Let me start by saying this is not me trolling for a two sided blast-fest of tabletoppers vs. video gamers. I would like to see a civil discussion on the virtues and limitations of both. It's also just me ranting about things that have gotten my goat in video game RPGs.
If you want to chime in with your list of things to add please feel free.
Equally if you want to talk about why (in some ways) video games are better than tabletop, I'd welcome that too.
For me it really all comes down to two things: limitations, and irritating lacks of common sense.
Limitations.
In its easiest to recognize form this is "you can't go there." Can't climb right up that mountain, you have to find the path that leads up there that has been specifically graded for a traveler to walk up. Can't go there it's "off the map." Sometimes this takes on specific cant's, like: can't climb a tree. Honestly, in all the tabletop games I've ever played I've never heard, nor uttered the phrase "you can't go there." Sometimes you might have to work to get there, ropes, grappling hooks, climbing gear, pick the lock, find a key, bash it down, etc. But if you want to get there, eventually you'll get there. The climbing a tree one is particularly bothersome to me. I can't tell you how many times in the campaigns I run the players choose climbing a tree as their action of choice. Sometimes it's a really smart thing to do.
Lack of common sense.
This is nothing against the programmers of video games. I know they have limited parameters to work with, and I know that many of their creations are amazingly complex. Sometimes though, NPCs act like their one step up from a one-celled organism. Example: walking right in front of my BFS (that's Big Fricken Sword) right at the moment I was about to decapitate the bad guy. Really? You wanted to be brought low in a blaze of magic fire and blood? You did see me swinging this giant two-handed magical sword, right? I guess I'll have to go to the nearest town and find another follower/cohort to tag along with me.
Likewise animals. I get that a horse would more than likely defend itself, but is there no way I can train the beast to just back up and let me do the killing. (In Pathfinder there is, it's called an Animal Trick.) Just like the dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers NPCs, horses frequently choose the exact wrong time to move in the melee, and end up dead at the end of my sword. At least in a tabletop game the NPCs, and animal companions/mounts, will only ever be as dumb as the GM/Player playing them.
I know there are others, sometimes they're as simple as programming glitches, those don't bother me so much as they are just part of life. The two above though have had the ability to really hamper my enjoyment of even the most sandbox of video RPGs. I don't want to name names, but the game of the moment that has found my ire is something like Firmamentedge.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, LazarX, you were making some sense until the last sentence.
This is a troll fest?
It's a single person writing about something that probably isn't a very big deal to most people. That's not trolling. And it was a fairly entertaining read. Your response is a bit too vehement.
I think the idea that there are video games and there are tabletop games and that both terms cannot be used to describe the same game is simply outdated thinking.
What is the Surfacescapes project?
I expect that video games and tabletop games will converge as the best elements of each are identified and reconciled with each other.
As a community, we'll be faced with some interesting conceptual challenges over the next decade. What is a table, for instance? If the table surface is an interactive digital display, what are you playing? If the computer handles the "crunch" and the DM (a real, live person) handles the "fluff", what are you playing? If you can sit around a table with your friends and have the computer run you through a dungeon crawl (including handling narration), what are you playing? If everyone in your game is in different physical locations, but thanks to digital wizardry sees the same thing on each of their tables, what are you playing?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the computer handles the "crunch" and the DM (a real, live person) handles the "fluff", what are you playing?
It's a tabletop game, as they are using the computer as an aid, not a gaming platform.
If you can sit around a table with your friends and have the computer run you through a dungeon crawl (including handling narration), what are you playing?
It is a video game, as the GM is a computer.
If everyone in your game is in different physical locations, but thanks to digital wizardry sees the same thing on each of their tables, what are you playing?
If the game is run by a human, a tabletop RPG, if by a computer, a video game.
The distinction is very clear.
It's a tabletop game, as they are using the computer as an aid, not a gaming platform.
Ah, alright.
