. . .
And that is why I play D&D. The ability to have actual options in combat, to turn it into a thinking man's game instead of just an equation. There's still plenty of math in it of course but you aren't just limited to comparing numbers and getting a > or a < result. It is unfortunate that only the spellcasting classes are able to deliver what I want out of a tabletop game but it is nonetheless true that non casters are confined to a tiny portion of the game. Thing is, and what those who constantly pull the 'It's just your opinion' card would do well to learn is that I actually do like non casters, but am admitting they suck in spite of that. There is no subjective bias, I am posting as I do in spite of any subjective bias, not because of it.
. . .
There are of course other factors that interest me that can best be summarized as "I play D&D for the mechanics and the roleplay, and video games for strict number crunching."
I hope you will forgive that I have reduced your response to the two paragraphs that really illuminate the core of what we're discussing. The intention is merely to save a bit of space. I have also bolded the clause that really jumped out at me, for ease of reference.
But first, a cigarette. . .
Ah, now that I've taken care of that . . .
I play RPGs for different reasons than you. I play video games for different reasons as well.
I grew up a reader, an absolute devourer of thought committed to the page. By the time I was five or six, I had a thorough grounding in Greek/Roman myth, Arthurian legend, the Hobbit, and the Chronicles of Narnia (also dinosaurs, Mr. Jacobs). In elementary school, I often spent recess sitting with a book at the edge of sandbox, learning social interaction from watching the other kids over the top edge of whatever subject had caught my interest that week.
At the age of ten, I learned of D&D. My parents were of the religious persuasion, and still in the grip of the "D&D is Satanic" craziness, but I sought it out. For as long as I lived in my parents' home, I kept my D&D books carefully concealed, treasured. My reasons? I wanted to "own" the stories I grew up loving. I wanted to tell stories of my own. I wanted to create a world that breathed.
So I did. I've been running all my games within my own private mythology ever since. A single homebrewed world, and it's all mine. Well, not all mine. The players whose characters have graced its shores have taken possession of a nice little chunk. It's gone from 1e, to 2e, to 3.x, to Pathfinder.
I just like telling stories. When I play, I like being a part of a story. When I play RPG video games, I play for the story (then go on all the sidequests to make sure I've seen absolutely everything).
My reasons are different. My operating system in regards to the hobby itself is different. So my acceptance of your conclusions, no matter how well reasoned, is nullified by the fact that I don't have any care for the premises upon which those conclusions are based.
and...and...you can also wear your left shoe as a hat PROVIDED you have a small head.Or...come to think of it...you could also wear your left shoe as a hat PROVIDED you have a big left foot!
Now...back to the topic at hand, which incidentally is not a discussion about the merits of optimization but a discussion of video game culture's influence on P&P RPGs.
If you can drag this back on topic, you would be a God among men. I was really enjoying it before. Sorry about my part in derailing it.
|
If you can drag this back on topic, you would be a God among men. I was really enjoying it before. Sorry about my part in derailing it.and...and...you can also wear your left shoe as a hat PROVIDED you have a small head.Or...come to think of it...you could also wear your left shoe as a hat PROVIDED you have a big left foot!
Now...back to the topic at hand, which incidentally is not a discussion about the merits of optimization but a discussion of video game culture's influence on P&P RPGs.
The best way to make that actually happen is to keep talking about the original topic, not just say it should be discussed. If you build it they will come and all that.
I would do more to contribute to that idea but I am at work and the OPs topic is dense. So I leave it to others to reconstruct the desired topic.
my 2 cp.
I have no problem with the notion that you should build the best character possible within the context of the concept you wish to play.
You're still missing my larger point, however. Perhaps that is because I was in a hurry to run an errand as I typed the conclusion to my last post, and I now see it was phrased in a rushed and sloppy fashion.
Rephrased, my larger point is that our reasons for picking up the dice in the first place are going to inform our priorities. For you, a thinking man's game that transcends mere equation. For me, a living breathing world and tales of fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles...
It's a really very different paradigm.
In your version, the primary draw is the opportunity to pit yourself against an obstacle and overcome it. In that context, it's absolutely ludicrous not to play the character with the greatest possible toolbox for success, because the character is an extension of your tactical mind. This is in no way meant to insinuate that you do not enjoy or excel in the roleplaying aspects. Those aspects are not, however, the primary reason you picked up the hobby in the first place, by your own admission. By the way, if I played at a table that operated within your paradigm, I'd adjust my expectations and my character design choices appropriately. And I'd have a good time. My primary roleplaying itch, however, would remain largely unscratched.
