Tabletop or Console

[Trodorne]

I have brought up many times before about how i played dungeons and dragons. so would you prefer to play a final fantasy game with some friends around the table, or would you rather play on a console w/ some friends if you are playing 11 or 14. which of the two sounds more appealing to you.

**my choice** I think tabletop game would be a more rewarding game. i mean your playing with your friends and you make the character you want and not be handed some staple character which whose arch type can be traced in about 20 other games before it or came out at the same time.

plus i make this arguement for those who were fed up with 11. i do not have to wait 30 mins for finding a random party which the leader says opps i have to go. i mean your party is right there. you can solve puzzles if you want a smart campaign, or kill stuff if you want straight up action, or you could do some story work or develop your character.

and you have stories to tell like it was a trip or something, you can tell about so and so how they failed to make the jump across the gorge and you saved their ass by succesfully reflexing over to the ledge and pulling him up with your strength. what do consoles have to show for it.
"what did you do on final fantasy 8?"
"leveled, drawed some magic which increased my strength."
"going to use that spell in battle?"
"no cause using it would only weaken me and would defeat the purpose of spending 20 mins to draw it out."

that is dull really. consoles have nothing to offer the audience example FF 13 why people would pay $80 for a collectors edition where you had to play more than 80+ hours of gameplay of nothing but cutscenes and tunnels. where the only open ended areas were at the end of the damn game. i mean that does not put it in its favor. With a GM the gameplay is mostly left to the players to decide everything and the GM just acts as the people, places, and monsters... basically god.

like i can understand for people who do not want to put in effort to play a game based on imagination, and just want to play a game that requires no thought pattern. but i seriously think if final fantasy set up a system for table top most people would have a hard time coming back to the console except to get ideas for making a character.

hell ill keep playing 1,3,4,5,6 and 9 once in a long while just to get some ideas, but after experiencing table top they are not as appealing anymore. tabletops give you what most developers don't in video games. choice.

[T.G. Oskar]

I have brought up many times before about how i played dungeons and dragons. so would you prefer to play a final fantasy game with some friends around the table, or would you rather play on a console w/ some friends if you are playing 11 or 14. which of the two sounds more appealing to you.

**my choice** I think tabletop game would be a more rewarding game. i mean your playing with your friends and you make the character you want and not be handed some staple character which whose arch type can be traced in about 20 other games before it or came out at the same time.

plus i make this arguement for those who were fed up with 11. i do not have to wait 30 mins for finding a random party which the leader says opps i have to go. i mean your party is right there. you can solve puzzles if you want a smart campaign, or kill stuff if you want straight up action, or you could do some story work or develop your character.

and you have stories to tell like it was a trip or something, you can tell about so and so how they failed to make the jump across the gorge and you saved their ass by succesfully reflexing over to the ledge and pulling him up with your strength. what do consoles have to show for it.
"what did you do on final fantasy 8?"
"leveled, drawed some magic which increased my strength."
"going to use that spell in battle?"
"no cause using it would only weaken me and would defeat the purpose of spending 20 mins to draw it out."

that is dull really. consoles have nothing to offer the audience example FF 13 why people would pay $80 for a collectors edition where you had to play more than 80+ hours of gameplay of nothing but cutscenes and tunnels. where the only open ended areas were at the end of the damn game. i mean that does not put it in its favor. With a GM the gameplay is mostly left to the players to decide everything and the GM just acts as the people, places, and monsters... basically god.

like i can understand for people who do not want to put in effort to play a game based on imagination, and just want to play a game that requires no thought pattern. but i seriously think if final fantasy set up a system for table top most people would have a hard time coming back to the console except to get ideas for making a character.

hell ill keep playing 1,3,4,5,6 and 9 once in a long while just to get some ideas, but after experiencing table top they are not as appealing anymore. tabletops give you what most developers don't in video games. choice.

Playing tabletops is cool, but only until the moment the group disbands. Then, you can't play tabletop games anymore.

You can load up a console game and replay it, perhaps doing something different than before; for example, attempting a 4 WM party in FF1, making Maria a frontliner while Firion learns magic almost exclusively in FF2, choosing different classes in FF3 and FF5 for your party members, play with different characters other than Gogo in FFVI (say, get all of Gau's Rages and play with him, or Strago's Lores, or play with Relm!), do a class-based set-up of abilities with Materia without adding Master Materia of any kind in FFVII, play with the GFs on FFVIII, and so forth. The story will undoubtedly be the same, but the progression will be different; without using stuff like power leveling, Sage/Ninja, Rapid Fire Dual Wield Spellblade, quickened Ultima, Knights of the Round, Aura+The End, or similar abilities, you can make the game a bit more complex.

