What is the difference between traditional games and video games?

Re1

nothing personnel kiddo

This

Bf2

Be2 I mean.

Re1
...Be2 Qg1#
...Bg2 Qh4#
...Ke1 Qd2#
Took me a long time.

What about Bh3?

Qg1 still mates.

answer, nothing. Any board game can be a videogame, the only thing that differentiates them is where the game state processing is done. In a board game it's in the physical board/tokens and the players minds, in a video game it's the computer.

This is only true for RPGs. Boardgames, cardgames, wargames and whatever are only different from videogames in that they aren't digital.

Boardgames function through human element, while videogames use code as a medium. Both approaches have their pros and cons. Board games can't much easily incorporate things like psychology, bluffing, barterting, cooperation, betrayal in their game systems, while videogames can have complex mechanics of any scope (some videogames simulate the known universe) and vivid presentation.

>Board games can't
can*
fuck

wrong, any board game can be coded and any borard game can have any of the things you described

In a Video Game, the Queen would be eventually nerfed.

medium

so does chess on a computer stop being a boardgame?

What is the difference between pewter and lightning?

your mum won't lightning fanny on my face

Does an audiobook stop being a book?

>thought-controlled digital GM systems are invented

you mean dream AI that crafts narratives

Video games are purely for normies these days.

/Tg is the last bastion of the intelligent, the outcast, the truly dedicated and passionate.

>/Tg is the last bastion of the intelligent, the outcast, the truly dedicated and passionate.
>*watches Critical Role*

Traditional games are generally about foresight.
Video games are generally about improvisation.

Are consoles like the PS and XBone be considered computers or are they all consoles?

That doesn't sound right. Computer strategies had fog of war since their very inception, board games aren't really capable of simulating such thing. Most wargames would have you """pretend""" that you can't see the enemy troops, or cover them with some awkward LOS token

Video game consoles are computers, just with software more game related and debuggers (sometimes) for developers. Literally games are programs.

Pic is literally my uncle.

First reply is best reply

/thread.

Nothing.

except he is wrong, there is nothing stopping you from playing a video game without a computer. Hate to break it to you but there is nothing magic about a computer.

Explain yourself. Or is this some kind of semantic thing where a console is somehow not a computer?

Explain how you can play a video game without a computer.

The media involved

How does Re1 not get taken by the king?

>What's the difference between a taxi and a subway?

Camo tokens that replace models during deployment, meaning your opponent knows there's something there but can't necessarily target it directly, or play a game of advent calendar with a new surprise under every marker.

Infinity has a few factions that can do that, meaning you won't necessarily know what's going to gun you down from long range, and what's going to stab you in the face from the start.

computers (games consoles are computers) are simple number crunching machines. Are they fast at it? yes, but there is no magic you could do all that maths by hand if you wanted.

for a video game to board game conversion you would need 3 players, two to be the "gamers" and one to be the computer. The gamers would submit their inputs for the frame. the computer player would then calculate their new position following the game logic and then render the next frame by hand for the players to make their next move. Sure that rendering process would take a few weeks depending on the usual factors that effect framerate but it could be done.

>Vidya: games for gaymers
>Traditional games: games to RP as homos

I would also like to know this

I can't tell if you're being an idiot on purpose, or if you really believe this.

please tell me which bit is wrong and I'll happily admit to being an idiot

I played games that let me craft a narrative, games like Fallout, Mount & Blade i crafted a narrative, even games like Dwarf Fortress allows players to come up with amazing stories about their character and adventures. Read the Dwarf Fortress Let's Plays. Also look up the Crusader Kings II AARs and stories.

You can't do what you want, complete and utter lies. If we both were playing an rpg and i decide my character steals your stuff then kills you in your sleep can i? No of course not because that kind of thing isn't generally allowed in TTRPGs, also TTRPGs follow the quest method, where the group of PCs are sent of by a GMPC to go do something somewhere and that becomes the focus of the story. Let's not pretend TTRPGs are any more free than in a computer game. At least i can shoot my teammates in a video game without anyone telling me i can't and games allow PvP unlike TTRPGs where players compete against one another instead of cooperate and are a team adventuring together though the GM created world. It's disingenuous to paint it as somehow better.

If the king immediately takes the rook at e1, then Qd2 is checkmate.

