PDA

View Full Version : [4e]4E is NOT WoW or any other MMO



Mr. Friendly
2008-02-19, 10:50 AM
I have reached my wit's end when it comes to dealing with anti-4e people who cry that 4e is becoming Worlds of Warcraft. It's not. Futhermore, the attempt to use the meme that 4e is becoming more "MMO-like" demonstates a vast gulf of ignorance about MMOs.

I am a long time D&D player. (Red Box & First Ed. AD&D)

I am also a long time, on again, off again MMO player, going as far back as Everquest: Ruins of Kunark.

On both counts over the years I have changed systems and games, meandering around. The two experiences are so vastly different on so many levels that I could not hope to fully describe them in a single post and quite frankly I don't know that I have enough words or the right words to fully describe the difference.

There are some similarities though. Most of my MMO experience is through EQ/EQ2/WoW. (currently playing EQ2 again; I hated WoW) From a mechanical standpoint, both D&D and MMOs use random numbers, with various bonuses added, critical hits, skill checks and myriad special abilities.

The thematic similarities are there because all others derive from D&D. D&D is the sourcecode of Everquest and to a lesser extent, WoW. WoW of course is a derivative of Blizzard's own work as well as drawing on the highly successful model of Everquest; thematically it is based on Warcraft, which was based on Warhammer, which was based on D&D.

Names are very similar across all fields as well, chiefly because all listed parties want a player to see a name and have an idea of what it does. (Resurrection, that kills Goblins, right?)

And then we come to an end of similarities.

In D&D, players and monsters do not "respawn". They do in all MMOs.

In D&D you use per day/encounter/whatever abilities. In MMOs you use Magic Points or Mana or Power. D&D nominally does not use this, though there are of course variants to do so.

In D&D you can break the rules. In MMOs, you can't. The DM can say it's ok for your character to spontaneously combust and rise from the ashes like a phoenix and become a half-bird creature. MMOs have a program; push the lever, get the pellet. That's pretty much it.

In D&D (at least 3rd and 4th edition) you can play anything you want to. In Everquest and WoW you are limited by race as to what classes are available. EQ2 does allow anything to play anything, much like 3e. (which was the inspiration for that change from EQ1 to EQ2)

Although all involved parties use HP or the equivalent, random numbers and abilities and skills, these are multiplied by a factor 10 or 100 in MMOs. For example, my Sarnak Inquisitor (lvl 58) has well over 4500 "hit points". His skills are in the 200s and his critical rating is 150%. He has absolutely no similarity to a cleric in 3e or 4e except in the broadest sense that he has healing spells and isn't that bad a fighter. The algorythms involved are highly complex and I really can't comment on them, except to say, "me no understand". Wheras D&D is very simple and straight-forward.

D&D is more relaxing. MMOs, in order to attain success, require your participation in a guild (or whatever) which involves doing "raids" (large groups of multiple parties, typically to fight something super powerful); raids are exciting and fun, but they are also stressful, at least if you are someone in a critical role. As you get higher level, you have to become more adept at hitting more levers, to get more pellets. At times you are hitting 10 to 12 levers at a time, just to get the one pellet you really need. D&D is nothing like that. D&D is a relaxing time, at a friends house (usually), often involves drinking (if you are an adult anyway...) and if you have a problem, you have a DM to talk to. The faceless bureaucracy of MMOs generally doesn't allow for a meaningful player to DM relationship.

In short, I play MMOs for being MMOs. I am a hamster and I like pushing the lever to get my pellet. I play D&D to go hang out with my friends and have fun and use my imagination.

The two things are worlds apart but share some real-estate.

Burley
2008-02-19, 11:25 AM
Here here! I get into it with people all the time over this. I've got nothing against MMOFolks, but I don't care much for MMOs. And, when people try to put me (A D&D player) into the same category, I get very frustrated.
(Please, nobody get offended by anything that follows.)
To me, whenever I've played an MMO, I feel very pidgeonholed. You have X races and X classes and the class get X abilities and you're done. D&D gives you feats, and alternate class abilities. More than that, MMOs are Point-and-Click, no matter what anybody says. There is no such thing as interpretation, or research, or debate, or synergy, or rule-mongering (which can be a good thing). D&D gives you the ability to look at a rule and say...Nah...that's not as fun, and try to do away with it. If you do something like that with an MMO, your character is deleted without a refund.

And, that's my biggest point of contempt for MMOs. For the price to buy the game, you can buy the PBH, DMG, and the MM (if you get a good deal, of course. Look on Amazon...it's totally possible). Then, for the price of two months membership, you can buy another book. Each book has infinate possibilities, and exponentially increases the usability and versatility of any other books you own. A month's membership fee lets you make use of the stuff you ALREADY BOUGHT for another month.
And, if you decide you just don't want to play anymore, guess which one can get you some money back. I'm not even gonna tell you the answer.

MMOs, in my opinion, are just a more expensive and visual way of finding your intertainment. D&D is a cheaper, more imaginative way to do the same. I'd rather use my imagination (since it's more vibrant than my monitor anyways.)

(Again, I'm sorry if anybody gets mad, but...I tried to be nice...)

Nerd-o-rama
2008-02-19, 11:50 AM
*bakes Mr. Friendly a cake*

Thank you. Man, I'm tired of people just comparing New And Scary stuff to things they happen not to like.

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-19, 12:16 PM
Good stuff. My only complaint is the MMO design isn't to reward you with a treat whenever you push the button - it will only do so randomly through repeated button-pressing. I believe it was Blizzard that cited a study along the following lines.

If you rig a button to give a monkey a treat when he pushes it, he will push it for awhile and then get bored and walk off. If you rig a button to give a monkey a treat every several presses, he'll stay for a bit longer before getting bored and walking off. If you have it set up so that it will randomly give the monkey a treat when pressed, the monkey will press the button for HOURS.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-19, 12:19 PM
Meh, the annoying thing is not that, but the hypocrisy of complaining without admitting that, even with flaws, you're still gonna switch. Nobody cares a black lotus pepper about how 4th will be the doom of all RP'ing, or munchkining. We have a classic "evolve or die" scenario here, and I doubt people will choose the die option. Simple as that, it's a lot of talk and little action.

Indon
2008-02-19, 01:37 PM
In D&D, players and monsters do not "respawn". They do in all MMOs.

Generally, mobs don't respawn in instanced games - such as Dungeons and Dragons Online (and to a lesser degree, City of Heroes).


In D&D you use per day/encounter/whatever abilities. In MMOs you use Magic Points or Mana or Power. D&D nominally does not use this, though there are of course variants to do so.

In D&D 3.x you have multiple power systems - there's Vancian casting, power point systems, Incarnum with its' Essentia, and many more.

In MMO's, abilities have power pool costs and cooldowns (which dictate how often you can use an ability).

In D&D 4.0, you have abilities with various cooldowns.

No, the systems are not identical. But 4.0 is looking a lot more MMO-ish than any 3.x system except Psionics.


In D&D you can break the rules. In MMOs, you can't.
We don't discuss houseruling on this forum.


In D&D (at least 3rd and 4th edition) you can play anything you want to. In Everquest and WoW you are limited by race as to what classes are available. EQ2 does allow anything to play anything, much like 3e. (which was the inspiration for that change from EQ1 to EQ2)

Well, 3.x doesn't let you play _anything_. Hopefully 4.0 will be even better in that regard.


D&D is more relaxing. MMOs, in order to attain success, require your participation in a guild (or whatever) which involves doing "raids" (large groups of multiple parties, typically to fight something super powerful); raids are exciting and fun, but they are also stressful, at least if you are someone in a critical role.

I hear the endgame for Lord of the Rings Online is actually pretty good in that respect - there are raids, and raiding guilds, but as far as gear is concerned the crafting economy will get you to about the same place raiding can. I can and have played the game with members of my D&D group.


The two things are worlds apart but share some real-estate.

D&D and EQ share more real-estate than, say, D&D and World of Darkness (er, first edition).

If you were to rate each major pen and paper system by how similar to MMO's they were, 3.x D&D would score above-average, and 4.0 D&D may score higher.

Burley
2008-02-19, 03:29 PM
@ Indon:
While I understand some of your points, and don't understand others :smallconfused:...I have to disagree with the ones I do understand.

Powerpoint systems and Essentia are variant systems, just like Mr. Friendly said. The base system for D&D is X many times per Y.
The base system for MMOs is X many times, and then you sit for Y time and get Z back, or drink a potion. You don't have to think ahead as long as you have mana potions.
4.0 is, indeed, throwing a way to recharge your spell casting to keep wizards and sorcerers from drying up in the middle of an important fight, but, as far as we know (so, don't assume), D&D isn't gonna have mana potions.

We aren't discussing Houseruling. We're discussing playability, and fun. We're discussing making something that is basic into something more or less challenging. We're discussing creating a unique gaming experience using rules and interpretations. That's D&D and it's unique.
MMOs are not unique...ever. I don't care how r0xx0rz0mG your character is, there are a dozen others exactly the same logged on at the exact same time. 3 of them are jumpin a lot, 2 are asking for free items, and another 4 or 5 are trying to sell you prescription drugs to enhance your...gaming experience.

As I said a couple lines ago, D&D is unique. Races and Classes in books don't always go together because of Prerequisites. But, hey, if you write a good backstory or role-play the right way, you can be anything.
MMOs...not so much. You are stuck with pregenerated class/race combos. End of story. And, if you role-play on an MMO, or make up a backstory for your charater...that's just a little kinda creepy.

That's it.

Cybren
2008-02-19, 04:12 PM
Certain elements of D&D will resemble elements of the MMO genre, since MMOs are dominated by games made in the fashion of Everquest, which was itself based heavily on D&D. Most MMOs descend their game mechanics from Everquest, almost directly.

To that end there are certain elements I dislike about MMORPGs that I think the marketing team at wizards are trying to evoke in order to cash in on the market of "these kids play wow, maybe it will be some sort of nerdy gateway game". The description of "powers" in 4th edition evokes to me homogeneous nature between "spells" and other abilities in ever quest and its ilk that wind up making magic fairly boring simply because it's easier than having clever and different mechanics.