This is a good time to point out that different roleplaying groups have different cultures in operation, which each support the different paradigms to varying degrees.
My version is different. You would be unhappy at my table, when your perfectly rules-legal character was met with knowing groans from the rest of the players. See, we know that the mechanics can be exploited. We've been down that road from time to time, and the optimization arms race quickly wore out its welcome for us. I am the resident rules-cyclopedia at my table. I've got system mastery coming out my frickin' ears. I know how the math plays out if you let it. So we just don't let it. We tell our stories and inhabit our world and play our game.
As such, there are no "you must be this tall to ride" signs posted. Sometimes, that means a certain character turns out beefier than others. When that happens, we talk it out, outside the game. Ultimately, we've found a good group that jives within that paradigm.
That's the point at which I'm getting. In your paradigm, my approach is objectively wrong, as it renders me less capable of overcoming the obstacles that comprise the point of the game.
I can simultaneously completely understand that and wholeheartedly reject it. In my paradigm, your approach is an inexorable arms race which leads to immovable objects being subjected to irresistible force in a recursive loop. That's a narrative dead end for me. It's also a world completely beyond my suspension of disbelief.
To summarize, in your paradigm my approach is a recipe for failure; in my paradigm your approach is a recipe for sadness.
The best way to make that actually happen is to keep talking about the original topic, not just say it should be discussed. If you build it they will come and all that.
I would do more to contribute to that idea but I am at work and the OPs topic is dense. So I leave it to others to reconstruct the desired topic.
my 2 cp.
I'm at work also, so I can only take an occasional gander at the topic. But I'll give a (probably lame) shot at getting back to topic.
I'm still under the opinion that most, if not all, of the behavior noted way back at the beginning of this has existed prior to MMOs. I also agree with what someone else said above that the internet magnifies this behavior (sorry I'm not looking for sources right now). I've currently got a couple of big WoW players in my group and they've never really done any of these things. Well, at least not to a worse degree then I've seen from non-MMO people. Keep in mind though, I've never been in a game with someone just coming into pen and paper from an MMO.
|
|
The best way to make that actually happen is to keep talking about the original topic, not just say it should be discussed. If you build it they will come and all that.
I would do more to contribute to that idea but I am at work and the OPs topic is dense. So I leave it to others to reconstruct the desired topic.
my 2 cp.
I'm at work also, so I can only take an occasional gander at the topic. But I'll give a (probably lame) shot at getting back to topic.
I'm still under the opinion that most, if not all, of the behavior noted way back at the beginning of this has existed prior to MMOs. I also agree with what someone else said above that the internet magnifies this behavior (sorry I'm not looking for sources right now). I've currently got a couple of big WoW players in my group and they've never really done any of these things. Well, at least not to a worse degree then I've seen from non-MMO people. Keep in mind though, I've never been in a game with someone just coming into pen and paper from an MMO.
In my mind the behaviors are more prevalent because there are:
1. More Players (The hobby has expanded in general)
2. More Player conversations. This is different from the Internet magnification effect although that effect is relevant.
3. More tweaking of systems and game theory as a natural extension of there being more games.
When I played competitive CCGS we would joke that even the best design team in the world would miss hundreds of interactions relative to the player meta-mind that has been vastly improved in its ability to communicate.
I think this is true of RPGs as well; more people looking at more resources derive more results. I think that explains why things might be happening *more* when in fact the very act of being a min/maxer or an RPer has become more complex and nuanced with the explosion of resources for each flavor of play type.
I have more but that is what I have at the moment.
I don't even know what you people are talking about anymore.
Also, to the complaints levied at me:
1) Kicking "Bob" out of the group is pure hyperbole and a strawman at best
2) Quoting LotR is some kind of D&D logical fallacy. It wasn't a tabletop game. It could never be a tabletop game. It shouldn't be seen as a tabletop game. There was a rather popular webcomic devoted entirely to mocking this idea. Stop trying to use it to make your points. It doesn't work.
Frodo was a level zero fictional character in a book. He wasn't a D&D character.
3) Nobody has gotten back to the fact that you can be good at combat and social skills at the same time. The only way you can be truly bad at combat is by doing it on purpose, and why would you do that?
