Can Vidyagames ruin RPGs?

I don't know, can potato salads ruin mashed potatoes?

The answer to that question is the same as "Can OP stop sucking cocks?"

RPGs could greatly benefit from video games if they bothered to take a few lessons from those, such as usability.

...

They do ruin RPG players. I consider them the prime reason for the "kill and loot" mentality.

Except that's always been a thing, perhaps more so in the grognard days of D&D where loot was tied to levelling up.

But traditional RPGs evolved away from that (in part), while video games mostly didn't. And newer players usually come from a background of video game RPGs.

I think you're ignoring the fact the gaming industry as a whole is also branching out and evolving - there's plenty of titles out there now where you don't kill anyone or take their shit just like how there's plenty of new TTRPGS coming out today where killing and looting us still a part of the core experience.

My point is that element's always been there, it's not the gosh darn millenials with their vidger games that's necessarily led to it being a thing despite what the Veeky Forums boogeyman would have you believe.

This, and not just because RPG designers are some of the bottom of the barrel when it comes to designing, well, pretty much anything game-related.

Not him, but he kind of makes the point. While the TTRPG market is branched, complex and intricate, with a game for literally everyone and their dog, the basic issue remains - a lion share of new players come from cRPG background, where regardless if it's WRPG or jRPG, the core stuff is about killing things, looting them and usually applying fast-healing mechanics.
In short - it makes sure that those players will corelate entire RPG as a murderhobo stuff, because that's what vidya taught them and it then usually takes to walk an extra mile to make them realise there are other things to do than loot and plunder.

Adding to this, I wish to be wrong about it and I would sincerely like to know if there are any cRPG games that don't orbit around killing things and picking their gear.
Because I know fuckload of vidya with "RPG elements" that aren't like that, but that's usually just some tertiary mechanics that boils down to increasing skills and levelling.

>given that the first RPGs such as Fallout

I cringed a little.

>kill the Cyberpunk 2020 roleplaying scene
>Implying it's not already ded

Tabletop rpgs could learn a hell of a lot from well made videogames.

>>Martial/Casters being different in playstyle but equally fun and viable
>>Satisfying and robust combat where every party member feels important and needed to overall group success, with each having their own ways to shine in the spotlight.
>>Reward intelligent and well-timed usage of abilities.
>>Meaningful character progression across every class/archetype

Imagine an RPG with the combat depth of high level Burning Crusade-era Arena PVP, but with the ability to be fully immersed in the setting through non-combat roleplay and interaction.

People say 4E was too videogamey but it feels more like a board game than anything else to me. I wish people would make RPGs that took advantage of what other mediums have done well while ignoring their downfalls (videogame stories are near universally mediocre compared to even an average book)

>Imagine an RPG with the combat depth of high level Burning Crusade-era Arena PVP, but with the ability to be fully immersed in the setting through non-combat roleplay and interaction.
Song of Swords?

>Imagine an RPG with the combat depth of high level Burning Crusade-era Arena PVP
The Riddle of Steel would shit on it in terms of depth and fun

Why not just play a video game then?

Loot was tied to leveling up, meaning that it was valuable to avoid combat and just go in and get all the loot you can. Once experience started being tied to combat/killing you get more players trying to solve every encounter by murdering it.

Why must good things that vidya do but restricted to only vidya? Is learning lessons from all media on what works and what doesn't not a good thing?

>Once experience started being tied to combat/killing
Like in OD&D?

I don't see how. In fact they might even be better for them, as video RPGs are getting worse and worse at providing actual roleplaying experiences.

While combat is part of the game it's possible (even encouraged) to do a pacifist run of Age of Decadence

But I like updating my journal

RoS is like GURPS, everyone wanks about how they know how to play that piece of crap, but nobody actually plays it because it runs like a threelegged hedgehog. Only that GURPS is actually somewhat playable.

Depends what you mean by ruin. I was GM for a group a little while back (some of the players are still around but different GM), and we had a guy that couldn't get past the video game mentality of oversimplifying everything. He wanted the game to prescribe a role to him rather than vice versa. After the fact the others complained that all he did was "talk to villager" and then try to quest. Even in the slums where he was robbed by NPCs he was this blank faced character who tried to be Party face.