PirateMonk
2008-02-19, 04:52 PM
And, if you role-play on an MMO, or make up a backstory for your charater...that's just a little kinda creepy.

It is? :smallconfused:

Rutee
2008-02-19, 05:00 PM
Certain elements of D&D will resemble elements of the MMO genre, since MMOs are dominated by games made in the fashion of Everquest, which was itself based heavily on D&D. Most MMOs descend their game mechanics from Everquest, almost directly.

To that end there are certain elements I dislike about MMORPGs that I think the marketing team at wizards are trying to evoke in order to cash in on the market of "these kids play wow, maybe it will be some sort of nerdy gateway game". The description of "powers" in 4th edition evokes to me homogeneous nature between "spells" and other abilities in ever quest and its ilk that wind up making magic fairly boring simply because it's easier than having clever and different mechanics.

Alright, I've got a stupid question. What non-DnD, non LotR (It;s just that I know that one, not that I'm discounting it) fiction has it that has the mystics able to exhaust so much more easily then their non-mystical counterparts, /and/ has those mystical powers explicitly used for combat purposes? Seriously, I'm trying to think of some, and I come up with zilch; I keep thinking of characters like Raven, or the Disrespectful Sages, or FMA Alchemists, or whatnot, whom are just as hale and hardy as the non-mystics.; sometimes moreso.

horseboy
2008-02-19, 05:36 PM
For me MMO's are like methadone. Sure it'll calm the shakes but it's not nearly as satisfying as the good stuff.

I remember while I was playing WoW people were complaining about "why do paladins get a free mount" and my answer was always "Because they do in D&D." It's all art imitating art imitating art imitating art imitating a game.

Xuincherguixe
2008-02-19, 07:03 PM
From what I've seen, it almost certainly has elements that were inspired from World of Warcraft.

But in of itself not a bad thing. Warriors were actually pretty useful. We'll see if the mechanics are any good when we see the mechanics.

Well you maybe (not any particular you), I don't really plan on buying it. D&D is too many books with not enough content.

Cybren
2008-02-19, 08:54 PM
Alright, I've got a stupid question. What non-DnD, non LotR (It;s just that I know that one, not that I'm discounting it) fiction has it that has the mystics able to exhaust so much more easily then their non-mystical counterparts, /and/ has those mystical powers explicitly used for combat purposes? Seriously, I'm trying to think of some, and I come up with zilch; I keep thinking of characters like Raven, or the Disrespectful Sages, or FMA Alchemists, or whatnot, whom are just as hale and hardy as the non-mystics.; sometimes moreso.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was, in everquest, and MMORPGs made in its vein, characters have a variety of abilities but ultimately they are handled with such similar mechanics and have similar effects that there feels little difference between characters other than their HP and armor types. I also said their description of how "powers" are handled in 4E seem to remind me of that.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 08:58 PM
I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant was, in everquest, and MMORPGs made in its vein, characters have a variety of abilities but ultimately they are handled with such similar mechanics and have similar effects that there feels little difference between characters other than their HP and armor types. I also said their description of how "powers" are handled in 4E seem to remind me of that.

Well, that wasn't so much a direct response, but this will be; Why do we need mechanical differences in the way powers work, and how they're executed? as to similar effects, I must say, you need to sit tight and wait to see; CoH makes characters of the same role play very differently based on method. As to their description, *Shrug*. I've got no problem with what I've seen, but I also like Wuxia; using inner power or other such justifications is easy to me.

My question still stands; I can't seem to figure out whey I /should/ expect them to work differently without first understanding why it is we feel one should have more limits then the other.

Reinboom
2008-02-19, 09:09 PM
One thing that I want to understand is:
For the parts that are becoming partially similar to MMOs...
I'm getting annoyed at the many posts of people saying "OMG! IT'S WoW!" ... without saying how that's bad.
Now, before attacked, I don't like WoW, and I would abhor D&D becoming it. Arbitrarily large numbers and numb minded tasks are a turn off.
However, the complaints aren't those, they are little things.
If D&D supported a point system for an ability in core (magic/mana points, or whatever), everyone will start throwing the WoW/Other MMO card out again. One thing I want to see however, is someone actually explain how this is bad design for D&D first.

Personally, I don't care about WoW. So I ignore it. I don't compare D&D to it. I compare D&D to its ability to provide me with a system that can streamline an interesting and good time with friends - ie: past D&D (and other role playing systems). That's all that needs to be compared.
If I discovered that mana points help perpetuate this... so be it. Who cares if it's like WoW? I care about D&D. If something helps it, let it help.

Talya
2008-02-19, 09:21 PM
I've played a lot of MMOs (mostly what you did, although I like WoW far better than EQ2, I get bored of them all now, as I realized the high-level raiding treadmill is an excersize in frustration and ruining one's life.)

I do see them moving toward an MMO style with 4e, in one very important way: They're dumbing things down to the point where any monkey can DM, and making sure they tell him or her how to think while they do it.

This was the main problem with most supposed "balance issues" in 3.5. They don't really exist, except for a few minor issues (like the Monk class in general.) The fighter is not really that weak, the wizard not really that amazingly strong, because all the theoretical batman crap relies on your DM being an idiot and letting you get away with it. MMOs don't have a DM, so all the classes need to be carefully balanced in power, as it needs to run by itself. In D&D 3.5 and older, the wizard is supposed to be more powerful than the fighter at high levels. That's how it was designed. That doesn't mean the fighter is not useful or unnecessary, because it's trivially easy for the good DM to ensure this, both mechanically and from a storyline standpoint...but the melee types are supposed to be every bit in awe of the party wizard as the fellowship was of Gandalf (and he wasn't even all that flashy a wizard), or as in awe of the druid as the Shannara kids are of Allanon, etc. Notice that Gandalf didn't steal the show in LotR, despite being the immortal celestial outsider wizard? It wasn't the godlike that saved Middlearth, but the smallest man who changed the course of history.

Combat Balance is being taken too far, and unnecessarily so. SW:Saga Edition does this to the Jedi. The common soldier is supposed to be in awe of the jedi, you find other ways to balance them. This has never been an issue for me in previous games of D&D or Star Wars, but it is when the DM just randomly throws encounters at the players without thought or without planning. Balancing everything in combat makes it easy on the DM to the point where you almost don't need a DM...and that's where 4e strikes me as becoming more and more like an MMO. These forums are often filled with balance discussions about classes that truly resemble the message boards of Everquest or WoW, and while perhaps most of us have played tabletop games before MMOs even existed, the mentality is creeping in to all of us at times.

Personally, 4e isn't even viable until it's got most of the variety of splatbooks and such that 3.5 already has, so I can stand to wait a long time to see if I want to play it. But I certainly do see an MMO style of approach, at least in this regard.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 09:35 PM
"Because Lord of the Rings' Wizards were demi-gods, we should all be weaker then the wizard"

How ludicrous. The simple fact is, that's not a good reason to let the rest of the party feel weaker. By your logic, Wizards should sit at home and deliver Oracles (Perhaps at someplace called Delphi..) While the melee tear the everliving hell out of everyone. No? B-but that's how Hector and Achilles were!

Everyone at the table needs to be roughly as good as each other in combat, in a game based on combat; Perfect balance is a myth, but they should be fairly close, so that people can all have fun.

Zincorium
2008-02-19, 09:43 PM
Talya, I'm going to have to disagree with you in a very big way on this one.

In my opinion and experience, you cannot make a tabletop RPG that will remain fun with an actually bad DM. I don't honestly think they're trying to make 4th that way.

A beginning DM, or someone who has been a player and just got shifted into the DM's seat, should NOT be shafted by the rules. They're the people WotC has to actually make the game for, because everyone else can easily and proficiently modify the game.

Game balance is bad? Because DMs can do the work to make unbalanced things work? How can you even say that with a straight face?

I don't, as a DM, want the rules system to dictate that certain classes are so much better than others. I HATED the non-saga edition Jedi and never allowed them in my game, because they always could outdo all of the other characters both in versatility and pure power. There was almost never any reason to be anything except a Jedi. Saga edition at least allows a party to stand on equal ground.

I don't want wizards to be able to break the rules into little pieces just because that's how it's always been done.

And listen closely here: it's okay for high level wizards to be powerful, but high level anything should be just as powerful. Excluding everyone else just because the wizards have more mythology behind them is terrible game design and unfair to the people actually trying to play anything else.

Talya
2008-02-19, 09:46 PM
Everyone at the table needs to be roughly as good as each other in combat, in a game based on combat; Perfect balance is a myth, but they should be fairly close, so that people can all have fun.

No, they don't. I've played mostly melee types, and I've never felt overshadowed by the finger-waggling wimps. I've 3.5 DMed games myself and I know how to make sure that melees are not overshadowed by the unholy Wizard/Druid/Cleric trinity. You're presenting a false dillemma--that everyone needs to be equal, or else some people won't have fun. That's just not the case.

Everyone needs to be valuable, not equal. Everyone needs to have an important role to play, they don't all need to be an equal threat on the battlefield.

The balance and equality in combat that you speak of is what reminds me most of MMO design, and it's utterly unnecessary--even detrimental-- in a game with a DM. The entire concept of a wizard becomes lame if it does not in some way provide them with power above that of mere mortal strongmen. That doesn't mean that the wizard's going to get far without one or two of those strongmen protecting his ass.

Cybren
2008-02-19, 09:57 PM
Well, that wasn't so much a direct response, but this will be; Why do we need mechanical differences in the way powers work, and how they're executed? as to similar effects, I must say, you need to sit tight and wait to see; CoH makes characters of the same role play very differently based on method. As to their description, *Shrug*. I've got no problem with what I've seen, but I also like Wuxia; using inner power or other such justifications is easy to me.

My question still stands; I can't seem to figure out whey I /should/ expect them to work differently without first understanding why it is we feel one should have more limits then the other.

asymmetry is more inherently interesting.