4) The others in my job aren't the very best at what they do, no. On the other hand, my job doesn't involve me risking my life on a day to day basis. Think about the military - how much training do they go through? Do you think other soldiers want to be grouped up with people who didn't go through any training at all and barely know how to hold a gun?
This thread has become The Land of the Strawmen! What a strange and exciting place!
Good stuff
Good points.
Just throwing out more things here...The language that players speak is, obviously, heavily influenced by the path they took to get in to roleplaying. Someone who come into it via fantasy novels will (probably) default into saying they want to do something like character X did in book Y. Where someone who come in from video games will (again probably) default into describing things they want their character to do in different ways (tanking, dps, etc). Not saying one way is better or worse then the other, just making an observation.
I'm reposting this because it seems to have been missed at the bottom of a page.
I removed a post. Politeness is not hard.
Really folks, the most important messageboard rule is "Don't be a jerk." That means, you know, don't be a jerk.
Good stuffGood points.
Just throwing out more things here...
The language that players speak is, obviously, heavily influenced by the path they took to get in to roleplaying. Someone who come into it via fantasy novels will (probably) default into saying they want to do something like character X did in book Y. Where someone who come in from video games will (again probably) default into describing things they want their character to do in different ways (tanking, dps, etc). Not saying one way is better or worse then the other, just making an observation.
This is actually a really excellent point.
Tabletop games is influenced by other hobbies. It always has been. The first sight of D&D wasn't influenced by LotR as mch as it was the pulp novels of the 70's. It's why D&D uses the bizarre Vancian spellcasting - because it was based off Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels.
It's really no surprise that D&D is becoming more based on different sources, but those sourcces are no less legitimate then older ones. The pulp books that D&D was originally based on weren't paragons of literary expertise. It was called pulp, after all. Tastes and fads change with time. What was popular forty years ago is no longer "in." And D&D quite frankly should change to go with it.
Kids don't know about the Conan series of books. At the most they'll know about a movie with the California governor. I see "this is based on video games" or "this is based on anime" a lot, and I feel the need to ask: "So what?" Is it really any better or worse then being based on pulp? People gripe about fighters jumping too high into the air and performing strange and powerful weapon techniques, and yet if you look at current day fantasy interests, the idea of wizards ruling supreme is equally bizarre and out of place if not more so.
What compounds this is that a lot of D&D-isms are just that - things that exist only in D&D. The D&D wizard may use vancian casting, but he's a separate beast from anything else. There are no books, or games, or TV shows, or movies that involve wizards turning into invisible flying hydras that shoot fireballs. Even books based on D&D all much more severely limit the power of casters then actual D&D does. D&D druids aren't in any way based on actual "druids" other then sharing the same name. They're a strange and unwieldy mix of post-WWI rustic romanticism and modern day extremist environmentalism.
So yeah, even if D&D does take cues from MMOs, what's the big deal? I'd rather call something a tank or a mob then a "gish."
It's funny. I heard the term "Meat shield" back in second edition, before I even heard of everquest. Isn't Meat Shield the same thing as a tank? Something to keep the monster's attention while the casters cast their spells? That was the definition I always heard.
A good example of MMO design being good for tabletop gaming? I don't know how accurate it is, but Kingmaker #1 (and maybe the rest? I don't have them) has quests in it that are set up similar to WoW. There's the quest description, the objective, and the reward. Olegg's tavern served as a quest hub and a place to sell some unwanted loot. I don't think those elements hurt kingmaker. (Though I'll admit that maybe it's because of kingmaker's sandbox nature that it worked as well as it did.)
Kids don't know about the Conan series of books.
Hey, to be fair, for a long, long stretch that was the best fantasy movie ever made.
It hasn't even aged that bad.
Kids don't know about the Conan series of books.Hey, to be fair, for a long, long stretch that was the best fantasy movie ever made.
It hasn't even aged that bad.
I actually enjoy the movie now. When it came out I hated it because I was such a fan of the books. As I grew up I realized to accept it for what it was. not to mention it has one of the single best scores in movie history and the song credits goes to a 9 year old girl, the daughter Basil Pouldourus.
Good stuffGood points.
Just throwing out more things here...
The language that players speak is, obviously, heavily influenced by the path they took to get in to roleplaying. Someone who come into it via fantasy novels will (probably) default into saying they want to do something like character X did in book Y. Where someone who come in from video games will (again probably) default into describing things they want their character to do in different ways (tanking, dps, etc). Not saying one way is better or worse then the other, just making an observation.
