Is there any particular reason why so many tabletop players look down on video games when discussing the mechanics of a...

>let's not pretend that there can't be an enormous difference in quality between a LAN session with friends and an online session with randoms.
Yeah, I realized as I was posting that I was overlooking multi-player video games, because I don't usually play them.
That muddies the comparison a bit.
So let's ignore it so my post is more clearly correct, okay?

fuck videogames jesus christ

>However, the comparative level of limitations pretty much remains the same.
At the same time though, in a world where modding and the like exists, one can technically make a game that can do practically anything if they have the memory, specs, and/or programming knowledge to create mods.
>I'm not really sure what you're driving at here.
What I'm saying is, regardless of the medium, you're still playing a fictional character whose actions are limited by the rules of the game and the environment in which your is interacting with.

I can't pick up a brick and beat a goomba to death with it in most Mario games for the same reasons why I can't use a whirlwind attack as a Fighter unless I meet the prerequisites to take it. Also, much in the same way as some games allowing you to turn anything into a weapon, so too are there games where a Fighter can perform a whirlwind attack by default.

It boils down to the way the game is designed honestly.

>At the same time though, in a world where modding and the like exists, one can technically make a game that can do practically anything if they have the memory, specs, and/or programming knowledge to create mods.
And when you're done, that game will be "limited to what was written beforehand and coded into the program", whereas a ttrpg will not be.
Moving the framework of limitations does not change their scope.

>Regardless of the medium, you're still playing a fictional character whose actions are limited by the rules of the game and the environment in which your is interacting with.
Just like real life, where you are a person whose actions are limited by the rules of the physics and the environment in which you're interacting with.
In a ttrpg, despite how some people play, you can try to hit a goomba with a brick or try to use a whirlwind attack, no matter what.
A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
Your success is just dependent on your skill level, just like real life.

> that game will be "limited to what was written beforehand and coded into the program"
How is this not true for tabletop games though?
>Moving the framework of limitations does not change their scope.
Actually, it does, because once you change the limitations of the system, you end up changing the scope of what your character can do as well.
>Just like real life
I'm going to ignore both points where this phrase is mentioned because real life doesn't function like either a tabletop game or a video game.
>In a ttrpg, despite how some people play, you can try to hit a goomba with a brick or try to use a whirlwind attack, no matter what.
I say this as someone who was in a campaign where an attack auto-missed because the DM thought that axes weren't aerodynamic enough to be thrown. What you can and cannot do will always boil down to DM fiat, ALWAYS!
>A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
He actually can't, because he doesn't have a 9th level spell slot to spend.

>How is this not true for tabletop games though?
Table top games are "limited to what the players can imagine that the GM will accept".
It is a far wider range.

>>Moving the framework of limitations does not change their scope.
>Actually, it does, because once you change the limitations of the system, you end up changing the scope of what your character can do as well.
But that scope is still limited to what was pre-programmed.

>I'm going to ignore both points where this phrase is mentioned because real life doesn't function like either a tabletop game or a video game.
My point was just that your "restrictions" on what can be done in a ttrpg are no more constraining than real life.
But no matter.

>What you can and cannot do will always boil down to DM fiat, ALWAYS!
What you can succeed at, maybe, if you have a GM that never lets himself be limited by the rules.
But you can ALWAYS try anything you imagine.
Try throwing an axe in a video game where axes aren't coded as throwing weapons and you don't even get a chance to fail.

>>A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
>He actually can't, because he doesn't have a 9th level spell slot to spend.
Yes. He. Can.
He can try.
It will fail, but he can try.
In a ttrpg, you can try to cover yourselves in mud and pretend to be bullywugs.
You can try to impersonate the King in a tiny village for no reason at all.
You can try assassinate the BBEG before he starts talking.
You.
Can.
Try.
Anything.

You simply can't do that in a video game.

There are GMs that are less permissive than a software program, but pretending that's always the case is silly.

Video games just aren't up to the curve when it comes to the latest and greatest development in tabletop games.

