us to think "If I had written this, it would mean X."  It can sometimes be difficult to realize that the interpretation is inherent not in the speaker, but in the reader.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]:  Hey, thanks for that last XP.  We could have the "normal man" discussion again, and you would win by pointing out that I'm now a superhero!


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 31, 2011)

> You are capable of fixing human nature? I can't top that. I'm done.




Well, that's not entirely what I meant. 

I meant it's entirely possible to train people to not be so vague and be more precise with their usage of language.

And I mean this as a general statement and am not addressing any particular head butting in this thread.

However, I do like to think of myself as God, at least from time to time.

Because I can easily infuriate people. You see, most people want to believe in how things should be, not how they are. Such as most people want to believe in two plus two equals seven. I tell them, no it doesn't, it equals four. And smoke comes out of their ears when I say stuff like that.

Because it's like what the Joker says in Dark Knight. Things have to go according to plan or people go all wonky.

In other words I'm something of a realist.

And people just don't like to be real.

They'll believe what they want to believe and no matter how much evidence is showing them to be wrong, they will never change their minds and I personally believe many people are simply incapable of changing it when they've made up their minds.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 31, 2011)

double post


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> We all have a reader bias, though, that causes us to think "If I had written this, it would mean X."  It can sometimes be difficult to realize that the interpretation is inherent not in the speaker, but in the reader.
> 
> 
> RC




I run into it all the time, professionally and socially.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> In the end, the problem is that simply dismissing something as "videogamey" reads as "This is bad because it is like video games, thus implying that video games are themselves intrinsically bad." That's pretty much never what someone actually means, though.




Agreed.  If I took a bite from a chocolate chip cookie, made a face, and discarded the cookie, saying that it was nasty because it was too garlicky*, that wouldn't necessarily be a dig against garlic.  Nor does it say that I don't like garlic, in general.  It just says that I don't like it in my chocolate chip cookies, that I don't think it is an appropriate mix of flavors.

Now, you may wish to find out what about garlic I find objectionable in chocolate chip cookies.  And maybe I'd be able to articulate why in a way that you understand, or maybe not.  I may not ever have discussed the nuances of garlic in such detail as to have the words.  Or, maybe we don't have the shared vocabulary about flavors.  

We could then go into etiquette:  When is it appropriate for you to tell me I am wrong about garlicky taste in my cookies?  How many times can I step into discussions about a particular brand to denounce their garlicky flavor before I am being boorish?

In the end, we do not share the same tongue**, so we may have to agree to disagree that there is a garlicky flavor in a given cookie.  


* And nobody better tell me this is an absurd analogy, for I have been fed garlic-laced chocolate chip cookies before, and they were, in fact, nasty.  

** Thank goodness!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> They'll believe what they want to believe and no matter how much evidence is showing them to be wrong, they will never change their minds and I personally believe many people are simply incapable of changing it when they've made up their minds.




There is a VAST psychological difference between your mind making an association between two things and how the mind deals with facts.

The former can be partially or even entirely irrational, and thus, beyond the capacity of mere discourse to erase.  (At least, not without some fancy-schmancy techniques you learn as a mental-health care professional.)


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Mar 31, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Now, you may wish to find out what about garlic I find objectionable in chocolate chip cookies. And maybe I'd be able to articulate why in a way that you understand, or maybe not. I may not ever have discussed the nuances of garlic in such detail as to have the words. Or, maybe we don't have the shared vocabulary about flavors.




An excellent point. In many ways this thread is attempting to do just this.


I might say "garlic is too spicy and savory for the sweetness of chocolate cookies." 

Someone else could say "but you liked that jalapeno basted roasted pineapple!" or even "try this chocolate chip cookie with some spicy and savory chipotle flavor". (I've had this, actually, and it was pretty good).

I might then try again to describe the very specific components of garlic and the mix with chocolate and such and so on, but after about 20 pages of attempting to do so, I might realize that, for whatever reason, I'm unable to explain it in a way that others can understand.

That doesn't mean I suddenly like garlicky chocolate chip cookies though, nor does it mean that the garlicky-ness is not what is making them taste bad to me.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 31, 2011)

> There is a VAST psychological difference between your mind making an  association between two things and how the mind deals with facts.




How so? I haven't really seen that difference and this is the first time I've ever heard that there is a difference. 



> The former can be partially or even entirely irrational, and thus,  beyond the capacity of mere discourse to erase.  (At least, not without  some fancy-schmancy techniques you learn as a mental-health care  professional.)




Actually they both can be very irrational.

There is such a thing as being mixed up and having the wrong associations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> There is such a thing as being mixed up and having the wrong associations.




If those associations are impairing your ability to function, yes.  And, even then, they are only "wrong" within context.  The same associations, if they do not impair someone else, are not "wrong".

Personally, I don't believe in rational motives.  Rationality helps us to fulfill our motives/desires, and it may help us examine them (esp. useful when trying to decide what is most important to you!) but it does not generate them.

You are obviously free to believe otherwise.  But even saying "If I don't X, I'll die, so I am logically motivated to X" presupposes that not dying has a rational, rather than an emotive, valuation.  And the very idea of a "rational valuation" implies that valuation can be objective rather than subjective.

Follow motivations far enough and, IMHO and IME, they are always emotive in nature.

Follow rationality and logic far enough, and you always discover the worm of uncertainty is gnawing on the heart of any conclusion.  Or, at least, I have always found it so, and the nature of thought and/or logic seems to mandate that it always be so.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> How so? I haven't really seen that difference and this is the first time I've ever heard that there is a difference.




Have you ever seen someone come to a snap decision without facts at hand?  

Have you ever seen that person then defend that decision as correct, in spite of any facts that may be displayed to them?

Then you've seen it in action.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> How so? I haven't really seen that difference and this is the first time I've ever heard that there is a difference.




I'll give you a personal example- there are certain songs and smells that I associate with each other...not that I've ever experienced them together.  Completely irrational, but I can't shake it.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 31, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are obviously free to believe otherwise.  But even saying "If I don't X, I'll die, so I am logically motivated to X" presupposes that not dying has a rational, rather than an emotive, valuation.  And the very idea of a "rational valuation" implies that valuation can be objective rather than subjective.




Now we'll see definitions in action.   RC, I'm using us as an example. I hope you don't mind... 

RC here seems to conflate "rational" with "mathematically logical".  I am not of the opinion that they are the same.  I hold there is a difference between pure logic and rationality, a difference between being logical, and being reasonable, lucid, in control of one's faculties.  

This simple difference has, in the past, had us butting heads.  But, I now accept that he does not usually make the distinction I do, so I don't jump on him like a trampoline when he says things like this.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> * BTW, WTF does "gamist" mean anyway?



Good question. I'm sure whoever uses the term knows what they mean by it, even if you don't and are thusly confused by the word.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

Umbran said:


> RC here seems to conflate "rational" with "mathematically logical".  I am not of the opinion that they are the same.  I hold there is a difference between pure logic and rationality, a difference between being logical, and being reasonable, lucid, in control of one's faculties.



Indeed, when you're discussing something as intrinsically subjective as one's tastes in games, you'll never be able to apply pure mathematical logic. But you can still be rational about it, in the sense that you mean it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 31, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, that's not entirely what I meant.
> 
> I meant it's entirely possible to train people to not be so vague and be more precise with their usage of language.



Possible? Certainly. Education is always possible. Likely? Nope. Likely before D&D 5e comes out and is "too videogamey"? Or perhaps it will "Too CCGy" or "Too boardgamey"? Winter Olympics to be held in Hell is more likely.



> However, I do like to think of myself as God, at least from time to time.



<sigh>


> n other words I'm something of a realist.



What?


> And people just don't like to be real.
> 
> They'll believe what they want to believe and no matter how much evidence is showing them to be wrong, they will never change their minds and I personally believe many people are simply incapable of changing it when they've made up their minds.



And you can't fix that. You can't fix human natu-- Didn't I say this already?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Good question. I'm sure whoever uses the term knows what they mean by it, even if you don't and are thusly confused by the word.




Which is why I asked.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which is why I asked.



I don't generally use the term myself, though I've certainly heard many others use it. And also seen many lively disagreements about what it means.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 31, 2011)

> And you can't fix that. You can't fix human natu-- Didn't I say this already?




But you can manipulate it. This happens all the time in real life.

People, generally speaking, are lemmings and herding animals all rolled into one. With a few exceptional people that crop up occasionally.

If you haven't, I'd suggests reading some Plato, especially his Allegory Of The Cave in his work "The Republic".

The Republic | filepedia.org


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Now we'll see definitions in action.   RC, I'm using us as an example. I hope you don't mind...
> 
> RC here seems to conflate "rational" with "mathematically logical".  I am not of the opinion that they are the same.  I hold there is a difference between pure logic and rationality, a difference between being logical, and being reasonable, lucid, in control of one's faculties.
> 
> This simple difference has, in the past, had us butting heads.  But, I now accept that he does not usually make the distinction I do, so I don't jump on him like a trampoline when he says things like this.




You're right; that was sloppy language on my part.

And, as I recently XPed you, I can't do it for the final paragraph.

(Also, I'm not springy enough to jump on like a trampoline.)


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> > But the thing is, this isn't really tied to videogames at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, just to clarify, when I said, "this isn't really tied to videogames", I wasn't saying, "That person's objection is not tied to videogames", but rather, "The _phenomenon _here is not tied to videogames."

My point was mainly that the same sort of objection could come up in all sorts of other scenarios. If I see a rogue with a power specifically emulating a Prine of Persia wall-crawling manuever, the discordance it causes me is the same sort of thing as when I see a character who is clearly patterned after someone from the Matrix. 

And, at heart, it is largely a personal concern - some people like seeing these sorts of references built into the game, or seeing D&D draw in interesting flavor and ideas from other places, while others prefer it to remain self-contained and avoid references that will jar a player out of the game.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again- you know, we could use a "blue in the face" smiley"- you're making an inference that is not actually being implied by the speaker.
> 
> "Element X in 4Ed is videogamey, so I don't like it in my TTRPG" is not inherently a knock on videogames, it is an assertion that because X is like a videogame to that person, they don't want it in their TTRPG. It says NOTHING about how they feel about videogames.
> 
> For example, "Your soup is too garlicky" does not imply that the speaker does not like garlic, just that the taste of garlic in that dish is too strong or is at odds with other flavors in the soup.




Definitely a good point. It is certainly possible to simply be talking about the degree of influence of an element as a bad thing, rather than saying that anything of that element is itself bad. 

That said, I've certainly seen posts where that "videogamey" is _absolutely _used in a negative connotation. And especially when it is used in a throwaway fashion, "4E is terrible because of how videogamey it is," I suspect many people will read that as indicating some sort of value judgement about video games themselves. 

Now, not every mention of video games will read this way! And usually the ones that don't are the ones that give context and explanation for the criticism. 

The one issue that still remains, though, is the vagueness of the word itself. Your example, "This soup is too garlicky," might not be an ideal comparison. After all, garlic is a component used in a variety of foods, including soup. Video games, however, are a medium, much like RPGs themselves. The term covers a much broader range of concepts than a more readily defined term like 'garlic'. And the most fundamental and instrinsic elements of a video game - being an electronic game accessed through a computer or console or similar video device - is _usually _not what someone is referring to when drawing comparisons to RPGs.

So calling an RPG "too videogamey" is more the equivalent of saying, "This soup is too casserole-like." Without any context, it is hard to tell what they mean - are they concerned about specific ingredients in the soup that they normally expect in a casserole? Some element of the soup design (a crunchy layer on top) normally expected in other dishes? Does it just resemble a casserole too much in appearance, thus making it hard for them to eat, even though they know that if they close their eyes they will have no complaints about the taste?

Just comparing it to a casserole is, well, largely useless. It isn't until further explanation is given that one can understand the criticism. And that criticism likely ends up having little to do with casseroles themselves, and instead something else much more specific.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 31, 2011)

> I suspect many people will read that as indicating some sort of value judgement about video games themselves.




That is reader error, then, because that is not what the statement says either explicitly nor by necessary implication.



> The one issue that still remains, though, is the vagueness of the word itself. Your example, "This soup is too garlicky," might not be an ideal comparison. After all, garlic is a component used in a variety of foods, including soup. Video games, however, are a medium, much like RPGs themselves. The term covers a much broader range of concepts than a more readily defined term like 'garlic'. And the most fundamental and instrinsic elements of a video game - being an electronic game accessed through a computer or console or similar video device - is usually not what someone is referring to when drawing comparisons to RPGs.




Trust me, garlic is not to be used in every soup- like hungarian cold fruit soup- nor should it be the first thing you taste in most.

So the comparison stands.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 31, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> But you can manipulate it. This happens all the time in real life.
> 
> People, generally speaking, are lemmings and herding animals all rolled into one. With a few exceptional people that crop up occasionally.
> 
> ...



You are directing me to philosophy? You who sometimes thinks he's a god? All I can say to that is you should be directing me to Machiavelli, not Plato.

My point though is, short of orbital mind control lasers, you can't stop J. Random RPG-player from posting emotionally about how WotC killed their pet sacred cow in D&D 5.232 and comparing it unfavorably to video games. You are tilting at windmills. 

This whole thread is about STOPPING people from saying stuff without THINKING first. That is an impossible goal with implication far outside how videogamey 4e is. If you can stop people from acting without thinking you can end violence and bigotry and hate. Let me know when you figure that out. I'll fly out to Stockholm to witness your awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 31, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That is reader error, then, because that is not what the statement says either explicitly nor by necessary implication.




~shrug~ I don't know what to tell you, at this point. I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation. I think that using the term "videogamey" as a dismissive criticism of other games often, but not always, carries an implied criticism of video games themselves. 

If that is not the case for you, fair enough. I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss this as simply reader error, nor claim that that the term is entirely neutral within the context in which we are seeing it used. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Trust me, garlic is not to be used in every soup- like hungarian cold fruit soup- nor should it be the first thing you taste in most.
> 
> So the comparison stands.




I think you missed my point. It isn't a question of whether garlic is found in some or all soups. It is that soup is a category of foods, while garlic is an ingredient in many different types of foods. Similarly, roleplaying games are a category, a medium - but so are video games. Complaining about an RPG being too much like a video game is the equivalent of complaining about a soup being too much like some other category of food - a casserole, a pasta dish, pizza.

Without context or explanation, the comparison is largely meaningless.


----------



## WHW4 (Apr 1, 2011)

Know what I'm tired of? "Game Theory." It sounds about as legitimate as "Legonomics."

To contribute: I like tomato soup.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> ~shrug~ I don't know what to tell you, at this point. I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation. I think that using the term "videogamey" as a dismissive criticism of other games often, but not always, carries an implied criticism of video games themselves.





I have seen it used in a similar manner though if it was meant dismissively I took it to mean that something the poster saw as fine as an element in a video game was not welcome as an element of their tabletop game, not that the element was necessarily bad in and of itself.  So, negative to the porting over, dismissive of it being translated to the tabletop, but not so much negative or dismissive of the element prima facie or without due consideration.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2011)

> I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation.




I'm not saying "videogamey" isn't being used as a critique- it _is_- but it isn't being used as a critique of _videogames._



> I think you missed my point. It isn't a question of whether garlic is found in some or all soups. It is that soup is a category of foods, while garlic is an ingredient in many different types of foods. Similarly, roleplaying games are a category, a medium - but so are video games. Complaining about an RPG being too much like a video game is the equivalent of complaining about a soup being too much like some other category of food - a casserole, a pasta dish, pizza.




I understand.

However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying some_aspect_ of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.

(At least, that's what _*I've*_ been doing.)

But if someone IS actually critiquing the game as a whole in that fashion, all we need do is change the framework of my analogy slightly.

"Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."