Yeah, back to the actual topic under discussion, huh?
I think the main thing that video gaming has brought to my gaming table is a expectation of systematized interaction with the world. The 3.5 Bluff/Diplomacy rules are a perfect example of the ways in which game design has occasionally supported this expectation. Get the numbers on your character sheet high enough, and you can convince anyone of anything at any time. On the other hand, there's no defined mechanic by which you can use these skills to haggle over prices with a shopkeeper, because that would play merry hell with the wealth-by-level guidelines.
What I find especially galling about it is that players generally are only rules-lawyers to their own benefit. Hence, the guy playing the Diplomancer build will argue RAW all day when he wants to turn the unfriendly and suspicious magistrate into his fanatical worshiper with a 100+ Diplomacy check. But when he wants to turn around and use that same skill to get a better deal on that shiny magic sword, he's all about the verisimilitude of his skill being useful in that regard, lack of a coherent system be damned.
I think that the advent of computer roleplaying started to get game designers thinking like computer programmers; if there's no script for this function then there is no function. So it led to a push for a rules system that covers every possible interaction with the world. Sometimes these rules systems create shocking disconnects from common sense, but the expectation of systematized interaction causes these dissonances to be embraced and exploited, rather than called out as an outlier or gaffe and ignored.
While Pathfinder's changes to Diplomacy and Bluff have eased up on this problem, it still crops up from time to time.
and...and...you can also wear your left shoe as a hat PROVIDED you have a small head.Or...come to think of it...you could also wear your left shoe as a hat PROVIDED you have a big left foot!
I find your arguments about shoes and their suitability as hats sorely lacking, as they are built upon assumptions like foot size, head size, head-to-food-size ratio, personal preference as to hat size, head shape, food shape, and the suitability of shoelaces as a cord to tie around your head to make an otherwise unsuitable hat stay on your head (plenty of headgear needs this sort of support)
Beyond that, there's no accounting for taste, obviously, so I'll leave the greater discussion about shoes for hats alone, other than to say you all suck for even considering it!
I win. What do I win? Respect and adoration? No? Dagnabbit! I'm so smart and logical, why does nobody like me?
Now...back to the topic at hand, which incidentally is not a discussion about the merits of optimization but a discussion of video game culture's influence on P&P RPGs.
What? Oh, you're right! This really is about computer games and how they influenced our hobby. How could we have lost sight of that?
While nobody can't reasonably deny that computer games have influenced RPGs, there's more to it.
I think the internet itself has influenced RPGs, just as they have influenced computer games. And I don't just mean the multiplayer part of computer games.
In computer games, it's much easier nowadays to find out stuff about the game. Tricks, tactics, secrets, easter eggs, all that. I recently looked at a list of easter eggs in computer games that stayed hidden for really, really long times. And why? Mostly because they were in old games, and back then, there was no organised, global community of computer game players. There were computer game magazines, but that's it. And even they can't compete with the sheer size of the community, and have limited space.
One of those easter eggs was a a bunch of secret codes you used in Metroid (no, I didn't forget anything in that game name, I do mean the original NES game). One unlocked everything, the other let you run around without the suit. One of these codes stayed hidden until recently, because there is no normal way to find it, it was never officially announced, and there was no big network of people who browsed around in the game code to find stuff like that and then tell it to the world.
But nowadays, when anyone finds out some secret in a game, it is known to the world about 10 minutes later, and 9 of these minutes are spend by the guy high-fiving himself for being such a great guy.
And it extends to everything: ways to easily beat or bypass difficult parts of the game, exploits, loopholes, everything.
And this has changed roleplaying, too. Gaming groups are no longer isolated islands, with no way to communicate with other islands except by shouting to nearby islands or have one guy paddle over to the other (i.e. people playing in more than one group), and maybe messages in a bottle (Dragon magazine and other mags like that).
Nowadays, when one person finds a great loophole in the rules (If I use this Feat and that spell with yonder race, I can do really powerful stuff and side-step the penalty I am supposed to get), that person can tell everybody.
The advantage we (as roleplayers) have over them (the computer guys - though I don't want to encourage a "us vs them" mentality, especially since a lot of us are part of them, too) is that we have the GM, who can react to everything (well, in theory, as there are GMs who will allow everything, even if the game really suffers from it).
One very positive development that we as Pathfinder players were able to enjoy and that came from computer games is this:
Beta Testing.