Video games do allow for that competitive edge for players to play against or cooperate with one another and even form groups to compete with another group, very much in the spirit of the old board games like Diplomacy and Risk.

there are also games like WoW, Eve Online with massive numbers of players forming alliances and organizations, competing, betraying one another, running off with money and all kinds of stuff, i suggest looking up EVE Online stories.

Video games also has single player.

...

yeah but how many times can you play that one game before getting bored? At least with video games i can switch and with a lot of newer games coming out with replay value in mind it's now easier to play a game more than once even in single player and have so many things happen differently. That combined with the graphics that make it more visual make them incredible.

Not to mention all the genres of video games.

>there is only one type of board game

No i was talking about that one game how many times can you play it before it grows old. With newer video games there is at least less rails and more replay value, take games like Dwarf Fortress i can play it multiple times and never with the same result.

The fact that you can also change games from roleplaying game to first person shooter and video games having a much wider diversity of genres which adds to their appeal.

so snake is a board game because you can only play it a few times before getting bored and it doesn't change?

You are twisting my words when you know that's not what i mean. Using cheap tactics like that and using fallacies to defend your point is cheap dirty tactic to use in a civilized discussion.

I'm not twisting your words you're just wrong.

Then why not properly argue your point instead of just saying i'm wrong and need to stoop to twisting my argument instead or making a actual argument against it.

providing counter examples is properly arguing but you aren't happy with that either

I did i made sever arguments using examples like of Dwarf Fortress where i can play the same game multiple times and always have a different result. Even though it is the same game, the replay value lies in it being different every time i play it. How many times can you play the game you posted an image of before you get bored. I will give there are some games like Chess, Diplomacy, Risk, Settlers of Catan that do have enormous replay value.

and what I am saying is "different every time i play it" is irrelevant to a games classification as a board or video game

Then that's a problem, replay value. If i play a board game that isn't different every time i play it then it has little to no replay value, it doesn't make me want to play that game again and again because it gets stale.

In video games it is relevant we call it replay value and giving player agency, the ability to change something and have something different every time i play it means i never have the same game more than once, which means every game is fresh.

I'm saying "having replay value" does not a video game make. I can give you examples of video games that have no replay value and boardgames that are infinitely replayable

I did not say there weren't again you are twisting what i said when in fact i gave examples of board games that did have replay value. However you were the one who said "and what I am saying is "different every time i play it" is irrelevant to a games classification as a board or video game". which prompted my reply. I don't know if you're trolling or deliberately being duplicitous with your arguments.

There is a surprising amount of stupid and wrong in this thread.
Let's sort this shit out.

>What is the difference between traditional games and video games?
Largely, the medium upon which it is played.
FPBP

But there are some distinctions:
>Unlike video game, in which the player is just the end point of the process, some traditional games have an element of self-entertainment and self-control involved.
>Notably RPGs

>In an ttrpg, what you can do is limited only by the imagination and permission of those playing.
This freedom is the singular persistent difference.
A computer game cannot permit variance beyond its own limitations.
irlttrpgs can.

Ttrpgs are designed around constructing a narrative, however, you can craft a narrative about any game, or a discarded thimble if you chose to.

Just as video games excel at providing superior
>single player games
or
>
>number crunching
but that doesn't mean they can't be done in a traditional medium.
It is just not done because it is too difficult.
(FPBP was not wrong as "is played" not "can be played")

Video games are traditional games played on a computer.
Not all traditional games can be played on a computer, yet.
No computer can allow for the variance capable when involving the human experience, yet.

>In video games it is relevant
You are citing its relevance to its quality and worth, not its relevance to whether or not it's a video game or a board game.

To put it in perspective, "Mousetrap" is a board game, "FATAL" is an rpg(right? Might be an autism simulation), and E.T. for the Atari was a video game.
Replay value does not define the medium here.

>Ttrpgs are designed around constructing a narrative, however, you can craft a narrative about any game, or a discarded thimble if you chose to.
Yes but there are games such as Crusader Kings, Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, that are really good at creating narrative and have it built in as part of the system. Other games allow players to build their own stories with the game using their imagination to tell a story.
forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/knud-knýtling-prince-of-denmark-and-other-assorted-tales.235468/
or
lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered/
>No computer can allow for the variance capable when involving the human experience, yet.
True computers are limited to programming though some games do it pretty well because of the developer foresight. However even TTRPGs don't allow that much freedom, in terms of player agency video games rank higher in player agency. compared to TTRPGs where i as a player can't have my PC betray the party, kill a party member, deviate fro the group to go somewhere else unlike video games where i can do all those things and so can other players.