The judgement is not of Italian cuisine, but that the meal in question is not within the parameters of expectations.  The speaker may love Italian cuisine, but not for the purpose he had in mind.  At this time, he rejects the meal because it does not meet his overall expectations.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> ~shrug~ I don't know what to tell you, at this point. I have undeniably seen posts that have referenced video games in a way that carried a negative connotation. I think that using the term "videogamey" as a dismissive criticism of other games often, but not always, carries an implied criticism of video games themselves.
> 
> If that is not the case for you, fair enough. I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss this as simply reader error, nor claim that that the term is entirely neutral within the context in which we are seeing it used.




I'll try to sum up what I've been saying (I don't want to speak for anyone else) so far in this thread. I've been saying that the phrase "feels too much like a video game" is not inherently insulting to video games. And it's not.

However, people will use the term to insult other things (3.x, 4e, etc.), and that is an insult on those systems. They may even insult against video games in their post, by using phrases like "[edition] feels too much like a video games. I don't play video games, because I dislike them."

But, again, I'd point out that the phrase "feels too video-gamey" by itself does not imply insult against video games. Undoubtedly you've seen people use it to insult various editions, or even insult video games. However, I think it was more to do with qualifiers than the actual first statement.

I'm just trying to show where my divide in the conversation stands. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not saying "videogamey" isn't being used as a critique- it _is_- but it isn't being used as a critique of _videogames._
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So what are these common factors of videogames that can be identified as appearing in some tabletop RPGs and not others? Played on a computer, lacking a GM, restricted range of possible actions - these are things videogames have in common and tabletop RPGs don't, but I don't think you can point to one particular tabletop game and say it has them. 

Too much flavouring, rather than too much garlic. Lots of flavours, but objecting to flavour rather than garlic is not exactly meaningful.


----------



## amerigoV (Apr 1, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> So what are these common factors of videogames that can be identified as appearing in some tabletop RPGs and not others? Played on a computer, lacking a GM, restricted range of possible actions - these are things videogames have in common and tabletop RPGs don't, but I don't think you can point to one particular tabletop game and say it has them.




I do not think it will get you anywhere. Even the ones you list have exceptions. As a DM, I will not run higher level games without a computer (3.5D&D - although now I am a Savage, so no computer needed). Even if the game "is not played" on a computer, I still need one. One of my games is all remote, so you need a computer to play. I've been in plenty of f2f games that had a restricted range of possible actions (and one or two that could be described as lacking a GM). NWN has a GM mode, etc.

If someone would just say "I dislike D&D 4e because it reminds me of Zork. If my torch goes out, I get eaten by a Grue and that kind of micromangement is no fun," people would have something meaningful to discuss. You can meanfully debate the level of micromangement in that example (is that in the game, or your GM, why Zork>4e, etc).


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not saying "videogamey" isn't being used as a critique- it _is_- but it isn't being used as a critique of _videogames._




In some posts, yes - I'm not trying to say this is universally true. But I have certainly seen those who have used it in a way that does carry criticism of video games in the process - being used as shorthand to say that an RPG is akin to a more mindless form of entertainment, often implying that RPGs should be above that, and are intended to be a more superior form of gaming. 

Again - this isn't built in to simply calling something "videogamey" alone. But it is a direction I've seen taken, and often found in those rants where "videogamey" is tossed out as a casual dismissal without any actual explanation or context. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying some _aspect_ of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.
> 
> (At least, that's what _*I've*_ been doing.)




Oh yeah - from the start, I've tried to make clear that I am not referring to all references to video games. That was part of the reason for my overall breakdown of different uses I've seen. That's why I've been stressing the importance of exactly what you are saying - including explanation of the relevant aspect, since _that _should be the focus more than 'video games' in general.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> But if someone IS actually critiquing the game as a whole in that fashion, all we need do is change the framework of my analogy slightly.
> 
> "Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."
> 
> The judgement is not of Italian cuisine, but that the meal in question is not within the parameters of expectations. The speaker may love Italian cuisine, but not for the purpose he had in mind. At this time, he rejects the meal because it does not meet his overall expectations.




But again - that includes context and explanation. What about when someone simply says, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!"

Isn't that both of little use (since they haven't really explained _what about it_ they find 'too Italian' and why that bothers them), and also, without context, generally implying a default criticism of Italian food?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> But again - that includes context and explanation. What about when someone simply says, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!"
> 
> Isn't that both of little use (since they haven't really explained _what about it_ they find 'too Italian' and why that bothers them), and also, without context, generally implying a default criticism of Italian food?




First of all, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!" is clearly an opening statement.  If you're looking for an explanation at this point, you're asking too much of the speaker and the language.  The first words out of the speaker's mouth will never be ""Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian- and by that I mean blah, blah, blah, blah and blah, which is terrible because of yada yada yada."

NOBODY talks like this.

As for the last phrase, no, you're still not implying a default criticism of Italian any more than the phrase "too garlicky."  At best, you can say the speaker thinks its too much of something- here, "Italian-ness"- but you have no idea whether its because he doesn't like Italian food at all or if he was simply looking for something less Italian.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Apr 1, 2011)

> NOBODY talks like this.



So what about when Americans renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because it was too French? However you'll note they never renamed it to Freedom Kissing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying some_aspect_ of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake.
> 
> (At least, that's what _*I've*_ been doing.)
> 
> ...




Well, yes.  But the analogy is nothing without the context.  To use your "too Italian" analogy, the conversation has IME mostly gone something like this.

"It's too Italian."
"But you said you wanted Pizza.  Isn't that Italian?"
"Yes, but I like Pepperoni on mine."
"You'd prefer if it had Italian saussage?"
"And olives."
"Salami and olives.  In what sense is that not Italian?"
"Possibly they are.  But this pizza is too Italian."
"..."

Twenty minutes later, it turns out that the problem is that the pizza is thin-crust.  Which is indeed Italian and some people don't like (personally I prefer thin-crust pizzas).


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 1, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So what about when Americans renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because it was too French? However you'll note they never renamed it to Freedom Kissing.





Because French Kissing is actually phlegmish?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> So what about when Americans renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries because it was too French? However you'll note they never renamed it to Freedom Kissing.



Some knee-jerk idiocy on our part aside, that's not exactly the same thing, you know.  We're not talking about renaming 4Ed "Tekken Tabletop" are we?


Neonchameleon said:


> Well, yes.  But the analogy is nothing without the context.  To use your "too Italian" analogy, the conversation has IME mostly gone something like this.
> 
> "It's too Italian."
> "But you said you wanted Pizza.  Isn't that Italian?"
> ...




Well, to go back a bit, that's not what we were talking about with the Italian analogy.  That analogy deals with comparing one thing of a certain kind with another thing of a certain kind: the 2 cuisines standing in for CPRGs and TTRPGs.  The reason for that analogy was the discussion of someone critiquing a TTRPG as being too much like a CRPG as a whole, not looking at elements within it.

Your scenario is talking about variations within a single cuisine.  In other words, elements within the game.  That's more like the garlic analogy upthread.  The point of which was this: criticizing the element in one context is not criticism of the element itself.

And again, NOBODY is going to lay out their entire complaint in the first sentence out of their mouth.  That isn't how people converse.  You have an opening statement.  If nobody bites, maybe you follow up.  If nobody bites then, you probably give it up.  If you don't, you're probably boring.

Look at the posts of people criticizing games or elements for being "too simulationist", "too gamist" or not being either one of those enough.  Do they express their entire argument from word one, or do you have to get into a discussion with them to find out exactly what they mean by "too simulationist" or "gamist?"

Same thing with "videogamey."


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And again, NOBODY is going to lay out their entire complaint in the first sentence out of their mouth.




But, given that this is a message board, and there's very littel time pressure, why don't they just write that second sentence to begin with?


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 1, 2011)

A lousy descriptor is lousy. "_X_ is too videogamey" is a lousy descriptor. It tells me nothing. I don't know about some people here, but I am not a magical fairy princess capable of ascertaining that "_x _is too videogamey" means "_x_ is too videogamey because of _y_ and _z_." It is a failure on the part of the broadcaster (as in, person writing the message) to assume that [videogamey = _y_ and _z_] for everyone (which it doesn't, even amongst people who find _x_ videogamey), especially with the variety of videogames out there. If you choose not to include basic information in a discussion about game theory, it is a little absurd to think that everyone is going to know what you are talking about. This is especially true when "_x _is too videogamey" is banded about as part of edition warring.

But go ahead. Blame the reciever (reader/listener/etc) for the broadcaster's failure to communicate and being forced to assume what the meaning is when broad, vague description is banded about willy nilly.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 1, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> But go ahead. Blame the reciever (reader/listener/etc) for the broadcaster's failure to communicate and being forced to assume what the meaning is when broad, vague description is banded about willy nilly.



The broadcaster is not being vague on purpose. The broadcaster is being vague because they are not trained in rhetoric and they are not expecting debate level speaking to be required in a gaming forum. What you are being blamed for is seeing malice when seeing ignorance suffices.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Look at the posts of people criticizing games or elements for being "too simulationist", "too gamist" or not being either one of those enough.  Do they express their entire argument from word one, or do you have to get into a discussion with them to find out exactly what they mean by "too simulationist" or "gamist?"
> 
> Same thing with "videogamey."




To my way of thinking, it's not quite the same.  "Simulationist" and "Gamist" themselves are normally used in a non-pejorative sense.  The discussion of one versus the other versus "narrativist" is a fairly stratight-forward descriptive title.  More to the point, they have (afaik) generally accepted definitions as to what they are, ergo "narrativist" is focused on story while a "gamist" is more focused on balanced mechanics.  Accusing "Ars Magica" of being 'too narrativist' isn't as vague as saying you think "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying" is 'too videogamey'.

"Videogamey" is not like those terms, in colloquial usage.  Setting aside how it's used (and I rarely see it used beyond neutral and most often in a negative sense) is the issue of it's imprecision.  Video Games themselves are fairly broad in their scope and definition and not everyone defines them in the same way.  It is precisely this imprecision that makes the term a poor choice for critical comparison.  The person using it for comparative purposes may have completely different ideas about what it stands for than the person receiving the comparison, muddying the waters with imprecision and possibly confusion.

Let's take "Settlers of Catan", for example.  I can play the traditional board game or I can play it on the PC, the iPhone/iPad or Xbox 360.  Does that make it a video-game, simply because of the addition of computer players or the medium in which the game is played?  If not, then does that mean that a game like 'Culdcept' is NOT a video game, since it could easily be turned into a board game?  And so on.

In the 1980s, it was fairly easy to delineate what was and was not a video game.  The age of Pong and Atari has long since passed, however.  The depth and complexity of some games has far exceeded what we would have thought possible back then.  This makes the argument even more imprecise, as 'video game' is not a genre, though it is often treated like one.  I understand more when this argument is used with the term 'Anime', because while anime covers a wide-base (moreso than people who aren't particularly enthused with it might know), I can see where folks would combine the various parts into a cohesive whole and apply the label.  The range from "Totoro" to "Macross" to "Berserk" to "Dead Leaves" to "Fushigi Boshi no Futago Hime" (Twin Princesses of the Wonder Planet) is really not THAT wide.

But video games, at this point in time, cover such a wide-base that it's actually, IMHO, a very counter-productive descriptor.  Consider the following games:


Red Dead Redemption
Mass Effect 2
Angry Birds
Pokemon: Heart Gold
Call of Duty:Black Ops
Wii Sports Resort
Dragonquest IX
Halo: Reach
Starcraft II
Super Mario Galaxy 2
Gran Tourismo 5
Allan Wake
Madden NFL 11
Sid Meier's Civilization V

These are some of the biggest selling games of 2010.  That's a pretty diverse list, and that's only covering the blockbusters.  We're not hitting many of the more 'indie' efforts, such as "And Yet It Moves...", "Limbo", "Minecraft", "Puzzle Agent" or "Super Scribblenauts".

I find it hard to use 'videogamey' as a source comparison statement, when it can encompass such a diverse set of games.  Now, you could argue that some of these are NOT videogames.  That's not the problem...the problem is that many people (such as myself) DO.  And that makes using it as a reference both imprecise and confusing, at least to me.  This term is even more confusing based on your age, I'd guess.  For most of my life, 'video game' has meant a console or handheld game: computer games are COMPUTER games.  It implied a different approach to games (generally slower, less reaction oriented and with UIs that required more sophisticated input devices).  Over the past 20 years, those platforms have converged (Doom from one direction, RPGs from the other for example).  And, of course, those games now co-exist across both platforms (see games like Dragon Age or Assassin Creed Brotherhood).  Thus, when I hear 'videogamey' I DON'T think in terms of MMOs, but in terms of Marios.  That's my personal bias, of course...but that's my point.  I have to mentally correct in discussions with that term because it means something different to each speaker.

When 3E came out, it was derided by some as 'too videogamey'.  4E, with it's obvious recognition of MMO ideas, also gets labeled this way.  But as often as not, when I hear this term in conversation, what the speaker sometimes means is really a reference to a specific game and it's elements.  Since (as my .sig implies) most CRPGS and MMORPGS (and to varying degrees, most video games)  can draw a straight line from D&D, I find it interesting to see stuff come full circle.  And by 'specific game' I usually find that people really mean 'World of Warcraft'.  Which is fine, but as I mention above, when I think 'video game', I don't think WoW.  WoW is, to me, a CRPG or MMORPG.  And since more specific terms exist, if that's what the speaker really meant, I wish he'd just use that.

This is not to say that I'm dismissing the notion that the speaker finds elements that he finds from video games in general and doesn't like (such as easily resetting health, action points, skill trees or what have you).  These are perfectly valid criticisms if the person feels that way and the substantial changes to the game over the past 30 years are certainly not going to be preferable to everyone.  I dropped D&D just prior to 2E and wasn't lured back until 3E.  Did that make 2E a bad game?  By no measure.  Nor were my criticisms of the system false for ME.

I just wish that folks could be more specific in there terminology, especially when such terminology exists.  I understand the desire for shorthand, but there are more precise but equally short terms for what folks generally mean.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 1, 2011)

WizarDru said:


> "Videogamey" is not like those terms, in colloquial usage.  Setting aside how it's used (and I rarely see it used beyond neutral and most often in a negative sense) is the issue of it's imprecision.  Video Games themselves are fairly broad in their scope and definition and not everyone defines them in the same way.  It is precisely this imprecision that makes the term a poor choice for critical comparison.  The person using it for comparative purposes may have completely different ideas about what it stands for than the person receiving the comparison, muddying the waters with imprecision and possibly confusion.



Imprecision is how human conversation and debate thrive. If everyone posted on a forum in exact precise wordings creating fully logical and saliant points, (aside it being a headache to read) there would be nothing to debate. Every followup post would be "I see your point and you are entitled to that viewpoint". That's not how people work.

Telling us that "videogamey" is too *imprecise* to use for *critical* comparison starts from the assumption that the speaker wishes to spend the time crafting a critique. It ignores that fact that most people who call 4e videogamey arrived at the conclusion within two minutes and STOPPED thinking about it after that. Getting upset about someone else making a knee-jerk reaction to something you like is going make you upset constantly throughout your lifetime.

The people posting in this nigh-30 page thread are not the people making vague comparisons about 4e. It is the people who will never read this thread and will never consider "videogamey" vague who will continue to make that comparison. And there is nothing that debating whether calling something videogamey is or is not vague will do to change that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2011)

> "Simulationist" and "Gamist" themselves are normally used in a non-pejorative sense




They get used pejoratively all the time, "too _______" is the context in which I first encountered the terms here.

And for the record, while I've been here quite some time, I still don't have a solid grasp of what people mean when they say "gamist" until they spell it out.



> I just wish that folks could be more specific in there terminology, especially when such terminology exists.




Sometimes a more precise "catchall" term doesn't exist.  While _*I*_ could probably say that 4Ed combat is "Tekkeny" to me, my game programmer buddy who has a laundry list of things he doesn't like that boil down to the tracking of fleeting modifiers that is common in a variety of CRPGs he enjoys that he thinks simply don't belong in TTRPGs?