It's a great way to take advantage of the vast network of players, who can find all the loopholes and exploits (and also errors and stuff like that), since if you use lots and lots of people for testing, you'll find out a lot of stuff a smaller group couldn't, even if the small group was an elite team of testers and the bigger group had no entry requirements at all.
Of course, it does add the problem that you'll have to sift through a lot of more or less useless stuff to find the good advise, but it seems to be well worth the trouble.
I for one like how Paizo copied computer games in that regard.
One thing I'm surprised hasn't been used more is Achievements/Trophies.
They're a huge thing in computer and video games (they're a built-in feature for the PS3 and XBox360, and while computer games don't have one overarching system for them, there are a couple of bigger initiatives, like Blizzard's system and Steamworks), but the only thing I've seen so far have been some Achievement Feats for Legacy of Fire.
Sure, they work a lot better for computer/video games, where the system can keep track of statistics (which are often part of achievements), and where you have a really fixed set of "rules" to limit your actions (in a computer game, the Dragonslayer achievement you get when you kill the great big dragon will be quite an achievement, but in a P&P RPG, it might not be, since the GM can say "the thing is suicidal and doesn't put up a fight").
Nevertheless, I'm surprised there aren't more attempts to try something like that in RPGs. Does PFS have something like that?
I have no problem with the notion that you should build the best character possible within the context of the concept you wish to play.
You're still missing my larger point, however. Perhaps that is because I was in a hurry to run an errand as I typed the conclusion to my last post, and I now see it was phrased in a rushed and sloppy fashion.
Rephrased, my larger point is that our reasons for picking up the dice in the first place are going to inform our priorities. For you, a thinking man's game that transcends mere equation. For me, a living breathing world and tales of fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles...
It's a really very different paradigm.
<snip>
+1. Nicely explained.
my 2 cents. after i finished my D&D 3.5 session i closed my book and said `f&*@ WoW` and went home and canceled my account. saved a ton of money that was pent on d&d-pathfinder books and haven`t looked back. though i still have my PS3 for video game RPGs (Fall Out-New Vegas)
Stuff.You're still misrepresenting my position. After I explained it. Again.
Misrepresenting is an ugly word. It implies a willful deception on my part. I'm sure you meant that you feel I misunderstood your position.
After all, if you truly felt I was misrepresenting your position, it wouldn't matter how many times you explained it. Because my failure would be ethical, not dianoetic.
Or perhaps you did mean to cast such an aspersion on my character. In which case, my previous two paragraphs are indeed an actual misrepresentation, if a more charitable one than you would deserve were that the case.
In any event, it has been brought to my attention that our discussion is so far off topic as to be in a different time zone. I am still interested in our little debate, so what say we continue it elsewhere?
While nobody can't reasonably deny that computer games have influenced RPGs, there's more to it.
I think the internet itself has influenced RPGs, just as they have influenced computer games. And I don't just mean the multiplayer part of computer games.
. . .
But nowadays, when anyone finds out some secret in a game, it is known to the world about 10 minutes later, and 9 of these minutes are spend by the guy high-fiving himself for being such a great guy.
And it extends to everything: ways to easily beat or bypass difficult parts of the game, exploits, loopholes, everything.
And this has changed roleplaying, too. Gaming groups are no longer isolated islands, with no way to communicate with other islands except by shouting to nearby islands or have one guy paddle over to the other (i.e. people playing in more than one group), and maybe messages in a bottle (Dragon magazine and other mags like that).
Nowadays, when one person finds a great loophole in the rules (If I use this Feat and that spell with yonder race, I can do really powerful stuff and side-step the penalty I am supposed to get), that person can tell everybody.
The advantage we (as roleplayers) have over them (the computer guys - though I don't want to encourage a "us vs them" mentality, especially since a lot of us are part of them, too) is that we have the GM, who can react to everything (well, in theory, as there are GMs who will allow everything, even if the game really suffers from it).
I definitely think the internet is the larger influence on the change in the culture of tabletop roleplaying, as you posit.
I think video games definitely had an effect on expectations, but the mass collection of shared knowledge on the interwebz has created the largest alteration in execution.
Misrepresenting is an ugly word. It implies a willful deception on my part. I'm sure you meant that you feel I misunderstood your position.Stuff.You're still misrepresenting my position. After I explained it. Again.No, misrepresenting means exactly that. You are saying I said something I didn't. I never said this was deliberate. Only that you have done so more than once. Despite certain claims to the contrary I do not condemn people out of hand, I do so out of repeated problems such as this, only after pointing them out as I have and them not being resolved. As it is, it hasn't hit the breaking point so there is no problem.