>I consider them the prime reason for the "kill and loot" mentality.
>Original D&D was literally only killing and looting, zero roleplay expected or involved
Man, Gygax must have really been playing too much vidya back in the early 70s.

Fallout was even originally intended to be based on GURPS
fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_13:_A_GURPS_Post-Nuclear_Adventure

Has hard as it is for sperglords and autists to understand, RPGs are primarily SOCIAL INTERACTIONS. Until video games can pass a Turing test, they will not replace RPGs.

As for video games ruining RPGs, they've already had adverse effects.

Morons like are unable to comprehend that RPGs =/= D&D and that "leveling up", "XP harvests", and "PC=superhero, NPC=schmuck" were not fundamental part of RPGs. I'll point to 1977's Traveller as an example.

Video game fed the "multiple lives", "reset button", "leveling up" mindset to a point where people think such mechanisms MUST be a part of any RPG and that any RPG which doesn't have them is broken.

This is a great way to put it. I was trying to convey in that the troublesome player was stuck on the video game ideology of "advance, grow stronger, get loot" and lacked the actual capacity for roleplaying or the concept of open opportunity. He seemed unable to function in a free environment. Compare to chaotic randumb in my current game who recognizes open opportunity, but takes that opportunity to shit up the game with "I RANDOMLY TRIP IMPORTANT NPC"

Long story short, I think you're wrong. Might someone come into TTRPG thinking "oh, I'll just kill and loot everything in sight!"? Sure. They should also be corrected as to why that is not necessarily the case. Hell, I experienced this myself. I came from RPG games like Fallout and Elder Scrolls. First TTRPG I played was Doctor Who, definitely took some adjustment, but it was pretty easy to see that you didn't have to murderhobo your way through every thing. This carried over into the roughly 8 or 9 years of playing other TTRPG with this group of friends. If someone refuses to see the correction and continues to just be a murderhobo, then I don't think that is entirely the fault of vidya. I'd say that's just a shitty player who only wants to ever kill shit.

Why? I don't think Fallout was one of the firsts, it was definitely towards the start though.

I don't think user was saying it's an all or none type of situation when vidya influences how RPGs are played by new players, only that vidya definitely "dumbs down" the freedoms and complexity of TTRPGS. The "roleplaying" aspects and social mechanics are something difficult to replicate in vidya and someone new to the genre definitely could come into an RPG thinking and maintaining those ideas throughout because that's what they understand RPGs to be.

>Why? I don't think Fallout was one of the firsts, it was definitely towards the start though.

I'd point at things like Might and Magic, Ultima, etc. as being early examples of vidya RPGs. Add in point-and-click adventures as early examples of how RPGs could work, and don't forget text based games like, say, Zork.

Fallout was fucking great, but hardly near the start; different ways of translating the roleplaying game experience had basically been declared dead in the water by the time Fallout came along. An alternate vidya history where point-and-click adventure games, or exploration based text games, became the dominant style of vidya roleplaying game would be interesting.

Memeing and greentxting instead of thinking ruins all kinds of shit. The thing getting ruined might have sucked to start with though.

I've had much less problem running RoS than GURPS, sans magic, which is a damn mess alright. The combat system is pretty decent and fun. The book could use some organizing though, as the rules are simple but otherwise terribly explained.

>If someone refuses to see the correction and continues to just be a murderhobo, then I don't think that is entirely the fault of vidya. I'd say that's just a shitty player who only wants to ever kill shit.

A shitty player in a TTRPG has a chance to LEARN through their SOCIAL INTERACTIONS with other players that "murderhobo" is not the only play style and that more nuanced play can be more rewarding.

As correctly points outs, video "dumbs down" the freedoms and complexity of TTRPGs while realistic social mechanics are very difficult to replicate. Video players come to the table top with preconceptions and learned behaviors which can effect their play and lessen their enjoyment.

I've run one-shot TTRPG sessions in various genres at a FLGS during "game days" for a few decades now. While there are exceptions, players whose only experience is with video have trouble thinking in terms of the party and take insane risks with their PCs. What I call "Mario Bros. suicide" happens so often that I always have NPCs in the party ready for a player to take over.