"Too modifiery?"  No- he's going to compare it to what he sees up close and all day (and from the guts level): videogames.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 1, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> Telling us that "videogamey" is too *imprecise* to use for *critical* comparison starts from the assumption that the speaker wishes to spend the time crafting a critique. It ignores that fact that most people who call 4e videogamey arrived at the conclusion within two minutes and STOPPED thinking about it after that. Getting upset about someone else making a knee-jerk reaction to something you like is going make you upset constantly throughout your lifetime.




I think you're reading some sort of anger or apoplexy in my post, where I'm just suggesting mild aesthetic preference.  I'm certainly not upset.  I thought I was pretty specific in my post that I wasn't telling anyone they were right or wrong, but why I found the term imprecise.  I think you're arguing past me, here.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First of all, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!" is clearly an opening statement. If you're looking for an explanation at this point, you're asking too much of the speaker and the language. The first words out of the speaker's mouth will never be ""Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian- and by that I mean blah, blah, blah, blah and blah, which is terrible because of yada yada yada."
> 
> NOBODY talks like this.




What are you talking about? Of course they do! That's exactly the sort of example you gave moments ago! "Your use of garlic, wine and fennel in this meal has rendered it too Italian in style- we were looking for something more Southwestern in flavor."

You just explicitly said that this is the behavior you often see, and how you have been discussing things yourself: "However, when I see people make the videogame comparison, they are usually saying some_aspect_ of the game is that way, not the game as a whole, which we've been doing in this thread on occasion for brevity's sake. (At least, that's what _*I've*_ been doing.)"

There are plenty of people on these boards who provide context and explanation for their statements. 

There are also others, on this board and elsewhere, who toss out dismissive statements without that context, often in the midst of other rants about the game. 

It's not an either-or proposition. We aren't limited to only having one or the other. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> As for the last phrase, no, you're still not implying a default criticism of Italian any more than the phrase "too garlicky." At best, you can say the speaker thinks its too much of something- here, "Italian-ness"- but you have no idea whether its because he doesn't like Italian food at all or if he was simply looking for something less Italian.




You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Look at the posts of people criticizing games or elements for being "too simulationist", "too gamist" or not being either one of those enough. Do they express their entire argument from word one, or do you have to get into a discussion with them to find out exactly what they mean by "too simulationist" or "gamist?"
> 
> Same thing with "videogamey."




But, again, those words have a much easier to pin down meaning that "videogamey". For one thing, as noted, they are elements of a game, not an alternate medium for a game itself. 

If I say a game isn't simulationist enough for me, I am saying that it does not do an adequate job of simulating reality.

If I say a game isn't videogamey enough... what am I complaining about? A lack of a controller? Not being played on a monitor? Or lacking elements found in a specific game, like question marks over someone's head? 

It's the same thing with the food analogy. "This food doesn't have enough garlic in it." It's pretty clear what I am saying with that - that it does not have enough garlic! 

But... "This food isn't Italian enough!" Is there truly one single distinguishing feature of Italian food that such a statement instantly points to? 

You talk about how these sorts of things are "opening statements". But I maintain that they don't lead to the same thing. 

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG has too much simulationism for their taste (or not enough), than I can offer a variety of responses. Some of them involve asking deeper questions about what elements are too simulationist. But others would be about the benefits or downsides of simulationism itself, and a discussion could unfold directly about their preference. 

If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They get used pejoratively all the time, "too _______" is the context in which I first encountered the terms here.
> 
> And for the record, while I've been here quite some time, I still don't have a solid grasp of what people mean when they say "gamist" until they spell it out.




'Too Gamist' isn't implying that being 'gamist' is bad on it's face, to my reading, but that I don't like that this is more 'gamist' than I prefer.  Calling "Amber Diceless" 'too narrativist' doesn't suggest to me an inherent inferiority in narrativism, but a mix or emphaisis I don't prefer.I guess we'll just have to disagree on whether or not the GSN structure has defined meaning, but I've never heard people that confused about it or seen multiple repeating threads arguing about the definition of the terms, though I admit I could easily just skimmed right past them.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sometimes a more precise "catchall" term doesn't exist.  While _*I*_ could probably say that 4Ed combat is "Tekkeny" to me, my game programmer buddy who has a laundry list of things he doesn't like that boil down to the tracking of fleeting modifiers that is common in a variety of CRPGs he enjoys that he thinks simply don't belong in TTRPGs?
> 
> "Too modifiery?"  No- he's going to compare it to what he sees up close and all day (and from the guts level): videogames.




So your saying that no proper descriptor exists, so he just grabs a label knowing it's not actually accurate?    It actually sounds like he's got his modifier right there:  it's too MMORPG-ish, too CRPG-ish, too much like WoW or Diablo-esque.  It certainly sounds like there are plenty of terms he could use that are more apt from what you're describing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 1, 2011)

> You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food?




Not when I'm in an Indian restaurant.  Not if I ordered something from the traditional kosher or halal menu.

The critique of Italian food is not inherent in the statement.



> So your saying that no proper descriptor exists, so he just grabs a label knowing it's not actually accurate?




It's a catchall!  Of course it's not going to be accurate.

When people refer to my primary or secondary ethnicity in political pieces, they use one term to refer to all of us.  We're not monolithic, though.  It's not accurate by any means.

Do I get pissed about it?  Am I confused?  Nope.



> 'Too Gamist' isn't implying that being 'gamist' is bad on it's face, to my reading, but that I don't like that this is more 'gamist' than I prefer




Exactly, and you should read "too videogamey" the same way, because often, that is how it is being used.

To date, everyone in this thread who uses that phrase has said this, in contrast to ONE nameless, incited assertion that someone in another thread was using it to indict both 4Ed and videogames.  I'm fully prepared to accept that the person who brought that up didn't manufacture it, and he DID see someone do just that.

But the evidence in this thread is clear: lots of people _do not use the term "videogamey" to indict videogames._

To assume otherwise is not logical.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 1, 2011)

WizarDru said:


> I think you're reading some sort of anger or apoplexy in my post, where I'm just suggesting mild aesthetic preference.  I'm certainly not upset.  I thought I was pretty specific in my post that I wasn't telling anyone they were right or wrong, but why I found the term imprecise.  I think you're arguing past me, here.



No, that was my read on the OP. I'm not suggesting you are having conniption fits when people say videogamey. You finding the term videogamey imprecise won't stop people from using it.

I admit, I am meta-arguing. I don't care if videogamey is or is not vague. In fact, I'm sure when someone honestly utters the sentence "4e is too videogamey" it makes complete, utter and logical sense to the speaker.

Your argument is essentially moot as it applies to the people who make this assertion. They are not reading threads like this that warn them not to be vague before they use the term. Even if you took out ads in gaming magazines, they would not notice.

If you were complaining solely about bloggers, I'd be on your side. It is reasonable to assume a blogger thinks before he types, perhaps even do some research. But this complaint is also targeting folks posting in forums. And assuming forum posters think before they type is naive, at best.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 1, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"



And what's wrong with that? 

That's the point I'm trying to make. "tired of people knocking videogames" as the OP titled this thread is an inappropriate and emotional response. Instead, just ask for clarification and attempt to establish common ground. Move on, move forward. There is no reason to be for or against "videogamey". If you don't understand, ask for clarification. If you understand, agree or disagree and continue talking. Is that so hard? Be the water, bend, don't break.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 1, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> If you were complaining solely about bloggers, I'd be on your side. It is reasonable to assume a blogger thinks before he types, perhaps even do some research. But this complaint is also targeting folks posting in forums. And assuming forum posters think before they type is naive, at best.




LOL.  Dude.  I wish for World Peace, non-fattening Caramel Creams and a Superman video game that isn't horrible, too.  I'm not expecting folks to DO it, just lamenting that they don't.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2011)

It looks like this thread is mostly devolving into a loop that looks something like this, as of this point:

1) "Video-gamey" isn't a precise term.
2) But it isn't necessarily insulting.
3) But it's not specific enough to be useful.
4) But it is useful in a general sense.
5) Not specifically, it's not.
6) You can get specifics by asking.
7) Why not just skip that and tell us specifics originally?
8) Because it's not how dialogue works.
9) It should be.
10) It's not.
11) Well, it should be.
12) Well, it's not.
13) Well...

AND

1) Your insults against 4e aren't valid.
2) In our opinion, it is valid.
3) Not logically.
4) We're talking about feelings.
5) But we can shred your reasons if you state them.
6) I still feel this way.
7) It's not logical, though.
8) That's not how things work.
9) It should be.
10) Well, it's not.
11) Well, it should be.
12) Well, it's not.
13) Well...

I'd suggest we call it a day, folks. It's just slowly ramping up in hostility again, and after the two very lenient warnings we've had already, I don't know if it's wise to continue these circles. Just my two cents, though


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 1, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> MichaelSomething said:
> 
> 
> > When you say "videogamey", do you mean going about in a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and doing whatever you feel like, even collecting books?
> ...



Still wondering.



Also wondering why I get "[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]" every time I try to use the 'Mention' feature.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 2, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Your scenario is talking about variations within a single cuisine.  In other words, elements within the game.  That's more like the garlic analogy upthread.




Actually, it wasn't.  It was, however, in part based on the misunderstanding it was talking about variations within a single cuisine.  The two cusines in question are Italian and American-Italian but because this wasn't laid out clearly we had miscommunications like Peperoni first being thought to be an Italian term (it isn't) then being confused with salami (of which it is a type but isn't generically the same any more than a chilli pepper is a generic pepper).


----------



## Aeolius (Apr 2, 2011)

before the thread gets closed for redundancy, can someone please change the title to "STOP POKING MEEEEEEEE!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 2, 2011)

> If someone posts a comment that says an RPG has too much simulationism for their taste (or not enough), than I can offer a variety of responses. *Some of them involve asking deeper questions about what elements are too simulationist.* But others would be about the benefits or downsides of simulationism itself, and a discussion could unfold directly about their preference.



And



> If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"




(emphasis mine)

You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."

Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 2, 2011)

Seriously...I never thought this thread would go to 30 pages. I skipped a good 15 of them, but the debate hadn't changed in that timeframe.

I just find it really odd that there is an argument being made for an assumption that I should know what you are talking about if you use a very vague term. And, if I express frustration at the insistence of people to use a vague term (even when asked to clarify, because some people - not necessarally in this thread - have been asked and have replied in equally vague terms), that is somehow a wrong and terrible thing to do.

Since I do not believe that expressing my frustration is a terrible thing to do, or being frustrated by these circomstances is an illigitemate feeling to have, this conversasion is going nowhere.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 2, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Can I buy a ship and hire a crew and some mercenaries to go conquer Akavir, building a large statue carved in my character's likeness at the place where we land?




Sorry for not responding to this one.  

I don't think you can do that in the game I mentioned.  Then again, I don't know enough about the Elder Scroll games to be sure.  I can point to a game where you can do any one of those things, but not all three in the same game, except many for Dwarf Fortress.  I could say "find a mod" for it but that's sort of cheating in my book.  That's like saying the fighter/wizard power problems was no big deal because you could house rule around it.     

Also, as far as I know, the tradition in many video games was to just give the player a ship after a certain plot point.  It also depends if your dead set on conquering Akavir.  Would you settle for a different land?


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 2, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> Would you settle for a different land?



No, in this case, I wouldn't.

My point, going all the way back to page one, is that if a roleplaying game doesn't provide me with that kind of freedom as a player, then game-play is too constrained for my tastes.

Those constraints could be imposed by the limitations in the code of a video game, focused rules intended to promote a narrow range of game-play options in a pen-and-paper game, or a tabletop referee unwilling to roll with those kinds of player choices.

In any case, from what I was able to read about the 'Elder Scrolls' games, I disagree with your assertion that the game you cited is an example of "a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and *doing whatever you feel like*, even collecting books." For _really_ 'doing whatever I feel like,' there's simply no match for a human being running the game.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 2, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> If I say a game isn't simulationist enough for me, I am saying that it does not do an adequate job of simulating reality.




Point of order: Simulationist doesn't have to refer to simulating reality. Toon is arguably simulationist, except that it's simulating cartoons. Pendragon is simulating medieval stories about King Arthur rather than the reality of whatever figure he might or might not have been in post-Roman Britain. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> (emphasis mine)
> 
> You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."
> 
> Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.




There are several posts in this thread where people have insisted that 'videogamey' is a perfectly understood term, and insisted there was no need to expand on it. 



The Shaman said:


> My point, going all the way back to page one, is that if a roleplaying game doesn't provide me with that kind of freedom as a player, then game-play is too constrained for my tastes.
> 
> Those constraints could be imposed by the limitations in the code of a video game, focused rules intended to promote a narrow range of game-play options in a pen-and-paper game, or a tabletop referee unwilling to roll with those kinds of player choices.




This though is hardly grounds for suggesting it's something that could be applied to one particular tabletop RPG over another. If the GM goes along with something, I can do it in any tabletop RPG. If they don't, I can't. The system involved is irrelevant.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 2, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> > You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food? You really feel that "I don't like this food, it's too Italian" does not, in any way, indicate that the speaker does not care for Italian food?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It could be, yes, that what they are saying is that they "do not like Italian _for this meal_, or _at this time_." But they didn't actually go ahead and say so - they've instead just presented Italian food as a negative quality, without any limitation on how or why. Without that context you provide above. 

The dislike of Italian food is not the only possible intent of that statement, but it is _a _possible intent - and, thus, you risk that being the interpretation that some take away from it. (And, of course, sometimes that _is_ what is meant.)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> > If someone posts a comment that says an RPG has too much simulationism for their taste (or not enough), than I can offer a variety of responses. *Some of them involve asking deeper questions about what elements are too simulationist.* But others would be about the benefits or downsides of simulationism itself, and a discussion could unfold directly about their preference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Because the problem with the second is that it is the _only _avenue of conversation. With the first, there are various directions the conversation can go in - you do not _need _to ask those questions for the conversation to continue. In the second scenario, you do. 

I'm not saying that asking someone to provide more details is a bad thing! I'm saying that offering a statement that _requires _them to do so, on the other hand, is. Well, "bad" might be too harsh a term - it just isn't useful, in my mind. That's all I've been saying. 



jmucchiello said:


> > If someone posts a comment that says an RPG is too videogamey, with no other context... then the discussion still can't begin until I respond with, "What in the world do you mean by 'videogamey'?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I still maintain I've absolutely seen people make the comparison to video games with the view that video games are a more mindless and inferior form of entertainment to an RPG. I can see the original response as a reasonable one to such an attitude.

As for how hard it is to just ask for clarification... it certainly isn't the end of the world, sure. At the same time, all I've said myself is that using such an uncertain term, especially in a casual and dismissive fashion, is unlikely to further a discussion.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 2, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Seriously...I never thought this thread would go to 30 pages. I skipped a good 15 of them, but the debate hadn't changed in that timeframe.



Well actually it changed a couple times and returned to the original debate. You missed the good part probably.


> I just find it really odd that there is an argument being made for an assumption that I should know what you are talking about if you use a very vague term. And, if I express frustration at the insistence of people to use a vague term (even when asked to clarify, because some people - not necessarally in this thread - have been asked and have replied in equally vague terms), that is somehow a wrong and terrible thing to do.



You say this but didn't respond to my line of reasoning:


			
				Me said:
			
		

> The broadcaster is not being vague on purpose. The broadcaster is being vague because they are not trained in rhetoric and they are not expecting debate level speaking to be required in a gaming forum. What you are being blamed for is seeing malice (videogamey condemns video games) when seeing ignorance suffices.



No one is telling you you are wrong to feel frustrated. I'm just saying it is useless to express that frustration. As I said to MrMyth:


> MrMyth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 2, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Well, I still maintain I've absolutely seen people make the comparison to video games with the view that video games are a more mindless and inferior form of entertainment to an RPG. I can see the original response as a reasonable one to such an attitude.