So running Neverwinter Nights using a DM client is a tabletop game, then! After all, the computer is only handling the mechanical interactions - everything from the narration to the exposition to the design of the adventure is handled by the DM.
It is a video game, as the GM is a computer.
Even if you're sitting around a table with your friends, moving miniatures across the surface by hand?
If the game is run by a human, a tabletop RPG, if by a computer, a video game.
And if it's "run" by both? If the computer handles the mechanical side and the human handles the non-mechanical side, which is it, and why? What defines a video game? What defines a tabletop game?
After all, being run by a real live person is hardly a tabletop game requirement. There are countless tabletop games that have no one running them, just a group of players! I very much doubt you'd call them video games.
The point that I'm trying to get at is that "video game" and "tabletop game" are not exclusive of one another. A game can be both, and will increasingly be so as time goes on. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's a good thing.
The distinction is very clear.
Clearly, it isn't.
Video games are better and worse in some ways compared to table top games. Lots of people must agree, because our population is much larger and the hobby is about 10% of the size it was when I grew up.
I could list the positives and negatives of video games and tabletop RPGs, but there would be no point. I think both games good and bad things about them. I like both.
Why even have this discussion? You're arguing against a claim that no one who wasn't three sheets to the wind has made.
Video gaming is one activity, and Dice roleplaying is something completely different. You might think that comparing apples to oranges is a fruitful activity. Only those looking to feed your troll fest would agree.
Thanks for adding to the discussion... O.o
I will freely admit that video game RPGs and tabletop RPGs are definitely different. As you say, apples and oranges. However, to claim that they have no relation at all is flat out wrong, because, as you say, they are "fruitful." They are both fruit. Fruit is not a vegetable, nor is it a meat. So while two different fruits may be very different in appearance, texture, and taste, they are still fruit, and thus worthy of comparison.
If you don't think there's any connection between (fantasy) video game RPGs (which is what I was talking about, though I guess I never specifically said that was my target) and tabletop (fantasy) RPGs, do me a favor and ask Paizo why they're partnering in a venture called Pathfinder Online. For my own part, I'd tell you it's because the audiences have become a blended audience. In fact, I have two whole Pathfinder groups that all came to me having only ever played console or PC fantasy RPGs/MMORPGs. They hear about this thing called an RPG club and understand what the RPG stands for, so they ask questions. Then, once they find out what it's all about, they dive right in.
Additionally, as the small disagreement between Scott and Hama would suggest, the lines between these two fantasy media are becoming more blurred instead of more distinct. Clearly the distinction between the two is becoming unclear. (As Scott points out, the Surfacesapes project is a healthy blend of video game and tabletop. Not to mention, VTTs which have been around for quite some time.) As surface interactive technology becomes more accessible (which it inevitably must, as the proliferation of iPad type hardware increases) what's considered a video game and what's considered a tabletop game will undoubtedly see a shift. So, I believe, there's a perfectly acceptable point of reference for a conversation about the limitations and virtues of both. Obviously you disagree, which is fine, it is a free interwebz, and I welcome all opinions.
To add to Scott and Hama's discussion: If I'm playing chess in my internet browser, but, with another person, am I playing a tabletop game or a video game?
Lastly, at no point did I ever hint at, or suggest, that I'm not three sheets to the wind. :)
You might think that comparing apples to oranges is a fruitful activity.
I laughed.
You will discover hybrids will develop that take the best of both, so the definition of a video game versus tabletop will be a moving target as technology catches up. The biggest difference would be paying staff in a video game to run an encounter. That would be the biggest barrier to remove the lines defining both, unless you can incorporate community support, and some type of reward or incentive to keep these people contributing to the world or game.
I had thought about that, but how often is a DM truely able to adapt on the fly without a map/encounters/NPCs already developed? A DM needs something in order to act on the fly. A video game can also have a set of tools or references to act on the fly. Even if you consider terrain, a game could provide details and paths a DM would never consider or be capable of performing.
