I never said that play-by-post and computer tools means you aren't human. But, of course, you already knew that. You just don't like facts to get in your way.No, the difference is between using decision trees and making seat-of-the-pants decisions.... That dosesn't even make sense. The difference is using dice vs number generators.
Raise this point with me again when and if computer software can ever pass the Turing test. As long as it can't, there will be a fundamental difference between RPGs and MMOs.LilithsThrall - "Play-by-post and using computer character & map tools means you aren't human."
You heard it here.
I'm not the one asserting the difference between tabletop RPGs and MMOs is the bloody Turing Test. Make a sensible argument and get a sensible rebuttal.
EDIT: Here's a rebuttal. Your argument is stupid, nonsense, and snobbish. The intelligence of gamers is not defined by the medium in which a game is played, whether software or tabletop. Yes, a person playing a game as the game is written is playing the game. However, a person using a game engine to run an organic game with other people is NOT playing the game but are hard constrained by its rules. The ONLY difference between using software to run a game between people and doing it tabletop is the difference between soft and hard rules. But tabletop games have their hard rules too, don't they? The game is changed entirely by screwing with the dice or the system backbone of skills, hp, feats, attack, etc.
MMO terminology just simplifies gaming concepts that have been around since the 70's for ease of communication when typing a full phrase would hinder play.
I don't have a problem with a pithy way of stating a useful concept, like "build". But how is "toon" better than "PC"?
MMO terminology just simplifies gaming concepts that have been around since the 70's for ease of communication when typing a full phrase would hinder play.I don't have a problem with a pithy way of stating a useful concept, like "build". But how is "toon" better than "PC"?
PC is a tabletop term, you want "character." But "toon" just doesn't make sense. I want to say it came from that weird "MMO" that was really just a graphic chat room.
|
The ONLY difference between using software to run a game between people and doing it tabletop is the difference between soft and hard rules. But tabletop games have their hard rules too, don't they? The game is changed entirely by screwing with the dice or the system backbone of skills, hp, feats, attack, etc.
where does this put organized play (pfs, living FR/GH/Eberron).
|
|
PC is a tabletop term, you want "character." But "toon" just doesn't make sense. I want to say it came from that weird "MMO" that was really just a graphic chat room.MMO terminology just simplifies gaming concepts that have been around since the 70's for ease of communication when typing a full phrase would hinder play.I don't have a problem with a pithy way of stating a useful concept, like "build". But how is "toon" better than "PC"?
No, people said it back in early eq at the very least. It bugged me then TBH. I prefer 'character' ... funny thats what I call my...
|
Shifty is more or less correct, a LOT of MMO terminology grew organically out of older Table Top and by extention War Gaming argot.
A lot of terms like CC (Crowd Control) I can point to Warhammer and it's ilk for generating.
But it was more than tabletop games that feed into moder MMO lingo.
There is a LOT of console/PC RPG, FPS, and general online terminology from old MUD/MUCK play as well.
I still haven't figured out the origin of the term "toon" mind you, but I think it comes from action games.
It all came to a head around the early Ultima Online/1st Gen Everquest era. We're just getting the refined version today. I call it MMOish, WOW varient.
As with any language, it's normal for the younger spin off varients to eventually influence the originals. Especially with the younger generation of players stepping from MMO into tabletop games.
So I hate to say this. Grin and bear it. It's only going to grow.
TLC, who is something of a Slang History Junkie.
The ONLY difference between using software to run a game between people and doing it tabletop is the difference between soft and hard rules. But tabletop games have their hard rules too, don't they? The game is changed entirely by screwing with the dice or the system backbone of skills, hp, feats, attack, etc.where does this put organized play (pfs, living FR/GH/Eberron).
Even living systems have softer rules than hardcoded software.
PC is a tabletop term, you want "character."MMO terminology just simplifies gaming concepts that have been around since the 70's for ease of communication when typing a full phrase would hinder play.I don't have a problem with a pithy way of stating a useful concept, like "build". But how is "toon" better than "PC"?
I meant: How is saying "toon" for a tabletop character better than saying "PC"?