Talya
2008-02-19, 09:58 PM
A beginning DM, or someone who has been a player and just got shifted into the DM's seat, should NOT be shafted by the rules. They're the people WotC has to actually make the game for, because everyone else can easily and proficiently modify the game.

You don't dumb the game down for everyone because there's some novices out there. We were all n00bs once. You don't learn to eat yourself if you're always spoon-fed.



Game balance is bad? Because DMs can do the work to make unbalanced things work? How can you even say that with a straight face?

Trying to equalize everyone's combat balance is bad. You essentially genericize the entire class system that way.


I HATED the non-saga edition Jedi and never allowed them in my game, because they always could outdo all of the other characters both in versatility and pure power. There was almost never any reason to be anything except a Jedi. Saga edition at least allows a party to stand on equal ground.

To be fair, I didn't play d20 star wars much outside KotOR/KotOR2. I did play West End's d6 star wars (and loved it), and Jedi were more powerful than other characters (at least those who learned the force after character generation, anyway), and yet never felt that they were imbalancing the game. That could simply be a factor of Star Wars d6 not using a class-based system, however.


I don't want wizards to be able to break the rules into little pieces just because that's how it's always been done.

They can't, as it is. As I stated, LogicNinja's "Batman Wizard" is a theoretical design that doesn't work in any experienced DM's campaign. This is because "Batman," like his namesake in comic books, relies on a superhuman level of forethought and planning to pull off. And your players never have that. I don't care how smart you think you are--I'm the DM, I have more power to surprise than you do to plan. You might think you're the Dark Knight, but I'm not the Joker, I'm not even God. God's a gimp compared to me...because I'm the motherfrackin' DM. I can be totally fair and follow the rules, and still kick your finger-waggling ass from here to the astral plane and back, all while keeping the fighter useful and without invoking Rule 0, because I'm the goddamn DM.


And listen closely here: it's okay for high level wizards to be powerful, but high level anything should be just as powerful. Excluding everyone else just because the wizards have more mythology behind them is terrible game design and unfair to the people actually trying to play anything else.

Again, I disagree. They do not need to be as powerful. They do need to be essential. There's a difference. The most powerful party member is not always the most needed or useful...even in a fight.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 10:00 PM
No, they don't. I've played mostly melee types, and I've never felt overshadowed by the finger-waggling wimps. I've 3.5 DMed games myself and I know how to make sure that melee are not overshadowed by the unholy Wizard/Druid/Cleric trinity. You're presenting a false dillemma--that everyone needs to be equal, or else some people won't have fun. That's just not the case.
You know how to optimize fighters, so /you/ can be just as good. That's just fragging super, but what about those of us who don't have the thousands of splatbooks necessary to accomplish such a feat? What about newer players? I'm not presenting a false dilemma; In a game based on combat, people need to be equally capable in the end.


Everyone needs to be valuable, not equal. Everyone needs to have an important role to play, they don't all need to be an equal threat on the battlefield.
Now /this/ is true, but that factors into class balance, and it's what /I/ mean by Equal.


The balance and equality in combat that you speak of is what reminds me most of MMO design, and it's utterly unnecessary--even detrimental-- in a game with a DM.
Yeah, that's because those games know they're combat. In a combat-based game, people need to be balanced against each other. DnD finally wised up to this. In what sense is combat balance detrimental. And leave your preconceptions on who 'should' be most powerful behind for a minute when you do this. From where I'm sitting, there's myth and fiction that shows every character archetype being awesome, so nobody should be 'more' awesome then the other. Is it /only/ detrimental because it destroys your preconceptions, or is there something different?


The entire concept of a wizard becomes lame if it does not in some way provide them with power above that of mere mortal strongmen. That doesn't mean that the wizard's going to get far without one or two of those strongmen protecting his ass.

Define "Power above".


asymmetry is more inherently interesting.
We already have asymmetry in DnD. It's boring as hell, if you're not a class with tactical options.

Leon
2008-02-19, 10:11 PM
And, if you role-play on an MMO, or make up a backstory for your character...that's just a little kinda creepy.


Do tell why?

Given that the full Acronym is MMORPG

Vortling
2008-02-19, 10:27 PM
I can be totally fair and follow the rules, and still kick your finger-waggling ass from here to the astral plane and back, all while keeping the fighter useful and without invoking Rule 0, because I'm the goddamn DM.


May I please see an in-game example of this for a level 20 party? Please don't take this as a snarky request. I've not played or DM'd DnD above 7th level and would honestly like to see what sort of situation meets all the criteria you stated there. If you could set the challenge/encounter against the iconic DnD party (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) it would be even more helpful.

Thank you.

You can PM the encounter setup and monster tactics to me if you don't want to take up spacd in this particular thread.

Artanis
2008-02-19, 10:27 PM
I don't get it, Tayla.

You're saying that 3.5 was fine when the DM was able to compensate for the problems. In the same breath, you say that WotC should most certainly NOT make it so that more than the elite few are capable of said compensation.

So as far as I can tell, you're saying that the other 95% of us who don't have the greatest DM in history are not allowed to have any fun because, rather than WotC trying to fix what's broken, that should be left up to people who could very well be incapable of such systemic changes.

Personally, I want to have fun when I play a game. If playing a game means suffering through a massive learning curve during which the game simply doesn't work...that's not a game I want to play. And a game I don't want to play is a game I don't want to buy. And a game I don't want to buy is money that WotC loses. And money that WotC loses brings them that much closer to extinction as a company or, at the very least, a division within that company.

Vyker
2008-02-19, 10:28 PM
Everyone at the table needs to be roughly as good as each other in combat, in a game based on combat; Perfect balance is a myth, but they should be fairly close, so that people can all have fun.

Key factor: "In a game based on combat."

Which is true -- D&D is a combat simulator with an RPG tacked on. There's a ton of base and prestige classes where I think, "That'd be an awesome concept -- in another game." But in D&D, it's all about that hack'n'slash, and if your DM dresses it up, that's above and beyond. I prefer to play in those "above and beyond" games, but I never lose sight of the fact that D&D is all about combat, and certain things just don't fly because they suck at combat.

I'll give you an example from a game I ran. We were playing Exalted, where just about everything is Cool. One of our players was specialized in -- are you ready for it? -- calligraphy. Not "dabbled in," or "had a side-focus," but was utterly devoted to the stuff. Everything tied back to it. Heck, she was even cooler in combat than the sword-wielders and word-mumblers. She killed you with style.

Yeah. Bring that to your D&D group.

Does that make Exalted better? No. But Exalted has a different focus, a different intent. D&D is combat, and everything follows from there. It makes sense that the game should recognize that fact and act around it.

--

Edit: Here here, Artanis! I echo that sentiment whole-heartedly!

Deepblue706
2008-02-19, 10:40 PM
We already have asymmetry in DnD. It's boring as hell, if you're not a class with tactical options.

I believe what Cybren means in saying



asymmetry is more inherently interesting.

is that while you want everyone to be useful, there should still be a variety of how things feel. I agree. D&D may currently have terrible balance issues, but that doesn't necessarily come about because of the concept of asymmetry - it comes about when the system isn't thought out well.

Tengu
2008-02-19, 10:42 PM
Does that make Exalted better? No. But Exalted has a different focus, a different intent. D&D is combat, and everything follows from there. It makes sense that the game should recognize that fact and act around it.


Alone, no. But when you add all the aspects of Exalted together, you receive a much better game than DND. Not to mention that Exalted has much more fun and balanced combat than DND ever had.

Reel On, Love
2008-02-19, 10:42 PM
They can't, as it is. As I stated, LogicNinja's "Batman Wizard" is a theoretical design that doesn't work in any experienced DM's campaign. This is because "Batman," like his namesake in comic books, relies on a superhuman level of forethought and planning to pull off. And your players never have that. I don't care how smart you think you are--I'm the DM, I have more power to surprise than you do to plan. You might think you're the Dark Knight, but I'm not the Joker, I'm not even God. God's a gimp compared to me...because I'm the motherfrackin' DM. I can be totally fair and follow the rules, and still kick your finger-waggling ass from here to the astral plane and back, all while keeping the fighter useful and without invoking Rule 0, because I'm the goddamn DM.

What are you talking about? "Batman" is just about using the best spells in the game, and using them to hit creatures' weak saves, low touch ACs, et cetera.

What's more, DMs tend to, you know, plan. If as PCs, we're fighting an evil cult, then odds are a lot of our encounters are going to be with humanoids, with divine casters and evil outsiders thrown in. And if it turns out that, oh hey, there's a dragon for some reason... well, the same spells that work against evil outsiders work about as well against dragons.

Batman's planning is more along the lines of "I have a good spell selection, and I'm carrying a bunch of scrolls of Mirror Image and a couple of Alter Self, Fly, Greater Invisibility, and Solid Fog--plus that Command Undead and the Comprehend Languages from way back when" than anything you're talking about.

webgem
2008-02-19, 10:44 PM
I kinda feel like balanced is sorta up to some perspective here. I'm kinda a newb to the 4th edition stuff, so I probably don't know it all, but is there a list of some of the example powers anywhere. Because to me balanced and essential could really be the same thing. Now here is where I have a problem with things like Book of Nine Swords. The things a wizard can do and the things a fighter can do seem very similar. I think that everyone should be equally balanced and essential. Meaning this. For a 20th level wizard and a 20th level fighter there should be sharply defined essential roles, but they excell at those rolls to be "balanced". For example a fighter would be at least as good as a druid or a cleric in combat, and most of the time better, across the whole level spectrum. I don't necessarily think this is true right now in 3.5, not a scientist, but assuming a cleric and fighter of equal optimization, who wins in a melee fight, assuming both are geared that way. Why is the fighter essential in 3.5? Because it seems like a cleric can do all and more with very little "batman" about it.

Zincorium
2008-02-19, 10:51 PM
You don't dumb the game down for everyone because there's some novices out there. We were all n00bs once. You don't learn to eat yourself if you're always spoon-fed.