Having your own personal world that is seperate from others, in regards to house rules is a good point, as I doubt a video game will be that flexible.
I don't think one has to or will ever replace the other... and was in fact annoyed by the insinuation in the recent NY Times article announcing D&D 5e that fewer people were TT-gaming because they were playing video games instead. I think there are people who enjoy TT-gaming, people who enjoy video games, and people who enjoy both, but they usually don't leave one for the other.
I think I kind of get the gist of the OP though... especially in VRPGs that try to mimic the feel to a degree of TTRPGs. A lot of Western VRPGs are like this especially--the games made by Bioware, Obsidian, and Bethesda come to mind. Because many of these games do their best to give you a degree of choice, they give you NPCs and party members you care about, you feel like you're part of the story to a large degree, similar to (though NOT the same as) the way you feel immersed in a TTRPG.
And the problem is, the limitations of video gaming do invade these story-based video RPGs and can, if designed poorly, really tear through the sense of immersion at the worst moment.
For example, I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins (Ultimate Edition) recently. At the game's best, you feel extremely drawn into the story and are given great choices for how you interact with others. You feel like you are roleplaying--even if ultimately, things are hard-scripted to go in a certain direction, the designers effectively create the illusion of choice and freedom. The immersion is powerful, it is video game RPGing at its best.
And then something happens like--
-- You trigger a cutscene, and watch helplessly as your entire party is taken out of your hands and forced to walk into a room surrounded by enemies, when you KNOW a fight's about to break out and the game just forced your party, against your will, into the worst tactical position possible just because the game designers were too lazy to design the fight in a more legitimately challenging way, without "cheating" you into an undesirable position.
Can you imagine that happening in tabletop gaming?
GM: You see the huge dragon in the middle of the room, so of course all four of you walk up to within 60 feet of it...
DQ the Player: Uh, no we don't?
(The frustrating thing here is that there are plenty of fights that are enjoyably challenging without cutscene trigger frustration, so why they can't accomplish that all the time is beyond me.)
-- Or you can't unlock or break open that chest, even though you are a master lockpicker or warrior, because the game says so.
Sometimes the "you can't unlock that" is lampshaded well. A massive vault door that works on a complicated gear mechanism may well only be feasibly workable with its specially designed key. But the tiny wooden chest you're not allowed to open until the game's pacing says it's okay? Suddenly you're reminded you're playing a stupid video game rather than being transported to another world.
-- More cutscene frustration, like your stealthed rogue being noticed by an ordinary barkeep because you stepped over a cutscene trigger, or even worse, a cutscene forces you to step on a trap that you were in fact trying to walk around.
-- And then of course there's just bugs. How about THIS happening in a tabletop session:
GM: Uh, Bob? You know how the bandits stole all your gear but I promised you'd get it back by the end of the dungeon?
Bob: Yeah?
GM: Well, uh, I lost the piece of paper the gear was written on. So you're all going to just have to play through this dungeon all over again, and just hope that I write down the gear properly this time.
Bob:
Although part of these issues is just about bad video game design, not even how video gaming can be limited. Because while it is limited, if you make a story enjoyable enough, you might not care. I think when we notice that VRPGs are limited and keeping us from wanting to do something we want to, that's a flaw of video game design. Because I think those of us who enjoy video games are willing to suspend disbelief and go on the ride as long as the ride is fun to go on and doesn't make us feel, "But why can't I do that?"
Likewise, I think if GMs railroad and rules arguments get out of hand, TTRPGing can also feel limited and immersion breaking.
Now all that said, I think the versatility and freedom TTRPGs (even if it's a TTRPG played online :) ) have isn't going to be duplicated by an AI for a long long long long time. And even if it does--there's also an important factor of TTRPGing at the real honest to god table that no computer gaming can replace--actually sitting around the table with your friends and interacting and socializing while you play. Even multiplayer games don't feel the same. There's an important interface going on when you're physically in the room with your friends, telling a story together.
