Quote from: CabThe extra focus on combat we've seen described in 4th ed so far makes this a valid comparison. Abilities per encounter, essentially a sort of re-set button at the end of each bit, is very computer-game.

OK, so... what of it?

I mean, "I think this change is like a video game" is only half a sentence.  It should probably be finished "...and video games have nothing valuable to offer tabletop RPGs," or, "...and therefore we'll be playing a video game and not an RPG," otherwise it's a non-statement.

If tabletop RPGs generally used spell points and all of a sudden some video games using Vancian magic became popular, a tabletop RPG would not magically turn into a video game by adopting Vancian magic.

A mechanic is a mechanic, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a video game, another RPG, Monopoly, or if it's fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.  Either the mechanic will add something to play, or it won't.  Either it will make for more fun at the table, or it won't.

I understand you don't want to play a tabletop computer game.  Neither do I, neither do a lot of the folks who like 3.x or are excited about 4.x.  The fact that one or several mechanics are inspired by well-done video games is irrelevant to my enjoyment at the table.

-O

Whilst I in no way want tabletop RPG's to emulate video games I think there's a number of elements that could be lifted from one to the other quite succesfully.

One example is the 'Quick Kill' system that appears in games like Prince of Persia and God of War. Once a powerful creature has been reduced to a certain number of hit points (or whatever) the system unlocks a mini-game wherein the completion of a chain of stunt-like activities results in a swift and gory demise. It's something I started sketching out for an Iron Heroes campaign ages ago, and think it would make an excellent addition to high powered, high octane play.

Quote from: obrynI mean, "I think this change is like a video game" is only half a sentence.  It should probably be finished "...and video games have nothing valuable to offer tabletop RPGs," or, "...and therefore we'll be playing a video game and not an RPG," otherwise it's a non-statement.

I disagree. You are expecting there to be a value judgement after the comparison.  That's not required.  It's simply an assertion. If he doesn't tell you why he thinks it is like a video game, then it's nothing but a silly statement. But I think he's done that. Whether it's good or bad or whatever it a separate, but related, discussion. First you have to establish whether or not there is a sufficient similarity to make the comparison.

Quote from: obrynIf tabletop RPGs generally used spell points and all of a sudden some video games using Vancian magic became popular, a tabletop RPG would not magically turn into a video game by adopting Vancian magic.

No, but it would make RPGs more like video games than they previously were.

Quote from: obrynA mechanic is a mechanic, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a video game, another RPG, Monopoly, or if it's fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.  Either the mechanic will add something to play, or it won't.  Either it will make for more fun at the table, or it won't.

Whether it makes it more fun or not will completely depend on the individual. As you rightly point out, the mechanic itself is objective - it is what it is. But it will have an impact on the game.  That impact may be like other rules in other games, it may not. If it is, then we may be able to determine our own personal reaction to it by understanding our own feelings about the rule in the other game.

Quote from: obrynI understand you don't want to play a tabletop computer game.  Neither do I, neither do a lot of the folks who like 3.x or are excited about 4.x.  The fact that one or several mechanics are inspired by well-done video games is irrelevant to my enjoyment at the table.

Which is fine.  I certainly have no problem with people who are excited by the upcoming edition.  I, too, hope it turns out to be enjoyable. But it's not an immediate slam to say it is influenced by video games or that certain aspects seem like video games - it's a way to try get a handle on an unknown, that's all. Most ways I've seen it used it as a shorthand for saying "this is why it won't appeal to me." That, to me, certainly does not make it objectively bad.

Quote from: obrynOK, so... what of it?

I refer you to my comments in this thread and others on this site.

(cut)

QuoteA mechanic is a mechanic, pure and simple.  It doesn't matter if it comes from a video game, another RPG, Monopoly, or if it's fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus.  Either the mechanic will add something to play, or it won't.  Either it will make for more fun at the table, or it won't.

I agree. I'm sure that you'll agree that a mechanic that makes Monopoly work isn't necessarily the same mechanic that would make Star Frontiers work. Land on a square according to a dice roll (you get no say in whether you land there), you get first dibs at buying the Laser Rifle, no one else gets to buy a laser rifle unless you choose not to, then they all get to bid in an auction for the laser rifle... See, it just doesn't really hold true that a fun mechanic is a fun mechanic.