I meant: How is saying "toon" for a tabletop character better than saying "PC"?PC is a tabletop term, you want "character."MMO terminology just simplifies gaming concepts that have been around since the 70's for ease of communication when typing a full phrase would hinder play.I don't have a problem with a pithy way of stating a useful concept, like "build". But how is "toon" better than "PC"?
"Toon" doesn't make sense anywhere.
|
|
I meant: How is saying "toon" for a tabletop character better than saying "PC"?PC is a tabletop term, you want "character."MMO terminology just simplifies gaming concepts that have been around since the 70's for ease of communication when typing a full phrase would hinder play.I don't have a problem with a pithy way of stating a useful concept, like "build". But how is "toon" better than "PC"?
'NPC' is confused and not sure who to be friends with now.
Actually, I will note that PC and NPC are both terms used heavily by game designers throughout the electronic game industry, even those which don't have anything to do with the RPG genre.
Actually, I will note that PC and NPC are both terms used heavily by game designers throughout the electronic game industry, even those which don't have anything to do with the RPG genre.
From a dev perspective, you have to differentiate between a player's character and characters they aren't playing.
Eventually, however, I would expect them to understand the significant differences between MMO and pen and paper RPGs, and learn the new (to them) terminology.For one thing, MMO engines are ran by computer logic. RPGs, on the other hand, are a collaborative, dramatic storytelling event.This argument simply doesn't stand the test of time. You're saying that tabltop RPGs vs computer RPGs is apples and oranges. Specifically you are saying that computer games run on computer-run algorithms while table-top games run on fairy dust and unicorn tears.
Our hobby started as war games, grew into a 'role playing game', and was adapted to computers games.
Ever looked at the Neverwinter Night's(2002) manual?
I've been there through that entire evolution. I'm one of the folks who came over from wargaming in the 70s. Despite the fact that pen and paper games evolved directly from wargames, they are also very distinct gaming experiences.
Rather than apples and oranges, I would say grapefruit and oranges. Both members of the same family, sharing some similarities, but with a vastly different taste to the point that many people will like one and not the other. Similarly, pen and paper games and MMOs share some characteristics and there is a good deal of overlap between the communities, but the communities are not the same.
While I find your reference to "fairy dust and unicorn tears" amusing (might make a fun game if you could find an engine fueled by them) it has no relevance to the point I was making. The difference is that pen and paper games are run by a living, breathing, thinking human GM, and MMOs are run by lines of computer code housed on an anonymous server somewhere. Some day computer AI may evolve into something that can approximate a human GMs flexibility and creativity. That day is emphatically not now.
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
|
|
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
I'm keeping my context strictly in the combat aspect of things. Yes tabletops are in a league of their own as far as versatility goes. I'm directly addressing the two systems after 'init' is rolled, and how at that point they aren't so different.
but once again
No, the difference is between using decision trees and making seat-of-the-pants decisions.
I just can't beat that...
I've been there through that entire evolution. I'm one of the folks who came over from wargaming in the 70s. Despite the fact that pen and paper games evolved directly from wargames, they are also very distinct gaming experiences.
Rather than apples and oranges, I would say grapefruit and oranges. Both members of the same family, sharing some similarities, but with a vastly different taste to the point that many people will like one and not the other. Similarly, pen and paper games and MMOs share some characteristics and there is a good deal of overlap between the communities, but the communities are not the same.
While I find your reference to "fairy dust and unicorn tears" amusing (might make a fun game if you could find an engine fueled by them) it has no relevance to the point I was making. The difference is that pen and paper games are run by a living, breathing, thinking human GM, and MMOs are run by lines of computer code housed on an anonymous server somewhere. Some day computer AI may evolve into something that can approximate a human GMs flexibility and creativity. That day is emphatically not now.
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES. They aren't. They are a game, with a script (or a series thereof rather). It would be like saying tabletop RPGs aren't flexible and don't fit what you want because adventure paths have distinct stories you aren't supposed to deviate from. "Age of Worms only goes from pig farmer to fighting the resurrection of an evil god, tabletop RPGs are hamstringed crap!" Seriously. That is what you are saying. Yes, a tabletop RPG has more POTENTIAL for randomness and multiple storylines without modification because only the backbone of the system is hardcoded where the entirety of a game is hardcoded. But you are comparing to a constrained system. What about open systems? Like the Elder Scrolls series. You just walk around and stuff happens - stuff you may not even be aware of! Moreover, your argument ignores the fact that software, and many games, can be modified to provide a custom adventure like tabletop RPGs, provided the modifier is given the proper tools and knowledge. Or you can just have software that lets you play tabletop games on a computer. That's just lines of computer code - but people are manipulating what occurs.