Is it wrong to believe video games are mindless and inferior to RPGs? This is an opinion. Why are you bothered by someone else's opinion? How can you go through life if other people being dismissive of something you like BOTHERS you? I hate beans. Should bean lovers be upset?



> As for how hard it is to just ask for clarification... it certainly isn't the end of the world, sure. At the same time, all I've said myself is that using such an uncertain term, especially in a casual and dismissive fashion, is unlikely to further a discussion.



And I've said they aren't necessarily being casual and dismissive. They could just be uninformed about how YOU feel a comparison to videogamey is.

If they are just being argumentative and are dismissive after you asked for clarification, move on. Why would you care if there were further discussion if they refuse to communicate? You can't be everyone's friend.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Apr 2, 2011)

> Is it wrong to believe video games are mindless and inferior to RPGs?




I personally believe so, yes.

Because it's like somebody insulting another person over whether or not they like Star Wars or Babylon 5.

And I find that utterly ridiculous. Especially among a group of people who are generally not acceptable to mainstream society. You'd think that people who are treated in this kind of fashion would learn to be more acceptable of individual choices and tastes instead of this xenophobic tribalism junk we get. You'd think that people who are not generally acceptable by mainstream society would learn to be more accepting of other people's differences.

But they generally are not. 

Or we wouldn't have stupid junk like the retarded edition wars.

I really don't care if you like something different than me, but that just makes you different, not better, not worse.

I just don't like it when people start copping attitudes like they're better because they do this idiotic thing.

You like the color bluer, I like the color green. I like tomatoes, you like oranges.

What should it matter?

(Disclaimer: By you I mean general you and nobody specific.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 2, 2011)

The term "videogamey" is often understandable in context, and requires no further definition for me to understand what the writer is saying.  Someone else, however, might not be able to glean the specific meaning of a broad term from context, and might wish to ask for more detail.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 2, 2011)

> > You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."
> >
> > Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.
> 
> ...



No it isn't.

You could launch into how TTRPGs & CRPGs have been cross pollenating for years; how you've gotten good things from computer games for your TTRPGs, and so forth, much like you say you could do for simulationsm.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 2, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If the GM goes along with something, I can do it in any tabletop RPG. If they don't, I can't. The system involved is irrelevant.



Some roleplaying games are conceived to provide a very specific, very limited range of experience, and their mechanics are designed with that in mind - _The Mountain Witch_, frex. It is not a 'do anything' game, which is actually one of its strengths.

While it can be adapted to different settings, the mechanics the game provides are focused on a specific style of play.

One of my few points of agreement with the FoRE* crowd is that system does, in fact, matter.



*Friends of Ron Edwards


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 2, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> Well actually it changed a couple times and returned to the original debate. You missed the good part probably.
> 
> You say this but didn't respond to my line of reasoning:
> 
> No one is telling you you are wrong to feel frustrated. I'm just saying it is useless to express that frustration. As I said to MrMyth:



Meh. So long as I'm not breaking forum rules and ticking off the establishment, I'll post what I please. And considering that posters usually know at least enough written English to type cohesivly, that is usually an indicator that they've had at least enough schooling on how to formulate a basic argument.

Oh, and no, I do not care about my spelling mistakes or grammatical errors when posting on forums. In fact, right now I'm just waiting to see how long this thread goes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 2, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Meh. So long as I'm not breaking forum rules and ticking off the establishment, I'll post what I please.




You should realize that this is the same basic argument that those who use the term "videogamey" are taking, right?


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 2, 2011)

Yes. Yes I do. But don't expect me to know what you are talking about unless you clarify. See previous posts in this thread for clarification.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 2, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Yes. Yes I do. But don't expect me to know what you are talking about unless you clarify. See previous posts in this thread for clarification.




Requests for clarification, when made in good faith, should always be deemed not only acceptable, but commendable.


RC


----------



## Diamond Cross (Apr 2, 2011)

Except they often aren't. I've been zapped many times by people asking me to clarify by things such as:

"Well, I know you said this, but you must really mean this."

Or just stupid other games as well.

Because usually the people asking for clarification can not understand or simply take another person at their word.

Doing this kind of things makes the other person feel stupid and that breeds resentment, because you are telling them what they "actually mean" according to the others' standards.

In other words, many times it's a set up that is meant to make the other person look stupid for the sake of entertainment.

However, on the other side of the coin, some people just aren't able to clarify what they actually mean for several reasons as well. 

And people wanting to have more clarification don't even consider that they simply may not be able to understand another person's point in the first place, no matter how verbose or precise the clarification may be.

Because for some reason, there's a lot of shame in being ignorant. Ignorant is synonymous to retard to most people, and some people just aren't capable of understanding that not knowing a piece of information should not have any shame in it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 2, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Me said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say insult. I asked if other people were allowed to have an opinion about video games contrary to YOURS. Who are you to say I can't believe something about video games contrary to your belief?

I dislike rap. I find it inferior to jazz and orchestral music. There are individual rap songs I like. But as a whole, they are inferior and sometime mindless. If you like rap songs, that's great for you. That doesn't change the fact that I don't and it is an insult to neither of us in either direction.


Diamond Cross said:


> Because for some reason, there's a lot of shame in being ignorant. Ignorant is synonymous to retard to most people, and some people just aren't capable of understanding that not knowing a piece of information should not have any shame in it.



And recognizing this in others and letting go when you find you can't do any more is a useful trait as well.... Hmmm. Good luck.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 2, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Because it's like somebody insulting another person over whether or not they like Star Wars or Babylon 5.



I think Babylon 5 sucks.

Are you insulted by that?


----------



## Diamond Cross (Apr 2, 2011)

> I think Babylon 5 sucks.
> 
> Are you insulted by that?




Actually, no, I am not. I don't really care if you like a show that I like or not. 

But let's not go any farther than, all right?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 2, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Actually, no, I am not. I don't really care if you like a show that I like or not.
> 
> But let's not go any farther than, all right?




Are you saying that TV shows are fair game for dislike but other things aren't? If so, why?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 3, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> In any case, from what I was able to read about the 'Elder Scrolls' games, I disagree with your assertion that the game you cited is an example of "a large premade world where you are free to save the world or just run around having random adventures and *doing whatever you feel like*, even collecting books." For _really_ 'doing whatever I feel like,' there's simply no match for a human being running the game.




Okay, how about a large premade world where you can save the world or go off and do a ton of different things?  I guess its more like a buffet where it may not be a limitless selection, but there is enough variety to satisfy most people.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 3, 2011)

Considering that the Elder Scrolls have extensive modification (Mod) tools, both official and unofficial..actually, yes. You can do anything in Elder Scrolls.*

*May only be done legally on the PC version. Getting custom mods to work on your Xbox may be possible, but it may also void your warrenty and gain the Wrath of Microsoft (TM) as they frown on people modifying game content at home. Certaint area restrictions may apply. See local laws for details.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 3, 2011)

I've played Arena and Daggerfall (the early Elder Scrolls games) and there was always one major _quest_ as well as any number of minor side-quests you could take up by your own initiative.  Those games came as close as I have seen a computer game come to simulating a roleplaying game but certainly they never rose to the level of a tabletop RPG for real roloeplaying interaction.  There's simply no substitute to having a human GM who can react in the moment to absolutely anything thought up in the moment by human players.  And, no, you couldn't just do whatever you felt like doing, only a bunch of options that were preprogrammed into the game.  That someone can mod in additional options really doesn't make it possible to do whatever you want, either.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First of all, "Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian!" is clearly an opening statement.  If you're looking for an explanation at this point, you're asking too much of the speaker and the language.  The first words out of the speaker's mouth will never be ""Ugh, this meal is terrible - it's too Italian- and by that I mean blah, blah, blah, blah and blah, which is terrible because of yada yada yada."
> 
> NOBODY talks like this.
> 
> As for the last phrase, no, you're still not implying a default criticism of Italian any more than the phrase "too garlicky."  At best, you can say the speaker thinks its too much of something- here, "Italian-ness"- but you have no idea whether its because he doesn't like Italian food at all or if he was simply looking for something less Italian.




Making a few comments as I wade back up to speed.

Back up a second though.  Imagine every single time you prepare a particular dish, you have someone telling you "It's too Italian", which prompts virtually the same conversation each and every time.

Yes, there might be some variations on the theme, but, the overwhelming majority of the time it's the same conversation - the criticism of the dish actually has very little to do with Italian cuisine but rather with how someone perceives Italian cuisine that they rarely eat.

Granted, from time to time, you might not have THAT conversation, but, the majority of the time, you do.

Now, imagine that this same conversation has been happening virtually every single time you cook for the past decade.  Every time you make a particular dish, for the past ten years, someone chimes in that it's too Italian.

How much patience do you think you'd have for that?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2011)

Honestly, going wayyyy back to the OP, I love it when people trot out the "it's too videogamey" refrain.  At least it's honest.  Sure, there might be that small number out there who is using it as a descriptor, but, IME, the vast majority are simply doing it to push buttons and score Internet points without actually having to make any sort of thought.

Makes filling out Ignore lists SOOO much easier.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, going wayyyy back to the OP, I love it when people trot out the "it's too videogamey" refrain.  At least it's honest.  Sure, there might be that small number out there who is using it as a descriptor, but, IME, the vast majority are simply doing it to push buttons and score Internet points without actually having to make any sort of thought.
> 
> Makes filling out Ignore lists SOOO much easier.




You're free to have whatever prejudices you want, but the rules of this board suggest that you should not ascribe motives to people's posts as part of your own posting behavior. I would suggest smearing the vast majority of people who say that 4e is too videogamey as trolls isn't a board-friendly use of your post.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, imagine that this same conversation has been happening virtually every single time you cook for the past decade.  Every time you make a particular dish, for the past ten years, someone chimes in that it's too Italian.
> 
> How much patience do you think you'd have for that?




I think the first thing I'd ask myself is "Why am I participating in this conversation?" On a message board, the only conversations I take part in are the ones I *want* to take part in. If the conversation is so repetitive and vexing, why participate at all?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> but, IME, the vast majority are simply doing it to push buttons and score Internet points without actually having to make any sort of thought.



You know, that point can easily be turned around.

There are a lot of points that can, and have been, explained to show why people find 4E to be "too videogamey".  But it is a simple umbrella for a collection of points.  That makes it easy for people who don't want to accept it to just automatically declare it meaningless and score Internet Points without actually having to make any sort of thought.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Apr 3, 2011)

I'm not entirely sure why I'm replying to this again.

I like both book & dice RPGs and video games. The key here is that I like them separately. Do they inform each other? Certainly, but there's a point where the lines may cross too much, and there are people, like me, who do not like that.

Were I to say "it feels to video gamey" would mean it feels more like playing a video game than a book & dice RPG. To me that means it feels more like I should be using a controller and a console or computer, keyboard, and mouse than pencil & paper or computer data, dice, and my imagination.

The above is just an example. I do not recall ever saying anything was too "video gamey".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2011)

> -the criticism of the dish actually has very little to do with Italian cuisine but rather with how someone perceives Italian cuisine that they rarely eat.
> 
> <snip>
> How much patience do you think you'd have for that?




I can answer with 100% confidence: nigh infinite.  You've just described one of my relatives who is an extremely picky eater.

So I know that when she complains about food- but for a couple key exceptions- she's utterly clueless.  As a result, when I hear her critique a meal most of the time, I go "Uh huh." and don't engage her.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2011)

> I like both book & dice RPGs and video games. The key here is that I like them separately. Do they inform each other? Certainly, but there's a point where the lines may cross too much, and there are people, like me, who do not like that.




Your post made me think: what if all of this were turned around?

What if in a new CRPG game, instead of having all those fluid combats, you had to press a button, which then rolled an electronic die in a window (bounce, bounce, bounce), then your PC did the action?  And everything acted and moved only on its turn in the initiative?  And if you tried an unusual maneuver, you had to call customer support to have an operator see what the exact effects were for your situation?

Could you call that CRPG "too tabletoppy?"  Even though some of those elements are not unique to TTRPGs?

(I'd say yes.)


----------



## Zhaleskra (Apr 3, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What if in a new CRPG game, instead of having all those fluid combats, you had to press a button, which then rolled an electronic die in a window (bounce, bounce, bounce), then your PC did the action?  And everything acted and moved only on its turn in the initiative?  And if you tried an unusual maneuver, you had to call customer support to have an operator see what the exact effects were for your situation?




Except for the customer support line, that actually happened in older CRPGs. Before Might & Magic VI, you even had to roll your characters, and it did show the 3d6 bouncing in a window. 6 still referenced dice (on weapons), though all you saw was the result. It also introduced the ability to switch between real time and turn based. Going even further back are the SSI D&D based computer games.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 3, 2011)

I wonder if a player can barrage the video game Customer Support address with endless emails between game sessions about why the video game was wrong to do what it did because the character's background, as written by the player, clearly showed his entire family was dead, so the kidnapping couldn't have happened, and anyway the tattoo on his right side (page four of section one of the background) is suppose to glow whenever danger is happening to anyone he knows, plus even though in-game it is only a sword of wounding, the player emphatically stated he wouldn't use it unless it could also be tied to his lineage and to eat the souls of the slain so the character (named Zacharia, though it was misspelt during character creation and the stupid game won't allow changes) can have an endless lifepool.  Cause I used to have a tabletop player I can send their way.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 3, 2011)

I'm sure it happens. I've worked tech support, and people call in for the strangest things.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Apr 3, 2011)

> Your post made me think: what if all of this were turned around?




Actually I wish there were CRPGS that were like this. I much prefer CRPGS to do something like this because I have a hard time with real time strategy stuff.

I'd love to have my own company which made these kinds of games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 3, 2011)

Well, the old _Bard's Tales, Wizardry, Ultimas_ and SSI D&D games were like that...and were totally awesome...but they weren't MMORPGs.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 3, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> There's simply no substitute to having a human GM who can react in the moment to absolutely anything thought up in the moment by human players.  And, no, you couldn't just do whatever you felt like doing, only a bunch of options that were preprogrammed into the game.  That someone can mod in additional options really doesn't make it possible to do whatever you want, either.



Quoted for truth.

"You can program mods" actualy highlights the fact that the game can only do what you tell it to do and only after you've told it to do so.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 3, 2011)

Sure it does. It's houseruling, only a bit more complicated.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 4, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Sure it does. It's houseruling, only a bit more complicated.




Here's a strike against a game like Oblivion (which is probably the most immersive game I've played), though: no children in the base game. I understand they don't want children dying (mainly to players), but it's the details that kill immersion.

I think we should all be able to agree that a human GM is more flexible than something like Oblivion is, no matter how much you mod it. Creating entirely new countries, with entirely new complex noble courts that actually interacted and controlled the nations politics at an AI level, etc., is pretty much impossible. On the fly (for me, at least, as a completely improvisational GM), it's easy enough. You just describe it, and it's there.

The players can then interact with NPCs in ways you just cannot in a video game: they can forge genuine friendships, create enemies, interrogate nobles, seduce a pretty serving girl, flirt with the queen or king, capture a noble, kill everyone in the court, pledge loyalty with a heartfelt speech that people will actually pay attention to and acknowledge, etc.

You just cannot account for things in a video game that a human GM can. And that's fine. To this day, I love Oblivion. But when I play a tabletop RPG, I like it when it doesn't feel like a video game, no matter how good the game is, because it hurts immersion.

Just my opinions, though. If you like that feel, or if it doesn't feel like a video game, that's awesome. Play what you like


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 4, 2011)

True, but since there are kids in Fallout 3 & Fallout 3: New Vegas, it is plasuble that there will be kids in Elder Scroll V: Skyrim.

And yes, a human GM is more flexible, and can act a lot quicker than altering a game through mods.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 4, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Sure it does. It's houseruling, only a bit more complicated.





"A bit more complicated?" Seriously?