In any event, it has been brought to my attention that our discussion is so far off topic as to be in a different time zone. I am still interested in our little debate, so what say we continue it elsewhere?Where?
Well, the Paizo forum doesn't have a private message function that I can see. If you'd like, I could start a new thread just for us to have it out.
One very positive development that we as Pathfinder players were able to enjoy and that came from computer games is this:
Beta Testing.
[...]I for one like how Paizo copied computer games in that regard.
If we look at it that way, both Paizo and WoTC copied computer games for testing.
Pazio takes the open beta to stress test their games, and then responds with semi regular rules updates (which I guess could be said vaguely resemble console/PC games).Meanwhile WoTC is does closed testing, then after the product releases they use the players to provide stress testing, to which they respond with very regular rules updates (which vaguely resembles MMO's). I like both PF and 4th Ed, so this isn't some kind of a judgement call. As a matter of fact, I wish both companies would take a little from column A and a little from column B.
One thing I'm surprised hasn't been used more is Achievements/Trophies.
I know I'm in the minority, but man, I hate achievements. *sigh*.
I have a player who prefers to play rogues who has had her concept of stealth completely snafu-ed by MMOs. She can't wrap her head around the idea that she can't simply hit a button and go into "stealth mode", nor can she run around the entire game world in "stealth mode" all the time. I try to be patient, but lately when she asks the impossible I simply say "No," followed by "the rules are in your book. Start reading." Might be time for me to get out from behind the screen before I get snarky.
Oh, and when attacking lesser creatures led by a stronger one, she always says "I attack the mob."
Just wait till the player discovers Shadowdancer...
.... but discussing this in front of the trolls is really just feeding them.Wow, talk about a pot meet kettle statement.
Selective perception.
I stand by my previous statement, "Wow... just, wow."
I don't see that the current line of discussion is useful. Perhaps we could return to the original discussion of the influence of MMOs on tabletop games.
.... but discussing this in front of the trolls is really just feeding them.Wow, talk about a pot meet kettle statement.Selective perception.
I stand by my previous statement, "Wow... just, wow."
"Wow... just, wow."
hey that's my line! ;)
For some reason you look familiar......
So anyway what was the original gist of this thread? I seem to have lost it.
I think it's more of a cycle. Growing up, RPGs greatly influenced video games. SSI made a lot of money off TSR. Now the tide has turned. While I was adapting Pathfinder to a certain copyrighted RPG set in a harsh desert world, my biggest problem is how many of the abilities in the previous edition are mainly Role Play abilities. This is a big contrast to Pathfinder (and 3.5) where every racial trait has a decent use.
This isn’t and shouldn’t be a Good / Bad discussion, it’s just a matter of what the newer players expect from a Pen and Paper RPG. My Players are WoW players and didn’t play much D&D before 3.5. They seem to enjoy my style of old school GMing (They can’t just sell items for a generic half price and pick up magic items based on City size for example). It’s just another step in the evolution of gaming, and we are becoming a more visual reliable people. I mean, would WoW players enjoy old BBS games like LORD or BRE? I doubt it, but that doesn’t make those games bad or those players wrong.
Off Topic: doxbox rules and a lot of those old SSI games are free now. For old school players, check it out.
IMO out-of-combat benefits cover that when the DM gives that kind of rewards: Castles, kingdoms, armies, nobility titles, social recognition, fame, etc.
Probably true. Still, achievement hunting has become a sport for many video game fans. Not for whatever benefits it might bring, but just to have a bigger collection of trophies/achievements. Achievements for achievements' sake, so to say.
I wouldn't have been surprised if that had caught on in some form in RPGs. But the nature of the medium probably makes it really hard.
*Goes off to become an Umbra Elder*
One very positive development that we as Pathfinder players were able to enjoy and that came from computer games is this:
Beta Testing.
[...]I for one like how Paizo copied computer games in that regard.
If we look at it that way, both Paizo and WoTC copied computer games for testing.
Pazio takes the open beta to stress test their games, and then responds with semi regular rules updates (which I guess could be said vaguely resemble console/PC games).