You can indeed take videogaming elements and put them into a roleplaying game. But you have to be careful doing that (I hope you'll agree there too) because the dynamics and balance of an RPG don't always work the same as for a computer game. I've given my reasoning why the demise of Vancian magic in D&D is a mistake, and I've described the new system as being very computer-gamey alongside; the reasons why its not a good flavour for D&D have been given.

The biggest reason not to widely import computer game mechanics into D&D is because SATT games will not ever do computer games better than computer games do; the nature of challenges in computerised gaming, the way you challenge the players, is different to how you do it in a SATT game. In a SATT game you've got, genuinely, an infinite number of options (rather than a pre-determined, finite number of possible actions) in every situation, and to change the game to bring in more pre-set actions will only operate at the expense of the truly open ended nature of SATT games. Thats really what I've been saying all along, and all of the posts here and in other threads opposing my point have really rather reinforced that view. In short, the more you stat in things to do every round, the more players expect not to have to think, and ultimately the less rewarding the game for all involved. Call it dumbing down if you want (I hate that term), call it 'computer gamey' if you like, it amounts to the same thing.

Quote from: DrewWhilst I in no way want tabletop RPG's to emulate video games I think there's a number of elements that could be lifted from one to the other quite succesfully.

One example is the 'Quick Kill' system that appears in games like Prince of Persia and God of War. Once a powerful creature has been reduced to a certain number of hit points (or whatever) the system unlocks a mini-game wherein the completion of a chain of stunt-like activities results in a swift and gory demise. It's something I started sketching out for an Iron Heroes campaign ages ago, and think it would make an excellent addition to high powered, high octane play.

Tunnels and Trolls accomplished this very well with the old Monster Rating (MR) system. As foes become worn down, they fight less effectively, so once its clear you're beating an opponent their defeat speeds up. Simple and effective.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is fine.  I certainly have no problem with people who are excited by the upcoming edition.  I, too, hope it turns out to be enjoyable. But it's not an immediate slam to say it is influenced by video games or that certain aspects seem like video games - it's a way to try get a handle on an unknown, that's all. Most ways I've seen it used it as a shorthand for saying "this is why it won't appeal to me." That, to me, certainly does not make it objectively bad.

It would indeed be odd to argue that something is objectively bad based on the subjectiv view that its wrong to use a videogame mechanic in a SATT RPG.

I would instead argue that the computer game mechanics approach is a mistake for D&D because D&D simply can't compete with computer games at being a computer game.

Quote from: CabTunnels and Trolls accomplished this very well with the old Monster Rating (MR) system. As foes become worn down, they fight less effectively, so once its clear you're beating an opponent their defeat speeds up. Simple and effective.

Yeah, death spirals are nothing new. What I was talking about was something a little more specific and involved, an attempt to bring a touch of the 'end level boss' experience into tactical play.

Of course I realise that such an idea will be considered heresy by some TT gamers, but I thought it would be a fun optional addition to crunchy, combat orientated games like Iron Heroes.

Quote from: DrewYeah, death spirals are nothing new. What I was talking about was something a little more specific and involved, an attempt to bring a touch of the 'end level boss' experience into tactical play.

Of course I realise that such an idea will be considered heresy by some TT gamers, but I thought it would be a fun optional addition to crunchy, combat orientated games like Iron Heroes.

I think your idea is very interesting. The only thing I'm left wondering is whether that would be better handled through narrative (describing the end game of the fight in more detail) than rules.

Quote from: CabI think your idea is very interesting. The only thing I'm left wondering is whether that would be better handled through narrative (describing the end game of the fight in more detail) than rules.

That's one way of doing it, for sure. The sort of thing I'm thinking of would result in being able to take down a giant in one round once he'd reached 100 hp (or equivalent). Cutting the tendons in his ankle, leaping onto his back as he reached down to grasp at the wound then stabbing him through the base of the skull whilst another character puts an arrow through his eye.

Something that doesn't rely so much on the characters damage-dealing capabilities but their inventiveness and ability to pull off stunt-related rolls. Each monster would gave a QK threshold (the number of HP's they need to be brought down to to make Quick Kill an option) followed by the number of stunts that needed to be chained successfully together in order to win.

In the above example it would QK: 100/4. The stunts themselves would be ability/skill/BAB checks, the DC being set by the monsters threat level. The players can be as creative as they like when describing the stunts, but they must make narrative sense and be successful at every stage in order to chain together. Otherwise they've wasted their action for that round.

It's only in embryonic form at the moment, and certainly not for all games, but as an expression of the stuff that I do enjoy about video games I think it maps over fairly well.