Coming to TTRPGs with only video experience makes "getting" the game harder while also providing less of what you've come to expect in the way of enjoyment.

Video games have already effected TTRPGs and not for the better.

Just wait till VR-RPGs become feasable and we are able to connect the brain to a PC directly.

I still love that Steve Jackson terminated the agreement because of a bit of graphic violence, and the vault boy.

This is a hipster thread and everyone trashing video games is a hipster.

>but nobody actually plays it because it runs like a threelegged hedgehog
In my country few people know it exists. Translating flawed system like TRoS by myself is risky and timeconsuming process without a certain payback.

Correction, video games have ruined RPG's. People treat DM's like some sort of computer, who maintains a persistent world inside his mind, and will actively try to game him only to be totally baffled when the GM uses common sense and their video game exploit doesn't work. They don't realize that a traditional RPG is more like a cooperative storytelling experience than a video game. The worst part is they don't realize this.

>This is a hipster thread and everyone trashing video games is a hipster.

No. I'm not saying video is better or worse than TTRPGs. I'm saying video is DIFFERENT than TTRGPs.

Not better. Not worse. Different.

Because it's different, video provides different experiences and encourages different styles of play.

Not better. Not worse. Different.

Those different experiences and play styles make it harder for people who only know video to to want different things from TTRPGs and to perceive TTRPGs as less fun.

That is how video has effected TTRPGs.

>Those different experiences and play styles make it harder for people who only know video to to want different things from TTRPGs and to perceive TTRPGs as less fun.

Sorry. That sentence is supposed to read:

>Those different experiences and play styles mean people who only know video find it harder to understand TTRPGs, want different things from TTRPGs, and perceive TTRPGs as less fun.

Explain the RoS system to me-- I've been curious for awhile but thought it was a GURPSesque investment time to understand it.

Holy shit this, freshman year of college I had this group and there was one guy in it that just wanted EVERYTHING to be a fucking cinematic experience for his character.

He showed up to a session once trying to convince me that he could in one action of combat throw his stupid javelins/harpoons with ropes attached to them at the enemy from a roof loop the rope then around the enemies neck and jump off the roof to instantly kill them.

I nearly had a fucking aneurysm trying to think of how many checks that would entail even if he COULD do it all in one fucking action. Then the worst part was his justification.

>It's totally doable user-gm I looked it up online there are homebrew rules for it. Come on it would be just like -insert western rpg game here-

I believe he used the Witcher. What these degenerates don't realize is by being the really cinematic cool fuck all you're doing is eating up time from the table with your uninspired raptor person home brew race you just had to be, while I'm actually super interested in the Human Paladin character with a fucking Rhino Paladin mount who's player is actually role playing his character. FUCK.

This. To use the OPs example, while I really liked the Witcher 3 I treat the RPG elements of it as canon as Gwent. Geralt is already experienced, he shouldn't start out at a low level.

Actually, the worst part of leveling systems in general is that they usually are meaningless. As every level you get the enemies get better and the loot gets better, it means you might as well stay level 1 forever. The part of The Witcher 3 that really bugged me was how all items get bad after 3 levels. That legendary sword you get before the big boss fight? Not even as good as the random swords you find off random bandits 5 levels later.

TRoS is famous for its close combat system and Spiritual Attributes. Everything else is mostly redundant (Skills) or not worth reading (Magic system and the setting). TRoS is kinda of a one trick pony and it's amazing at this trick.

You're describing a high tech NWN. Which you can use to run a campaign. I prefer tabletop though.

When the GM can set the AI parameters, and the game will run the campaign for him, with its fancy graphics. Not before.

In the meantime, I'm all for moving away from books/PDFs/dice/paper and over to mobile/web apps.

>a high(er) tech NWN
indeed, which does exist. it's very satisfying, building your ideas from scratch and seeing them come to life.

What game is this?

one limited only by your imagination

>it was definitely towards the start though.
>Might and Magic, Ultima, etc. as being early examples of vidya RPGs.
You know nothing of cRPGs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnd_(video_game)

>Dragon Cnt
yes please

It always sucks when there's a serious player / GM mismatch. Or even worse, when there's a mismatch between players.