Meanwhile WoTC is does closed testing, then after the product releases they use the players to provide stress testing, to which they respond with very regular rules updates (which vaguely resembles MMO's). I like both PF and 4th Ed, so this isn't some kind of a judgement call. As a matter of fact, I wish both companies would take a little from column A and a little from column B.One thing I'm surprised hasn't been used more is Achievements/Trophies.I know I'm in the minority, but man, I hate achievements. *sigh*.
You're not alone. The only achievement I consider respectable is beating the game.
If we look at it that way, both Paizo and WoTC copied computer games for testing.
I think playtesting is quite old. But Paizo was the first RPG company I know of that went open, just putting the stuff out for people to test. Before, it was always by application only, and often you often had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and/or contract before you could get in.
It's true that Paizo didn't invent the playtest thing (or rather reinvent for RPGs), but I think they were the first to Open Beta.
I know I'm in the minority, but man, I hate achievements. *sigh*.
I found that I actually like them. And I think they sometimes even improved my game performance. It's all psychological, of course, but it does make the hunter/gatherer urge work for you for once. If you are hunting trophies and one will be awarded for executing a successful block/counter three times in a row, you can't help but get better at counters.
Other than that, they're just a formalisation of something that has existed for a long time in many cases.
The thing is to know when enough is enough and you're putting yourself through actual "work" (doing something you don't enjoy to gain a benefit - though a good job is ideally something you do enjoy or at least not mind) to get the achievements.
I think it's more of a cycle. Growing up, RPGs greatly influenced video games.
Well, if Gygax and Arneson hadn't come up with D&D (and let's assume nobody else would have done, either), an awful lot of computer games would work differently today.
And I'm not just talking about obvious cases like computer RPGs. Sure, there would be no Baldur's Gate and no World of Warcraft.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Look at how many computer games that aren't really RPGs have some sort of level system where you gain a new something when you gain a level.
Even stuff like first person shooters has this. Look at stuff like Battlefield (I only played 2142, others might be a bit different). You gain "Career Points" (rebranded XP) for all kinds of stuff (shooting enemies, defending objectives, supporting team members, following orders, issuing orders, and so on), and when you reach a certain limit, you'll be promoted to the next rank (i.e. Level) and while your HP and BAB won't increase or anything like that, you do get a new piece of equipment.
While I was adapting Pathfinder to a certain copyrighted RPG set in a harsh desert world, my biggest problem is how many of the abilities in the previous edition are mainly Role Play abilities. This is a big contrast to Pathfinder (and 3.5) where every racial trait has a decent use.
Well, it does make sense. The racial traits aren't the whole race. They're just those racial characteristics that will have a direct impact on the character stats.
There's still plenty of stuff about the races that doesn't have an immediate, mechanical impact on the characters: Elves are loath to tell others what to do and often seem aloof to others because of this, but there is no aloof racial trait. They still tend to have this characteristic.
It’s just another step in the evolution of gaming, and we are becoming a more visual reliable people.
To be fair, humans are very, very reliable on sight.
I mean, would WoW players enjoy old BBS games like LORD or BRE? I doubt it, but that doesn’t make those games bad or those players wrong.
There's a lot more at work here.
One is that current graphics always look good. (Well, current graphics that make use of the technology available). It's only when you go back to games that are several years old that you notice that they look like crap.
I'm sure a lot of people here remember many games that looked way beyond awesome back when they were new and people first played them ("Amazing how awesome these graphics look! Look at that depth of detail!"), but when people happened to look at the game again years later, they just thought "Man, this looks like crap. How the hell could I ever consider this to look good??"
The thing is that back when the games first came out, they used the best graphics available. They were better than everything that came before. You knew nothing that looked better. So they looked great to you.
But when you go back to look at old games, you do so after having seen what today's games are capable of. You can't help but compare them, and older games just can't win such a contest.
The funny part is that if you don't go back and look, you'll probably remember the games as great looking, even if you see better looking games each day. It's nostalgia, coupled with the fact that we don't really remember precise pictures, just the fact that we thought they looked great.
But if you put a kid who never played the old games (because those games are older than the kids) in front of these games, they won't have those memories, and just see something they're sure will cause eye cancer.
It's not just graphics, either. There's also sound, and even handling. I had several cases of acute nostalgia when I tried to get old games to play on my current computer. There is he first shock when you see the game. The next (following very close by - would be at the same time if sound travelled as fast as light ;-)) is sound - what sounded like Vox Dei back then now sounds like someone is torturing a cat. And then you start to play, and notice a lot of stuff that is really not user friendly. So cumbersome!