But it's hard to arrange game sessions constantly, and it's hard for the GM to prepare for too many sessions at once. So between TTRPGs, I'll gladly pop on a video game and follow the story along, even if the freedoms are different (free to play what I want without worrying about party balance, free to save the game and try different options and try what I like best).
So they are different, and they'll remain so--and likely continue to coexist. :)
(Although I am now tempted to paint a miniature like my Grey Warden, track down that Bioware developer who designed those awful cutscenes, and shove it up his nose.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think video games are only inferior to tabletop games as far as limitations for now. Give it 10 years. and if there isn't engines able to render and run all of Golarion in real time. I will be disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see that I may have to invest in a noseguard when dming for a certain time mistress...
That said, as I am currently playing dragon age, I know exactly how you feel!
Thank you DQ for stating in a much more detailed and eloquent fashion a lot of what I was trying to get across.
Having played DA:O I absolutely feel your pain. Those forced cut-scenes are a huge pet-peeve of mine that I completely forgot to mention. Don't try and immerse me in a story with (at least a decent semblance of) real choices, and then at one of the most critical junctures take over the character I've poured so much love and time into, and make him swagger boldly into what's probably about to be the fight of his life. Is it my character or isn't it?
@A CR20 Seagull: You really think just 10 years? I guess I think that time-frame is a bit hasty or optimistic. We'll see. I certainly know that ten years before the internet found widespread popularity if you had told me what it was and what it was capable of producing I would have laughed in your face. Technology does seem to be advancing on a rather exponential scale.
Pheromones
.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the quote from today's New York Times article:
“If all you’re looking for is fulfillment of your wish to be an idealized projection of yourself who gains in wealth and power by overcoming monsters, there are lots of ways to do that nowadays,” said Tavis Allison, a game designer in New York who has made his own role-playing game, Adventurer Conqueror King. “In the ’70s Dungeons & Dragons was the only game in town.”
I see that I may have to invest in a noseguard when dming for a certain time mistress...
That said, as I am currently playing dragon age, I know exactly how you feel!
I truly hope I do get the opportunity to play something you run sometime! And as long as you don't develop games for Bioware, I promise the minis will stay on the table where they belong. Also, you can distract me with oreos if I appear to start to get violent (a tactic my own players learned well ;) ).
Thank you DQ for stating in a much more detailed and eloquent fashion a lot of what I was trying to get across.
Having played DA:O I absolutely feel your pain. Those forced cut-scenes are a huge pet-peeve of mine that I completely forgot to mention. Don't try and immerse me in a story with (at least a decent semblance of) real choices, and then at one of the most critical junctures take over the character I've poured so much love and time into, and make him swagger boldly into what's probably about to be the fight of his life. Is it my character or isn't it?
That's it. And I think it's something Bioware specifically does a lot--they give you miles of chain but then yank it back at the worst possible moment.
@A CR20 Seagull: You really think just 10 years? I guess I think that time-frame is a bit hasty or optimistic. We'll see. I certainly know that ten years before the internet found widespread popularity if you had told me what it was and what it was capable of producing I would have laughed in your face. Technology does seem to be advancing on a rather exponential scale.
I think even if tech advances at the rate CR20 suggests (and if we can afford the computers that will run such programs), it still won't replace sitting around the table with your friends and a bag of oreos and DMs with noses full of miniatures. I am sure whatever experience video gaming will be then will be phenomenal, but it won't be the same.
I will keep an extra large package of Oreos on the table between my nose and any minis within your reach when playtesting F!TSOW.
Kthulhu, I have a bad habit of taking a theme and running with it.
Freehold_DM, for the record, peppermint Trader Joe's Joe Joes also work.
I'd be curious to see if there's video games people have enjoyed being railroaded on... I mean, where the story is good enough, you don't care you're being dragged along a linear story.