You also don't learn to eat if you get stabbed in the face with a spoon. The key point you're missing is this:

The difference between you and a brand new DM is you know how to change things. Most new DM's don't have a good grasp of how to change the system so it works, and furthermore, they don't know they have to.

Again, WotC should make the game for the people who have to play it out of the box, as is, with no compensation. Everyone else was going to be fine anyway.


Trying to equalize everyone's combat balance is bad. You essentially genericize the entire class system that way.

Making it so somebody is absolutely screwed over because they chose a class they like is worse. Again, you're an experienced player, frickin' deal with the genericized classes and change them if they bug you.


To be fair, I didn't play d20 star wars much outside KotOR/KotOR2.

Kotor worked well in a single player game where the main character was a Jedi. Imagine Kotor if everyone was a jedi except you. That's a star wars game with the non-saga edition rules.


I did play West End's d6 star wars (and loved it), and Jedi were more powerful than other characters (at least those who learned the force after character generation, anyway), and yet never felt that they were imbalancing the game. That could simply be a factor of Star Wars d6 not using a class-based system, however.

You didn't find them unbalancing. Yet you've stated that balance is bad. If we take your logic at face value, that would mean you hated the game.


They can't, as it is. As I stated, LogicNinja's "Batman Wizard" is a theoretical design that doesn't work in any experienced DM's campaign.

I doubt you've thoroughly read the guide. There's nothing about batman that isn't explicitly allowed by the PHB, you must change the rules for it not to work.

Changing the rules so the game isn't broken means those rules are bad.


This is because "Batman," like his namesake in comic books, relies on a superhuman level of forethought and planning to pull off.

You're standards of 'superhuman' are decidedly low. People pull it off, I have seen this.


And your players never have that. I don't care how smart you think you are--I'm the DM, I have more power to surprise than you do to plan. You might think you're the Dark Knight, but I'm not the Joker, I'm not even God. God's a gimp compared to me...because I'm the motherfrackin' DM. I can be totally fair and follow the rules, and still kick your finger-waggling ass from here to the astral plane and back, all while keeping the fighter useful and without invoking Rule 0, because I'm the goddamn DM.

Good for you. But you could do the SAME EXACT THING without the classes being horribly unbalanced.

Hey, maybe you could even... unbalance them yourself. And let everybody else use well designed classes that don't have a built in pecking order. Because "you're the goddam DM".



Again, I disagree. They do not need to be as powerful. They do need to be essential. There's a difference. The most powerful party member is not always the most needed or useful...even in a fight.

Not always, yes. But most of the time. Enough that it's annoying. And fighters aren't essential in 3.5 like they were in first or second edition, the cleric and druid can replace them without too much effort and still perform another function.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 11:01 PM
I believe what Cybren means in saying



is that while you want everyone to be useful, there should still be a variety of how things feel. I agree. D&D may currently have terrible balance issues, but that doesn't necessarily come about because of the concept of asymmetry - it comes about when the system isn't thought out well.

Well.. what would constitute "Feels different"? Is it just a preference thing, or am I missing something?

Solo
2008-02-19, 11:14 PM
This is because "Batman," like his namesake in comic books, relies on a superhuman level of forethought and planning to pull off.

You mean like my DM dropping hints for us?

Or how about preparing a few save or X spells geared towards each of the three main saves, other spells that can be applied in a wide variety of situations (Haste, perhance), scrolls of other utility spells, and a wand of Magic Missile as backup?


Granted, I may be biased as I am likely to be a lot better at strategy and tactics compared to most other people, but it doesn't seem that hard...


To play Batman, you mus think strategically. You have these wonderful options, and must find a delivery system for them.

The most efficient use of your resources, therefore, would be to memorize level dependent, general purpose, and often used spells most of time, with room for some more specialized spells depending on what you think you will be facing, with scrolls and wands of other spells to deliver level independent spells that you won't need to use all the time, but need to break out on a special occasion.

KindaChang
2008-02-19, 11:25 PM
Wait, wait, wait...

did I see something about abilities with cool downs?

If I want to play WoW, I'll freaking play WoW.

Rutee
2008-02-19, 11:28 PM
1: They're wrong, for PCs. PCs don't have cooldowns, to our knowledge.
2: Monsters have /had/ cool downs. See: Dragon's Breath.

Solo
2008-02-19, 11:30 PM
Wait, wait, wait...

did I see something about abilities with cool downs?

If I want to play WoW, I'll freaking play WoW.

Cooldown has been present in third edition, hasn't it?

"X monster must wait Y rounds until it can use Z ability again."

Good job, Chang, you've raised a non-issue.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-19, 11:31 PM
PC's have had cooldowns too, though. See the binder, for example.

KindaChang
2008-02-19, 11:32 PM
Monsters have had them, I'm trying to think of a PC that has them without being a monster for their race and failing.

Artanis
2008-02-19, 11:35 PM
Monsters have had them, I'm trying to think of a PC that has them without being a monster for their race and failing.
Try any non-spontaneous spellcaster.

"Magic Missile #1. Cooldown: Until next 8-hour nap"

ZekeArgo
2008-02-19, 11:36 PM
Monsters have had them, I'm trying to think of a PC that has them without being a monster for their race and failing.

Dragonfire adepts who take the feat to get cooldowns, to make use of metabreath feats...

Rutee
2008-02-19, 11:36 PM
Monsters have had them, I'm trying to think of a PC that has them without being a monster for their race and failing.

To our knowledge, PCs /still/ don't have CDs in 4e. Why are you flipping out if the status quo is maintained, unless you don't like the status quo?

Deepblue706
2008-02-19, 11:39 PM
Well.. what would constitute "Feels different"? Is it just a preference thing, or am I missing something?

Well, if everyone has what essentially amounts to a "toolbar" with respective combat abilities that often mimic one another, and have everyone "contribute equally" to the point where everyone is in the same room with different dressing-curtains...then things will start feeling a bit lame to those who like variety.

Have you ever played the game Jedi Knight? Personally, I've only played the second one: Jedi Outcast. Now, at some points, the game is just a first-person shooter (you only begin with blasters). However, when you get your lightsaber, the game changes significantly. It changes to 3rd person, you do acrobatics, there's lightsaber clashes...you get the picture. Both modes have their own styles, and you can easily distinguish between the two. Having both makes the game cool because it's not just shooting, and not just stabbing. It's proportional to the effect you want it to be.

I think if there are different methods of functioning for a Fighter's abilities than for a Wizard's abilities, then there is a mechanical aspect that makes playing each a different experience. However, many people note that Tome of Battle makes martial characters similar to Wizards, via maneuvers, etc.

Now, while I'm all for making martial characters useful at higher levels, and giving them neato abilties - I do not believe that classes should get too close to one-another in this way, because then things start to get repetitive. Personally, while some of the aspects of the Tome of Battle are good, I would probably seek other ways to emulate more fantastic warriors with flashy abilities - solely in the name of making the experience for each class more different.

MMOs sometimes fail to make these distinctions, which I believe Cybren is getting at.

Solo
2008-02-19, 11:43 PM
Monsters have had them, I'm trying to think of a PC that has them without being a monster for their race and failing.

Barbarian Rage comes sorta close. Not really, though.

TempusCCK
2008-02-19, 11:52 PM
4e and WoW have some pretty obvious similarities, while they may not be 100%, there are some things that have bugged me.

The fighter is a prime example.

The "Defender" role screams tank. There are several abilities to make the fighter more "sticky" (meaning the enemy can't get away from him) and he's designed to take all the hits for the party. This, my friends, is called "Drawing Aggro" in WoW. We have a new name, but it's in essense the same thing.

Also, you have a fighter who chooses a weapon, and then, he gets to use skills that fall into three distinct disciplines... and he get's to specialize in these disciplines.

Talent trees anyone?

Similar "3 paths, you choose one" ideas came up with Bards and other classes too.

"Strikers" are essentially damage dealers. In WoW, we call those the "DPS" characters.

The Warlock (this is probably the most nasty of the comparisons) get's to kill a "marked" target, and when he does, he gets Soul Boons on behalf of his chosen evil power. I mean, anyone who's played WoW has heard of the Warlocks Soul shards or whatever. This is the same freakin' concept.

So, while alot of this is going to be expanded, and changed (I'm sure many many times as Wizards pumps out more books to make money/expand the system) Right now, there's definately a link to be made there.

There is also a link to be made between the fact that WoW is pretty simple to pick up and play,a nd it seems like Wizards is heading that way, along with expanding their online services to subscriptions very similar to WoW. The same formula for profit is being implemented here. Easy for beginners, draws potentially huge crowds, and then you make them pay for services that were once free. (SRD/Battle.net)

Solo
2008-02-20, 12:03 AM
The "Defender" role screams tank. There are several abilities to make the fighter more "sticky" (meaning the enemy can't get away from him) and he's designed to take all the hits for the party. This, my friends, is called "Drawing Aggro" in WoW. We have a new name, but it's in essense the same thing.

http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Goad,all

Goad: Miniatures Handbook, Races of Stone, Complete Adventurer

You are skilled at inducing opponents to attack you.

Prerequisite: Cha 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: As a move action, you can goad an opponent that threatens you, has line of sight to you, can hear you, and has an Intelligence of 3 or higher. (The goad is a mind-affecting ability.) When the goaded opponent starts its next turn, if it threatens you and has line of sight to you, it must make a Will saving throw (DC 10+ 1/2 your character level + your Cha modifier). If the opponent fails its save, you are the only creature it can make melee attacks against during this turn. (If it kills you, knocks you unconscious, loses sight of you, or otherwise is unable to make melee attacks against you, it may make any remaining melee attacks against other foes, as normal.) A goaded creature can still cast spells, make ranged attacks, move, or perform other actions normally. The use of this feat restricts only melee attacks.
Special: A fighter may select Goad as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-20, 12:05 AM
Meh, the only thing that bugs me of the system is that a fighter is supposed to tank. Fighters are trained to hit hardest, for crying out loud! That a skinny rogue can do more with one dagger to the back than a fighter with 26 attacka with dual longswords that have been carefully prepared to be executed as a whirlwind attack is rediculous.