Players ability to play how they will whether that's by deciding to hide in a bush or decide to run in a kill everything individually is something i found was higher in video games, the allowance to give the players to be individuals and make choices and carry them out individually rather than as a collective compared to TTRPGs.

That response was to another point being made. But yes replay value matters in video games as with board games, not so much rpgs, but board games yes. There are board games i mentioned with huge replay value like sttlers of catan and chess but how many times can you play one game say monopoly before you grow bored of it. Replay value is important in that sense that i want to be able to come back and play it again without feeling it's the same thing over and over.

In a traditional game, you can negotiate with everyone playing to change the rules to make the game better suited to your group, but people get extraordinarily angry online about doing this.

In a video game, you cannot negotiate with everyone playing to change the rules to make the game better suited to your group, and people get extraordinarily angry online about not being able to do this.

I don't think you understand what is being discussed here

>Replay value is important
True.
So is oxygen.
Your tangent is tangential.

>Players ability to play how they will whether that's by deciding to hide in a bush or decide to run in a kill everything individually is something i found was higher in video games
This is objectively false.
Their ability to play how they will is greater in ttrpg.
The reality of how they actually play is directly limited to their experience and a GM can make a game more restrictive than a video game, but that changes nothing.

>the allowance to give the players to be individuals and make choices and carry them out individually rather than as a collective compared to TTRPGs.
Single player games allow greater individual range of choice than party games, not video over ttrpg.

>people get extraordinarily angry online
Shortened that up for you.

Didn't "fix" it, as you weren't wrong.

Their ability to play how they will is greater in ttrpg. The reality of how they actually play is directly limited to their experience and a GM can make a game more restrictive than a video game, but that changes nothing.
That is what makes it restrictive, can i go off from the party and go somewhere myself and go two towns over by myself instead of sticking with the party? Can i as a PC decide i don't want to go on the quest and so something else instead in-game?

>True. So is oxygen. Your tangent is tangential.
Fallacious line of argument is fallacious.
>Single player games allow greater individual range of choice than party games, not video over ttrpg.
Not really while playing GTA Online i can do a bunch of stuff like go off and drive to another part of the map or even in games like Arma 3 or Day Z i can choose to act my own way as my character individually like i can decide where my character goes like going to a building and providing overwatch for my group while they go off doing other stuff in-game. I have control over my character. That is important.

On a practical level videogames are superior in every aspect, I still play boardgames because I like to move plastic around

Even in games like Call of Duty multiplayer i still have a degree of control over how i play, whether i choose to go with a fully automatic rifle running and gunning or snipe from a perched position above the fray, i still have the choice of where i go and how i choose to play. and everyone can make that choice individually in-game and that is something that we have in video games.

I see what you did there..

Tabletop games and video games are different, like i said some board games have a ton of replayability and are different each time you play leading to each game being unique while also allowing players more control over how they play whether they cooperate with another player/s or whether they backstab or betray them or compete with them..

...

>That is what makes the individual experience restrictive, not necessarily the medium
Just like a bad game designer can make it more restrictive.
TTRPGs can go beyond the rules or prepared materials a program literally cannot.
This isn't even in question.

>can i go off from the party and go somewhere myself and go two towns over by myself instead of sticking with the party?
See
>Single player games allow greater individual range of choice than party games, not video over ttrpg.

>Can i as a PC decide i don't want to go on the quest and so something else instead in-game?
Depends on the individual GM, but they can choose to allow it.
A computer can't generate new content beyond the scope of its programming.

>Fallacious line of argument is fallacious.
Not a line of argument, dumbass.
You are discussing unrelated topics.
Like as if I were discussing oxygen instead of the topic on hand.
It's importance is irrelevant.
It's unrelated.

>>Single player games allow greater individual range of choice than party games, not video over ttrpg.
>Not really while playing GTA Online i can do a bunch of stuff like go off and drive to another part of the map or even in games like Arma 3 or Day Z i can choose to act my own way as my character individually like i can decide where my character goes like going to a building and providing overwatch for my group while they go off doing other stuff in-game. I have control over my character. That is important.
None of that remotely argues against my point.
Your could have stopped at "Not really." and said as much.

You are not good at this.

>i still have the choice of where i go and how i choose to play
Do you believe that those who play ttrpgs do not have that choice?
Or do you believe that playing with a group in no way limits your choices?

