(July 6, 2011 at 9:01 am)Kayenneh Wrote: My bf plays D&D with his friends. They have tried to lure me in too (by having and all ladies night), but I have yet to test it. They are quite HC and I'm such a noob, so I haven't dared to try it out..

My wife is an amateur author so I knew she would like the group story telling aspect of RPGs. Two of her friends joined our group and she says another two are going to sit in and observe, perhaps join in. It's now an almost all girl group.

---

(July 4, 2011 at 9:31 am)Epimethean Wrote: RPGs that people played while actually gathered together around a table?

Some traditionalists like me still play them. The computer just can't match the story telling aspect. It's good for hack-and-slashers who have a video-game mentality anyway, but for those who see the RPG as a make-a-movie-that-you're-in kind of game, it's going to be a while before the computer is a good format.

Paladin, you really are close to the quick with that. Technology is a marvelous thing, and it certainly is the product of the imagination and creativity, but as a surrogate for the dynamic of real human interaction, the number of social aspects and variables possible in a face-to-face rpg, computer games come second. This is not to say that they do not have their place, and their place is massive now; but they are not an authentic replacement for the human based systems. I worry that, in time, we may forget so much of the way culture was transmitted that culture itself will become irretrievably diminished. After a fashion, the old style rpgs, such as D&D, GURPS, Space Opera, are something that cannot be "recreated" through any circuitry that is not human. As a Classicist, I appreciate the oral traditions that these games echo.

(July 6, 2011 at 12:38 am)Epimethean Wrote: Simply untrue, but your opinion, so your imagination at work. Nice roundabout, but unconvincing here. Books require more imagination than movies, old school rpgs more imagination than computer games. Very clearly so in the lack of spoonfed visuals. No shortcomings unless Gerbers steak dinner is always to be preferred over Ruths Chris.

And yet I use the same amount of imagination during a movie (and the amount of imagination I use during a game of MoO is beyond any game that is not chess, as I envision the different races under the philosophies I have constructed for them to be consistent with what they do. This is called immersion, and is something you should try harder to do.)

Being provided with graphics does not mean one cannot make their own. Being provided with sound does not mean one cannot make their own. You do not *have* to imagine anything at all when reading a book: it is not a requirement to immerse yourself in it.

I happen to imagine things happening in the real world using that as a backdrop into varieties of fantasies (some spontaneous and some continuing for years). If what you say is true... then the real world, which is so much more presentable than a movie or book, should have next to no imagination in it.

Tis not so Don't feed your personal limitations into how other people operate.

---

(July 6, 2011 at 10:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Some traditionalists like me still play them. The computer just can't match the story telling aspect. It's good for hack-and-slashers who have a video-game mentality anyway, but for those who see the RPG as a make-a-movie-that-you're-in kind of game, it's going to be a while before the computer is a good format.

Every played mass effect and then played mass effect 2?

It isn't about one variety of storytelling being better than another (movies, books, games, life, imagination, oral, storyboard, pictures, etc... they all tell stories in different ways: not one of them 'the ultimate storyteller' nor any of them less adept at telling a story). I've heard some fantastic stories from word of mouth that most books cannot even compare to. I've read A Christmas Carol and remember the entire plot and many of Scrooge's intricacies. I've imagined stories in bed, in churches, on boats, as I walk in a hallway, while chatting to other people, and elsewhere that sometimes should be world-class works. I've played games that immersed me so fully within that it was no longer me making decisions for my character: it was the character making decisions for myself. I've watched movies that played out so well that I could not tell you the difference between them and reality.

It is simply a question of interface. Some people can't integrate into a system as well as I can, and others can do so better. The story telling aspect is affected by how immersed... how 'into' the story we are. If you're in the worst mood ever and your dog died on top of that: when someone tells a normally incredibly funny joke... you might at best smile or give a hollow laugh. It is because your current status affects how the story comes in. As it is with games, movies, books... they are all as a basis only different in mode of presentation. They all come into the same damn thing before they mean anything: the brain. It is you that has to adapt to them before you can appreciate them well... not the other way around.

---

(July 6, 2011 at 9:02 am)Rhythm Wrote: Oh cmon, they do require more imagination. I wouldn't say they limit the amount of imagination one COULD apply, but the case of spoonfed visuals is a pretty easy one to make.

They require exactly zero imagination to read. I can read:

"The wavy blue ocean laps gently at the windblasted shore of sharp sand"

And take only the facts from that. Not conjure an image, not conjure a sound, not conjure a taste or texture, not conjure a smell. Imagination is when you do these things with what you are presented.

With a strong enough imagination: reality is almost imperceptibly different... if it is at all.

---

(July 6, 2011 at 10:18 am)Epimethean Wrote: Paladin, you really are close to the quick with that. Technology is a marvelous thing, and it certainly is the product of the imagination and creativity, but as a surrogate for the dynamic of real human interaction, the number of social aspects and variables possible in a face-to-face rpg, computer games come second. This is not to say that they do not have their place, and their place is massive now; but they are not an authentic replacement for the human based systems. I worry that, in time, we may forget so much of the way culture was transmitted that culture itself will become irretrievably diminished. After a fashion, the old style rpgs, such as D&D, GURPS, Space Opera, are something that cannot be "recreated" through any circuitry that is not human. As a Classicist, I appreciate the oral traditions that these games echo.