Artanis
2008-02-20, 12:07 AM
4e and WoW have some pretty obvious similarities, while they may not be 100%, there are some things that have bugged me.

The fighter is a prime example.

The "Defender" role screams tank. There are several abilities to make the fighter more "sticky" (meaning the enemy can't get away from him) and he's designed to take all the hits for the party. This, my friends, is called "Drawing Aggro" in WoW. We have a new name, but it's in essense the same thing.
Wrong. They've made it VERY clear that aggro has nothing to do with it. The Fighter "tanks" by making it very, very painful to attack somebody other than him.

You know how a WoW Rogue tanks a mob when he spams one too many Backstabs? Yeah, that's how a Fighter "tanks" in 4e.


Also, you have a fighter who chooses a weapon, and then, he gets to use skills that fall into three distinct disciplines... and he get's to specialize in these disciplines.

Talent trees anyone?

Similar "3 paths, you choose one" ideas came up with Bards and other classes too.
A fighter chooses a weapon and gets skills relevant to that weapon. WoW has nothing even remotely close to that.

In WoW, a Warrior chooses whether he wants an extra 5% damage output from using an axe vs. an extra 5% damage output from using a sword. They feel identical.

In 4e, a Fighter chooses between using a sword to unleash an ungodly storm of blows, or a spear to ignore enemy armor, or any number of other, drastically different-"feeling" AND different-working abilities.


"Strikers" are essentially damage dealers. In WoW, we call those the "DPS" characters.
Yes, because nobody *coughSorcerer* ever dealt *coughEvoker* damage in any previous editions *coughRogue* of DnD *coughBarbarian*.


The Warlock (this is probably the most nasty of the comparisons) get's to kill a "marked" target, and when he does, he gets Soul Boons on behalf of his chosen evil power. I mean, anyone who's played WoW has heard of the Warlocks Soul shards or whatever. This is the same freakin' concept.
Mind linking to where they said this? I can't seem to find a source, and would appreciate seeing one



There is also a link to be made between the fact that WoW is pretty simple to pick up and play,a nd it seems like Wizards is heading that way, along with expanding their online services to subscriptions very similar to WoW. The same formula for profit is being implemented here. Easy for beginners, draws potentially huge crowds, and then you make them pay for services that were once free. (SRD/Battle.net)
*headdesk* WHY DOES NOBODY ACTUALLY READ WHAT WIZARDS SAYS? WHY?

The online service is optional. Say it with me again, OPTIONAL. You buy the books. You play with the books. You never, ever touch the web content unless you actually want to. Not once. Ever.

OPTIONAL.

*sigh*

TempusCCK
2008-02-20, 12:08 AM
Indeed, but there's a very big difference between an optional feat from a side book and a class feature. And as a class feature, I'm sure it's going to be much harder to resist, even for intelligent opponents, which doesn't make sense.

Little_Rudo
2008-02-20, 12:12 AM
...and then you make them pay for services that were once free. (SRD/Battle.net)

Other people have already taken care of my other points with this post, and much more eloquently, but I thought I'd point this out. Unfortunately, I'm terrible with sources (and I need to log off and sleep for a test in the morning), but I'm almost certain that they've announced the SRD will be free. If anyone could find this citation for Tempus, I'd appreciate it!

Solo
2008-02-20, 12:13 AM
Tempus,

Goad, which came out in CAdv, Ros, and the MHB (published in 2003, a year before WoW), predates 4th edition and allows a fighter to "tank".

What have you to say to this? is 3.5 retroactively becoming more WoW like?

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:13 AM
Doesn't the Knight from PHB2 have /aggro/ as a class feature?

Also, the Warlock thing.. there are already abilities that grant you bonuses when you kill a particular opponent (I know there's one in DMG 3.0, at least, that lets you invoke a Chosen Enemy, and if you kill them, you get morale bonuses for the day)

Artanis
2008-02-20, 12:17 AM
Other people have already taken care of my other points with this post, and much more eloquently, but I thought I'd point this out. Unfortunately, I'm terrible with sources (and I need to log off and sleep for a test in the morning), but I'm almost certain that they've announced the SRD will be free. If anyone could find this citation for Tempus, I'd appreciate it!
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13462933&postcount=132

TempusCCK
2008-02-20, 12:21 AM
*headdesk* WHY DOES NOBODY ACTUALLY READ WHAT WIZARDS SAYS? WHY?

The online service is optional. Say it with me again, OPTIONAL. You buy the books. You play with the books. You never, ever touch the web content unless you actually want to. Not once. Ever.

OPTIONAL.

*sigh*

Indeed, but it's still a service that was once free and is now at a cost, which is my point.

As for your other points, the fighter isn't "Drawing Aggro" in the same sense as WoW, but it's the same effect. Defining the fighter into one, damage taking role. He may make it hurt to ignore him, but that "stickyness" line bugs me. I could very well see "Goad" as a class feature. "Fighters job is to draw the enemies attention and hold it." The effect is the same as WoW, but the method may or may not be different, it's yet to be seen.

Also, you said nothing to refute my "talent tree claim" sure, they choose a weapon and get bonuses based on that, after that, there's three categories you get to specialize in, as I understand it, that is the freakin' talent tree.

I'm not drudging up links for a petty forum argument, the Enwhatever site under Warlock talks about the Soulboons.

Your insinuation of the current class system as a role set does nothing, there is nothing stopping me from making a battlefield control sorceror or Barbarian (with a proper selection of feats) if I so choose. But defining a class solely as a striker and giving them no ability to customize otherwise, is asinine. As far as I can see, there is going to be very little room for movement between the roles as Wizards is dead set on having it this specific way.

This may change in the future, this is how I see it for now.

Edit: Sorry, I did know that the SRD was now free, that's a good step in the right direction. I retract my statements.

To Solo: No, I don't think D&D is retroactively becoming WoW. As a class feature, this would be a reasonable comparison. In 3.5, I can become the aggro drawer if I so choose, in 4e, like WoW, it's forced upon me, if I choose a particular base class.

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:24 AM
Your insinuation of the current class system as a role set does nothing, there is nothing stopping me from making a battlefield control sorceror or Barbarian (with a proper selection of feats) if I so choose. But defining a class solely as a striker and giving them no ability to customize otherwise, is asinine. As far as I can see, there is going to be very little room for movement between the roles as Wizards is dead set on having it this specific way.

Everything in the Races and Classes book indicates that you can still alter someone's role. They're just acknowledging that people /have/ them.

EvilElitest
2008-02-20, 12:24 AM
This was the main problem with most supposed "balance issues" in 3.5. They don't really exist, except for a few minor issues (like the Monk class in general.) The fighter is not really that weak, the wizard not really that amazingly strong, because all the theoretical batman crap relies on your DM being an idiot and letting you get away with it. MMOs don't have a DM, so all the classes need to be carefully balanced in power, as it needs to run by itself. In D&D 3.5 and older, the wizard is supposed to be more powerful than the fighter at high levels. That's how it was designed. That doesn't mean the fighter is not useful or unnecessary, because it's trivially easy for the good DM to ensure this, both mechanically and from a storyline standpoint...but the melee types are supposed to be every bit in awe of the party wizard as the fellowship was of Gandalf (and he wasn't even all that flashy a wizard), or as in awe of the druid as the Shannara kids are of Allanon, etc. Notice that Gandalf didn't steal the show in LotR, despite being the immortal celestial outsider wizard? It wasn't the godlike that saved Middlearth, but the smallest man who changed the course of history.

I'm going to have to disagree on this on, because i think balance is essential in any game, and wizards being over powered was one of the biggest problems of 3E.

Anyways back on topic


I'm going to bump the issue slightly and compare 4E to video games in general, not specifically MMOs

Now a while ago people were saying how 4E was far too anime, and i think that is rather unfair. I think 4E is more like general video games


Now i'm going to just bring up one single issue, and this is the NPC/PC realtionship and world consistency/mechanics vs. fluff

Now in a video game the world literally revolves around you. Everything is focused upon you the PC(s). You are special, unique, god like, one of a kind (except MMOs but same idea) ect. The world is built around you, nothing gets solved without your help, nothing changes unless you do, nobody else (other than other players) have similar powers or abilities. Basically, you are the only person in the world with your powers who can get things down. Without you the world would never change. In WOW or Legend of Zelda, nobody other than you really gets stuff accomplished (this isn't quite true for WOW but still)
The world bends backward to accommodate you. Not only does it not change if you don't help it, the world is specially tailored to suit your needs. Be it special abilities, method to obtain something, or strangely convenient world, everything works out for you. the world's luck is really looking out for you, need a password, hey those guys are talking about it outside. Need your weapons back, don't worry, the NPCs won't take them and use them for their own use, they will just leave them in a near by chest. Hey, the bad guy's big weak point has a shiny light over it. Oh my god, just when i need a special item the path that was blocked until then opens. You get the idea. You never have to really act like your in a realistic world because the world obeys you, every time you need something it accommodates, it is like a very loving teacher who guides you through every problem (real life is that teacher who secretly hates you and loves to see you suffer).

In video games for obvious reasons, you have very limited freedom. In assassin's creed i have only four ways to get information on my target (beat his best friend until he tells me information then shank him, listen to dudes form 15 yards away, pick pockets and do odd jobs for my own men before they tell me crucial information). Rather simplistic , but hte game doesn't have you simple wander around the city talking to random people (screw that, i can't talk to anyone, or open doors or pick up money) or sneak into your target's house and slit his throat, informants be screwed. Now in a video game this is understandable, they simple can't pull that sort of deal off with current tech. However in D&D nothing limits you. But moving on

NPCs in video games are the worsts, they are freaking useless

They are ether quest givers, walking exp, mindless monsters, shop keepers or dudes who just randomly talk to you (not all the time but most of the time). They are often totally unaware of the world they live in, and never do the smart thing (for example, why doesn't the Hoard send troops to wipe out the low level monsters, they have level 55 guards in most of those cities. Or why don't the guards in Assassin's creed act so bloody stupid? Ect). They are often totally unable to defend themselves and will never never never help you in a useful way if they can help it (DAMN YOU NAVI, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, sob). They are basically, useless and exist for scenery or the plot. The villains never play smart ether, they don't do things like killing you in your sleep (if you sleep that is) or send all their guys at your at once. This isn't even hand waved most of the time, they just don't.