Or are you just saying vaguely related things with no argument? If that's the case, I like rolling dice.

>Not a line of argument, dumbass. You are discussing unrelated topics. Like as if I were discussing oxygen instead of the topic on hand. It's importance is irrelevant. It's unrelated.
Again dismissing an argument it is relevant to board games where replay value is as important to a board game as it is to a video game. I would only be able to play a game like ludo or monopoly so many times before i get bored of playing it, Settlers of Catan, chess, Diplomacy and Risk are different. The situations are never the same each game is different which makes each game fresh. It applies to board games as it does video games.
>Single player games allow greater individual range of choice than party games, not video over ttrpg.
Again i gave examples like MMORPGs and GTA online that aren't single player but still allow players freedom to how they play, even team games like Call of Duty multiplayer you still have a choice in how you as an individual choose to play, like i said about sniping or going run and gun and where your character chooses to go on the map. You still have that choice.
>Depends on the individual GM, but they can choose to allow it. A computer can't generate new content beyond the scope of its programming.
True while it is limited to it' programming it still offers you the opportunity within that to play your own way compared to TTRPGs
>TTRPGs can go beyond the rules or prepared materials a program literally cannot. This isn't even in question.
>None of that remotely argues against my point. Your could have stopped at "Not really." and said as much. You are not good at this.
>Not a line of argument, dumbass. You are discussing unrelated topics. Like as if I were discussing oxygen instead of the topic on hand. It's importance is irrelevant. It's unrelated.
Ad hominems and outright dismissals of my counterarguments doesn't make your side any more valid.

Do you believe that those who play ttrpgs do not have that choice? Or do you believe that playing with a group in no way limits your choices? Or are you just saying vaguely related things with no argument? If that's the case, I like rolling dice.
Again ad hominems and cheap debating tactics. No The point i am making is playing with a group should not limit one from controlling their character and playing their character their way. This is one side in which TTRPGs fail in comparison to video games.

>Do you believe that those who play ttrpgs do not have that choice? Or do you believe that playing with a group in no way limits your choices? Or are you just saying vaguely related things with no argument? If that's the case, I like rolling dice.
Again ad hominems and cheap debating tactics. No The point i am making is playing with a group should not limit one from controlling their character and playing their character their way. This is one side in which TTRPGs fail in comparison to video games.

Here's the thing video games are limited by their programming, but our programming is getting better, we are now able to do more complex programming and video games are making leaps and strides. Even with their limitations video games do allow a lot of player freedom and agency within them.

I am looking forward to see how video games develop in the next 10-20 years.

What i said is especially true for sandbox games and open world games. Giving players freedom and let them play how they will, this is something you cannot get or cannot be done very well by a GM in a TTRPG.

>it is relevant to board games
But not relevant to the topic at hand, which is defining the difference between a video game or a board game (or other traditional games)
If you can't even pay attention to what is being discussed, nobody will ever take you seriously.

>You still have that choice.
And literally nobody is arguing otherwise.
I am arguing that party games, where there is an intention of playing in a group, are really what restricts you from running off by yourself whether its a video game or ttrpg.
And that if it is a video game, it is also restricted by programming.

>it still offers you the opportunity within that to play your own way compared to TTRPGs
Ttrpgs offers you the opportunity within that to play your own way even if the GM doesn’t.

>>TTRPGs can go beyond the rules or prepared materials whereas a program literally cannot. This isn't even in question.
This is fact, Jack.

>my counterarguments
They weren't arguements though.

I could say "Your dismissing of my oxygen counterargument to your Neptune Fallacy was not a toaster."
But I don't just say unrelated nonsense and claim its an argument.

For it to be an argument, it has to actually argue against something, preferably something I support.

Stating that you can do things in video games, when those things can also be done in ttrpgs, is not an argument for or against anything.

Missed giving you you precious (You).
So sorry.

Here you go.

Surely you see how much hoopjumping must be done with tabletop to emulate things that naturally exists in vidya? Honestly, I don't understand anyone playing wargames on tabletop at this point. If the idea of a wargame is to use complex, fiddly rules to emulate the feel and flow of a combat scenario, videogames do that so much better because programming allows you to account for as many factors as you want, instead of stacking a tower of chits on a board or rolling 50 dice and spending the next 20 minutes consulting damage charts.