> *Player:* I want to grab him from behind and press my dagger to his throat!
> *Referee:* Hmmm, that's a Grapple check with a -1 penalty that does no damage and if he attempts to break the hold and fails, you get an immediate attack against his head.***





> *Player:* I want to grab him from behind and press my dagger to his throat!
> *Referee:* Uh, okay, that's all for tonight, 'cause I need to go home and program a mod. I'll call you in a few days when I'm done.



Can you honestly say that it's the same thing?







Transbot9 said:


> And yes, a human GM is more flexible, and can act a lot quicker than altering a game through mods.



Yeah, didn't think so.




*** Actual example from my _Flashing Blades_ game.


----------



## Kasoroth (Apr 4, 2011)

I like both video games and tabletop RPGs, but I like them for different reasons and expect different things out of them.

One of the most important things for my enjoyment is for the rules to  support the setting rather than diverge form it.  For example, if  resurrection is relatively easy to achieve in the rules, then people in  the world should act as if it's relatively easy, and have a very  different reaction to death than would be appropriate in a rule set  where resurrection is difficult or impossible.

While some concessions to playability have to be made (realistic injury  and death systems often result in some pretty short games), I don't  really like playing a game where there is a strong and blatantly obvious  dissonance between how the world actually works (game rules) and how  characters in the world implicitly seem to think it works.

Traditionally, I think computer games have tended to accept a larger  degree of this sort of dissonance, particularly in MMO games where you  can't reload when you die, and people don't like completely losing their  character, so they always include some kind of automatic respawn  mechanism.  

Also, an MMO can't really let you just say "I'm resting for 2 weeks  while my wounds heal" and then skip ahead in time to continue the  action, while single player games could do exactly this (I remember the  old SSI gold box games where you could be resting for a lot of days if  you didn't have a healer in the party).  MMOs (and some other computer  games as well) decided it was easier to just let the characters heal up  completely in a matter of seconds or minutes between battles without  even the pretence of an extended rest, because it was the only obvious  practical way to handle it in an MMO.

That MMO insta-rest mechanic migrated to single player computer games,  and few people complained because in most single player CRPGs you could  rest as much as you wanted anyway, so it really didn't change much  except for the need to click the rest button.  The problem with this  instant healing (and the previous single player CRPG mechanic of "press  the rest button whenever you need to") is that it eliminates some of the  longer term resource management elements from the game.  It basically  allows you to enter every encounter at (or very near) full strength.   Everything is balanced on a "per-encounter" basis, and you don't have to  worry much about conserving your resources.

With CRPGs, getting around this problem was somewhat difficult.  No-rest  zones caused players to march back to the nearest rest zone frequently,  and if they were locked in and prevented from doing so, they tended to  get frustrated.  Time limits have generally not been done well in CRPGs,  because it's hard for the computer to handle all the different  consequences of taking too long on a quest.

Because of these CRPG limitations, instant-healing really doesn't seem  too out of place there, since the potentially interesting side-effects  of an extended healing rest would be ignored or glossed-over anyway.

Now that mechanic is migrating to tabletop games.  The "healing surges"  in D&D 4E definitely seem to me to be an extension of this idea.   This is one of the ways that many people (myself included) think that  video games are having a negative effect on tabletop games.  Tabletop  games with a live DM do have the capability of reacting appropriately to  events like extended rests.  Maybe there's not much going on, and the  party rests uneventfully for a few days at the inn.  On the other hand,  maybe there's a war going on, and resting a few days at the inn might  result in missing a critical battle where they might have turned the  course of the war.  

It all depends on the situation and a live DM can improvise these sorts  of things in a way that a computer can't.  Importing some of these  "gameplay convenience" mechanics from video games into tabletop games  where they're not needed can have a detrimental effect.  I like having  to make a hard decision about whether to head into battle when I'm  already almost dead, or risk waiting to heal and possibly missing  important events.  I like the sorts of lively debates between players  when the party is facing that sort of situation.

If my character is a troll, then I'd expect to have rapid regeneration,  and I expect the lore of the game world to note the curious and unusual  fact that trolls regenerate their wounds rapidly.  If every race in the  world can regenerate serious injuries in a short span of time, I would  expect the DM to put some time and thought into what the likely social  consequences of such a world would be.  People would behave differently,  serious risk taking would probably be much more normal, and I very much  doubt you would end up with anything remotely resembling any real human  cultures.

What I don't like seeing in a tabletop game is a world that includes all  the fast-healing auto-respawning gameplay conventions of a MMO video  game, while the inhabitants of that world still act like those things  don't exist.

Both 3.xE and 4E D&D seemed to take some inspirations from video  games (3E took the XP level advancement table and feat progression table  straight from the original Fallout games), and some of these  inspirations I liked, while others, not so much.  

I generally tend to prefer classless systems, so out of all editions of  D&D I like 3.x the best because the multi-class system allowed you  to basically pick and choose relatively freely as you advanced, rather  than choosing a class at the beginning and being (mostly) forced to  stick with it as you progress.  

In general I'd rather use the original core classes and feats and build  unique characters out of them rather than adding new (and increasingly  specific and narrowly focused) classes and feats, but that doesn't  really support a steady stream of rule books.  While I think the  original 3.5 core rulebooks are a bit too limited, I think the 3.5 core  books plus the first series of "Complete Warrior, Arcane, etc" books is  about the right level of customisability, if you eliminate all the  pre-made prestige classes and just create your own setting-specific ones  for specific groups and organisations (as prestige classes were  originally intended).  

In fact, I'd actually be tempted to eliminate some of the base classes,  like paladin, and turn some of its class abilities into divine feats  that channel "turn undead" uses.  A paladin type character could then be  made as a fighter/cleric with the appropriate feats.  I'd also be  inclined to eliminate ranger as a separate class, since that character  archetype could be relatively well approximated as a fighter/druid or  barbarian/druid (with maybe a few rogue levels as well).  Basically, I  don't want a separate class for each character archetype I can imagine,  I'd rather have a few classes representing general skill sets that I can  mix and match to build the archetype I'm looking for.

Very few video games (other than classless games or D&D 3.x based  ones) that I've seen seem to have the degree of flexibility that 3.x  had, and MMO games in particular seem to take a relatively rigid  approach to classes (for balance reasons), so to some people, the shift  of D&D to a more rigid class system in 4E is perceived as being  "video-gamey".  To be fair, 1E and 2E were just as bad in this regard,  and 3.x was just a pleasant anomaly.

Before 3E was released, I had gotten quite bored of 2E and moved on to  other systems like GURPS, but 3E provided enough customisability in the  multi-classing and feats system to bring me back to D&D.  I've tried  4E a few times, but I just didn't like it.  I've also played the  4E-based Ravenloft board game, and thought it was quite fun, but there  was no concern about whether the behavior and attitudes of the NPCs  makes sense in the context of the rules of the game, because it's just a  board game, not a role-playing game.

-Kasoroth


----------



## Locien (Apr 4, 2011)

The comment "this feels too videogamey" sounds like a passive-agressive backhanded insult to videogames, whether you meant it that way or not. 
Also I agree with other people when they say it can be vague when  someone describes something as too "videogamey", is it too restricted in  scope of activities? Is it to focused on combat? Does it break  verisimilitude for no good reason? Odds are in using the term "videogamey" you've simply annoyed someone that likes videogames and confused the topic. You may not like videogames, or think that they're too limited in their nature, but please be courteous and don't use passive-aggressive insults, intentionally or not. 

[PSA]Just don't use weasel words like "videogamey".[/PSA]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

> The comment "this feels too videogamey" sounds like a passive-agressive backhanded insult to videogames, whether you meant it that way or not.




Well its not.  There is nothing inherent in the statement to do with judging videogames _at all._

[PSA]Don't project your own preconceptions on the words of others.[/PSA]


----------



## Locien (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well its not.  There is nothing inherent in the statement to do with judging videogames _at all._



But there are a sizable number people that do hear that, and in using that term you're saying things you don't mean;what you think you said isn't as important as what people think you said-the former is reflection, the latter is communication. If you keep using the term, well, you'll just annoy and irritate some people, including some you may want to deal with. "I didn't mean that" generally doesn't work with things that people think are insults, so be careful.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 4, 2011)

Locien said:


> But there are a sizable number people that do hear that, and in using that term you're saying things you don't mean;what you think you said isn't as important as what people think you said-the former is reflection, the latter is communication. If you keep using the term, well, you'll just annoy and irritate some people, including some you may want to deal with. "I didn't mean that" generally doesn't work with things that people think are insults, so be careful.




Yes, people should be sensitive, but like I've said before in this thread, if someone says "Metal Gear feels too much like a movie" I do know it's not a shot at movies.

It's about context. And to be fair, some people who say it do dislike video games, and it may be a shot at them. However, the statement itself, without any qualifiers, is not an insult to video games.

It may not be clear enough to some people, but as I've pointed out above, we're going through the same 13 step process over and over.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

Locien said:


> But there are a sizable number people that do hear that,



That's _their_ problem.  They are inferring what is NOT being implied, nor stated explicitly.



> and in using that term you're saying things you don't mean;




No, I'm saying something I most certainly _do _mean: that the game reminds me of videogames in some way, and on some level, that isn't what I want of my TTRPG.



> that what you think you said isn't as important as what people think you said-the former is reflection, the latter is communication.



I can't read minds...but neither can anyone else.  Inference is just as tricky as implication.

Words have multiple meanings.  Communication is when parties find common meaning in words, whether or not they have multiple meanings.  Its a process.


> If you keep using the term, well, you'll just annoy and irritate some people, including some you may want to deal with. "I didn't mean that" generally doesn't work with things that people think are insults, so be careful.



Ah, the English language, so full of words with multiple meanings.

If someone insists on taking something that isn't inherently an insult as an insult- _especially after someone has clarified that is was in no way meant to be an insult_- that's the listener's problem.

_Especially_ when we're talking about some fairly convoluted parsing.  "X is too Y" is not targeted at Y; it is not a critique of Y.  *It is targeted at X.*  If you think you're reading a sentence that is targeted at Y, you have a problem.

(Besides, I'm a lawyer.  I'm used to people being annoyed at what I say.)


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 4, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Sure it does. It's houseruling, only a bit more complicated.




Complicated to the point where it's nonfunctional in the context of a given game session.

Say I've got a player who wants to jump from a banister, grab the chandelier, and swing over to the far side of the room?

My tabletop game of choice doesn't have explicit mechanics for that, but I can make a ruling on it in about 3 seconds flat.

If a computer game doesn't have that programmed as an option, I _might_ be able to add it with sufficient work. But there's no way I'm doing it smoothly in the middle of a session.

To see the effect this has on player creativity, you can run a simple experiment at your next session: Every time they try to do something for which there isn't an explicit rule in the rulebook, take a break for 60 minutes before resuming the game. I can virtually guarantee you that by the end of the session your players will have either (a) quit or (b) learned to curtail their actions to the "approved" list in the rulebook.

This fundamental problem extends itself pretty smoothly to world design, too, whether you're talking about the inability for a GM to smoothly handle, "Oh crap, my PCs have gone into a building I wasn't planning for them to enter." Or the impact on the GM's prep load.

This is a problem I already experience when using a simple virtual tabletop: The extra prep work to have maps prepared so that they can just be quickly loaded up is not insignificant.

So in terms of both player creativity and GM creativity, video games just can't compete with the tabletop.

Of course, OTOH, video games kick the tabletop's ass when it comes to rapid combat resolution, graphical immersion, sound design, and that sort of thing.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 4, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> Say I've got a player who wants to jump from a banister, grab the chandelier, and swing over to the far side of the room?
> 
> My tabletop game of choice doesn't have explicit mechanics for that, but I can make a ruling on it in about 3 seconds flat.




If you're playing a tebletop RPG without a GM willing to adjudicate actions that the rules don't cover, then I dare say it does feel like you're playing a videogame in that respect. I'm pretty sure that it's not something that can be directed at a particular game as opposed to being directed at a particular GM.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 4, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If you're playing a tebletop RPG without a GM willing to adjudicate actions that the rules don't cover, then I dare say it does feel like you're playing a videogame in that respect. I'm pretty sure that it's not something that can be directed at a particular game as opposed to being directed at a particular GM.



It frequently comes back to this.....

We can all stipulate that if you are playing a game with a DM and/or players that suck, then the game will suck.

But you have dropped any relevance of the game itself out of the conversation when you presume limitations in the players.  The conversation is much more interesting and useful if we presume quality participants.  If that presumption makes the conversation inapplicable to you, then I'm sorry about that.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 4, 2011)

Locien said:


> But there are a sizable number people that do hear that, and in using that term you're saying things you don't mean;what you think you said isn't as important as what people think you said-the former is reflection, the latter is communication. If you keep using the term, well, you'll just annoy and irritate some people, including some you may want to deal with. "I didn't mean that" generally doesn't work with things that people think are insults, so be careful.



We covered this a million times in the first 32 pages of this thread. No matter how many times you say "videogamey" is automatically insulting, many of us will reply "no it isn't" and we've backed that up with many examples.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

I would be _really_ interested in examining how many of the posters here - defending the idea that their method of communication isn't automatically derisive or insulting and that they should therefore be given a pass - are the same posters who have in the past decried WotC's initial 4e marketing campaign as insulting and derisive despite the many times they've been told that said campaign was _not_ automatically insulting and derisive, and backed it up with many examples.

I mean, clearly they expect you to be able to infer the intent behind their posts (_especially_ when that intent is not obvious), while at the same time they pretend that it's not possible to do _exactly that_ when it comes to anything WotC puts out.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Apr 4, 2011)

> We covered this...




So what?

What you fail to understand is that to some people it is an insult to some people, and just because you say it shouldn't be doesn't mean that people won't be insulted or take it personally.

What you fail to understand is that if you correct people, many will take it personally because it feels to them that you're making them out to be stupid.

That has also been explained to you a few times as well.

Most people are not logical and most people go by how things look and sound to them.

And it doesn't matter how many examples you back it up with.

When people want to be right above all else...
_*
It just doesn't matter how many times you show them to be wrong, nor how much evidence there is show them they're wrong, they will never change their minds under any circumstances because being right is what's important. 

*_
That is something you fail to understand because you value logic too much.

And that's the thing about people who value logic too much. They somehow become disconnected and forget this aspect of humanity and believe what must be true for them must be true for everybody else. It's a bunch of hooey. 

And that's why you guys often come across as smug and arrogant and elitist intellectuals.

Because you constantly insist on correcting people to what you think is the proper way to express oneself.

*Mod Edit:* Folks, getting personal isn't going to make this discussion go any further.  Don't be rude - it'll get you booted from the thread like DC here.  ~Umbran


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> That is something you fail to understand because you value logic too much.
> 
> And that's the thing about people who value logic too much. They somehow become disconnected and forget this aspect of humanity and believe what must be true for them must be true for everybody else. It's a bunch of hooey.




I'm just going to _guess_, here, that you've never had instruction in formal logic. I don't really think there _can_ be such a thing as valuing logic too much, no more than there can be such a thing as valuing gravity too much. Logic is a set of rules that assists in both thought and communication.

Calling someone arrogant and an elitist intellectual because they have made use of logical arguments in their discussion of a topic is pretty much _exactly_ the wrong way to go about things.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 4, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> We covered this a million times in the first 32 pages of this thread. No matter how many times you say "videogamey" is automatically insulting, many of us will reply "no it isn't" and we've backed that up with many examples.



It's not "automatically insulting", by which I would guess you mean that everyone finds it insulting in this context (?).

But if you frequent these boards, you should know that some people (certainly not all) _find it insulting_. You can go ahead, ignore that fact and continue to use the term knowing full well that some people will be insulted by it. Or, you can avoid such terminology (which other people also find frustratingly vague) to enable conversation rather than argument (in the everyday sense of the word).