>It is a far wider range.
It can also be a much shorter range if the DM lacks knowledge on a particular subject and how shit works.
>But that scope is still limited to what was pre-programmed.
Much like how what a PC can do is limited to what was pre-written within the system?
>My point was just that your "restrictions" on what can be done in a ttrpg are no more constraining than real life.
And my point was that trying to bring real life into this discussion is pointless because real life isn't constructed like a game.
>What you can succeed at, maybe, if you have a GM that never lets himself be limited by the rules.
But then what's the point of having these rules, as opposed to freeform?
>Yes. He. Can.
No. He. Can. Not!
He's not at a high enough level to cast that spell, so he is not capable of casting meteor swarm until he gains level 9 spells.
1/2

2/2
>In a ttrpg, you can try to cover yourselves in mud and pretend to be bullywugs.
"You cover yourselves in mud and ribbit as the group of bandits looks at you with confusion on their face before pulling out their weapons."
>You can try to impersonate the King in a tiny village for no reason at all.
Why would a small village have a king in the first place?
>You can try assassinate the BBEG before he starts talking.
"Your attack fails as the BBEG continues performing his monologue unperturbed, stop being a faggot Steve!"
>You simply can't do that in a video game.
That really depends on the game though. If we're talking Super Mario Bros. then sure but if we're talking about something like DF or a MUD, then we might need to consider some things.
>There are GMs that are less permissive than a software program, but pretending that's always the case is silly.
Conversely, there are video games that are more permissive than most GMs, and pretending it's never the case is silly.

>It can also be a much shorter range if the DM lacks knowledge on a particular subject and how shit works.
And what if the video game we're talking about is E.T. for Atari?
If you presume a shit GM or a shit game, it's gonna be shit.

>What a PC can do is limited to what was pre-written within the system?
Not at all. Rules literally can't cover everything.

>No. He. Can. Not!
Yes he can.
I'll prove it.
A level one mage is obviously a better mage than a muggle like me, right?
ABRACADABRA! METEOR STORM!
There, I just tried to cast it.
The level one mage can do the same, or better.

>That really depends on the game though.
Please cute a video game where you can literally attempt anything you want, like wiggling your toes.

>Conversely, there are video games that are more permissive than most GMs.
>Most GMs
Really?
Have you played with most of them?
>pretending it's never the case is silly
I just accepted that some GMs are less permissive than a software program.
See E.T. for my rebuttal.

You really do believe that a player has no freedom in a ttrpg, don't you?
You are either on the spectrum or deeply traumatised by some bad GMs.

This is honestly very telling.

OP has clearly been burned by a bad GM, or is so incapable of finding a game that they have to try and sour grape the whole concept.

Because this whole argument is emotional, there's no point in trying to convince OP.

>And what if the video game we're talking about is E.T. for Atari?
And what if the tabletop game we're talking about is F.A.T.A.L.?
>Not at all. Rules literally can't cover everything.
They can't but they can still cover enough to give a general idea as far as what should be possible for a PC to do. Like what's possible to do in 3.PF isn't the same as what's possible in CoC or M&M for example.
>A level one mage is obviously a better mage than a muggle like me, right?
What are you even talking about? Just because the level 1 mage can cast spells better than a peasant doesn't mean that he can cast a spell like meteor swarm before he's 17th level.
>Please cute a video game where you can literally attempt anything you want, like wiggling your toes.
If you have enough programming knowledge and the talent, maybe Garry's Mod.
>Have you played with most of them?
Have you played most video games?
>You really do believe that a player has no freedom in a ttrpg, don't you?

I'm hoping my "abracadabra" point will at least get him to understand what I mean about being able to *try* anything, even if he never accepts that there are many GMs that will just roll with the players and facilitate their fun in ways a program simply cannot improvise.

Is this a thing? Like 70% of my locations, gimmicky fights/encounters/quests, NPCS, and a few of my homebrew spells and mechanics, are heavily inspired by video games I've played or am making

>Being this obtuse
I dunno dude, by essence a video game is restricted to whatever the programmers thought about and implemented, and a TTRPG restricted to whatever shit the GM has time for and what information and mechanics he can either abstract or make up. (Which is also, of course, why a GM is inferior to a gaming console in a variety of areas, like keeping tracks of a billion different variables.)