Seat-of-the-pants decision my arse. There are no seat of the pants decisions in a game. None you couldn't pull out of nowhere in a sandbox game. Unless at the game table, you stand up, flip the table and throw chess pieces at other players, you have made ZERO "seat of the pants" decisions. You are making decisions constrained by the game rules, then further by the DM's rules, then further by the adventure you are playing. That's how decision trees are limited. You define parameters and throw a plinko zero in.
My problem isn't so much with the words but with the expectation people have with those words. Certain things work in PnP and not in WoW. Other things work in WoW and not in PnP. When the two cross paths and the players don't take the differences into account then problems arise.
Tank is probably the one I dislike the most. It generally implies that the character should be causing enough aggro to keep the enemy focused on him. In WoW, that is easily simulated. Even the flying creatures don't really do much flying. They tend to stay a few feet off the ground, low enough for the gnome to strike. This tactic doesn't work as well in PnP, which is very quickly pointed out when someone says that the enemy can just fly past the fighter. WoW doesn't have very many teleporting creatures (I can't think of any but I haven't played in several years). Pathfinder has quite a few. This changes the expectations of roles such as "tank."
I also am not a fan of "kiting" the enemy. This works great in WoW because aggro is involved. Pathfinder creatures are controlled by someone who makes decisions for creatures that believe they will die if they walk into a trap. WoW creatures just respawn. They don't have any self preservation.
So long as the players don't think that PnP games should play like WoW and they don't expect WoW to play like Pathfinder, I don't get bothered too much by terminology. It's when expectations come with those terms there are problems.
It drives me insane when i hear a player of mine tell the fighter to "kite" the BBEG, or when he says he is going to make a tank. Or when the wizard says that he wants to be good at cc (crowd control). I have told them to drop the terminology or find another GM. They have, thanfully stopped using it. With small relapses.
I don't care how much wow a week you play. I don't care how imprinted that terminology in your brain is. I don't care how cool it sounds to you. Use it at my table and you will be asked to either shut up or leave.
One of the main reasons i rarely ask consummate MMO players to join my table. It annoys me to no end.
So all you need now is a cane and a lawn, so you can tell the kids to get off it.
As long as people realize that it doesn't QUITE work that way i don't see the problem.
Cartigan, in this you're simply wrong. A computer and a human have vastly different possibilities to "wing it" and to act upon personality.
Yes, you could POSSIBLY have an MMO where all the NPC's where running by extremely advanced scripts giving them a full personality, but when you look at the MMO's at the market, the AI is very simple (compared to what a DM can support).
Also, a pen and paper game (or for that matter play by post or game using maptools) is based on a foundation of "unless the rules say you can't do it, you can always try". Depending on the situation you might automatically fail, but most of the time you can try. If you want to try to fly, you character can flap his arms. He'll fail, but whatever. Most MMO's has no button for "flap your arms and try to fly". A computer game is based on a foundation of "unless the rules say you can do it, you can't.". Thus, unless a developer has specifically thought of an idea, it can't be done. A computer can never DM fiat, wing it, or houserule.
You make it seem as though the discussion is between an MMO where all NPC's are run by a human (thus you comparision with maptools). But they aren't, which is the point.
Cartigan, in this you're simply wrong. A computer and a human have vastly different possibilities to "wing it" and to act upon personality.
Yes, you could POSSIBLY have an MMO where all the NPC's where running by extremely advanced scripts giving them a full personality, but when you look at the MMO's at the market, the AI is very simple (compared to what a DM can support).
Let me try this again.
This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES. They aren't. They are a game, with a script (or a series thereof rather). It would be like saying tabletop RPGs aren't flexible and don't fit what you want because adventure paths have distinct stories you aren't supposed to deviate from. "Age of Worms only goes from pig farmer to fighting the resurrection of an evil god, tabletop RPGs are hamstringed crap!" Seriously. That is what you are saying.