They are also normally very 2-D in personality, doubly so for the monsters (this is rather debatable, i mean Jade Empire and Baldur's Gate had some really cool NPCs) but most monsters are basically mindless mooks who swarm forward and let you bring them down. Like in the Lord of the Rings action games. This also goes along with inconsistent mechanics. What applies to you doesn't apply to other people. For example, in Assassin's creed, every enemy will go down one hit in a sword fight if you hit their blade enough times (strangely hitting them in the back doesn't work however?) but you can take like a few dozen hits before becoming near death. Or they fall from a two story building they are dead, you fall from a six story and your down half health. Bad example, this is true in D&D as well because of hit points, but Assassin's creed tries to be realistic so.....

Better example, in Lords of the Rings Two Towers you get these special powers that you can buy like flaming swords and magic arrows. But nobody else uses even the most basic of these and no explanation is offered. Or in any final Fantasy game, the powers you have as a black mage, white mage ect are never commonplace, you are normally hte only black mage, white mage, red mage ect. Also in Final Fantasy, i have maybe 69 Phoenix downs but i can't use any of them (tales of Smphotnia i'm looking at you as well, your cool plot regardless) or how in Fable nobody uses real spells. Often times monsters won't be a monster version of your class, but a monster who happen to cast their own spells. NPCs are generally simple lesser to PCs, they just suck. In battle of Middle earth Heros are better than entire armies of foot troops. Yes Freaking Pippin and Same are worth more than a few orc hoards. Ever notice in Fable why they are no other people who's physical appearance changes because of alignment. Final Fantasy, you are amazing because your the main character most of the time. Warcraft III with the heros, or WOW with the fact that NPCs are freaking useless in taht they often don't have powers that PCs do or are totally unable of solving their problems (your level 33, i'm level 18, what are you thinking?). In resident evil 4 the fact that they send you in alone on such an important mission with a single hand gun is absurd

Is this a bad thing on all video games? No, it can be excused, it is part of the genre. However D&D doesn't have those limitations and shouldn't fall for those problems. 3E was flawed yes, i'm not going to deny that, but it was (mostly) consistent, and "realistic" in its setting. Monster races were just monsters with classes, magic worked the same, everybody died at -9 not just PCs. It was a consistent, somewhat believable world, and that is being changed. It is becoming more flashy, more simplistic, less consistent, and more focused upon the video game ideal of "the world literally, not figurativlly revolves around the PCs", this lead to



well i'm coughing up blood all of sudden, um, i'm going to a doctor, talk later
from
EE

Ozymandias
2008-02-20, 12:32 AM
Is this a bad thing on all video games? No, it can be excused, it is part of the genre. However D&D doesn't have those limitations and shouldn't fall for those problems. 3E was flawed yes, i'm not going to deny that, but it was (mostly) consistent, and "realistic" in its setting. Monster races were just monsters with classes, magic worked the same, everybody died at -9 not just PCs. It was a consistent, somewhat believable world, and that is being changed. It is becoming more flashy, more simplistic, less consistent, and more focused upon the video game ideal of "the world literally, not figurativlly revolves around the PCs", this lead to

well i'm coughing up blood all of sudden, um, i'm going to a doctor, talk later
from
EE

Firstly, it's not 'becoming' those things ("flashy, less consistent") because it hasn't been released yet and thus you are merely speculating based on a few preliminary releases.

More importantly: if you want to eschew whatever player-centric ideas because it suits your play style, that's perfectly fine; if it's not worth the effort altering it, buy a different system. That's all there is to it.

The fact that you enjoy games where PCs die at the same rate at everyone else and NPCs are important and dynamic and all that is great. You really don't need to inform us of that in an overblown, holier-than-thou manner by insinuating that these changes are bad. Every synod of players will adjust the rules or eliminate them altogether - to suit their play style. That this incarnation's default style doesn't match yours is immaterial.

As an aside, I take offense at your ridiculous oversimplification/stereotyping of video games.

Talya
2008-02-20, 12:33 AM
Or how about preparing a few save or X spells geared towards each of the three main saves, other spells that can be applied in a wide variety of situations (Haste, perhance), scrolls of other utility spells, and a wand of Magic Missile as backup?

If you set up for versatility, you're only good for a single encounter. A good DM will keep you dealing with far more encounters before you have a chance to rest for the day. And make sure item creation time and stops in big cities are limited, too.

(And no, don't pull out Mordenkainen's Mansion. Yes, you can use it, but the world doesn't stop and wait for you to come out. Anyone who regularly uses that to circumvent their limit of spells per day is going to find the going much harder for them, and far less rewarding, their goals far less attainable, than if they'd just continued without their most optimal spells ready for each encounter.)


To play Batman, you mus think strategically. You have these wonderful options, and must find a delivery system for them.

And none of that will help you if the spells are inadequate for what you are facing.



The most efficient use of your resources, therefore, would be to memorize level dependent, general purpose, and often used spells most of time, with room for some more specialized spells depending on what you think you will be facing, with scrolls and wands of other spells to deliver level independent spells that you won't need to use all the time, but need to break out on a special occasion.

Over the course of a full day, or on any given encounter, I can make swinging a sword more efficient at any level than your random general purpose spell selection. You forget that the DM has both your grasp of strategy, and an infinite pool of resources to pull her encounters from, and perfect foreknowledge of the capabilities of what her encounters are fighting...both things that the PC wizard does not have.

Artanis
2008-02-20, 12:41 AM
Indeed, but it's still a service that was once free and is now at a cost, which is my point.
The ability to use a full-3d computerized gaming table was never free, because it never existed.

The ability to use a WotC-supported character-calculator with full splatbook access was never free, because it never existed.

The ability to use a full-3d character model-creator so as to have a picture of your character was never free, because it never existed..


As for your other points, the fighter isn't "Drawing Aggro" in the same sense as WoW, but it's the same effect. Defining the fighter into one, damage taking role. He may make it hurt to ignore him, but that "stickyness" line bugs me. I could very well see "Goad" as a class feature. "Fighters job is to draw the enemies attention and hold it." The effect is the same as WoW, but the method may or may not be different, it's yet to be seen.
If you want to get really, really vague, sure. Both get hit so their buddies don't. But you know what? Any of the 4e classes can do that. They describe in one article how a Rogue acts as the impromptu defender when the Fighter goes down...and I'd like to see a WoW Rogue tank a big-time encounter like Gruul or Illidan or Hogger.


Also, you said nothing to refute my "talent tree claim" sure, they choose a weapon and get bonuses based on that, after that, there's three categories you get to specialize in, as I understand it, that is the freakin' talent tree.
At the level of vagueness required for them to look similar, anything would be practically the same.

I see nothing - NOTHING - hinting at talent trees. I see them saying that Fighter powers can be defined in three broad categories, but that hardly means they're talent trees. It looks to me that they're merely descriptions: stabbing somebody falls into the "stabbing things" catagory, not getting stabbed falls into the "not getting stabbed" category, and whatnot.

However, when you look at WoW Warriors, there's many of each "type" of ability in all three trees. Heroic Strike is a tanking ability, but falls in Arms. Shield Slam is a damage ability, but falls in Protection. Stuff like that.

So no, I see no indication that Fighters will have anything of the sort.


I'm not drudging up links for a petty forum argument, the Enwhatever site under Warlock talks about the Soulboons.
That's all I needed, I found it now, thank you :smallwink:


Yes, the description given sounds vaguely like the Soul Shard mechanic...but also sounds like it could just as easily be completely and utterly different. A "soul boon" - and the name is pretty much the only information regarding its effect that we have to go on - doesn't necessarily mean it creates some sort of token that can be traded in for some effect. It could just as easily mean that when the Warlock offs somebody, his patron gives him an immediate boost. Maybe killing somebody heals the 4e Warlock, for instance.

I'm filing that one in the "we have nowhere near enough information to tell one way or another" category.



Your insinuation of the current class system as a role set does nothing, there is nothing stopping me from making a battlefield control sorceror or Barbarian (with a proper selection of feats) if I so choose. But defining a class solely as a striker and giving them no ability to customize otherwise, is asinine. As far as I can see, there is going to be very little room for movement between the roles as Wizards is dead set on having it this specific way.

This may change in the future, this is how I see it for now.
As I said before, the 4e classes will not be straitjacketed by any measure of the imagination. They explicitly say that while the Warlock is a Striker, he also makes a damned decent Controller. They describe a scene where a Rogue - a Striker - acts as a Defender. Wizards are "officially" controllers, but in the article talking about them, four of the six Traditions they list all involve blowing things up in various ways...the definition of a Striker. Warlords, a Leader, are described as boosting their teammates by beating the tar out of their targets.

That's a hell of a lot of variation. A lot more than any WoW Rogue or Mage or Warlock or Hunter is gonna get.

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:45 AM
If you set up for versatility, you're only good for a single encounter. A good DM will keep you dealing with far more encounters before you have a chance to rest for the day. And make sure item creation time and stops in big cities are limited, too.
Only if you press all 3 saves in every fight, really. And even then, it 'shouldn't' press them harder within a single fight unless you want them doing everything.


And none of that will help you if the spells are inadequate for what you are facing.
How do you do that without arbitrarily setting Save DCs (Which do affect the melee, albeit less) and SR higher then ordinary?