And this is very... very sad for you.

But I'll not be pitying you for me having so much more fun everywhere

Edit:fixed a doublepost.

(July 6, 2011 at 9:02 am)Rhythm Wrote: Oh cmon, they do require more imagination.

Again just saying they do, doesn't mean they do.

---

(July 6, 2011 at 10:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Some traditionalists like me still play them. The computer just can't match the story telling aspect. It's good for hack-and-slashers who have a video-game mentality anyway, but for those who see the RPG as a make-a-movie-that-you're-in kind of game, it's going to be a while before the computer is a good format.

Someone hasn't played mass effect.

What's your evidence to the contrary? The absence of expressed A/V aspects necessarily demands more of the imaginative process. Or are you going to say that a movie version of a story is equally as challenging to the imagination as the book upon which it is based?

Since when were we talking about challenge? We were talking about imagination.

As for the imagination, all a movie does is provide image and audio to SUPPLEMENT a story. It does not limit the imagination that a viewer has. As has been said it is down to the person who is trying to imagine. Some people find books incredibly difficult to draw imagination from, others find movies much the same and vice versa.

Talking about 'evidence' in this respect is pointless because imagination is subjective, so you are asking a question which you know cannot be answered. I can easily ask you to do the same: provide me with evidence that books require more imagination than movies.

The absence of 'expressed A/V aspects' doesn't in fact 'necessarily demand' more of the imaginative process. Movies and games can leave just as much up to the imagination of the viewer. Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary

(July 6, 2011 at 11:38 am)Epimethean Wrote: What's your evidence to the contrary? The absence of expressed A/V aspects necessarily demands more of the imaginative process. Or are you going to say that a movie version of a story is equally as challenging to the imagination as the book upon which it is based?

No version of a story is challenging. It does not affect the imagination whether it is given words to prompt the senses/memory or pictures or videos or sound. The imagination can do it with none of these, and it can do it with all of these. I play symphonies in my head when music I don't like comes on the radio, and I do it as easily when I turn the radio off. It's a mistake to confuse challenge with anything more than lack of skill on part of the challenged. Find your own fun with what you are given

(July 6, 2011 at 1:06 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: No version of a story is challenging. It does not affect the imagination whether it is given words to prompt the senses/memory or pictures or videos or sound. The imagination can do it with none of these, and it can do it with all of these. I play symphonies in my head when music I don't like comes on the radio, and I do it as easily when I turn the radio off. It's a mistake to confuse challenge with anything more than lack of skill on part of the challenged. Find your own fun with what you are given

Maybe I haven't been clear. It is not the graphics or sound that rob from the creativity of RPGs. I enjoy computer RPGs as well and there are some good stories to be found in some. Others feature only hack-and-slash which usually bore me quickly.

My point is that even in the best of stories to be found in computer RPGs, there is little creativity involved in playing them as far as player input to the story goes. The story is largely set with only a few limited options for player influence. Compared to how the story is shaped in a face-to-face, tabletop RPG (assuming a competent GM), player input to the story is greatly constrained by the very nature of the medium.

Once as a GM, I made the critical mistake of taking a cool story from a computer RPG and applying it to a tabletop. The result was what we call a "lock step adventure". A lock step adventure is where every event and choice is largely predetermined. Go here. Do this. Go there. Collect that. Such adventures are inherent in a computer RPG, even with the best of stories. The players of the table top session even said so but the lack of player input made it unsuitable.

The "lock step" is a faux paus among GMs in a tabletop setting. In computer adventures, it's an inherent characteristic.

(July 6, 2011 at 10:04 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Some traditionalists like me still play them. The computer just can't match the story telling aspect. It's good for hack-and-slashers who have a video-game mentality anyway, but for those who see the RPG as a make-a-movie-that-you're-in kind of game, it's going to be a while before the computer is a good format.

This may have been true at one point, but many video games have huge production teams now that concentrate on telling a story. The obvious example, as stated earlier, is Mass Effect, which not only tells a story, but allows you to make choices which have drastic effects throughout the entire game. The interaction allowed in the game allows for choices which give you the sense of control over the story. It will be awhile before all video games are of this caliber, but the computer as a format, is close to being able to recreate anything the mind can imagine.

(July 6, 2011 at 2:04 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Maybe I haven't been clear. It is not the graphics or sound that rob from the creativity of RPGs. I enjoy computer RPGs as well and there are some good stories to be found in some. Others feature only hack-and-slash which usually bore me quickly.

My point is that even in the best of stories to be found in computer RPGs, there is little creativity involved in playing them as far as player input to the story goes. The story is largely set with only a few limited options for player influence. Compared to how the story is shaped in a face-to-face, tabletop RPG (assuming a competent GM), player input to the story is greatly constrained by the very nature of the medium.

GO PLAY MASS EFFECT! SHEESH!