The fact that some GMs are insufferable no-you-can't-do-that-because-I-said-so fuckwads who give you less freedom than a rail shooter is completely irrelevant to the conversation, this is not what TTRPGs are *about* and you're being obnoxious on purpose.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the actions of the player will always be limited by some outside force that controls the world, whether it's an engine or a DM who is running the game.

Arguing that one has inherently more freedom than the other is pointless because at the end of the day, a third party is always going to limit what is or isn't possible for you to do in this world.

Educate yourself OP. I promise no god(s) will smite you for it.

>I dunno dude, by essence a video game is restricted to whatever the programmers thought about and implemented, and a TTRPG restricted to whatever shit the GM has time for and what information and mechanics he can either abstract or make up.
So you admit that they're both still limited.
>The fact that some GMs are insufferable no-you-can't-do-that-because-I-said-so fuckwads who give you less freedom than a rail shooter is completely irrelevant to the conversation
No it isn't, because a DM is required in order for the game to work, similarly to how an engine is required in order for a game to work.

So are we at the point in the debate where you try to stand on a high horse while ignoring every other point that I've made in my post or are we at the point where you claim to be a neutral 3rd party who decided to weigh into this debate even though the IP counter didn't go up when you posted?

Because if this is going to continue to be a civil conversation, since I'm not talking down to you, I'd appreciate it if you gave me the same courtesy.

The nature of the limitations is completely different. In a tabletop game, you're playing within a social medium. The negotiation of the fictional events is already a thing, even with the most hardass GM, and a simple change of perspective will let even that kind of shithead facilitate an experience no videogame can hope to even *try* to shoot for.

The limitations you talk about are a face on the coin of that negotiation, but you shouldn't forget the fact that, if everyone at the table feels like it, you could literally throw the books out the window and play freeform with no regard for the system you started with. You can switch to big motherfucking crab truckers for a session, or even rotate GMs. That is simply not possible with a videogame.

"There is no difference between living in the United States in the 20's and living in Cambodia in the early 70's, because both had laws."

That is essentially what you're arguing.

>And what if the tabletop game we're talking about is F.A.T.A.L.?
If you presume a shit GM or a shit game, it's gonna be shit.

>They can't but they can still cover enough to give a general idea as far as what should be possible for a PC to do.
A GM can improvise and make rulings to enable PCs to do things not in the book, a program simply can't. That's it.

>What are you even talking about? Just because the level 1 mage can cast spells better than a peasant doesn't mean that he can cast a spell like meteor swarm before he's 17th level.
But he can TRY.
Try, attempt, make a go at it, give it a shot, throw it against the wall and see if it sticks, swing for the fences, do you get it?
Even if the axe will never hit the target, or even goes more than a couple feet, he can still try to throw it.

>If you have enough programming knowledge and the talent, maybe Garry's Mod.
I'll look into it.

>Have you played most video games?
No, and I never said anything about most video games.
But I do know that they haven't developed software for video games that can match the human ability to improvise and imagine.

Again, you show your absolute ignorance. Garry's Mod as an example? A game with graphics?

You couldn't hope to code fast enough to allow for what tabletops allow daily, in a whole lifetime.

Well... yes? That, I think you, I and the user you're arguing with can all agree on.
But for some reason you're trying to say those limitations are so close, the two mediums might as well be similar, and that's just stupid.
TTRPGs are less limited than video games, that's a fact. And regular roleplay is less limited than TTRPGs. But you seem to think that arguing something is less limited means arguing it's better.

>In a tabletop game, you're playing within a social medium.
I understand that, but at the same time, what's the difference between doing voice chat on roll20 vs. doing voice chat on a roleplay server in WoW or Neverwinter nights?
>The limitations you talk about are a face on the coin of that negotiation, but you shouldn't forget the fact that, if everyone at the table feels like it, you could literally throw the books out the window and play freeform with no regard for the system you started with.
What does that have to do with this discussion though? If we feel like it, we can stop playing Smash Bros 64 and pop in Mario Party 2 if we want.
You can switch to big motherfucking crab truckers for a session
We can also play something like Truck Simulator 20XX if we wanted to.
>even rotate GMs.
We can play a singleplayer game and rotate who gets to play if someone loses or whatever.