Over the course of a full day, or on any given encounter, I can make swinging a sword more efficient at any level than your random general purpose spell selection. You forget that the DM has both your grasp of strategy, and an infinite pool of resources to pull her encounters from, and perfect foreknowledge of the capabilities of what her encounters are fighting...both things that the PC wizard does not have.
The DM has an infinite pool. How's the fighter going to keep swinging his sword when the cleric's out of heals and All-Party buffs though? The Wizard doesn't have to outlast you. Just the rest of the party.


and I'd like to see a WoW Rogue tank a big-time encounter like Gruul or Illidan or Hogger.
I've tanked as a Subtlety Rogue with some Combat Spec and PvP gear. Not a raid, and definitely not Hogger (horridly OP encounter that he is), but I've tanked a yellow Instance.

SmartAlec
2008-02-20, 12:48 AM
But defining a class solely as a striker and giving them no ability to customize otherwise, is asinine. As far as I can see, there is going to be very little room for movement between the roles as Wizards is dead set on having it this specific way.

You've completely overlooked the one most important factor in character customisation - multiclassing. If WotC take their cues from the Star Wars SAGA Edition, and I think they will, multiclassing will be a lot less hurtful and easier to pull off. Customisation and such will be a lot easier to handle, and because of the talent tree system which you malign, it'll be simpler to 'dip into' other classes and take the abilities from the classes you choose that complement where you want to take your character.

Solo
2008-02-20, 12:49 AM
If you set up for versatility, you're only good for a single encounter. A good DM will keep you dealing with far more encounters before you have a chance to rest for the day. And make sure item creation time and stops in big cities are limited, too.

4 encounters per day is the standard I go by when posting theoretical stuff. I can't say what a RL DM would do, so I'm going to go by the nearest approximation I can find.

Heck, IRL, i'm lucky to get two combat encounters done per rest period...

If you're say the DM should overwhelm the wizard with encounters, that not only sounds unlike any DnD game I have ever heard of, and I would question the DM's motives, and if he can truly be called a "good" DM..


And none of that will help you if the spells are inadequate for what you are facing.

Scrolls.

In addition, general purpose spells are so named because they apply to a wide variety of situations, so you can pretty much always use them. Buffs, for example, are great to prepare.


Over the course of a full day, or on any given encounter, I can make swinging a sword more efficient at any level than your random general purpose spell selection.

I never said random. I said the player should determine a list of effective spells of several different types and prepare them. Not roll a d20 and prepare spells based on the results.

You seem to have trouble reading things. You may try again with this post to make up for failing at comprehending the last one.


You forget that the DM has both your grasp of strategy

No he doesn't. Unless you are in my DnD group, I would wager that I know my DM better than you do.


an infinite pool of resources to pull her encounters from, and perfect foreknowledge of the capabilities of what her encounters are fighting

His encounters, actually. And I'm not arguing that I can beat the GM, I'm saying that I can play a very effective wizard in his game if I so chose to.

If we're talking about me beating the DM, that's a whole different story.

While he is older than me, I am stronger, and would therefore be more likely to win in a fight, I believe.

Lex-Kat
2008-02-20, 12:51 AM
Please, explain to me how they plan to make a fighter and a wizard able to go toe to toe/head to head against one another, without making one or the other lame.

Explain how you won't be able to "Batman" the wizard in 4e.

Are they going to take away the wizards meteor and death spells? Remove his ability to use scrolls, wands, rods, staffs? Or will they make it so that the basic fighter, with absolutely no training in magic, can use magic items on the same level as a trained wizard?

How about their mind controlling spells?

Are you going to pump the fighter's wisdom score up so they can defend against mind controlling effects? Or are you going to make it so that the spells are even harder to cast?

How about casting time spells?

If a wizard casts time stop, couldn't he easily walk up to ANYONE and slit their throat with no problem? Or maybe they'll just remove that from the spell lists.

How about HPs?

Will they make a wizards HP as high as a fighters? Maybe they'll make it so that it's based on something other than class. Wouldn't that be grand.

Just think about the computer hacker, who can do "magic" with a computer, able to stand toe to toe with the football jock, who can normally crush any opponent. There is supposed to be differences between the classes. Things one can do but the others can't.

If the guy playing the "Batman" wizard is stealing the show (see: fun), the DM needs to talk to that person. What use is getting together to have fun, if only one person is having it?

It seems to me, 3.x is only broken IF you break it. I'm 100% positive, that given time, 4.x will also be broken, and all of you who are crying for a new system, will be the ones who break it.

Just remember: New is not always better, it's just new.

Zincorium
2008-02-20, 12:55 AM
Hint for Lex-Kat:

It's hard to take your questions seriously when half of them have already been answered on the previews WotC has given. If you're not just flying of the handle rhetorically, you will get a clearer picture of what's going on by visiting the source and doing a bit of research.

And again, it's all well and good to say 'but the DM can just fix it by talking to them'. He can.

But why are some people so keen on FORCING the DM to do so? Can't we just leave that kind of thing as optional, and have the game be able to go on without a heavy handed rebuke by the DM everytime someone uses the options they're given?

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:58 AM
Step one is the new ability system; It's harder to batman when you have a strict limit on your nukes (in the sense of overwhelmingly powerful spells, not /just/ Meteor Swarm), since you only get 1/day of each.. and the Fighter's got Nukes too, now. I'm pretty sure they may actually get rid of Death; I understand they're changing Save or Die to be far, far less numerous. Mind Control? Yeah, the Wizard's losing that, supposedly (It's going to other classes though). I'd rather it be gone altogether, but I dislike absolute control effects.

You know, they may just get rid of scrolls. I hadn't even thought of that. I'm pretty sure they're going to let Fighters use Magic Items just as well as Mages though, based on the new setup for gear.




If a wizard casts time stop, couldn't he easily walk up to ANYONE and slit their throat with no problem? Or maybe they'll just remove that from the spell lists.

Aren't you already prohibited from interacting with other creatures in a time stop?

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-20, 01:00 AM
I like the things that make it more like a video game.

Reel On, Love
2008-02-20, 01:20 AM
Please, explain to me how they plan to make a fighter and a wizard able to go toe to toe/head to head against one another, without making one or the other lame.

[quote]Explain how you won't be able to "Batman" the wizard in 4e.
They are going to give the wizard powers that are not overwhelmingly effective at what they do. For example, I bet there won't be an Irresistible Dance spell that denies an enemy 1d4+1 rounds of actions with no saving throw.


Are they going to take away the wizards meteor and death spells? Remove his ability to use scrolls, wands, rods, staffs? Or will they make it so that the basic fighter, with absolutely no training in magic, can use magic items on the same level as a trained wizard?

How about their mind controlling spells?
Why, yes, they are going to take away the wizard's death spells. They're taking insta-kill effects in general out, actually. They may remove scrolls as an option, and make wands and staffs do different things.


Are you going to pump the fighter's wisdom score up so they can defend against mind controlling effects? Or are you going to make it so that the spells are even harder to cast?
They could very well give the fighter a better Will defense, *yes*.


How about casting time spells?

If a wizard casts time stop, couldn't he easily walk up to ANYONE and slit their throat with no problem? Or maybe they'll just remove that from the spell lists.
This doesn't even make sense. A wizard can't do that in 3.5, even. Why are you making these broad, sweeping statements with no knowledge of what 4E mechanics are even like?


How about HPs?

Will they make a wizards HP as high as a fighters? Maybe they'll make it so that it's based on something other than class. Wouldn't that be grand.

Just think about the computer hacker, who can do "magic" with a computer, able to stand toe to toe with the football jock, who can normally crush any opponent. There is supposed to be differences between the classes. Things one can do but the others can't.
OBVIOUSLY different classes are going to do different things, geez. That doesn't mean they have to be radically different in EFFECTIVENESS.

If the guy playing the "Batman" wizard is stealing the show (see: fun), the DM needs to talk to that person. What use is getting together to have fun, if only one person is having it?


It seems to me, 3.x is only broken IF you break it. I'm 100% positive, that given time, 4.x will also be broken, and all of you who are crying for a new system, will be the ones who break it.

Just remember: New is not always better, it's just new.
No, 3.x is broken all on its own. Some things are just plain vastly better than others. It's not even as simple as Fighters vs. Wizards--just try making a viable TWF Fighter compared to a two-handed weapon fighter.

Reel On, Love
2008-02-20, 01:21 AM
Please, explain to me how they plan to make a fighter and a wizard able to go toe to toe/head to head against one another, without making one or the other lame.

[quote]Explain how you won't be able to "Batman" the wizard in 4e.
They are going to give the wizard powers that are not overwhelmingly effective at what they do. For example, I bet there won't be an Irresistible Dance spell that denies an enemy 1d4+1 rounds of actions with no saving throw.


Are they going to take away the wizards meteor and death spells? Remove his ability to use scrolls, wands, rods, staffs? Or will they make it so that the basic fighter, with absolutely no training in magic, can use magic items on the same level as a trained wizard?

How about their mind controlling spells?
Why, yes, they are going to take away the wizard's death spells. They're taking insta-kill effects in general out, actually. They may remove scrolls as an option, and make wands and staffs do different things.


Are you going to pump the fighter's wisdom score up so they can defend against mind controlling effects? Or are you going to make it so that the spells are even harder to cast?
They could very well give the fighter a better Will defense, *yes*.


How about casting time spells?

If a wizard casts time stop, couldn't he easily walk up to ANYONE and slit their throat with no problem? Or maybe they'll just remove that from the spell lists.
This doesn't even make sense. A wizard can't do that in 3.5, even. Why are you making these broad, sweeping statements with no knowledge of what 4E mechanics are even like?


How about HPs?

Will they make a wizards HP as high as a fighters? Maybe they'll make it so that it's based on something other than class. Wouldn't that be grand.

Just think about the computer hacker, who can do "magic" with a computer, able to stand toe to toe with the football jock, who can normally crush any opponent. There is supposed to be differences between the classes. Things one can do but the others can't.
OBVIOUSLY different classes are going to do different things, geez. That doesn't mean they have to be radically different in EFFECTIVENESS.

If the guy playing the "Batman" wizard is stealing the show (see: fun), the DM needs to talk to that person. What use is getting together to have fun, if only one person is having it?