Now, in the case of tabletops, it's really a hit or miss. You can, for example, play with a group devised exclusively of roleplayers, which may make bad choices for the purpose of roleplaying (such as...I dunno, playing a Truenamer on D&D or becoming a Combat specialist on Vampire: The Masquerade), while you get a DM that's focused on the opposite side (usually the guy who loads lots of dragons in D&D, or that unleashes Elder vampires, Earthbound demons and all sorts of nightmares on WW games). On the other hand, you might want a good story, but you're full of munchkins who play to win; for example, you might be with your well-built character, capable of winning a fight with little effort, but you play with Pun-Pun, Cindy, Jack B. Quick, or just anything thrown from many of the gaming forums' Tactical Optimization games; if you're playing on WW, you might end up with several Ventrues with absurd Resources, high dots on Dominate and Presence, and have everyone blood-bound and diablerizing all the way to 4th generation vampires. That's also true of DMs; you have the awesome, you have the good, you have the rules-lawyers, you have the sadist, and you have the ax-crazy guys who threaten to throw you out of your house and have fantasies of overpowered characters playing on their own games with the other players as supporting cast.

It's important to understand that console games play on a very different way than tabletop games. Console RPGs work in two ways; the Western way, and the Eastern way.

Eastern Way is the traditional RPGs that appear on consoles, including Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Breath of Fire, Star Ocean, Lufia, Lunar, Phantasy Star, amongst other famous games. There's gonna be a lot of railroading (aka, linear play) in those games, because of the size of those games. There's gonna be already established archetypes of heroes because of several reasons; some archetypes are popular and expected, some are easy templates for gamers to adapt, and going against archetypal heroes must be handled carefully or it ends in disaster. And you'll see that people, after playing a lot these games and especially now with the Internet, will develop the best strategies and find the broken tricks for each of the games, which will vastly simplify the game. In the end, you'll always do the same, because these games were never meant to be expanded (unlike now, where the existence of DLC has shifted that ever so slightly).

Western Way, on the other hand, deals with tabletops, MU* and old-school computer RPGs; D&D in all of its editions, all of the White Wolf games, all of the Games Workshop games (particularly Warhammer and Warhammer 40K), GURPS and others for tabletops; Ultima, Wizardry, Might & Magic, Elder Scrolls and others for old-school computer RPGs (including the tabletop-based games such as Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, Diablo and others, and the new-school homages such as Etrian Odyssey). The Western way of RPGs focuses on a constructed character (which may add games such as Fallout, Mass Effect and Deus Ex to the list) and how it interacts with the world, but depending on the media, they are still full of linear gameplay and archetypal NPCs. It's just that instead of favored Eastern archetypes, it's favored Western archetypes; while Eastern archetypes are full of nice-looking young heroes barely reaching their 20s (and usually no older than 30 unless they're the rare veteran), Western archetypes are a bit more "mature" in that sense (a bit more older, and a bit less prone to playfulness). You get a choice...sure, but that depends on the media; if you're playing a Western-based game, only tabletops will allow you to have a "choice"...

...and that "choice" is on quotation marks because of the things I mentioned above. If the DM/GM/Storyteller railroads the story harder than the Phantom Train, you get no choice; you have to do what the DM asks you to, and more often than not you'll be forced to play a character you don't want to. Also, the multitude of choices isn't usually the best way to play; eventually, you'll find yourself with the problem of making the wrong choice, and perhaps having everyone in trouble because you made that wrong choice. So, usually, a bigger "choice" is not the better choice, and even then, it all depends on the whim of the DM. If you have a great DM, the one that you can talk to and tell him what you wanna do and he adjudicates it on the fly (such as...say, having three Paladins do a multi-smite that essentially purifies the area with goodness), then great; it'll really be a memorable experience. But if the DM is bad (say, it allows you to make an awesome character...then it breaks your weapons, rips your spellbook, places you a manacle and gag so that you can't use magic, and simply railroads you into seeing how Mary Sue and Marty Stu save the day), then the story won't be as memorable (except for a horror story).

Not all console games are devoid of choice, either; many new games, such as Dragon Age: Origins and Elder Scrolls (both Morrowind and Oblivion) allow for some degree of choice. Old-school games (say, Ultima) allow you to end the game quicker if you want to get to the end quicker, but you can enjoy the story if you get the clues. It's all about enjoying the games, getting and draining every single bit out of it. Which is why most MMOs don't work, because it takes a good lot of lore to make for an interesting game, and take your mind off the constant grinding.

And again: tabletops are as good as the cohesion with your party. I played for about 4 long years, then a brief period of about 8 months, and several campaigns, and I never got to end one because something usually happened; people left, new people joined, the DM was getting tired of making new stuff for the campaign, and I usually ended up with the group that couldn't play the campaigns with an ending. I'm hoping soon enough to gather a group to DM, and to be responsible enough to not railroad them and to provide a good experience to the players, but I can't tell for sure whether they'll think the same or not. Otherwise, I couldn't be able to play (and as a DM, I'll have to do more than play; DMing is not like being the bank in Monopoly). So I couldn't say tabletops over console games, or any of the two over MMOs and viceversa, because each game plays differently. Keep that in mind in any case (and I hope that's not your case) the group starts to meet less and less.