Different expectations of freedom and what is possible, or should be possible.
The funny thing is that this has become a problem in computer games.
Those fancy graphics are to blame.
Back in the day, when things were still painted and nobody minded that the background was monotone (only so much you could do with 8 bit and huge pixels), you could easily get away with houses that you couldn't enter. I mean, it's clearly a game, and those houses are not for entering.
But games today strive for realism in graphics. Not just the resolution and effects, but also a believable background. Plus, realistic physics and the like are fashionable.
And then there is a door - which looks like a door, oh very definitely - and you just can't open it. You carry with your a high-powered assault rifle, grenades and an antitank weapon, which you have used repeatedly to destroy heavily armoured vehicles. And that door looks like a heavy breeze will disintegrate it. But you can't get it open, even if you throw everything you have at it. WTF??
Much of the games industry period would not exist without D&D. It's sort of a strange chain of events, but:
D&D inspires Richard Garriott to make video games. Ultima goes on to become one of the founding creations of all other cRPGs henceforth - it along with Wizardry inspire the creation of Dragon Quest and, with it, the creation of jRPGs. Ultima 2 also brought in the concept of selling "feelies" along with the game - cloth maps, little tokens and trinkets, and, perhaps more importantly, a much larger manual to explain the story. This storytelling in the manual was a big deal - while rudimentary and crude, it still brought out the idea of video games telling a story.
Dragon Quest meanwhile revitalized and brought about the full industry of Japanese RPGs. It in turn inspires a company named Squaresoft which was going bankrupt to make an RPG titled "Final Fantasy" as their last comercial game.
Now, Garriott was hard at work creating Ultima 4. Not only was there no end boss in Ultima 4, it was a different style of game entirely, with a full storyline and morality ideals. Ultima 4 was groundbreaking. Every time any game out there uses a morality system, it in some way harkens back to Ultima 4 which set the foundations of having such a system or storyline in a game.
Ultima Underworld inspires Carmack and Romero to prove they can make a better engine, leading to Wolfenstein 3D and, in turn, the genre of the First Person Shooter. THe engine likewise goes on to influence the creation of The Elder Scrolls: Arena, Deus Ex, and even so far as Gears of War.
Near the end of the Ultima cycle, Ultima Online is created, ushering in the age of MMORPGs. Before UO, online rpgs were a crude thing, and fairly scarce and unpopular. UO almost singlehandedly creates the audience that would later attach themselves to Everquest and, from there, the MMO market as a whole.
All of this, because Richard Garriott played D&D at a computer summer camp ;p
Whoa man! It's like the whole butterfly thing.....
I think that the advent of computer roleplaying started to get game designers thinking like computer programmers; if there's no script for this function then there is no function. So it led to a push for a rules system that covers every possible interaction with the...
Good point. I noticed this during the transition from AD&D to D&D 3.X and I think that while it may have created some role-playing problems it solved a lot more. Back in 2nd ed it was really on the player roleplaying to be eloquent and persuasive enough to convince the DM that an NPC would buy what he was selling. While this did lead to some interesting scenarios there was really no objective way for the DM to determine the outcome of a given interaction.
It also led to some equally egregious abuses like the Barbarian with 8 charisma and 6 int suddenly becoming a well spoken negotiator. When players pull this stunt on me these days I can just roll the dice and say "that comes out as 'Blargh smash!'"
One very positive development that we as Pathfinder players were able to enjoy and that came from computer games is this:
Beta Testing.
It's a great way to take advantage of the vast network of players, who can find all the loopholes and exploits (and also errors and stuff like that), since if you use lots and lots of people for testing, you'll find out a lot of stuff a smaller group couldn't, even if the small group was an elite team of testers and the bigger group had no entry requirements at all.
Of course, it does add the problem that you'll have to sift through a lot of more or less useless stuff to find the good advise, but it seems to be well worth the trouble.
I for one like how Paizo copied computer games in that regard.
Excellent point Kae! You must wear a very large shoe.
One thing I'm surprised hasn't been used more is Achievements/Trophies.
IMO out-of-combat benefits cover that when the DM gives that kind of rewards: Castles, kingdoms, armies, nobility titles, social recognition, fame, etc.
Also, the achievement system's primary function is to reward players with prestige. Since gaming groups are typically limited to a handful of players "achieving," something is not all that noteworthy. On the other hand, getting a server-first or having a wicked mount is a really big deal to some people who play MMORPGs.