Computers cannot pass the Doritos and computers cannot cook. (One of our players actually cooks dinner for us most sessions!)
|
I think video games are only inferior to tabletop games as far as limitations for now. Give it 10 years. and if there isn't engines able to render and run all of Golarion in real time. I will be disappointed.Prepare for disappointment then. You're also missing the trees for the forest. It's not about what you can render... it's the fact that an AI engine can't replace a human mind.
By the time a computer can be as good of a GM as a human, we won't have time for RPGs, as we'll all be busy running away from Skynet.
The social connection is indeed one of the biggest factors from my standpoint too. A lot of non-gamers I know (including my parents and sister) tend to think of "playing D&D" as something a lonely introvert does in front of a computer screen — this after having been playing for 20 years now.
In a very real way I feel like the "D&D Party" isn't the characters comprising the adventuring group but rather the players and GMs coming together to share a creative pastime together. This is one of the reasons that even with my PbP groups I basically consider being able to hang out and talk on chat when we're not posting as a requirement. Quite simply, RPGs are something I enjoy with friends, and (since I always GM) I have little interest in being a 'game server' for people who I don't at least get to interact with on a human level.
As far as the terms table-top and video game? I think that the distinction can be made pretty easily by keeping the intent of the question clear, however I would also say that the terms themselves are beginning to show their age.
For instance in Scott's example of using NWN in DM-mode, I'd say that is a case of using a video game as an extremely full-featured VTT.
The only caveat I'd add here is that due to the feature-set of NWN itself lacking features such as climbing, swimming, jumping, or flying, there is the risk of the players and GM curtailing their own input to match what the presentation system handles well. This brings me to my next point.
If there's any risk I see in the lines between two of my favorite pastimes getting blurred, it would be that of players approaching a 'tabletop' game as if it's a videogame. This isn't something that I've encountered with other Gen-Xers, but many of my younger players (or Gen-Xers who have ONLY played WoW, etc.) tend to approach Pathfinder as if it's just a video game. They get confused by the lack of rules for "aggro", think of encounters as "mobs", NPCs as "quest-givers", etc. While hack-n-slash is certainly a time-honored gameplay style, I think it's easy to fall into the mindset that that's all there is to the game. While this has always been true, as someone who has work in level-design and 3D graphics before, I think when you allow something external to the human mind start handling most of the heavy-lifting, people are only too willing to oblige. That might be great for the 100s of die rolls we have to do, but when the computer-generate imagery itself replaces what the mind's-eye can visualize, I think that a lot gets lost.
Remember: Nothing man-made exists that wasn't first imagined in some fashion. Everything man-made is an attempt to realize that which was imagined. That's where the basis of old quote about the boy who preferred radio to television because the radio had a better picture.
Anyway, do I have a point? Well, yes, actually. Don't allow your tools (i.e. computers, books, rules, etc.) blind you to your artistry, your passion, and your social interaction.
The only caveat I'd add here is that due to the feature-set of NWN itself lacking features such as climbing, swimming, jumping, or flying, there is the risk of the players and GM curtailing their own input to match what the presentation system handles well. This brings me to my next point.
If there's any risk I see in the lines between two of my favorite pastimes getting blurred, it would be that of players approaching a 'tabletop' game as if it's a videogame.
Total agreement on every part of your post Laithoron. You really hit on some issues that are exactly at the heart of why I made the original post in the first place.
Interestingly, if you read the NY Times article recently about 5th edition D&D, it flat out states that the entire gaming industry, console, PC and otherwise, owes its very existence to the idea that you can take on the role of an alter ego and go do heroic/epic things.
Which is why I feel that just about any RPG "video" game out there is nothing more than people working on the ultimate GM-less tabletop experience. In many cases the brilliance of the "video tabletop" games is that they take away any chance at GM error. Of course, that is also exactly where they take away the ability of the GM to ad hoc and fiat extraordinary circumstances. Which makes this weird, worm-hole-in-the-universe's-logic situation where the same thing that makes the GM-less "video tabletop" games great, is what makes them terrible. You've taken away the ability to do everything, in order to make sure that the few things you can do are done without mathematical error.