I bolded it so that it might be read this time.
Games that are ACTUALLY meant to be sandboxes are much more open to random actions by the player - see, the Elder Scrolls.
Also, a pen and paper game (or for that matter play by post or game using maptools) is based on a foundation of "unless the rules say you can't do it, you can always try". Depending on the situation you might automatically fail, but most of the time you can try. If you want to try to fly, you character can flap his arms. He'll fail, but whatever. Most MMO's has no button for "flap your arms and try to fly". A computer game is based on a foundation of "unless the rules say you can do it, you can't.". Thus, unless a developer has specifically thought of an idea, it can't be done. A computer can never DM fiat, wing it, or houserule.
Now you aren't even pretending that you read anything I wrote.
There goes this unbeatable logic again.A computer and a human have vastly different possibilities to "wing it" and to act upon personality.
Yes, you could POSSIBLY have an MMO where all the NPC's where running by extremely advanced scripts
Please stop lending faux plausibility to bad arguments.
And what do the anti-MMO brigade say about MUDs? I can play a MUD and type "flap arms" and get back a "You look like an idiot flapping your arms" due to an if-else structure somewhere. Does that mean MUDs are highly advanced games on par with games run by a real person at a table? No, it just means they have more room for scripts to accept and respond to pointless actions due to time not spent on graphics.
This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES. They aren't. They are a game, with a script (or a series thereof rather). It would be like saying tabletop RPGs aren't flexible and don't fit what you want because adventure paths have distinct stories you aren't supposed to deviate from. "Age of Worms only goes from pig farmer to fighting the resurrection of an evil god, tabletop RPGs are hamstringed crap!" Seriously. That is what you are saying. Yes, a tabletop RPG has...I've been there through that entire evolution. I'm one of the folks who came over from wargaming in the 70s. Despite the fact that pen and paper games evolved directly from wargames, they are also very distinct gaming experiences.
Rather than apples and oranges, I would say grapefruit and oranges. Both members of the same family, sharing some similarities, but with a vastly different taste to the point that many people will like one and not the other. Similarly, pen and paper games and MMOs share some characteristics and there is a good deal of overlap between the communities, but the communities are not the same.
While I find your reference to "fairy dust and unicorn tears" amusing (might make a fun game if you could find an engine fueled by them) it has no relevance to the point I was making. The difference is that pen and paper games are run by a living, breathing, thinking human GM, and MMOs are run by lines of computer code housed on an anonymous server somewhere. Some day computer AI may evolve into something that can approximate a human GMs flexibility and creativity. That day is emphatically not now.
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
Carty, my masked friend, you're largely just arguing for the sake of arguing now, but I have nothing better to do at the moment, so I'll bite.
Even the most open computer-based system is still much, much more heavily constrained than a pen and paper game run by a reasonably competent GM. I'll grant you that not eveyr GM is reasonably competent, though.
I'll come back to what I said before:
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
To make that more clear. A computer may be able to replicate gameplay at some tables. It can't replicate mine. That may sound snobbish or elitist or condescending (can you be condescending to a computer?), but it's still true.
Carty, my masked friend, you're largely just arguing for the sake of arguing now, but I have nothing better to do at the moment, so I'll bite.
Even the most open computer-based system is still much, much more heavily constrained than a pen and paper game run by a reasonably competent GM. I'll grant you that not eveyr GM is reasonably competent, though.
I'll come back to what I said before:
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
To make that more clear. A computer may be able to replicate gameplay at some tables. It can't replicate mine. That may sound snobbish or elitist or condescending (can you be condescending to a computer?), but it's still true.
1) Be clear. Are you talking about MMOs or video games in their entirety?
1a) Are you talking about video games or software?Moreover, I said video games are constrained more than tabletop games because video games are ENTIRELY hardcoded rules instead of only a backbone of hardcoded rules and then a more or less flexible set of soft rules.