I'm just saying, if you go on steam, you can find a shitload of esoteric games.

>That is essentially what you're arguing.
No it's not, again, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not doing it to you so don't do it to me, okay?

Also, your analogy blows because living conditions in one country as an individual of a certain age has nothing to do with the inherent difference between hobbies that people do for fun.
You would've been better off using a food analogy.

>Arguing that one has inherently more freedom than the other is pointless because at the end of the day, a third party is always going to limit what is or isn't possible for you to do in this world.
Wrong.
Objectively wrong.
>Just because both are limited to "less than infinitely everything" that doesn't mean they are relatively close in limitations.
>Not remotely.
If you are limited from leaving your house or if you are limited from leaving Earth, either way your range of motion is being limited, but the scope is significantly different.
Pretending that difference is pointless is an exercise in foolishness.

This is a pointless conversation. You're being obtuse just so you can refuse to admit the difference.

The social medium is there to create a story. The story of this game you're playing, where all the players get to contribute to a narrative and negotiate, socially, what can and can't be done.

WoW and NWN offer a different kind of experience, where everything is already set in stone before you start playing (including modding, but barring hacking which is not intended) and you're there as an explorer of the pre-programmed universe.

It's not a lesser experience, in some ways, but it's FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, and more limited by definition.

You can't ask the game to take a backstory you came up with into account, to craft a story that suits your personal preferences for genre, tone, and a bunch of other things. You can only hope that the larger market will provide something you can like, AND THAT IS DIFFERENT.

Dude, I don't know that was, but it wasn't me, Mr abracadabra.
A couple anons joined us I believe.

> what's the difference between doing voice chat on roll20 vs. doing voice chat on a roleplay server in WoW or Neverwinter nights?
If you can't understand the contextual qualitative difference there, you have some problems.

Programed video games can only do what the programed game was made to do, and accidents. RPGs, due to their socially constructed nature, can do pretty much anything your little hearts desire, within the confines of imagination and how well their mechanics can represent them.

You're equating programed mechanics with game rules. They are not the same thing across mediums, although there are cross applications. If you want to try and use video game mechanics in rpgs you can, and many video rpgs attempt to create as much content, open world, ractive story, etc. to create a similar feeling and mood of possibility.

tl;dr you're trying to compare similar but different things as if they were the same. They're not in very inherent ways. Very few people think they are. You might have autism.

>you sometimes can't even run away from an encounter
what kind of shitty dms do you play with?

>If you presume a shit GM or a shit game, it's gonna be shit.
Who said anything about presuming?
>A GM can improvise and make rulings to enable PCs to do things not in the book, a program simply can't. That's it.
Depending on how robust the engine is, a programmer could mod it so it can do a thing that they want. It's certainly much harder than coming up with a rule on the fly but at the same time, adding the wrong house rule can break a game just as easily as a shitty mod can.
>But he can TRY.
Okay, how?
>Even if the axe will never hit the target, or even goes more than a couple feet, he can still try to throw it.
That would depend on the DM, as previously stated.
>But I do know that they haven't developed software for video games that can match the human ability to improvise and imagine.
Look up videos on A.I. dude, we're getting to the point where a computer can write a novel or compose music. Give it a few years and I wouldn't be surprised if we do reach that level.

As an addendum to this, I realize you were talking of an RP server, which is different in some respects. Obviously that RP server can in fact take some of those things into account, but because of the medium that it's being played out through and supported by, and the inherent limitations of it, it is, yes, more limited than playing with pen and paper (or pointer and screen, as it were), because there is no GM to negotiate with.

Deeply, deeply traumatizing ones, I suspect.
Did you know that it's impossible to hit a target with a thrown axe?

Well I mean, if we're talking about wiggling our toes, it'd basically be as simple as adding an animation to the model to allow the model to wiggle their toes.

If we're talking about a sprite sheet, it'd be as simple as adding a new idle animation.