[Trodorne]

*clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap* nice responce.

but i do love tabletop games. we tried experimenting with Final Fantasy game. and it was fun i played DM since i was the only one in the entire group of 6 of us who has played enough rp games to come up with something of a story. it was a wacky adventure, i had a story going on but i kind of threw it out the window. and allowed them to kind of wander around. i made up several quests they could do for a huge chunk of money. i think after 3 months of questing (1 month of game time) they made enough money to build a house on farmland that they could own and use as a base of operations. then that town was destroyed by some imps, about 1200 of them. (I warned ya) they had vengence and slaughtered them in the strong hold and rebuilding began. thats where it ended and i had to move. good times.

as for dealing with those rule whores. they end up dead or near dead as an example. and people need to learn that the DM is the rule master it all comes down to their decision.
"your dead"
"what? don't i get a saving throw?"
"why would you need it your dead"
"Surely, i am allowed a saving throw"
"that was then, this is now, now your dead. and don't call me shirley"

[T.G. Oskar]

*clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap* nice responce.

I wouldn't say nice, rather than "long". But if you got the message, fine by me: the idea is that tabletop games are fun, but they exist on a different position than console games. Final Fantasy did well by giving a solid RPG experience for those Japanese gamers hungry for more RPGs (do note that Japanese are lovers of games such as Ultima and Wizardry, and while Sir-Tech broke in the Western World, Wizardry is currently being renovated for phone gaming over there), and the formula worked enough. Since they are accustomed to certain archetypes and stories, it undoubtedly became a bit more popular to make those kinds of games.

as for dealing with those rule whores. they end up dead or near dead as an example. and people need to learn that the DM is the rule master it all comes down to their decision.
"your dead"
"what? don't i get a saving throw?"
"why would you need it your dead"
"Surely, i am allowed a saving throw"
"that was then, this is now, now your dead. and don't call me shirley"

Umm...that's not an example of good DMing.

Good DMing consists of making a good story that tailors to the tastes of everyone in the party. If someone gets bored because they didn't do anything, they'll leave because they don't have anything to do.

It also depends on the system. D&D has Rule 0. That's exactly what you're saying, except that Rule 0 also comes with a corollary; while the DM has the right to veto a combination (such as disallowing certain books, entry to certain material, or even the capability of homebrewing), the DM still has some rules to follow. The DM isn't a god or anything; in D&D, the DM is an arbiter as well as a storyteller; the DM determines what flies and what doesn't, but going entirely against the spirit of the rules is another thing. And pulling off a "it no longer allows a saving throw because I say so" is going against the spirit of the rules. Especially when that determination is arbitrary. Usually, it's better that the DM does something that the rest of the party can deal with, because otherwise one decision can create tensions amongst the others.

The Storyteller/Storytelling System works a bit more along those lines. The Storyteller is the final word in what people say, and determines what goes and what doesn't. If the DM determines that your description of the attack is good enough, more XP for you; if the DM thinks you're not acting based on your Nature or Demeanor, you lose Willpower or Humanity (just as examples).

Thing is, D&D is a more rules-intensive game (hence, why the DM is an arbiter) while Vampire/Werewolf/Mage are more story-intensive games, where the Storyteller has more control.

Even then, if the decisions of a Game Master are arbitrary, Rule .5 applies: the player(s) is/are in its/their right decision to leave. The more arbitrary rulings happen, the more players start to leave. A good DM will make sure all players have fun but also control some of the aspects of the game before they go all haywire, all without making a decision that seems that any of them have no control over the game.

A better way to deal with a munchkin (and munchkin isn't necessarily referring to all rules-lawyers or power-gamers) is to provide him with a situation he or she may not deal with, and make it part of the campaign; if, for example, a munchkin somehow gets a way to become Pun-Pun, just have another Pun-Pun erase him out of existence, then calmly say "well, if you could become him, why couldn't he already exist in the first place?" That sounds a bit more reasonable, since it integrates the player's decision into the game without entirely disrupting it (to an extent; one player will be bothered, the others probably won't). Or just say "X or Y part of your build cannot be used" or simply use a simple point of his build against the player. But not simply "rocks fall, the munchkin dies" without explaining from where the rocks come from.

[Trodorne]

difference being for tabletop story is you can not force feed the story to them and the characters like in the console rpg's. the story is something they have to discover and act upon themselves.

when i DM story is a small part in playing the game. cause i had this house rule. where when you play as a character they write down on a small sheet of paper what sort of fear and or character flaw they have. the flaw will give them 1-3 points bonus to their characters attributes. anyways i exploit those flaws once in a while to keep the game more interesting.

Jrpg for the past while character wise are repetative and most times down right stupid. the grand story ideas can be good except 8. (which the whole im going to compress time, with no real motivation to why she is doing it.)

western rpgs yeah more to create a character style which is great. but they lack in certain aspects of strategy. like yeah Daggerfall would have been the one game that really opened me up open ended gaming. and from there i was shown D&D and i followed suit into it.

yeah sure tabletop gaming may not have all the flash, pazazz of video games, but it is all character driven. and that is what most people who play console games always whine about that "it should be about the characters and their emotions" what better way to express it than doing it yourself.