Also, you are NOT being condescending towards a video game. You are being condescending towards ME and EVERY PERSON I PLAY WITH, including DMs. And you are being condescending towards ever person playing something like Pathfinder Society.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know. Sometimes I kind of wish that there WERE more MMO-type mechanics in PF. What really is keeping the BBEG's attention focused on the fighter? Nothing if that wizard at the back of the party keeps throwing his biggest spells at him. And how exactly does the fighter keep the BBEG's back turned to the party's rogue? He can't. If I were a BBEG (and considering my position BEHIND the screen I am) there is no way that I would allow that fighter to control my movements.
I'm of the opinion that RPGs like PF don't need MMO-type mechanics because the DM is far more capable of playing an individual BBEG (or other NPC) and his own foibles and priorities than a computer and doesn't need to rely on algorithmic mechanics. The problem and perceived need for such mechanics, as I see it, come more from the metagame of D&D - playing the rules as game rules - rather than playing the role of the character involved. When you view the fight between the party and the orcish pit-fighting champion of the 7 tribes as a problem of actions, moves, AoO, and damage per round, you get a different feel than if you get inside that champion's head. He might be able to bloody the party's nose by concentrating his own damage per round capacity on the rogue or wizard, but his value system, getting into character, is probably more geared around going mano a mano with the PC fighter.
I'm of the opinion that RPGs like PF don't need MMO-type mechanics because the DM is far more capable of playing an individual BBEG (or other NPC) and his own foibles and priorities than a computer and doesn't need to rely on algorithmic mechanics. The problem and perceived need for such mechanics, as I see it, come more from the metagame of D&D - playing the rules as game rules - rather than playing the role of the character involved. When you view the fight between the party and the orcish pit-fighting champion of the 7 tribes as a problem of actions, moves, AoO, and damage per round, you get a different feel than if you get inside that champion's head. He might be able to bloody the party's nose by concentrating his own damage per round capacity on the rogue or wizard, but his value system, getting into character, is probably more geared around going mano a mano with the PC fighter.I don't know. Sometimes I kind of wish that there WERE more MMO-type mechanics in PF. What really is keeping the BBEG's attention focused on the fighter? Nothing if that wizard at the back of the party keeps throwing his biggest spells at him. And how exactly does the fighter keep the BBEG's back turned to the party's rogue? He can't. If I were a BBEG (and considering my position BEHIND the screen I am) there is no way that I would allow that fighter to control my movements.
1) Why is everyone pretending tabletop RPGs don't have rules? You flap your arms. You don't fly. Why not? I mean, you were flapping your arms as hard as you can? The DM could just say you flew away. You don't 99.99% of the time because the rules don't give you a fly speed for flapping your arms. That .01% of the time, the DM may just say you can anyway. But don't sit there and assert tabletop gaming is above and beyond video games because you are pretending it doesn't have constraints.
2) I can have the video game's rules set to say that the honorable pit fighter attacks the character wearing the heaviest armor, or with the most HP, or is the tallest. What does that do to your argument?
[b]This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES.
No, of course not. We're stating that there are differences between MMO's and pen and paper RPG's, and you stated that "well then using maptools means you're not human!!!11one".
I've never in any way said anything that even implies what MMO's are trying to be. I couldn't care less. The argument I put forth would be as relevant when comparing pen and paper to Super Mario Brothers.
So:
1. Someone stated (hereby position A) that MMO's and pen and papers are very different.
2. Someone countered (hereby position B) that and said they where the same.
3. A stated that a human controlled NPC and setting respons very different to a players action than a computer controlled one, since humans can think creatively.
4. You (who appeared to take position B) stated that "well then you're saying that using maptools makes you a non-human".
5. Some sort of repetition of point 2-4.
6. You said that "There are no seat of the pants decisions in a game. None you couldn't pull out of nowhere in a sandbox game."
7. I gave an example such as flapping your arms trying to fly (there's no command for that in Elder Scrolls either, am I right?)
Throughout this, you've mostly written random statements and then when people said that it was nonsensical, you shifted the subject.
EDIT:
1) Why is everyone pretending tabletop RPGs don't have rules? You flap your arms. You don't fly. Why not? I mean, you were flapping your arms as hard as you can? The DM could just say you flew away. You don't 99.99% of the time because the rules don't give you a fly speed for flapping your arms. That .01% of the time, the DM may just say you can anyway. But don't sit there and assert tabletop gaming is above and beyond video games because you are pretending it doesn't have constraints.