But then again, this is all moot because most characters wear shoes and conservation of detail would cause the story to ignore things like wiggling toes in the same way that most games ignore hunger, stamina, sleep deprivation, or buying gas.

>But I do know that they haven't developed software for video games that can match the human ability to improvise and imagine.
Yet, you puny meatsack.

Let me see you code in a setting on the fly, reacting to player questions and focus. I want to see how you simulate the social interaction between a PC and an NPC.

If you have enough time, resources, and knowledge on programming, you can technically make an engine that can do practically anything you want. Granted, most machines probably wouldn't be able to run it with our current age of technology but with the way that technology is advancing, we might reach actual VR within our lifetime.

Remember, it only took consoles two generations to reach the point where consoles could emulate an arcade cabinet.

>because there is no GM to negotiate with.
Actually, some servers did have a GM of sorts who ran the server and set up markers for quests and what not.

>Programed video games can only do what the programed game was made to do, and accidents. RPGs, due to their socially constructed nature, can do pretty much anything your little hearts desire, within the confines of imagination and how well their mechanics can represent them.
So you're basically trying to say that even though both mediums allow for change, one is inherently less so than the other because you personally believe that they can never be equals?

I'm just saying, I can see the difference, but the differences themselves seem arbitrary when you take a step back. You yourself even said that there's some overlap.

>Who said anything about presuming?
You did:
>what if the tabletop game we're talking about is F.A.T.A.L.?
"What if it is" = "What if we presume it is"

>Depending on how robust the engine is, a programmer could mod it so it can do a thing that they want.
The software isn't improvising in response to the player, the programmer is adding to the prof ram.
Do you understand what "improvising" means?

>>But he can TRY.
>Okay, how?
By saying "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!" for one.

>Give it a few years and I wouldn't be surprised if we do reach that level.
Which proves we're not there now.

>That would depend on the DM, as previously stated.
You are hopelessly obtuse and it saddens me.

>Objectively wrong.
>Objectively
Oh boy, I can see we're at that point in the debate now. Okay, let's see your rebuttal
>If you are limited from leaving your house or if you are limited from leaving Earth, either way your range of motion is being limited, but the scope is significantly different.
Okay, you're going for a shitty analogy, gotcha. Pretty standard stuff but I can't necessarily say that it's unexpected.

DM's who played by RAW and realized that most creatures can easily catch a group of PC's who are only moving at a base speed of 30ft./round.

>Let me see you code in a setting on the fly, reacting to player questions and focus.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Because depending on what you say, it can actually be possible to make a game setting that quickly.

Quality refuting you did there.

I see now you're not even pretending to be obtuse any more.

I think this user might have had the only approach you deserve if you can't actually refute my previous post.

Your dismissing of the scope of limitations is foolishness.

>what if you're playing fatal? also i'm not presuming anything or i don't know what presuming means

>a program is the same as a programmer/modder

>i can't imagine a way a novice wizard could try and cast a super advanced spell, this is TOTALLY not the plot of like fifty different books and movies right

>some gms may not want you to do some things, therefore a rpg is not a medium in which you can do anything

>a.i. will totally be able to equal human imagination in a few years guys

found the retard

Computer RPG's are necessary because they have a clear purpose. That purpose being drawing the people who play roleplaying games for combat away from the tabletop. So that everybody else can enjoy roleplaying, creativity and tough decision making.

>"What if it is" = "What if we presume it is"
Just like how you presumed that the video game we were talking about was E.T. on Atari 2600?
>The software isn't improvising in response to the player, the programmer is adding to the prof ram.
So long as the program has an answer for most questions that the player could ask, what's the difference?
>By saying "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!" for one.
OK, he says "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!"...and nothing happens. What next?
>Which proves we're not there now.
Not really, there could be a dude making an A.I. that can run 5e for all we know and they just haven't gone public with it yet. When you look deeply into it, there's a surprising amount of bullshit that A.I. can do.
>You are hopelessly obtuse and it saddens me.
I'm just saying man, if the DM says you can't throw the axe, you can't throw the axe. You can talk about it after game or leave the game entirely but the point is that if the DM says no, you can't do a thing.