I think back to those first quasi-graphical, mostly-text-based, PC "RPG" games that were really nothing more than a choose-your-own-adventure book with pixel-filled, digital graphics, and realize that that was one person's attempt to bring the tabletop experience to a single user. Maybe every "video tabletop" game is nothing more than the evolution of an idea thought up by someone who couldn't find a table to play at that said, "Screw you guys, I'll make a better heroic game on my computer!"
I also think, if that's the case, any "poisoning of the well" that has come about from the digital rpg audience subsequently coming to the table.
Tangent Spoiler:
Is really nothing more than a strange and somehow fitting integration of what has really been one "audience" all along. These two quotes from the NY Times article are particularly poignant to that argument.
“There is something fundamental to the D&D role-playing game that answers a need for people,” said Mike Mearls, senior manager of Dungeons & Dragons research and development — that need being telling your own heroic story.
and
“If all you’re looking for is fulfillment of your wish to be an idealized projection of yourself who gains in wealth and power by overcoming monsters, there are lots of ways to do that nowadays,” said Tavis Allison, a game designer in New York who has made his own role-playing game, Adventurer Conqueror King. “In the ’70s Dungeons & Dragons was the only game in town.”
It is extremely intriguing to me that at its essence, just about any RPG really does boil down to the desire of people to "be an idealized projection of [themself] who gains in wealth and power by overcoming [I'd say challenges here, as I think "monsters" is way too simplified, though the fact that the original quote says monsters maybe speaks to that "watered down" mentality of the video gamer]."
Edit: I forgot to mention that I am a GM that uses a laptop with another monitor attached at the table. I use Kyle Olson's Combat Manager as well as having a browser open to the d20pfsrd, and the regular Paizo SRD. I use these digital tools to enhance some of my own weaknesses with what I call the "data of the mechanics." Would I use a tool like the Surfacescapes digital table? Heck yes! I'd use it because it creates a great "virtual tabletop" space that still brings us all together, where DoritosTM can still be passed around, but where a lot of those "data of the mechanics" things are handled by the machine. Obviously I'd have to get a lot better at using a computer to be a good ad hoc/fiat type GM at a table like that. This makes me think of a question, would a GM at the Surfacescapes table be more likely to set up railroad campaigns because those are the preset NPCs, monsters, traps, and maps he/she has loaded?
I think video games are only inferior to tabletop games as far as limitations for now. Give it 10 years. and if there isn't engines able to render and run all of Golarion in real time. I will be disappointed.
Do you expect to be able to have real conversations with NPCs though? The best I've seen from software is a limited choice of options to say, and I don't see that improving.
...just about any RPG really does boil down to the desire of people to "be an idealized projection of [themself] who gains in wealth and power by overcoming [I'd say challenges here, as I think "monsters" is way too simplified, though the fact that the original quote says monsters maybe speaks to that "watered down" mentality of the video gamer]."
Except for the thousands of gamers for whom this does not describe the hobby of its objectives.
Some people play non-idealized characters, who are not a version of themselves. Some of them play in systems which abstract wealth, and where the goal is not to acquire more — in fact, you may choose to play a character who is poor in concept (and get nothing in return).
"Overcoming challenges" is somewhat more universal, although I know it isn't necessarily core to the definition of an RPG. Splitting hairs, I know, but it is a weakness of the Paizo community to sometimes view every RPG through the lens of D&D/Pathfinder. It ain't necessarily so.
|
I'd be curious to see if there's video games people have enjoyed being railroaded on... I mean, where the story is good enough, you don't care you're being dragged along a linear story.