No-one is saying there's no rules. What we're saying is that the game isn't written in stone limited by the rules - no-one has to have prepared the game for the ability to flap the arms to fly, you can just, as a DM and as a group, create new rules on the spot. And sometimes they aren't even needed really - there's no rules for flapping one's arms (focus on the flapping part - NOT on the flying part) and no rules are needed. In Elder Scrolls or whatever, you can't flap your arms. You simply can't, and to do it, you'd need to dismantle the game and rewrite it's structure to include it. Which people don't do, so no flapping of arms there. And no climbing up in a tree to provide a better sniping location, because there's no mechanics for it in the game.
And this is especially true when it comes to NPC reactions. In a pen and paper game, you can say what you want to NPC's and the DM reacts appropriately (more or less). In a computer game, you're limited to the very lines of speech that has been implemented before you started. This is of course true of other things too. There's few computer games where you can take prisoners, people fight until they die or kill you for the most part and you can't shout a call for surrender. If you do this in an RPG, the DM will react appropriately (more or less).
Carty, my masked friend, you're largely just arguing for the sake of arguing now, but I have nothing better to do at the moment, so I'll bite.
Even the most open computer-based system is still much, much more heavily constrained than a pen and paper game run by a reasonably competent GM. I'll grant you that not eveyr GM is reasonably competent, though.
I'll come back to what I said before:
If you think that the computer can provide the same game experience as a pen and paper game I would say that says more about the way your group prefers to play the game than anything else. Pen and paper games are flexible enough to replicate the experience of MMOs, if that is what you want. The reverse is not true, however.
To make that more clear. A computer may be able to replicate gameplay at some tables. It can't replicate mine. That may sound snobbish or elitist or condescending (can you be condescending to a computer?), but it's still true.
1) Be clear. Are you talking about MMOs or video games in their entirety?
1a) Are you talking about video games or software?Moreover, I said video games are constrained more than tabletop games because video games are ENTIRELY hardcoded rules instead of only a backbone of hardcoded rules and then a more or less flexible set of soft rules.
Also, you are NOT being condescending towards a video game. You are being condescending towards ME and EVERY PERSON I PLAY WITH, including DMs. And you are being condescending towards ever person playing something like Pathfinder Society.
To clarify. I am not in any way referencing PFS or PbP games. Although those may use a computer as a medium for communication, they are emphatically not "computer games" or MMOs. I also have never played either, so would not feel competent to comment on them.
I was referring specifically to MMOs, but would say it certainly extends to video games in their entirety. In fact, given that most video game systems have considerably less computing power than the multiple servers assigned to MMOs, they are much more limited. Even the best MMOs are still light years behind the flexibility and creativity a human GM is capable of, though.
And, finally. Defensive much? If you choose to take what I wrote as a personal attack, well, again that says more about you than me. Wasn't meant as such. And just a word of advice - general perception is that people who resort to bold and caps in their posts have already lost the argument. When you want to stop shouting and waving your arms and have a decent discussion, I'll be around. Or not. I've actually got to check out now and go do RL stuff.
This all comes down to mentality I think. Some people like to play with barbies, some people like G.I. Joe. Both those people are playing with dolls.
+1
|
Also, you are NOT being condescending towards a video game. You are being condescending towards ME and EVERY PERSON I PLAY WITH, including DMs. And you are being condescending towards ever person playing something like Pathfinder Society.
I find it utterly laughable that you take such offense towards someone being condescending towards you. Practically your entire post history is gear towards being condescending towards those who happen to play differently than you do.
I'll break it down fairly simply:
An computer program can respond only to those things that it is programmed to respond to. A human can respond to anything you throw at them. If you don't see the truth in this, then this argument is utterly pontless, because you will never ever understand. And if this is true, I just have to ask, why would you bother to play with us mere humans? Wouldn't an MMO suit you much better than a tabletop RPG?
[b]This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES.No, of course not. We're stating that there are differences between MMO's and pen and paper RPG's, and you stated that "well then using maptools means you're not human!!!11one".