>Quality refuting you did there.
Yeah, I should take lessons from you and go on about how OBJECTIVE my opinion is vs. yours and offer a shitty analogy in response.

Don't try and pretend that you're batting a thousand here pally, you didn't refute anything.

So do you actually have a point...or are you just here to shitpost?

Do you think the distinction between video games and games played not in video is just my opinion? Do you actually not understand the functional qualitative difference between a videogame that does not allow you to jump over a rock because of scripting, and a narrative collaboration in which a rock is described and jumping over it can be described? It is possible to find a video game where you can jump over a rock, or play a game where the narrative for some reasons forbids rock jumping, but they are necessarily different mediums. They are strongly different due to the essential components of their construction. They are similar, they are not equivalent.

You can for sure abstract to such a distance that the differences are minimal, but at that point you're not saying much of interest.

>Implying combat and roleplay are mutually exclusive.
I blame roleplayfags claiming that you can't have good stats and roleplay, it's poisoning the well the same way that 3.PF did a few years ago.

>Just like how you presumed that the video game we were talking about was E.T. on Atari 2600?
Exactly like that, yes. This is the first time you've clearly understood something.
We have a breakthrough!

>So long as the program has an answer for most questions that the player could ask, what's the difference?
The difference between "most" (which is unlikely) and "every and any"

>>By saying "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!" for one.
>OK, he says "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!"...and nothing happens. What next?
Irrelevant.
He tried, that's the point.
In a program, you can't try what isn't programmed.

>>Which proves we're not there now.

>I'm just saying man, if the DM says you can't throw the axe, you can't throw the axe. You can talk about it after game or leave the game entirely but the point is that if the DM says no, you can't do a thing.
If the DM says that if you try to throw the axe, you will never hit your target, that's him setting a rule. (a dumb one)
If the DM says that it is physically impossible for your character to let the axe they are holding go into the air with as much force as you can, a.k.a. throwing, then he is not a DM, he is a Shit Rooster.

Similarly to how one video game allows more freedom than others, so to can one DM allow more freedom than others. There are games where you can only jump if you encounter the right flag but there are also tables where you can be railroaded into a specific path because fuck you, it's my story and that's how it's going to play out.

If you're arguing about improvisation, a programmer could fuck with the game's code and change how things work, the difference being that if the changes fuck up the game, you'd know a helluva sooner than you would in a tabletop game where one dude thinks that implementing material components will make mages more balanced.

Like I said, I can see the difference, it just seems arbitrary when you look at it from the context of one game/campaign vs. another.

>do you actually have a point...or are you just here to shitpost?
yes

anyway as you can see i have made fun of your claims in a way that, i hope, should indicate how exactly they are flawed

except the a.i. thing, which i will concede is more of a matter of belief. you can believe machines will be able to flawlessly imitate gms in a few years, absolutely, and neither of us can prove this wrong or right. i still think it's a fucking stupid and unrealistic prediction though.

The analogy is solid.
You are outright dismissing the scope of limitations.
That is precisely what the analogy illustrated.
You *are* objectively wrong.
Anyone can tell you, and has, that the difference in scope of limitations matters.
Pretending otherwise is foolishness.

What if your character is a quadriplegic, though? It might be literally impossible for him to throw an axe.

>The difference between "most" (which is unlikely) and "every and any"
Most people don't have an answer for every and any question either though, why bring it up?
>He tried, that's the point.
to borrow your own words for a moment...
>Irrelevant.
That's like saying that me pressing down on the D-Pad is me trying to duck in Megaman, pushing down does nothing, so I can't even call it an attempt. You can say "Abracadabra! Meteor Swarm!" but that doesn't mean that you're going to cast a 9th level spell as a 1st level character.

You are basically one step away from saying "muh opinion>your opinion" and it's funnier how you try to act like you're above the argument while presenting no arguments yourself.

>OK, he says "Abracadabra! Meteor Storm!"...and nothing happens. What next?
Except that's not a REQUIRED response, it's just the expected one if you're following the rules literally.

A GM can, much like Ursula K. Le Guin did when she wrote the first Earthsea book, rule that the spell is cast incorrectly in a way that has CONSEQUENCE.