You may not understand _why _they find it insulting, but you've been told often enough that they _do_. Whether you believe that these people should be insulted by the term, the fact remains that some will be. You can choose to ignore this fact; just be prepared to face the consequences.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> It's not "automatically insulting", by which I would guess you mean that everyone finds it insulting in this context (?).
> 
> But if you frequent these boards, you should know that some people (certainly not all) _find it insulting_. You can go ahead, ignore that fact and continue to use the term knowing full well that some people will be insulted by it. Or, you can avoid such terminology (which other people also find frustratingly vague) to enable conversation rather than argument (in the everyday sense of the word).
> 
> You may not understand _why _they find it insulting, but you've been told often enough that they _do_. Whether you believe that these people should be insulted by the term, the fact remains that some will be. You can choose to ignore this fact; just be prepared to face the consequences.




This is, I think, a pretty solid summary of the entire point of this thread.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I would be _really_ interested in examining how many of the posters here - defending the idea that their method of communication isn't automatically derisive or insulting and that they should therefore be given a pass - are the same posters who have in the past decried WotC's initial 4e marketing campaign as insulting and derisive despite the many times they've been told that said campaign was _not_ automatically insulting and derisive, and backed it up with many examples.
> 
> I mean, clearly they expect you to be able to infer the intent behind their posts (_especially_ when that intent is not obvious), while at the same time they pretend that it's not possible to do _exactly that_ when it comes to anything WotC puts out.



First, I'd point out that WotC saying "these are bad thing about 3E and this is why 4E is superior" is radically different than saying "those things which are perfectly fine in a video game are not as good in a table top role playing game".  It is very much an apples and oranges comparison.

But, since you clearly seem to think it was a worthwhile comparison...  Are you now saying that being bothered by WotC's statements was reasonable?  Are you saying that being bothered by "videogamey" is unreasonable?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 4, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> You may not understand _why _they find it insulting, but you've been told often enough that they _do_. Whether you believe that these people should be insulted by the term, the fact remains that some will be. You can choose to ignore this fact; just be prepared to face the consequences.



So from now on I can just declare anything you say to be insulting and you will refrain from ever saying it again?  Good to know.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> This is, I think, a pretty solid summary of the entire point of this thread.





Naw.  This isn't the N word or the C word or the R word or anything that rises to the level of meriting that sort of censorship, self or otherwise.  This isn't a case, except in some isolated instances of misuse (which I agree should be eliminated) where someone is purposefully trying to attack another person's sensibilities.  It then becomes a baby and bathwater situation where a relative few might be overreacting and broadbrushing a commonly accepted shorthand that in limited situations gets abused.  Asking others to understand the situation and avoid hurtful uses is fair enough, asking for broad abolishment is another thing entirely.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 4, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> Is it wrong to believe video games are mindless and inferior to RPGs? This is an opinion. Why are you bothered by someone else's opinion? How can you go through life if other people being dismissive of something you like BOTHERS you? I hate beans. Should bean lovers be upset?




Is it _wrong _for someone to have such an opinion? Well, probably not - I might disagree with it, but that doesn't mean someone can't believe it. But, at the same time, offering such opinion seems to merit the sort of concern expressed at the start of this thread. In the same way that, I imagine, members of this community would find themselves bothered if this hobby (and its players) was treated with similar disdain. Especially if they feel those stereotypes are erroneous, and want to correct what they see as misconceptions. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> > > You're cool with doing that for "simulationist" but not OK with doing that for "videogamey."
> > >
> > > Sounds like a classic double-standard to me.
> >
> ...




Except that those comments could have absolutely nothing to do with the original point. That's the problem, again, with how vague the term is. He says he is disappointed at how "videogamey" a game is, and I say I find the game's online support (in the form of digital tools) a good thing - and he's confused, because he was complaining about the game using various terms taken from a popular MMO. 

What does it mean to be "videogamey"? We've seen countless different possibilities in this thread. Many of them having little to do with video games themselves, and reflecting elements found in RPGs long before video games had a real presence! And the elements that _are _fundamental to video games - namely, being played on a computer, console or video unit of some kind - are pretty much never the actual concern of the criticism.

Whereas when someone says that are disappointed at how "simulationist" a game is, if I start discussing the value of simulationism in the game, or the pros and cons of it, etc... I am addressing the actual point he is making.

But until someone gives proper context or a more complete explanation about their complaints over something being "videogamey", I really have next to no idea as to what their concern actually _is_.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 4, 2011)

BryonD said:


> So from now on I can just declare anything you say to be insulting and you will refrain from ever saying it again?  Good to know.



Reductio ad absurdum is something else to avoid if you prefer conversation to argument.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 4, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> It then becomes a baby and bathwater situation where a relative few might be overreacting and broadbrushing a commonly accepted shorthand that in limited situations gets abused.



This is another point of the thread. It would be one thing if we were avoiding a useful descriptive term because some find it insulting. But, as discussed, when someone says "videogamey", the response comes "what do you mean by videogamey?" We're not going to lose precision by avoiding this term; we're likely to gain it.

So, (A) some people find it insulting and (B) it tends to be vague and raises more questions than it answers. I'm not sure what we'd be losing here.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 4, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> You may not understand _why _they find it insulting




I'm sure most of us understand why they find it insulting (they think it means that we are saying video games suck and their D&D material sucks). I'm also sure most of us don't care. The amount of things D&D players seem to be insulted by is astounding. And frankly, I'm not going to be bothered by over-sensitive nonsense since practically anything anyone here says is going to upset _some_ poor guy.

Even if I didn't use the term videogamey, and I flat out declared that "I think 4e sucks", who freaking cares? Sure, you can defend 4e and try to explain things to me in case it might change my opinion. But at the end of the day, if I still think 4e sucks, then as a fellow adult, deal with it. How on earth is that going to ruin your day knowing that I don't like 4e? Plenty of people don't like RPG material that I like, and it doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. I might think they are crazy, but I can understand that everyone has different tastes. I'm not actually going to flip out and cut heads off like Ninjas do just because you don't like what I like.

You people are whining about videogamey being too vague and a poor way to start off a conversation, yet if I were to say, "4e is *awesome*!" I guarantee you would have no problem with that. In fact, if you were a fan of 4e, you'd know what I meant when I said "awesome". I doubt you'd even demand to know any other details about what exactly it is that I find awesome. But because for some odd reason, the term videogamey hurts your feelings, then all of a sudden I'm a poor communicator and an insulting one at that. 

And before anyone tries to go into some long-winded explanation as to how "awesome" and "videogamey" are not the same thing, it doesn't matter. Just pretend it's the same thing and except that people will continue to use the term videogamey. Try to understand that it's *not* knocking video games regardless of what you think. This is absurd guys.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But, since you clearly seem to think it was a worthwhile comparison...  Are you now saying that being bothered by WotC's statements was reasonable?  Are you saying that being bothered by "videogamey" is unreasonable?




I'm saying, as I always have, that being insulted by _any_ of this stuff is silly to begin with. While I find it frustrating and think it confuses the discussion when people call something videogamey, that doesn't come near making it insulting.

But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while _also_ pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 4, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> (A) some people find it insulting and (B) it tends to be vague and raises more questions than it answers. I'm not sure what we'd be losing here.





This probably puts you in the camp that feels they should not use that shorthand themselves, but for many others this isn't a problem because (A) they aren't being insulting while using it and (B) it is a shorthand that they find useful.  I am getting the impression that the people who find it insulting do not believe it can be used in a manner that is not insulting.  Is this the case?


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Naw.  This isn't the N word or the C word or the R word or anything that rises to the level of meriting that sort of censorship, self or otherwise.  This isn't a case, except in some isolated instances of misuse (which I agree should be eliminated) where someone is purposefully trying to attack another person's sensibilities.  It then becomes a baby and bathwater situation where a relative few might be overreacting and broadbrushing a commonly accepted shorthand that in limited situations gets abused.  Asking others to understand the situation and avoid hurtful uses is fair enough, asking for broad abolishment is another thing entirely.




I don't think you read Fifth Element's post very closely. We're not asking for abolishment because sensibilities might be offended. We're asking people to curb their use of the term because _it contains an inherent level of vagueness that, among other things, leads to people being confused, frustrated, and insulted_ when none of that is the intent.

Simply by changing the language you use in a very minimal way (a way that will probably result in you having to explain _less _in the long term), you can ensure that your words are better understood by a wider audience. There's _very_ little to disagree with, here. Skipping over terms like "videogamey" in favor of meaningful explanation is a win-win, which is why so many of us are frankly flabbergasted as to why it's received such resistance.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> You people are whining about videogamey being too vague and a poor way to start off a conversation, yet if I were to say, "4e is *awesome*!" I guarantee you would have no problem with that.




It is troubling that you seem to be unaware of the difference in role criticism and compliment play in discussion.

When you compliment something, it is generally accepted that you can do so without making that compliment constructive, and that's okay.

When you criticize something, it is poor form to do so without including constructive commentary.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> We're not asking for abolishment because sensibilities might be offended. We're asking people to curb their use of the term because _it contains an inherent level of vagueness that, among other things, leads to people being confused, frustrated, and insulted_ when none of that is the intent.





Oh, I get it and if you read my post more closely you will understand that the very few people who advocate your shared position and request self-censorship are finding me in the camp that believe they are overreacting and unlikely to find much traction in their efforts.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I would be _really_ interested in examining how many of the posters here - defending the idea that their method of communication isn't automatically derisive or insulting and that they should therefore be given a pass - are the same posters who have in the past decried WotC's initial 4e marketing campaign as insulting and derisive despite the many times they've been told that said campaign was _not_ automatically insulting and derisive, and backed it up with many examples.
> 
> I mean, clearly they expect you to be able to infer the intent behind their posts (_especially_ when that intent is not obvious), while at the same time they pretend that it's not possible to do _exactly that_ when it comes to anything WotC puts out.




I was wondering if this topic would come up (and be used as poorly as it is here). I don't think anyone ever said that WotC's method of communication would automatically be derisive or insulting. In fact, I remember quite a few people who thought that the particulars of their 4e marketing weren't intended to be insulting but were amateurish and could have been done much better and much more professionally, and therefore not been perceived as insulting at all. That's fair a fair criticism of WotC, after all, they are supposed to be the professionals trying to put a positive spin on their products to encourage us to buy them. They failed to do so in a number of cases and rubbed people the wrong way. But allow me to repeat myself - I can't think of any critics who said that their method of communication was automatically derisive or insulting nor that everyone should be expected to feel the same way about it either negatively or positively.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while _also_ pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.




WotC was dumb for engaging marketing that some might consider insulting because it could affect their bottom line, their market share, and the perceptions of their target customer base. They have much higher stakes in their official communications. 

Message board discussions of hobbies - completely different league. Completely different intent behind the communication. We're not professionals engaging in official representation of a corporation here. We're not selling things. We're not dependent on our marketing setting the perception of our customers because, as semi-anonymous posters in a discussion thread, we don't have any customers.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy...




You might want to reconsider suggesting that people are hypocrites at this juncture.  I mean, in a discussion about being insulting, that'd be an ironic one.  



> ...in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while _also_ pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.




You can cuss up a blue streak playing basketball with the boys, but you'd not use the same language in front of your prospective mother-in-law, right?  So, propriety is situational - what you can say without offending people depends on who you are, and in what context you're saying it.

So, maybe people officially representing WotC in a business matter ought to comport themselves differently than some random unknown goon on a message board.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

> But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while also pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.




There is a difference between a marketing campaign done by a company to promote it's product and a critique of the product by the users.

Marketing prof after marketing prof will tell you it is bad practice to badmouth your prior popular products to make your current product look better.  Doing so almost always damages brand image and goodwill in the short term, and may carry over into the long term.  It's simply bad business.  Why?  Because it assumes that the customer base is essentially monolithic in opinion, often before the public gets to experience the product.  And when those of dissimilar sensibilities see that, they're going to look at the product just as much prejudiced as they feel they were prejudged.

Criticism, OTOH, lets current and prospective users and creators know where problems may exist within a product or service, based on their personal perspectives, experience, reading/analysis and possibly, use.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

Umbran said:


> So, maybe people officially representing WotC in a business matter ought to comport themselves differently than some random unknown goon on a message board.




They ought to. I'm all for holding companies to a higher standard than random unknown message board goons. But when said message board goons decide to be personally insulted by someone saying something that wasn't intended to be insulting (e.g., WotC pooping on trolls) and then pivot on their heels to say that it's silly to be insulted by something that wasn't intended as insulting _when they do it_, I don't know how else to view that except as hypocritical.


----------



## Bluenose (Apr 4, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> Is it wrong to believe video games are mindless?




Yes, it is. 

I suppose I could go to the trouble of looking up the literature on the use of video games in education, seeing how much of it is online and easily accessible. But I'm lazy, so I'm not going to. It's sufficient to say that anyone who considers video games mindless is ignorant of certain topics in recent education theory.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 4, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> I suppose I could go to the trouble of looking up the literature on the use of video games in education, seeing how much of it is online and easily accessible. But I'm lazy, so I'm not going to. It's sufficient to say that anyone who considers video games mindless is ignorant of certain topics in recent education theory.




Well stated.

I spent a year working on testing and field research evaluating the efficacy of the MIND Institute's educational video game software suite in public schools located in some of Southern California's most economically disadvantaged districts. The idea of mindless video games does _not_ line up with the research I've taken part in.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> They ought to. I'm all for holding companies to a higher standard than random unknown message board goons. But when said message board goons decide to be personally insulted by someone saying something that wasn't intended to be insulting (e.g., WotC pooping on trolls) and then pivot on their heels to say that it's silly to be insulted by something that wasn't intended as insulting _when they do it_, I don't know how else to view that except as hypocritical.




A lot of people offended by WotC's marketing will probably acknowledge that WotC didn't intend to insult them. It just ended up that way. That's different from inferring that they intended to insult and that's the crux of the difference between positions here that you're glossing over.

People defending the use of the term videogamey are saying you can't infer that the use is necessarily insulting... regardless of whether you may personally be offended by its use or not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

> When you criticize something, it is poor form to do so without including constructive commentary.



It's also poor form to open with an info dump.  "Videogamey" is a catchall term- like "Gen Xers", "Latino", "mammals", "gamist" and "rocks"- use of which with subsequent clarification is perfectly acceptable and commonplace.



> Simply by changing the language you use in a very minimal way




OK, suggest a better catchall term.



> Skipping over terms like "videogamey" in favor of meaningful explanation is a win-win, which is why so many of us are frankly flabbergasted as to why it's received such resistance




And we're flabbergasted that a common linguistic practice is so confusing to y'all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

> a lot of people offended by wotc's marketing will probably acknowledge that wotc didn't intend to insult them. It just ended up that way. That's different from inferring that they intended to insult and that's the crux of the difference between positions here that you're glossing over.




qft.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannager said:


> It is troubling that you seem to be unaware of the difference in role criticism and compliment play in discussion.
> 
> When you compliment something, it is generally accepted that you can do so without making that compliment constructive, and that's okay.
> 
> When you criticize something, it is poor form to do so without including constructive commentary.




Neither of which makes any difference in my comparison to the complaint about the term videogamey when you get right down to it. Nitpick all you want, but I'm unaware of nothing. Maybe you didn't hear, but I finished reading the internet long ago.

*Really, I'm just posting so I can keep saying videogamey. I've never had the chance to say it as much as this, so I'm thrilled we're at page 35.


----------



## WizarDru (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OK, suggest a better catchall term.




Honestly, I'm still unclear as to what it's a catchall term FOR.  Console games? Computer games?  Any game that runs on an electronic interface?  That's fine if that's what it is, I just haven't heard (or perhaps missed) what the agreed upon definition of 'videogamey' is.  I would assume that it's 'any game played on an electronic interface, usually with a fairly simple control interface', but I really haven't heard otherwise.

I mean, 'Gen Xers' has a fairly set meaning.  Like the 'Silver Age' in comics, not everyone agrees on the start and end dates, but everyone generally agrees on the most of the range.  'Mammals' has a pretty concise definition.  Rocks likewise can be wide-ranging, but it still has a basis in observational and scientific definitions.  Gamist is probably a good analogy...it's clear that it's exact definition is about as vague as 'videogamey'.