Which was a reply to LT's ridiculous and nonsensical statement.
An computer program can respond only to those things that it is programmed to respond to.
This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES. They aren't.They are a game, with a script (or a series thereof rather).
Yes, a tabletop RPG has more POTENTIAL for randomness and multiple storylines without modification because only the backbone of the system is hardcoded where the entirety of a game is hardcoded.
I can play a MUD and type "flap arms" and get back a "You look like an idiot flapping your arms" due to an if-else structure somewhere. Does that mean MUDs are highly advanced games on par with games run by a real person at a table? No, it just means they have more room for scripts to accept and respond to pointless actions due to time not spent on graphics.
Now. Does the anti-MMO brigade care to make an argument I haven't made myself?
A human can respond to anything you throw at them.
Theoretically.
An computer program can respond only to those things that it is programmed to respond to. A human can respond to anything you throw at them. If you don't see the truth in this, then this argument is utterly pontless, because you will never ever understand. And if this is true, I just have to ask, why would you bother to play with us mere humans? Wouldn't an MMO suit you much better than a tabletop RPG?
I don't really agree. A human can also only respond to what it's programmed to. The difference is that it has far more advanced programming with a far wider knowledge base and better ability to connect different actions/responses.
It isn't that human brains aren't computer, it's that they are so vastly more advanced than a computer game is. Any computer game, including the sandbox games.
EDIT: This isn't about "anti-MMO". I've got nothing at all against MMO's and have enjoyed a few myself though I'm more of a diablo kind of guy. The debate isn't about MMO's being a bad thing or even about pen and paper being better than MMO's. It's about them being DIFFERENT, meaning some things that work well in MMO's work bad with a thinking, living DM because you can't "game the system" when it comes to the AI (which you often can, to the extent that it becomes an accepted part of the game - such as kiting) while other things that work well in tabletops such as playing to the enemies psychology doesn't work well in MMO's (for example, you can't usually scare away animals with fire in MMO's).
It's not about which system is "better" but simply that we have to accept that things work differently with a "simple" AI than with a human-controlled character.
Which was a reply to LT's ridiculous and nonsensical statement.[b]This entire diatribe is based on the false assertion that MMOs are trying to be sandbox games open to ENDLESS POSSIBILTEEEEES.No, of course not. We're stating that there are differences between MMO's and pen and paper RPG's, and you stated that "well then using maptools means you're not human!!!11one".
It wasn't nonsensical. He was clearing up a misunderstanding. From what I understood, the person he quoted thought the debate was between electronic random number generators and dice, when it was between computer AI responses and human-controlled character responses. He explained what we where talking about.
He was saying that it was the decision-making part, not the medium, that we were discussing, and you quoted him and paraphrased it to the medium being the issue not the decision-making. You basically turned his post upside down and claimed it was ridiculous. The worst kind of straw-man, in other words.
This conversation has taken a left turn into "completely unprovable" country.
Look, it's not about the games, it's about the people. People fear change. MMO players coming to the new game use the terminology because they are comfortable with it and they don't want to change. Grognards hate the new terminology because they too fear change.
This has next to nothing to do with the qualities of the individual media. It's just human nature.
|
|
I have to agree with Hama on this one. There's something that just rubs me the wrong way when I hear MMO terms at the gaming table. Maybe that's because I don't play MMOs (and have actually seen some great D&D players vanish into their WoW addictions, never to be seen at the table again).
But of them all, I actually can't bear to hear "mob" at the table. In D&D a "mob" is not a monster. It's an angry group of villagers with pitchforks and torches.
Furthermore, I just found out that everyone I've EVER heard referring to monsters a "mobs" has been mispronouning the word... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_(video_gaming)
A "mob" in MMOs should be pronounced mOHb (like goat, or go), not mAHb (like the pitchforks and torches mob), since the term originates from the root "mobile". I know a bunch of y'all already knew that, but it's news to me. :P
Maybe if people referred to monsters as "mohbs" then it wouldn't bug me so much. If people are going to bring their MMO to my pen & paper game, they should at least have the courtesy to get their own jargon right. ;)
Maybe if people referred to monsters as "mohbs" then it wouldn't bug me so much. If people are going to bring their MMO to my pen & paper game, they should at least have the courtesy to get their own jargon right. ;)
M(obile) Ob(ject)
That's why it's Mob not Mohb.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
People fear change.Not true. People fear -dumb- change. If people feared change, we'd still be playing 1st edition.