A GM can, when faced with that attempt to play at games the character couldn't possibly understand, "punish" them with a curse, and "reward" the player with a future plot.

Now, I'm not saying this should happen in all cases. For example, I think the situation would make more sense if say, the character stole a spellbook, or took a peek into their mentor's, rather than just spout off the words in a show of metagaming.

But that's my contribution to the negotiation in the table, not a hard limit. We could simplify this entire mess very easily by setting soft limits and hard limits apart from each other, so you'd stop equivocating them.

The analogy is sound, and a valid argument, and the one trying to act like they're above it is you, OP.

Go read the book I uploaded already.

You'll probably have a hard time trying to convince people that someone learning the coding of a videogame to change it is very similar to houseruling an rpg, but I see what you mean.

Differences are arbitrary. Yes. Things are different just because that's how they were made with no consideration for your opinions on the matter. Doesn't make them not different. You can abstract until its similar enough if you want, but that tends to get people talking mostly empty shit about things they don't have much experience with. You could find ways to compare things along similarities and discuss if there's something specific you want to talk about, but at this point all we've got is 'games are different, but they do both have components to varying degrees of similarity'.

Not really.

There's a huge difference between attempting to leave your house vs. leaving the earth and the difference between a video game vs. a tabletop game. If you're arguing that tabletop is equivalent to trying to break through the atmosphere, I'm just going to say that you were still better off posting a food analogy instead.

I mean, you're more than welcome to think yourself as the smartest person in the room but if you bring it up for a vote, don't be surprised when people prove you wrong.

Please stop responding, you've already readily beaten the other guy and he's just giving you the runaround because he's either an idiot or a troll.

>Post doesn't increase the IP counter
Nice samefag

Lol, even if it wasn't my first time posting in the thread that just indicates that one of the several people calling you an idiot decided to alert one of the other people calling you an idiot to the fact that you're an idiot

You're not even trying to hide your shitposting now.

I never did my guy, I'm openly mocking you because you're an idiot who isn't going to listen to any points anyone in this thread has made anyway

>I never did my guy
My bad, I thought your opinion was worth listening to.

You don't even know which opinion you're talking about!

This has got to be an emotional thing for you, OP. Go play a fucking tabletop rpg. You'll notice the difference.

Anyone else notice how OP asked a question, was given a direct and polite response, and for some reason decided to debate people over the answers to a question that he himself asked?

>The whole point of role-playing is to play as the actual person in that actual world, not as an avatar with limited moves and limited ways to interact with the world.

But that's the whole fucking old D&D and OSR! Le meme one-man wargame, fucking tabletop dota of its time, that played like a roguelike!

>What if your character is a quadriplegic, though? It might be literally impossible for him to throw an axe.

>why bring it up?
Because the fact that a human GM can respond to any and every question and scenario (despite not knowing every answer) while a program can only respond for what it was programmed to is the whole frigging point.
If the PCs decide to go steal a ship and become pirates, the GM can respond, whereas the video game might not even have a harbor generated.
The GM can use words and imagination to add to the setting in real time.
The program cannot.
The GM can pull shit out of his ass and claim it was always part of the setting.
The program doesn't even *have* an ass.

>>He tried, that's the point.
>>Irrelevant.
It is entirely relevant.
The idea that you can ALWAYS try anything you imagine is one of the many fundamental differences between a video game and a ttrpg.
That you irrationally insist that the GM will always crush anything you try does nothing to change this fact.

Also:
>>A level 1 mage can try to cast Meteor Swarm.
>He actually can't,
>>Yes. He. Can.
>No. He. Can. Not!
>What are you even talking about?
>>But he can TRY.
>Okay, how?
>OK, What next?
You fought very hard over several hours against such an "irrelevant" point.
Why is that?

>hating video games because mechanics
Veeky Forums posters are more likely to hate video games because of the mentality they instill in players

>There's a huge difference between attempting to leave your house vs. leaving the earth and the difference between a video game vs. a tabletop game. If you're arguing that tabletop is equivalent to trying to break through the atmosphere,
Oh I see the problem now.

