Whatever happened to

[Epimethean]

Nap, have you ever played a full campaign in an old school people round a table rpg?

[DeistPaladin]

Nap, have you ever played a full campaign in an old school people round a table rpg?

ADD: ...with a competent GM and at least a few good players.

I add this because I've played with a group that seemed oblivious to the idea that there was anything more involved than hack-the-monsters, take-the-treasure, level-up. If an RPG is a glorified version of miniatures combat, you won't get the distinction we're trying to discuss.

I will look into Mass Effect though.

[Epimethean]

Very true, Paladin. I have been fortunate to GM some great games with great people and have enjoyed some great games run by other GMs.

[The Grand Nudger]

I couldn't be trusted at the table...at some point..enough beers in..I'd just start raggin on everybody for being there in the first place.

[Napoléon]

Nap, have you ever played a full campaign in an old school people round a table rpg?

I played dungeons and dragons in my school before.

[Epimethean]

Doesn't sound like you got very involved in it. Let's just say that, as Paladin suggests, the human element makes for a great deal of difference. This goes to both the game play, and the social aspect of the game. Games were created to stimulate the mind, but in days gone by, they were also very social outlets. Sure, you can chat in some online games, but that cannot come close to face-to-face interaction. I do believe we are losing something there.

[Violet]

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.

One has also to realize that tabletop games can feature stories just as bland as a hacknslash.

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.

A game provides you only a setting. Tabletop RPGs hem character development in often just as much as a computer RPG. Storylines are always set with limited options whether it be Tabletop or Computer... and I'd rather have my story determined by more than a dice roll personally.

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.

Even in Tabletops: you go places and do things. These are defined as the game progresses, and are often done so by a dice roll. I don't play cards for the same reason I don't play tabletop: too much random element. And when there is not: it might as well be a video game without the graphics and audio.

---

Doesn't sound like you got very involved in it. Let's just say that, as Paladin suggests, the human element makes for a great deal of difference. This goes to both the game play, and the social aspect of the game. Games were created to stimulate the mind, but in days gone by, they were also very social outlets. Sure, you can chat in some online games, but that cannot come close to face-to-face interaction. I do believe we are losing something there.

Like our ability to immerse ourselves in a universe that is not this one?

[DeistPaladin]

One has also to realize that tabletop games can feature stories just as bland as a hacknslash.

Agreed.

I'd rather have my story determined by more than a dice roll personally.

What? You think I let dice rule me as a GM? I commonly cheat like crazy behind my GM's screen. Other GM's have done that with me.

The dice and the rules are only suggestions. If they derail the story, fuck em.

[Violet]

Without a dice: tabletop might actually be fun. Like when luck isn't an overly prevalent factor in a card game

[thebigfudge]

games are getting to the point in which their stories are the central focus. Well scripted, well acted and interactive. You cant criticise a book or a movie for not having an open ended story. Its the same with games.
I hate randomness in games. Plus the idea of sitting round a table for ages making rules and rolling dice's doesn't interest me in the slightest. Give me a few mates and a lan party any day.