And it's hardly a complaint exclusive to 4E, either.  I saw the term launched at 3E plenty of times (usually in terms of why it was bad).  In the case of 4E, I have people specifically refer to 4E as 'like a video game' or 'like an MMO' and consider that a positive.  So clearly it isn't always used as a pejorative in conversation.


----------



## Locien (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OK, suggest a better catchall term.



I'll take a few guesses at what "videogamey" means
1. "Closed ended". the rules are limited to a very specific scope to the point the game seems excessively limited. House ruling to fix the problems would likely change the rules enough such that you may need a whole system. Can be linked to how most video games are limited in what they do due to programming limits
2. "Too combat focused". Traces to your action games. here the fucus is on fighting and action. 
3. "Setting is poorly constructed/not well thought out/just plain random". Traces to many game, like Super Mario Brothers, where the setting is more a backdrop for exciting and exotic locations. Also exists in many japanese console RPGs due to third hand knowledge of fantasy tropes, I don't think many japanese console RPG makers read much fantasy literature(but I could be wrong-I do though there is a strong publishing market in japan, and there is a lot of science fiction, fantasy, and Horror that gets published there, both translated and written)
Again, 1 could be most specific complaint to "videogameyness", but 2 and 3 are more likly to be invoked, even though these problems predate widespread videogame adoption.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 4, 2011)

For a bit of the "shoe on the other foot," there were responses earlier in this thread that were rather odd replies.

For example, when I used Legend of Zelda as an example of learning how to design good dungeons for traditional roleplaying, someone came back and pointed out other things of Legends of Zelda that were inhibitors if applied to tabletop gaming (such as a linear storyline of Zelda = railroading). My first thoughts?

_Why would I do that?_

There is no reason why I should use elements from videogames in my traditional roleplaying that are limitations of the particular format.

Now, apparently when gamers who see something useful from videogames decide to incorporate those elements into traditional gaming, it does run the risk of something being too "videogamey." I do not see this as a bad thing.

Those arguing for the use of the term "too videogamey" or "this is too much like a videogame" have been railing for several pages about how they are not responsible for _their_ poor choice of a descriptor which could (and often is) misinterpreted, especially when others _have used it_ as either an insult to games (insinuating that nothing from videogames could be worthy of adopting for tabletop use), and how it is the fault of the reader for misinterpreting it. A poor descriptor is a poor descriptor, so take some responsibility for your word choice. Not everybody can get away with arguing what the definition of "is" is.

But this thread shows that several posters on the other side are guilty of the same type of assumptions. Baby with the bathwater, as it were. At least in my own particular instance, I _did give specific examples_ of things that I've learned from videogames that have enhanced my tabletop gaming experiance. The response was for people to point out things_ I don't use_ from videogames that people don't like to see at the table.

Well, since I don't use those things, problem solve. But it does make _them_ guilty of faulty assumptions _not based_ on the examples I posted. But I did use specific examples, instead of just spouting "Videogames are great and everything should be 'ported over."

There is a huge difference between using a vague descriptor and expecting people to know what you are talking about and going into specific examples to show what you are talking about. With the wide variety of ways "this is like a videogame" can and has been used, it is a poor descriptor.

If you expect me to know what you are talking about, _be more specific_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

> Honestly, I'm still unclear as to what it's a catchall term FOR. Console games? Computer games? Any game that runs on an electronic interface? That's fine if that's what it is, I just haven't heard (or perhaps missed) what the agreed upon definition of 'videogamey' is. I would assume that it's *'any game played on an electronic interface, *usually with a fairly simple control interface', but I really haven't heard otherwise.




The section I bolded is all you need.



> 'Gen Xers' has a fairly set meaning.




Technically yes, but when used in conversation and commentary, it's used as a catchall for certain things that are popular with us, but are in no way unique to us...and in many ways are more prevalent in Gen Y.  It's been expanded far beyond it's initial boundaries.



> 'Mammals' has a pretty concise definition




It does, but it's broad enough that if you tried to say something is "too mammalian"- ridiculous, I know, but we're just talking about the way words are used- would you know what that person meant instantly, or would you wonder if that something was too hairy, lactated too much, was too dependent on live birth, or something else?  You'd need more clarification.  And if you found the speaker was thinking about a nearly hairless cetaciN, a bat or a platypus, wouldn't you wonder why the term "mammalian" was used?



> Rocks likewise can be wide-ranging, but it still has a basis in observational and scientific definitions.




I can guarantee you that the popular usage of "rock" and the scientific use of "rock" are _NOT_ identical.  Especially if the speaker was referring to music...


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 4, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> A poor descriptor is (. . .)





It doesn't appear that everyone, if many, agree that it is a poor descriptor.  Some are even fine with it being a less than precise descriptor in favor of its use as shorthand.  You keep coming back to this false premise as an undeniable assertion of truth and it is limiting your ability to participate in a meaningful discussion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 4, 2011)

> If you expect me to know what you are talking about, be more specific.



If you don't understand what I'm saying by my use of a term, don't infer an insult, ask me to clarify.


----------



## racoffin (Apr 4, 2011)

From what I recall from many years ago during the beginnings of 4E, people were equating it with Diablo or World of Warcraft. That was met with a huge uproar and much anger, with many of a "You don't understand what you are saying and how can anyone call it like that!"

I cannot be sure, but I'd wager a pretty penny that the term videogamey is being used in place of games of that sort, which is why you'll find many folks that use the term or can understand what is being talked about nodding and understanding the shortcut being used.

Whether those who mislike the term agree or disagree with the shorthand or whether the system acts like one of those sorts of games is beside the point. It has become a shorthand that more than a few people understand and have used, much like a lot of the jargon, slang and shorthand that crops up on message boards and the rest of the net.

After 35+ pages of this thread, I'd be amazed if people don't have a slight idea of what the term 'videogamey' means. The conversation has left that and moved on to trying to, for lack of a better word, force people to elaborate, expand, or expound upon what they mean. While it would be nice, it isn't something that many feel comfortable doing, or even believe that they have to. Sometimes, if you don't understand, it is on you. Sometimes, if the other person doesn't want to explain you have to shrug and move on.

Me, I'm flabbergasted that after 35+ pages we're still trying to create some definition. We're all big kids here, we know the term doesn't reference Pong or MarioKart or some obscure video game or system or style. Check the archives for all the fighting from years ago and it's pretty clear what it means, and people on the thread have elaborated a great deal.

In the end, this is less about the term and more about the idea of controlling the conversation by controlling the language in my opinion. And I've found that people, especially on Internet message boards, are very reluctant to budge in that regard.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you don't understand what I'm saying by my use of a term, don't infer an insult, ask me to clarify.



Didn't we go over this? _Several times?_

On another note, there's been at least 5 different variations in this thread on what "videogamey" means, by people who use it as a (positive or negative) descriptor.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 4, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> On another note, there's been at least 5 different variations in this thread on what "videogamey" means, by people who use it as a (positive or negative) descriptor.




Oh perfect! So you're saying that you are beginning to know what the term means then! Finally.


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 5, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> Oh perfect! So you're saying that you are beginning to know what the term means then! Finally.




I know what several definitions of the term means. This thread fullfilled it's role at least 10 pages back. Those definitions are not necessarally the same, though, for each person.

For instance, pro-4e often associate the definition of the term as an excuse not to like 4e, rather than for a specific mechanic. The term has been used this way by some people. Anti-4e typically uses it to refer to a specific game mechanic that breaks suspension of disbelief for them. That mechanic is not neccessarally the same for each person.

Because of the gulf between the definitions, the term is vague enough to be useless to the discussion without applying further context.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 5, 2011)

Diamond Cross said:


> Most people are not logical and most people go by how things look and sound to them.



Wait, wait, you are telling me, the poster who as been saying since the beginning that people posting on forums are posting emotionally first, that people are not logical? Have you read anything I posted? Let me summarize:

Generally, someone posting in a forum takes ZERO care to ensure they are being precise and makes ZERO attempt to ensure their arguments are logical to a debate club level. In fact, most people don't do any fact checking. They don't do any research. They don't do anything but post the first notion to wander across their brain, and this thought is probably emotionally charged if it is something they are passionate about.

Because of the above, YOU can't stop them _a priori_ from using a vague, imprecise term (such as videogamey) when giving their first impression of 4e. 
-- end summary

Second, how does everything you said to me, not apply to you? You want people not to call 4e videogamey. And somehow these illogical people are supposed to use logic to understand that some people find it insulting? And they are supposed to know this before they post somehow?



> When people want to be right above all else...



The simple solution is not to talk to these people. Once they reveal how illogically they view the world (I must be right), you should be the better person and walk away from the fight you can't win.



> And that's why you guys often come across as smug and arrogant and elitist intellectuals.



Actually I'm espousing wisdom (More than I may possess), not intelligence. Intelligence says I can find the right words that will win this argument. Wisdom tells you that you can't change a closed mind. The only arrogance I might display is my continued attempt to open minds.



> Because you constantly insist on correcting people to what you think is the proper way to express oneself.



Again, you are saying "don't express you hate for 4e by saying videogamey". I'm saying, "you can't stop someone from saying something". Who again is telling others the proper way to express oneself?

EDIT: [MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION]: Ooops, I hadn't noticed.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 5, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> the term is vague enough to be useless to the discussion without applying further context.




It's no less vague than if you said "I don't like 4e" or "I don't like that rule". But then, this was probably mentioned within the first 10 pages also.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 5, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> jmucchiello said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bull. Just because educators say something doesn't make it fact. If education were a science, no kid would ever fail out of school. It is like saying there is a right answer to religion or politics. No, having a BELIEF does not require a researched position. All it requires is a BELIEF. I can't take this discussion to its logical conclusion without violating board rules about forbidden topics. Funny though as those forbidden topics are forbidden because people react to them emotionally. Similarly, there have be moratoriums on edition wars for the same reason.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 5, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> It's sufficient to say that anyone who considers video games mindless is ignorant of certain topics in recent education theory.



So now video roleplaying games are the functional equivalent of video educational software?

What's next? A dune buggy is equivalent to a Bradley because they both are found in the desert?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 5, 2011)

In the last six pages, has the thread at all progressed from this:



JamesonCourage said:


> It looks like this thread is mostly devolving into a loop that looks something like this, as of this point:
> 
> 1) "Video-gamey" isn't a precise term.
> 2) But it isn't necessarily insulting.
> ...


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 5, 2011)

racoffin said:


> In the end, this is less about the term and more about the idea of controlling the conversation by controlling the language in my opinion.



Worth repeating.

And could someone please whack *racoffin* with an XP for me?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Reductio ad absurdum is something else to avoid if you prefer conversation to argument.



That would be a good point if I was reducing anything.  But your insistence that an honest statement is defacto insulting is already into absurdity.

And if we were actually having a conversation, you wouldn't be trying avoid the conversation by telling others what they may and may not say.  

Other than those two errors, your sentence is ok.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I'm saying, as I always have, that being insulted by _any_ of this stuff is silly to begin with. While I find it frustrating and think it confuses the discussion when people call something videogamey, that doesn't come near making it insulting.



Cool, props for that.  I agree.  I think being insulted by either is quite silly.



> But it exposes an interesting bit of hypocrisy in those who would pretend that WotC is evilbaddumb for engaging in a marketing campaign that some might consider insulting, while _also_ pretending that it's okay to use language that some might consider insulting.



So many things to disagree with....

First, you have simply ignored the point I already made.  No one is saying videogames are bad as video games.   The comments WotC made about 3E was saying that a role playing game is bad as a role playing game.  "Hypocrisy" requires that these things be the same, and they are not remotely.  Again, I do agree that getting offended by what WotC said is silly.  But taking a point of information in where they are coming from is perfectly valid.  

And there is no pretending.  It is absolutely ok to use language that describes your point of view.  If someone wants to bend over backwards to get themselves offended where no reasonable offense exists, then that issue lies solely with the person inventing the offense.  

I don't accept that any reasonable person can truly stop and consider the point being made and come away with insult as the content.  I think it is clearly just a combination of thoughtless knee jerk response and intentional effort to discredit a legitimate complaint that can not be answered in more sound terms.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I don't accept that any reasonable person can truly stop and consider the point being made and come away with insult as the content.  I think it is clearly just a combination of thoughtless knee jerk response and intentional effort to discredit a legitimate complaint that can not be answered in more sound terms.




Here, we largely agree. Perceiving insult where none is intended is pointless and distracting. I would argue, however, that calling something "videogamey" is, _itself_, pointless and distracting to begin with. And, as this thread has shown, there are _plenty_ of ways to respond to the "videogamey" criticism that _are_ composed in sound terms. I believe that there are legitimate complaints to be found behind, but not within, the idea that something is too "videogamey".


----------



## Glade Riven (Apr 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> In the last six pages, has the thread at all progressed from this:



Not really, and I suspect I'm being flamebaited. But I'll give people the benefit of the doubt and say that I am not.

Like I've said before, I'm just seeing how long this thread goes.

[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION]: Pretty much. Without identifying what the problem is, the problem could not then be fixed in later iterations. As a critique/constructive critisism, it's worthless. That being said, someone not liking something (whether 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, whatever) doesn't bother me. I am not arguing for a rational for likes/dislikes, because there often isn't one.

Saying something is like a videogame is still largly meaningless to me, personally. If it has meaning to you (which it does have a meaning for some people), congradulations. But this thread has shown that the meaning is quite varied. Another reason why it has little meaning to me is because I honestly believe that items from videogames can positivly influence tabletop gaming. I also think that this belief of mine has been overlooked in favor of other arguments.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

> I honestly believe that items from videogames can positivly influence tabletop gaming




Actually, I've seen people make this assertion elsewhere...and I agree.

Inconsistent?  No.

Remember the "too garlicky" example- I LOVE garlic, I buy it in 2lb containers of peeled cloves- and when I call certain dishes "garlicky", it is nothing but the highest of praise.

But in case of the aforementioned garlic chocolate chip cookies, I can't help but think that I'd share the assessment of someone who actually tasted them: "too garlicky" would be the first thing I'd probably say.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 5, 2011)

Transbot9 said:


> Another reason why it has little meaning to me is because I honestly believe that items from videogames can positivly influence tabletop gaming. I also think that this belief of mine has been overlooked in favor of other arguments.




Oh man, big ol' circle again. 

Nobody has overlooked that statement. It has been addressed plenty of times. Maybe it has just been overlooked in the countless repetitive posts in this very long thread.

I'll respond to that line of thought again:

Calling something videogamey does not necessarily have anything to do with content being a specific feature from *any* actual video game.

There could be things we have borrowed from video games and been perfectly fine with using. Why? Because it seems more logical to have in my D&D game because it is more believable or has a good explanation for why it exists. Yes, it is content from a video game, no, it is not videogamey. It may even be something that has never existed in a video game. But if it appears videogamey to me, then I'll call it videogamey. That's how the term works.

You can't take the term too literally. For me, I'll call something videogamey when it seems like it is being implemented in my D&D game for no other reason than the fact that "it's cool & would be awesome to do that in D&D." Because face it, that's how a lot of content is thrown into video games. We don't really need a real world explanation for why it's possible to do things in video games. Mario could fly with a racoon tail. Why? Hell if I know. But I always kept trying to get a racoon tail. If it appears to me that I'm given a rule where the developers thought it would be cool to have, and *then* came up with some lame explanation on how/why the rule exists in the campaign world, then it seems like all they did was see something they liked from a video game and wanted to implement that into the D&D game. If it is a rule I like because it can be explained away in real world terms in a way I'm comfortable with, then I won't refer to that rule from that video game as being videogamey.

I would say that, "I hope that makes sense and clears things up.", but if by page 37, you never got that point, I doubt I've done any _clearing up_.


----------



## Paradox (Apr 5, 2011)

It's not the videogames, it's the racist 12 year old kids who just discovered the F word and don't know what it actually means swearing at me, a player who's played videogames at least one and a half decades before thier parents even met that I can't stand.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I would argue, however, that calling something "videogamey" is, _itself_, pointless and distracting to begin with.