DA:O
Planescape: TormentThe Witcher
The Witcher 2
Xenogears
Xenosaga
Metal Gear Solid
Final Fantasy Tactics
Baldur's Gate 2
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
I love all of these games. They have beautifully written (often branching with lots of player choice) storylines, and detailed mechanics and tactical chllenges that keep me occupied for hours without having to hear anyone complain that my favorite activity is a plague called "rules bloat".
I still demand some TT gaming in my life.
Video games can have multiple scripted endings, so I can choose the one most appropriate to my character, but I've played in TT games where the GM wrote plots and scenes in direct response to my character - that only made sense in the context of the background and choices that I had written into the game. I don't think video games can replace that element of TT until we have AIs that can achieve human-level consciousness and emotions. I'm not 100% sure it's possible.
On the other hand, maybe D&D 9th edition will use a human DM but require computers because the human DM runs the whole game in VR. I wouldn't be surprised if *that* happens in 20 or 30 years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: when I was in college and grad school I was in something like 13 campaigns in 7 different systems. Games and gamers were plentiful, and since we were all in college, we had tons of time to play.
However, now that we've all "grown up", separated to different states, gotten "real" jobs, most are married, some have kids it's not likely we'll ever be able to play that many games again simply due to time and life constraints.
Add into that general lack of time and freedom the idea that the gaming community is so fractured that I have a hard time finding games in my area that suit my play style even when/if I do have time. And, of course, just because I have time doesn't mean my friends do, we don't have the same days off, same schedules, or same home/life obligations.
So, little time, little ability to find "like minded" gamers ("We only play 4e, We only play PF, We're Hack N Slash, We're RP"), leaves a dwindling chance to have a lot of (sometimes any) TT RPG in my life.
BUT, I can go boot up Skyrim, Dragon Age, WoW, KOTOR, SWTOR, NWN and either play by myself of jump into the ever-present MMO.
The roleplaying is mostly non-existent, the games are "canned" and scripted and don't really care what I do or don't react to things I'd like to see, but they're there when I have time, anytime I have it--I don't have to try to wrangle with people's schedules, or juggle locations, I don't have to "cover" for a player who drops out last minute or has to work/can't be there/etc.
Sadly, it's all those external factors that are pushing me, and seemingly a lot of "gamers" off the table and into the virtual realm of C-RPGS and MMORPGs.
VTTs and PbP and all of that is just too "unfun", too visually lacking, too slow, and too devoid of TT interaction to fill the niche, and for all the effort to make VTTs better, they'll eventually become so similar to video games that they won't be anything like traditional TT RPGs...
So...sad as it is, I think video games in one way or another will replace, or at least largely take over the RPG industry...
ymmv
A lot of my players were already playing skyrim when I stared DMing my game. I invited 9 people to the table and 8 show up every week to play Pathfinder, magic the gathering, and video games while we wait for everyone to arrive.
Video games will never replace tabletop games because they are separate activities.
When the pathfinder MMO launches, the pathfinder table top brand will remain unthreatened, in fact, it will become more popular as video game players are drawn into the tabletop game playing activity.
That's an interesting list. I'd agree with you on Torment -- I think there were rare moments where I felt the immersion broken.
Of the ones I've played, I'd disagree with Dragon Age, KotOR, and maybe even Baldur's Gate 2 (though far less so than the others). The first two games I constantly felt ripped out of immersion due to a badly placed cutscene. But I'm glad you enjoyed them.
I own Xenosaga but have never gotten around to playing it, oddly enough... will have to remedy that.
ValmartheMad--I find in interesting that you feel "pushed off the table and into the virtual realm..." I certainly play a lot of video games, but find the time I put into those do not replace the time I put into tabletop roleplaying.
I truly loved Kotor and Kotor 2. I didn't care for the ending in either one, however.
...just about any RPG really does boil down to the desire of people to "be an idealized projection of [themself] who gains in wealth and power by overcoming [I'd say challenges here, as I think "monsters" is way too simplified, though the fact that the original quote says monsters maybe speaks to that "watered down" mentality of the video gamer]."Except for the thousands of gamers for whom this does not describe the hobby of its objectives.