You can be a homebrewed raptor with rope javelins if you want, and it can be cool in the right game. But if you're not playing that game, it's pretty irritating.

It's extra shit when it's just the one character who doesn't understand that the party of Germanic mercenaries doesn't particularly want a perverted catboy in the party.

The reverse applies too- you shouldn't be playing a grim bandit loner in a zany game with talking chair PCs, or whatever.

>Tabletop RPGs are a videogame high tech alternative to NWN with computer controlled adversaries, for near real time combat.
Doubtful.

To what videogame are you referring?

>computer controlled adversaries, real time combat
no, you as the DM can still assume complete control over antagonists if you choose. i mean, i was speaking of using turn-based combat, though there are real-time systems with CPU opponents if that's what you really want. you are basically taking the tabletop experience and adding full 3D graphics, models, animations, etc. and since you have complete control over everything, you can make literally anything. any sort of map or item or model or animation you desire, and have it do anything you want.

>To what videogame are you referring?
the metaverse, what else? what burbcave did you climb out of that you ain't ever heard of the metaverse?

>To what videogame are you referring?
It appears to be Second Life.

I'm not familiar with it. I assume it's the early access game on steam with crappy ratings?

What's so good about it?

the complete control over everything make literally anything part

Is it so much more than pretty Minecraft with guns?

it's pretty-whatever-you-make-it with whatever weapons you choose. i guess you could make it minecraft if you wanted. or fallout. or elder scrolls. or ravenloft. or bubble bobble. or the real housewives of Yharnam. literally. anything.
it has its own scripting language which is fairly similar to c++. mesh models can be imported from any software capable of creating it. same with animations. or you can build using the sculpting tools or built-in primitives.

Got a link? It's a pretty generic term, so Google isn't turning much up.

It's on Steam for $20 or so.

got it right, dude. it's Second Life.

do not heed

TW3, while a fantastic game, has some serious immersion killing elements if you pause for even a tiny bit. like the fact that you can get level 3 and level 30 nekkers, somehow implying that the same little monsters that you could curbstomp back in white orchard can now be a threat to an endgame, experienced witcher decked out in mastercrafted witcher gear

That's actually the opposite of Immersion breaking.
As the point is supposed to be that despite your "Level" and "Gear", the world of the Witcher is still breakneck and brutal, and even the weakest monster is still a threat.

Also thats an optional feature, it;s literally in the Menu turn Scaling to off, or Git Gud Faggot.

Only players, GMs and systems can ruin rpg, everything else is inconsequential

Different user, but do we need to be to be handicapped like that? I'll grant you that the world setting is brutal, and a weak monster WILL still be a threat to most things, but at the end of the game a trash mob shouldn't scale 1:1 with a Witcher with all the bells and whistles. The protagonist for a series like this should feel like one; if we wanted immersion, we'd look into S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

It's clunky and limited. If your players are innovative at all they will feel to hamstringed to really enjoy it.

If you honestly think that being the same level as Geralt puts them anywhere near his strength at higher levels you're sorely mistake.
High level Geralt can chug 17 Potions and slow down time.
He can fire a crossbow twice before reloading.
He can dodge INTO an attack and take 0 Damage.
He can mind control two weak dudes and have them kill 4 Strong dudes a piece.

High level Geralt is GOAT. So yeah, the mobs level up with him, but he still shreks them at higher levels.

what could be put forth that could not be immediately accommodated by a well-sorted inventory? can you tell me?

>find sauce for pic related and story
>mfw

Why don't these people just grab a free game engine and develop OC?

inb4 a million platitude answers, I understand why they don't actually do it, it's a fucking rhetorical question

>I understand why they don't actually do it
so you understand it's because they all ready grabbed a free game engine with 14 years of community developed content?

I always explained it to me with those stronger nekkers just being a different kind of nekker from a different tribe and so they're stronger.
as you travel through tw3 world you'll notice nekkers with different skin color pattern or wearing skulls on their heads, so it seems logical to me that nekkers are a diverse species. there is stronger and weaker ones.

>in the grognard days of D&D where loot was tied to levelling up.

If you aren't retarded, loot for XP encourages a more developed and interactive game world.

It's the current year. You can get Ron Edwards' cock out of your mouth.