And again, if you assume the person doing so, does so out of ignorance, it isn't pointless or distraction, it is ignorance. 

If you ask, what do you mean by that and get a lucid response, you can have a conversation. If you ask what do you mean by that and get vitriol, walk away. The asking of what do you mean never hurts you.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

jmucchiello said:


> And again, if you assume the person doing so, does so out of ignorance, it isn't pointless or distraction, it is ignorance.




This thread is an attempt to stave off that ignorance. It's unfortunate that the message has become bogged down by people who have decided that - rather than being a product of ignorance - the term has a productive meaning.



> If you ask, what do you mean by that and get a lucid response, you can have a conversation. If you ask what do you mean by that and get vitriol, walk away. The asking of what do you mean never hurts you.




Aside from the potential confusion/distraction and the requisite small amount of time necessary to ask for clarification, no, it doesn't hurt anyone. But it's unnecessary.

And, mind you, occasionally vitriol merits a response, especially if - to the unaware - that vitriol appears to make a point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

> This thread is an attempt to stave off that ignorance. It's unfortunate that the message has become bogged down by people who have decided that - rather than being a product of ignorance - the term has a productive meaning.




I think it's a shame that people can't recognize the term actually does have meaning- broad though it is- and seem to rely on some tortured parsing to support their position that it is 1) meaningless, 2) an insult against videogames, or 3) an attempt to troll or deliberately confuse others.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannager said:


> This thread is an attempt to stave off that ignorance. It's unfortunate that the message has become bogged down by people who have decided that - rather than being a product of ignorance - the term has a productive meaning.




I swear if you post again with your elitist 'I'm smarter than all of you' bullcrap again, I'm going to kill a kitten. I'm not only going to kill it, I'm going to throw it on the grill and serve it to my grandmother with her poached eggs.

For real man. Enough of that. There are plenty of gamers that believe the term has a productive meaning. There are probably more gamers that believe it does than there are gamers that believe they are intellectual superior than me because they believe it doesn't. The only ignorance is not knowing it's productive meaning when people have been explaining it for 37 pages.

Don't be annoying.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think it's a shame that people can't recognize the term actually does have meaning- broad though it is- and seem to rely on some tortured parsing to support their position that it is 1) meaningless, 2) an insult against videogames, or 3) an attempt to troll or deliberately confuse others.




The latter two criticisms of the term have questionable merit. The first, however, is demonstrably true. It may have personal meaning, but it does not have an accepted meaning, and it's just as likely for two people using the term to ascribe different meanings to its use as it is for them to ascribe the same meaning.

It would be _great_ (well, not great, but at least acceptable) if "videogamey" meant "similar to video games", but it doesn't. Many people have used the term to refer to things that are not at all like video games. It _more often_ (but, again, not uniformly) is meant as "makes me personally think of video games in a particular way", which doesn't do anything except tell us that it reminds you of video games. This is useful, perhaps, for understanding how you (_collective_ you) view video games (since you compare your experience with video games to 4e) but not useful for understanding how you view 4e (since we don't know what your experience with video games is, or how 4e reminds you of them). And, since it's doubtful that your intent was to explain how you feel about video games and was probably to explain how you feel about 4e, it comes across as a failure of communication. And, since communication is a two-way street, we're letting you know that in order for your comments to make sense to the people reading them, you need to use terminology that communicates your opinion better than "videogamey" does.

You can _say_ that you understand what someone is saying when they call 4e "videogamey", but you're really just making a _barely_ educated guess. The term just doesn't give you anything to go on.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

On second thought, this is a job for Mr. Report Post Button.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannager said:


> On second thought, this is a job for Mr. Report Post Button.




Eh, it turns out my grandmother likes grilled kittens. So that threat was a big waste of my time.

*Edit* Oh, now you edit your post? *I wrote the above because what I quoted in this post was not what he originally wrote*.

Dude, relax, my kitten comment was a joke.

So you can refer to us as being ignorant, but I can't call you out on it? And yer gonna try to tattle tale on me over that?

I'm not even going to go and edit that post. If the mods think it was uncalled for, then so be it. But let it be known I posted it as 1. a joke, and 2. a retort to your frequent references towards us being ignorant. We've never once insulted your logical way of thinking other than that we think it's silly to be mad about the term videogamey. But you consistently keep responding as if we're illogical & ignorant.

Now yer snitching on me.  How old are you?

*Edit again* On second thought, I'm going to hit Mr. Report Post Button on you sir! We're not ignorant and how dare you say we are!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

> The latter two criticisms of the term have questionable merit. The first, however, is demonstrably true. It may have personal meaning, but it does not have an accepted meaning, and it's just as likely for two people using the term to ascribe different meanings to its use as it is for them to ascribe the same meaning.




If we were to excise from English all the words that have broad, multiple and/or contradictory definitions, we'd probabaly knock the OED down to 2/3rds it's current size.

Like the definition of the suffix "y" or it's variant "ey": it can be a diminutive, a quality, a condition, or many other things, including having qualities of, suggestive of, somewhat like...

(Such as when attached to the word "vieeogame.")


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

Double post.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If we were to excise from English all the words that have broad, multiple and/or contradictory definitions, we'd probabaly knock the OED down to 2/3rds it's current size.




This doesn't change the fact that, when one speaks to others, it behooves the speaker to use language that is precise enough to convey the meaning and intent of the speaker's words to his audience. We're telling you that "videogamey" is not precise enough to convey that meaning and intent to us, and that it probably isn't even precise enough to convey that meaning and intent to some of the people you _do_ think understand you perfectly.

Again, no one is trying to force anyone to use clear language. If you don't care about clarity, or about being well understood by those who read your words, then you should feel free to continue using the term. Just understand that, when you do, some people will legitimately point out to you that they have to make poor guesses at what you might mean unless you elaborate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

> We're telling you that "videogamey" is not precise enough to convey that meaning and intent to us,




We're telling you that the definition of "videogame" + the suffix "ey" should be sufficient to convey the idea that the word means "pertains to, has qualities of or is somewhat like videogames" as per standard rules of English.

As for intent, that is determined- as per regular conversational rules- by context and subsequent questions and answers.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We're telling you that the definition of "videogame" + the suffix "ey" should be sufficient to convey the idea that the word means "pertains to, has qualities of or is somewhat like videogames" as per standard rules of English.




This would be a great meaning for the word. The trick is to get people to use it. Unfortunately, what we have often seen is that when people use this word, the things they mean to describe with it _don't have anything to do with video games_, or don't have anything to do with video games in particular so much as they have to do with games in general, or even entertainment in general.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

> ...don't have anything to do with video games, or don't have anything to do with video games in particular so much as they have to do with games in general, or even entertainment in general.




To which I respond: I have yet to see one definition supplied in this thread that didn't have _anything at all _to do with videogames; and as stated before, it doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with videogames in particular, etc. since if something reminds the speaker of videogames, _it reminds the speaker of videogames._

You might as well argue that "garlicky" is too vague because someone confused the tastes of garlic and fennel and used "garlicky" when he meant "fennely".  That kind of mistake is ultimately correctible via communication, but does not invalidate the term "garlicky" itself.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To which I respond: I have yet to see one definition supplied in this thread that didn't have _anything at all _to do with videogames; and as stated before, it doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with videogames in particular, etc. since if something reminds the speaker of videogames, _it reminds the speaker of videogames._




So instead of "pertains to, has qualities of or is somewhat like videogames", you agree that "makes me personally think of video games in a particular way" is more accurate. Which is where I said the problem stems from in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

But I'm not going to spend all that time typing out the definition of "videogamey" when I can use the word itself.

When you play a brand new 1Ed arcane spellcaster, do you write "Lvl 1 person who practises or professes to practise magic" or do you write "Wizard?"

(If you do the latter, are you concerned that someone might think you're meaning some other kind of wizard, like one dealing with electronics?  Or pinball?)


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But I'm not going to spend all that time typing out the definition of "videogamey" when I can use the word itself.




Don't type out the definition of "videogamey", then. Type out your actual issues with the game. You'll have to, eventually, anyway, won't you? I mean, have you ever seen someone call 4e videogamey on here without someone else challenging them or asking them to explain what they mean? Or, perhaps worse, saying something along the lines of "I know! [thing that you don't agree is videogamey] is so videogamey!"?

I mean, if you've found a place where everyone knows what you're talking about when you use words like "videogamey", cool, but I don't think that place is here.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (If you do the latter, are you concerned that someone might think you're meaning some other kind of wizard, like one dealing with electronics?  Or pinball?)




If someone gets the mistaken impression that I am a pinball wizard, _I am totally cool with this_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 5, 2011)

> Don't type out the definition of "videogamey", then. Type out your actual issues with the game. You'll have to, eventually, anyway, won't you?




I'll use "videogamey", thank you, since _that *IS* my issue,_ and will deliver a detailed explanation if and when asked.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll use "videogamey", thank you, since _that *IS* my issue,_ and will deliver a detailed explanation if and when asked.




Okay.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 5, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> You can't take the term too literally. For me, I'll call something videogamey when it seems like it is being implemented in my D&D game for no other reason than the fact that "it's cool & would be awesome to do that in D&D." Because face it, that's how a lot of content is thrown into video games.




This is ironic; if you read Old Geezer's posts on RPG.net, the main reason he gives for a _lot_ of what's in D&D is "We made some  up we thought would be fun."  And (for those of you who aren't aware) he was at Gygax's and Arneson's table.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll use "videogamey", thank you, since _that *IS* my issue,_ and will deliver a detailed explanation if and when asked.




You'll use it despite it being unclear and insulting?  And as I (and others) have pointed out, throwing oil on the edition war fires?  OK.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Apr 5, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> I swear if you post again with your elitist 'I'm smarter than all of you' bullcrap again, I'm going to kill a kitten. I'm not only going to kill it, I'm going to throw it on the grill and serve it to my grandmother with her poached eggs.
> 
> For real man. Enough of that. There are plenty of gamers that believe the term has a productive meaning. There are probably more gamers that believe it does than there are gamers that believe they are intellectual superior than me because they believe it doesn't. The only ignorance is not knowing it's productive meaning when people have been explaining it for 37 pages.
> 
> Don't be annoying.




Nice bit of generalisation to counter his elitism. Don't be annoying.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 5, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Don't type out the definition of "videogamey", then. Type out your actual issues with the game. You'll have to, eventually, anyway, won't you?




Actually, I think that might be the problem. If someone says "why don't you like 4e?" and I reply "it's too video-gamey for me," then we can all agree that it reminds me of a video game to some degree, or I wouldn't use the term.

Now, you can ask me from here why I dislike the game (whatever the reason, be it balance, powers, healing surges, better starting survivability, etc.), and you can show me why they aren't like video games (or no more than, say, 3.x).

At the end of the conversation, my main problem will still be that it reminds me of video games. The explanation is just a list of how these things remind me. The entire conversation is based on my subjective opinions. You can get upset all you want, but if my mind connects "healing surge" with "4e" and "video games" then it will remind me of video games.

And that was the original complaint leveled. It wasn't "healing surges." It was "video-gamey." And that's why. It's not logical, but it's truthful.

Does this make sense? I think we can clear this one issue up, honestly. We're all intelligent people 

I know some people still find the term insulting to video games, but it's not inherently, and I can go into a civil discourse on that once again if asked.

Anyways, play what you like


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 5, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> At the end of the conversation, my main problem will still be that it reminds me of video games. The explanation is just a list of how these things remind me. The entire conversation is based on my subjective opinions. You can get upset all you want, but if my mind connects "healing surge" with "4e" and "video games" then it will remind me of video games.




And when I have demonstrated that almost every single objection you make is a lot less like common video games than prior editions are, I am going to come to a different conclusion on what you don't like.  The reason to me appears to be that you are far more familiar with classic D&D tropes than you are with 4e and hit points + unlimited healing get a pass from you where limited healing does not not through any actual likeness to video games but through familiarity.  Rule by rule, AD&D & 3.X are IME much more like video games than 4e - but they do not go analysed by this because they are much older.  Even in terms of feel - I've hit an entire dungeon at a run in 3.X with a well made group, never stopping for more than a few seconds for someone to pull out the Wand of Cure Light Wounds*.  4e that would be _stupid_.  Our PCs need rest.



> And that was the original complaint leveled. It wasn't "healing surges." It was "video-gamey." And that's why. It's not logical, but it's truthful.




It's also at best the beginnings of a discussion not the end of one.  At worst it's adding fuel to the edition war fires.



> Anyways, play what you like




Agreed.

* 3 4th level PCs hitting an orc dungeon intended for 5 5th level PCs.  Unfortunately thanks to the twinked Bard we had +4 to hit and damage, and the artificer meant we were all carrying Orcbane weapons.  (Along with the Lesser Magic Weapon wands).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 5, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> And when I have demonstrated that almost every single objection you make is a lot less like common video games than prior editions are, I am going to come to a different conclusion on what you don't like.  The reason to me appears to be that you are far more familiar with classic D&D tropes than you are with 4e and hit points + unlimited healing get a pass from you where limited healing does not not through any actual likeness to video games but through familiarity.  Rule by rule, AD&D & 3.X are IME much more like video games than 4e - but they do not go analysed by this because they are much older.  Even in terms of feel - I've hit an entire dungeon at a run in 3.X with a well made group, never stopping for more than a few seconds for someone to pull out the Wand of Cure Light Wounds*.  4e that would be _stupid_.  Our PCs need rest.




I still have yet to state my feelings on 4e (or 3x) other than hypothetically. I'm just pointing out that the objection is feel, not specifics. You won't change that on these boards. Maybe if you could GM for them.



> It's also at best the beginnings of a discussion not the end of one.  At worst it's adding fuel to the edition war fires.




It can add fuel, yes. People can misuse the phrase "video-gamey." However, that speaks more about them then the actual phrase, I think. People that use any phrase to be purposefully insulting should not really ruin someone stating an honest assessment of something they dislike (logical or not), in my opinion.



> Agreed.




We agree to agree!


----------



## racoffin (Apr 5, 2011)

What puzzles me is that those that seem not to care for the word "videogamey" are saying that they don't understand the word and don't want to have to be telepathic to divine the meaning from the speaker's head.

In the next breath, they are saying that it is insulting. So you are not willing to stretch to determine what the speaker might mean, but you are willing to take the extra few seconds to be offended by it and put your spin that it is an insult?

People are going to use the term, especially now that there has been a huge battle over it. People use terms I personally don't care for all the time, but you know what? I shrug and move on to the next post and let it go.

If you are confused, ask *nicely* for more information, and if they aren't willing to go further move on. It isn't creating a better understanding to berate people for their supposed ignorance or insulting behavior for dozens of pages; rather, it's arguing for the sake of arguing about something that you (the collective you) think may be insulting about the game you happen to like.

And if they are insulting it, is it really hurting you? Some people just aren't going to like what you like, and that's OK! Otherwise, it'd be a boring world.

For some, like say me, you can take every point I toss out about how I may think the game in question is "videogamey" and debunk each of them, somehow proving to me that there isn't really a connection to video games, but in the end I am going to nod and say, "It looks like one of the toons out of a video game running around doing video game things *to me*, sorry."

And that is my right to think that. You've spoken your piece and proven everything you could, and my _perception_ of the game isn't changed. Most, if not all of us, have been playing RPGs for many years. Some for many many many. After all those years, we have our perceptions and expectations of games, of what we like and don't like. 

Even with the logic of Spock and hours of careful explaining, do you think you are going to change that, or by abolishing the term "videogamey" in favor of a term you can understand better or requesting/requiring people to spell out each and every problem that they have with the game so it can be properly dispelled that you are going to change minds?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2011)

This thread is now nearly 40 pages long, seems to be going nowhere, and serves as EN World's largest source of reported posts.

Thread Closed.


----------