That user earlier was correct.
You are retarded.
Let me walk you through this Timmy.

>There's a huge difference between attempting to leave your house vs. leaving the earth
Yes Timmy.
But that's not what was being discussed.
The scope of the difficulty of leaving the house and the difficulty of leaving the Earth is not being discussed.
The method of limiting you to each area was never mentioned.
It could be, and let's say it is, an evil alien death ray that will incinerate you instantly from orbit the second you try to leave.
So, breaking through the atmosphere doesn't even enter into it.
Are you with me Timmy?
Good.

The scope of being limited to your house versus being limited to the Earth is what is being discussed.
If you are limited to your house, you only have the square footage of your house to travel within.
If you are limited to the Earth, you have the square footage of the entire Earth to travel within.
The difference, again, is not subtle.

>If you're arguing that tabletop is equivalent to trying to break through the atmosphere...
No, no, no, my poor little Timmy.
I'm arguing that the Earth is bigger than your house just as the entire range of human imagination is bigger than the entire range of current video game software.
Does Timmy understand the awful, mean-bad analogy now?
Does Timmy get a cookie?

Oh yes.
There is about a 92% chance he is trolling and this is a troll thread.
About a 6% chance he is just this densely obtuse.
And about a 15% chance he is functionally retarded.

>But that's the whole fucking old D&D and OSR! Le meme one-man wargame, fucking tabletop dota of its time, that played like a roguelike!
see
>Yeah, I realized as I was posting that I was overlooking [certain tabletop] games, because I don't usually play them.
>That muddies the comparison a bit.
>So let's ignore it so my post is more clearly correct, okay?
heh

>some GMs are insufferable no-you-can't-do-that-because-I-said-so fuckwads
...and other GMs spawn stories about dwarves flying out of the pits by flapping their arms because player's got a nat 20.

So what, the 400 pound gorilla of TTRPGs with a cult following and a school of thought behind it is just an irrelevant, isolated anecdote in a world full of FATE, Lady Blackbird, Risus, Fiasco, etc? Even the examples of a TTRPG situation in this thread are taken straight from D&D, so you can't just handwave it out - and you can't ignore away the rollplaying.

>So what, the 400 pound gorilla of TTRPGs with a cult following and a school of thought behind it is just an irrelevant, isolated anecdote
>you can't ignore away the rollplaying.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.

Yeah, fuck you too, asshole.

heh
You might have taken that last post the wrong way, but I accept your response.

Yes, there's a lot of things one could pick up from video games, like setting presentation, "level" design, well-written NPCs etc.

Whoever shits on vidya as a medium most likely runs shit games.

>the fact that a human GM can respond to any and every question and scenario (despite not knowing every answer) while a program can only respond for what it was programmed to
"Can" is not the same as "always," "usually," or even "more often than not" though.
>The idea that you can ALWAYS try anything you imagine is one of the many fundamental differences between a video game and a ttrpg.
You didn't actually try anything, you just said a bunch of nonsense in the hopes that it would actually allow you to break the game.
>Why is that?
Because I wasn't sure if you understood that even if you could theoretically do anything, it doesn't mean that you can go out of your way to break the rules of the game. Try pulling this shit in an actual campaign and don't be surprised if you don't get invited back next week.

>"You don't like my shitty analogy? Then you're retarded :'("
Not even bothering to read the rest of your retardation, grow a few brain cells and get back to me.

I'm guessing you were the kid in the back of the class who slept through math?

>Following the rules is bad
>Not following the rules is bad

Spoken like a true /v/irgin.

>"I should be allowed to cast a max level spell as a level 1 character whenever I want."
I dunno chief, wanted maximum power for minimal effort sounds more like something a /v/irgin would do than trying cast the spell legitimately.

What the fuck are you even on about? I'm starting to think whoever's defending video games here has some serious brain damage, because they keep answering with complete non-sequitors.

The dude I was arguing with claimed that you can try to cast Meteor Swarm as a level 1 mage and I'm telling him that he can't because the rules state that you have to spend a level 9 slot in order to cast meteor swarm, which a mage won't get until 17th level at the very least.

I thought you were defending him, which is why I brought it up.