>playing with a group should not limit one from controlling their character and playing their character their way.
Playing with a group necessarily limits you to playing with a group.

>controlling their character and playing their character their way.
So far, your every example can easily be done in a ttrpg group.

>This is one side in which TTRPGs fail in comparison to video games.
No it doesn't.
Assetting you are right doesn't make your side any more valid.
Make an actual argument with examples that work or go home.

>But not relevant to the topic at hand, which is defining the difference between a video game or a board game (or other traditional games)
If you can't even pay attention to what is being discussed, nobody will ever take you seriously.
It was relevant in response to someone else's post when someone else chimed in and i was responding to them, that's when you came in and outright dismissed my argument and resorting to ad hominems
>Ttrpgs offers you the opportunity within that to play your own way even if the GM doesn’t.
Self-contradicting
>>TTRPGs can go beyond the rules or prepared materials whereas a program literally cannot. This isn't even in question. This is fact, Jack.
To which i said games are being developed with incredible depth and programming is also getting better especially for video games and are making leaps and bounds.
>could say "Your dismissing of my oxygen counterargument to your Neptune Fallacy was not a toaster. "But I don't just say unrelated nonsense and claim its an argument. For it to be an argument, it has to actually argue against something, preferably something I support. Stating that you can do things in video games, when those things can also be done in ttrpgs, is not an argument for or against anything.
Again i was responding to someone else's post and it was relevant in response to it.

>i still have a degree of control over how i play
>whether i choose to go with a fully automatic rifle running and gunning or snipe from a perched position above the fray, i still have the choice of where i go and how i choose to play. and everyone can make that choice individually in-game
Do you honestly believe that a person cannot choose to do any of that in a ttrpg group?

Some groups might try and persuade you to do otherwise, but you absolutely have that freedom.
If your group is telling you exactly what you can and cannot do, more so than your teammates in an online game will tell you to stop farting around in a tree and help them in a fire fight, or if the GM won't let you do what your character should reasonably be expected to do, then you are installing Mass Effect 4 and getting E.T. for the Atari.
But guess what champ?
That doesn’t mean good games aren't out there.

If every ttrpg game you ever played ended with every group telling you that you can't do what you're trying to do, I gotta wonder what you, the common factor, are trying to do.

>Playing with a group necessarily limits you to playing with a group.
Not really that's what we have in video game the ability to play multiplayer and compete, play against or play with other players online. You can play by yourself with other people or play as a group with them but you always can play your character however you want.
>So far, your every example can easily be done in a ttrpg group.
Except it isn't the case like you said already about how players playing with a group limits you by necessity, so if i was playing the evil thief who kills the group at night or betrays the group i can't. Like you already said it limits how i can play.
>No it doesn't.
Asserting you are right doesn't make your side any more valid. Make an actual argument with examples that work or go home.
I already did with examples from MMORPGs like WoW, GTA Online and i made numerous examples. I can decide to go by myself two towns over while someone else goes somewhere else i can in GTA Online drive out and steal a helicopter in multiplayer while another player is doing something else and i can fight against him.

Exactly wargames are something as well that is done better in video games and is less painstaking than on tabletop.
The difference is in a video game you don't have to play it the way someone else wants you to and you don't really have to do what your teammates are asking you to do, you can go off, you aren't really bound to help them in a firefight you can go somewhere else and go to high ground and pick off enemies with sniper rifle instead . You also don't have a GM that can make things happen lording over the game and decide what you all can or cannot do, so if you decide not to cooperate the GM can enforce team behavior on you.

>It was relevant in response to someone else's post
No it wasn't.
It was never relevant.
Replayability has nothing to with video versus traditional.

>Self-contradicting
No it's not.
THE GM IS NOT TTRPG.
The GM is equivalent to the Game designer here, more or less, and a bad designer can make a badly limited game, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL VIDEO GAMES ARE JUST AS LIMITED.
Yes, you have find a good designer. Sorry.

Another way to look at it is that a bad GM is like a bad string of code. It slows up the game, limits what you can do, and can make the whole game crash, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL VIDEO GAMES ARE JUST AS LIMITED.

You are just mad because you want to play your game without having to depend on a good designer or good coding.
Too bad.
Sorry, you gotta find a decent GM who can also stand your annoying ass.
Good luck.
Or just go back to pretending that Vidya will always be superior for reasons.

>risk and Catan are your examples for games with replay value
confirmed for never playing boardgames, jesus christ.