...
Wow.
Anyway, I just have one question for this thread: does ANYONE know where this "toon" term came from? It's going to bug me all week if no one tells me. :S
People fear change.Not true. People fear -dumb- change. If people feared change, we'd still be playing 1st edition.
LT, please think about it before calling me wrong.
Fear of change, even good change, is a fairly well-conceded part of human nature. If you've ever had to teach the internet to your elders, you know what I mean.
You really enjoy contradicting people.
I only have one regular MMO player in my group, and when she tries to inject MMO-speak into the game I just play dumb until she thinks of another way to say it.
Example:
Me: "You're up. What would [PC Name] like to do?"
Her: "I attack the mob."
Me: "What mob?"
Her: "The mob standing in front of me."
Me: "There's no mob here. It's only one goblin."
Her: *sigh* "Ok, I attack the goblin."
This may seem nitpicky on my part. However, since I've used the mob rules for large groups of creatures in the past, it is a distinctive in-game term, one which should not be confused with "a monster I get to kill."
I don't know. Sometimes I kind of wish that there WERE more MMO-type mechanics in PF. What really is keeping the BBEG's attention focused on the fighter?
We really need an FAQ entry for this.
Aggro does not exist in Pathfinder. Aggro has no place in Pathfinder. Aggro is for systems where the enemies are controlled by a dumb machine that can't make actual decisions.
Pathfinder, like most P&P RPGs, has an actual human being with a functioning brain and abilities like making actual decisions to control the enemies.
So the thing that ultimately keeps the BBEG's attention focussed anywhere - or not - is the GM.
Nothing if that wizard at the back of the party keeps throwing his biggest spells at him. And how exactly does the fighter keep the BBEG's back turned to the party's rogue? He can't.
He can, if he works at it. For example, by just being so much more dangerous than the rogue that the BBEG will get his priorities straight.
Or keep the guy from walking away with trip and combat reflexes. Maybe a reach weapon.
If I were a BBEG (and considering my position BEHIND the screen I am) there is no way that I would allow that fighter to control my movements.
So, you agree that it makes no sense that the BBEG should be forced to do anything (at least without compulsion magic), but you complain that it isn't so?
Gooood argument! ;-P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This may seem nitpicky on my part. However, since I've used the mob rules for large groups of creatures in the past, it is a distinctive in-game term, one which should not be confused with "a monster I get to kill."
I'm with you on this example. I answer rules questions on a Magic: the Gathering forum, and I constantly have to point out that a term someone's using as slang for something actually has a very specific meaning in the rules and whether or not they're using it correctly seriously affects the answer to their question. If two different games have different definitions of the same term, using the correct one for the game you're playing ought to be encouraged.
'Munchkin'
'Optimiser'
'Build'
'MAD'
'CoDzilla'All terms I learnt upon picking up PF.
Build is just ugly.
But generally, things like Optimiser and CoDzilla are fine in PF, since they're from PF.
I don't expect them to hear in, say, Counterstrike, or Risk.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Man, I just hate when people use "y'all" and spell color and armor with a "u". I try not to hang out with people that piss me off like that. If I get stuck with them, I tell them to shut up or punch them in the mouth.
You've just leveled up in my "Cool People on the Forums" campaign.
@Yoss - I'm a little confused on why you (and others) hate on the term "build". Am I thinking of it differently than you? For comparison, I think of "build" to mean "how I allocate my stats, feats, etc to get what I want". In my mind, every character has a "build" by definition. For instance Cledwyn's (my fighter) build included a 12 WIS to help with his Baking ability, which is a significant part of his identity as a character. Am I using the term wrong?
Anyway, I just have one question for this thread: does ANYONE know where this "toon" term came from? It's going to bug me all week if no one tells me. :S
Could it be from this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toon_(role-playing_game)
I actualy think characters were called Toons...it was soo long ago though I don't remember.