Some people play non-idealized characters, who are not a version of themselves. Some of them play in systems which abstract wealth, and where the goal is not to acquire more — in fact, you may choose to play a character who is poor in concept (and get nothing in return).
"Overcoming challenges" is somewhat more universal, although I know it isn't necessarily core to the definition of an RPG. Splitting hairs, I know, but it is a weakness of the Paizo community to sometimes view every RPG through the lens of D&D/Pathfinder. It ain't necessarily so.
Point taken. Though I'd argue that for the vast majority (if I had to put a percentage on it I'd say at least 90%) of those people currently playing either TTRPG or VRPG aren't doing it so they can play a weak character that does not gain power or wealth. Of course, there are people with a certain level of RPG maturity that have gone beyond the "normal" reasons for role playing, and partake of less-than-idealized roles or even, in some cases, hindered, or hampered PCs. I'd say that this audience though, has either come to RPGs with a specialized intent, or have played RPGs for so long that the "normal" play of the game has bored them. I understand that there are niche RPGs that cater to an audience wholly different than what I'm used to. The only thing I'd say about that is that these games too, came from the industry that was absolutely founded on the "idealized [character]." Whether or not that's evolved into less-than-idealized, or hampered, is a choice of gamers that at least have a clue that that's not where the industry got its start.
Video games will never replace tabletop games because they are separate activities.
From now on, whenever I see anyone make a variation on this particular claim, I'll just keep linking the quote above from the New York Times.
Removed a post. The use of "rape" in that context is inappropriate.
Aazen, I would say the only thing the computer has "over" the table top is we can access it on our schedule at our convenience. We can play computer games whenever we decide we have the time to.
Arranging a tabletop game takes time and planning. We can only play a typical TTRPG at a time when everyone can make it and someone can host.
But of the two gaming experiences, I would say the TTRPG has the potential to be a much more robust experience.
But all this means to me personally is if I feel like playing a game on my own, I play computer games, and when I get to play with my friends at the table, all (within reason) gets dropped to do that instead.
I think it also depends on the kind of person you are.
Some people just don't get good visual images by reading or hearing descriptions. A computer game brings these images to life, no need for creativity or imagination. For these people, a computer game is infinitely better.
The world is weird today anyway, lots of people replace hanging out with friends with Facebook and texting. Not the same, but it's been replaced anyway. Whatever happenned to a bunch of kids hanging out in their parents basements?
I, for one, believe that using video games to replace what has always been a social hobby is a little sad. For me, gaming has always been about getting together with friends.
For many people, video gaming has always been about getting together with friends.
Kthulhu, I have a bad habit of taking a theme and running with it.
Freehold_DM, for the record, peppermint Trader Joe's Joe Joes also work.
I'd be curious to see if there's video games people have enjoyed being railroaded on... I mean, where the story is good enough, you don't care you're being dragged along a linear story.
Metal Gear: Solid
Metal Gear: SolidKthulhu, I have a bad habit of taking a theme and running with it.
Freehold_DM, for the record, peppermint Trader Joe's Joe Joes also work.
I'd be curious to see if there's video games people have enjoyed being railroaded on... I mean, where the story is good enough, you don't care you're being dragged along a linear story.
Final Fantasy.
Bioshock.
Half Life / Half Life 2.
Dead Space.
Mirror's Edge.
Portal / Portal 2.
Just off the top of my head.
|
|
I'd be curious to see if there's video games people have enjoyed being railroaded on... I mean, where the story is good enough, you don't care you're being dragged along a linear story.Metal Gear: Solid
Sorry, he said "where the story is good enough". MGS's "story" is an overly convoluted load of crap, made by a man who is obviously bitter about being in video games instead of film. The fact that so many gamers hold it up as an example of great storytelling makes me ashamed to be a gamer.