It seems to me, 3.x is only broken IF you break it. I'm 100% positive, that given time, 4.x will also be broken, and all of you who are crying for a new system, will be the ones who break it.

Just remember: New is not always better, it's just new.
No, 3.x is broken all on its own. Some things are just plain vastly better than others. It's not even as simple as Fighters vs. Wizards--just try making a viable TWF Fighter compared to a two-handed weapon fighter.

Lex-Kat
2008-02-20, 01:36 AM
Thank you Rutee, for talking the time to answer my questions.

As for the other, if someone is intentionally ruining the game for others, someone needs to talk to them. It's usually the DM, but it doesn't always have to be. Just because the rules are able to be abused doesn't mean you should. This isn't a court of law. Loopholes are not fun for everyone.

And why should I go to the official website of WotC, when someone here will give me answers that are not one sided.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-20, 01:39 AM
Seeing the slow but sure descent of this thread (And forum, Which saddens me greatly, because this place is almost utopic in it's refinement and culture), maybe it'd be easier for the debaters to shout the opening lines from Iron Man?

"Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?"

Lex-Kat
2008-02-20, 01:41 AM
Thank you Real On, Love also.

Solo
2008-02-20, 01:58 AM
Seeing the slow but sure descent of this thread (And forum, Which saddens me greatly, because this place is almost utopic in it's refinement and culture), maybe it'd be easier for the debaters to shout the opening lines from Iron Man?

"Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?"

What you say?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-20, 02:03 AM
Jus' stating my opinion on the way this thread has gone. I'd add a little bit from anoter metal song if I could find it. Something about a scorched land. But I'm rambling.

horseboy
2008-02-20, 02:13 AM
Jus' stating my opinion on the way this thread has gone. I'd add a little bit from anoter metal song if I could find it. Something about a scorched land. But I'm rambling.

Across the Border and down the plain
the tiger eats the bear
No one is right,
No one is wrong,
No one seems to care.


Now excuse me while I hang my head in shame.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-20, 02:19 AM
Well, it wasn't what I was looking for, but it is a fair homage to the playground:

"she's got a smile that it seems to me..." Ehhm, sorry, got it wrong. Here:

Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond the illusion
I was soaring ever higher, but I flew too high
Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreamin',
I can hear them say

Carry on my wayward son,
For there'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Now don't you cry no more


So very true it's scary. I've yet to see another board where people actually try debating instead of engaging in "U suck", "lol u suck n00b" flamewars. The giant is a heaven AND Haven for the weakened poster.

Leon
2008-02-20, 05:21 AM
Seeing the slow but sure descent of this thread

It was doomed the very moment "[4e]4E is NOT WoW or any other MMO" appeared in the title

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-20, 05:33 AM
Wait aren't they planning on not including all the content in the first release making you buy expansion after expansion and pay a fee for some online content? My shenanigans senses are tingling!

Reel On, Love
2008-02-20, 05:34 AM
Wait aren't they planning on not including all the content in the first release making you buy expansion after expansion and pay a fee for some online content? My shenanigans senses are tingling!

No.
No, they weren't.

KIDS
2008-02-20, 06:47 AM
Amen Mr. Friendly, great post. Not that this is going to stop the avalanche of whines in the slightest, but it needed to be said. Best wishes!

Enguhl
2008-02-20, 07:45 AM
Mr. Friendly... To sum up my feelings on this post, I shall use a smiley.

:smallbiggrin:

That pretty much covers it.

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-20, 09:01 AM
What hath I wrought? Ooof.

Anyway...

As for the Digital content and Tempus' allegation that you have to pay for it and it "used to be free".

No, it never was and never will be. The digital content is replacing Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine. It also gives you the whole "digital tabletop" and character portrait studio.

If you got Dragon and Dungeon magazines for free, then I suspect you were shoplifting them.

Morty
2008-02-20, 11:06 AM
It's sorta funny how one logical fallacy spawns another logical fallacy.
Let's see: when 4ed was announced, people were screaming about how it turns D&D into MMO. That's garbage, as pointed out in this thread. However, now people are complaining about "people claiming 4ed=WoW" even when there aren't many of them around and they're ignored anway.

Deepblue706
2008-02-20, 11:10 AM
Egads! Far too much has been said since my last post.

I'll just say Reel On, Love and Solo both express my opinions for me, and if you disagree with either, you're a fool. A fool of the highest calibur.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 11:14 AM
It's sorta funny how one logical fallacy spawns another logical fallacy.
Let's see: when 4ed was announced, people were screaming about how it turns D&D into MMO. That's garbage, as pointed out in this thread. However, now people are complaining about "people claiming 4ed=WoW" even when there aren't many of them around and they're ignored anway.

There's not many of them, but they're very, very vocal.

KIDS
2008-02-20, 11:18 AM
Egads! Far too much has been said since my last post.

I'll just say Reel On, Love and Solo both express my opinions for me, and if you disagree with either, you're a fool. A fool of the highest calibur.

Wahahahah! I know I know, I as well agree with you agreeing with those who agree about disagreeing ...err..... but even such a simple term as 'f' can come back to haunt you.... :smallsmile:

Morty
2008-02-20, 11:44 AM
There's not many of them, but they're very, very vocal.

Vocal? Sometimes, yes, but not always. Very often they disappear within a majority of people who say something constructive. I tend not to notice such opinions, and I'm generally pessimistic towards 4ed- so I don't see why pro-4ed people should pay them more attention. Then again, it provides a nice argument that people who don't like 4ed material so far don't know what they're talking about...

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 11:52 AM
Vocal? Sometimes, yes, but not always. Very often they disappear within a majority of people who say something constructive. I tend not to notice such opinions, and I'm generally pessimistic towards 4ed- so I don't see why pro-4ed people should pay them more attention. Then again, it provides a nice argument that people who don't like 4ed material so far don't know what they're talking about...

Evil Elitist is one of the key offenders, there's a couple of guys who've shown up here as well. As ever if it's something that bugs you, you're going to notice it more.

It's also just a *general* phrase used by people to criticize pretty much any style of play they don't like.

Indon
2008-02-20, 11:59 AM
Powerpoint systems and Essentia are variant systems, just like Mr. Friendly said.
No, they aren't. Psionics, Incarnum, Binding, Truenaming, and other magic systems printed in non-core WotC books are simply non-core systems, not variants.

Variant systems include power-point based spellcasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm), cooldown-based spellcasting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm), and sanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm).

Outside of core, D&D has many different magic (and pseudo-magic, like Psionics and Maneuvers) systems.


The base system for D&D is X many times per Y.
The base system for MMOs is X many times, and then you sit for Y time and get Z back, or drink a potion. You don't have to think ahead as long as you have mana potions.
4.0 is, indeed, throwing a way to recharge your spell casting to keep wizards and sorcerers from drying up in the middle of an important fight, but, as far as we know (so, don't assume), D&D isn't gonna have mana potions.

As I said, there's no mana, but abilities still have cooldowns. Just like in MMO's, abilities have cooldowns proportional to their power - Fireball will be usable every round, while "Mordenkainen's Sword" will only be usable twice per day or somesuch.

Vancian magic does not feature a cooldown system - rate of use does not differ between abilities (AD&D spell memorization nonwithstanding) - in that respect, all spellcasting resources are treated the same.

The per-encounter Maneuver system functions similarly - abilties can be expended, but all refresh simultaneously like spells do after the appointed time. The exception is during combat, where different classes had different recovery methods and rates.


MMOs are not unique...ever. I don't care how r0xx0rz0mG your character is, there are a dozen others exactly the same logged on at the exact same time. 3 of them are jumpin a lot, 2 are asking for free items, and another 4 or 5 are trying to sell you prescription drugs to enhance your...gaming experience.
"You're in a tavern. A cloaked, hooded individual sitting in the corner beckons you over."


As I said a couple lines ago, D&D is unique. Races and Classes in books don't always go together because of Prerequisites. But, hey, if you write a good backstory or role-play the right way, you can be anything.
While there's a lot of racial variety in 3.x, not everything is playable. Not without very heavy houseruling, anyway, which we aren't talking about. As I said, hopefully 4'th edition will be even better in that regard.



It's sorta funny how one logical fallacy spawns another logical fallacy.
Let's see: when 4ed was announced, people were screaming about how it turns D&D into MMO. That's garbage, as pointed out in this thread. However, now people are complaining about "people claiming 4ed=WoW" even when there aren't many of them around and they're ignored anway.

An interesting point.

That said,

Natural Science - Rush (1'st movement)

When the heavenly tide retreats
Along the rocky shoreline
It leaves a trail of tidal pools
In a short-lived galaxy
Each microcosmic planet
A complete society

A simple kind of mirror
To reflect upon our own
All the busy little creatures
Chasing out their destinies
Living in their pools
They soon forget about the sea

(Refrain)
Wheels within wheels in a spiral array
A pattern so grand and complex
Time after time we lose sight of the way
Our causes can't see their effects

Morty
2008-02-20, 12:00 PM
Evil Elitist is one of the key offenders, there's a couple of guys who've shown up here as well. As ever if it's something that bugs you, you're going to notice it more.

Fair enough. However, it's still unfair to blame all people who think alike for something only few of them said.


It's also just a *general* phrase used by people to criticize pretty much any style of play they don't like.

Too true. I remember being guilty of that myself.

Prophaniti
2008-02-20, 12:05 PM
Yay, ranting time!

*Ahem*

I'm seeing a lot of comments in the thread tying into the Great Class Balance debate. Namely the idea that wizards are horribly and irrevocably broken unless the DM does something to stop them from Taking Over the World. I have played many games of D&D and have yet to see a Wizard dominate the scene, marginalize the party, steal the spotlight, or anything of that nature. Except of course in situations where they're supposed to. Is the Fighter going to help the party levitate to that ledge that's just out of throwing range for the grappling hooks? Is the rogue going to decipher that ancient mystical text to solve the riddle so the ceiling doesn't fall on our heads? (ok, maybe, but as a general rule the wizard is in charge of all things ancient/mystical)

This "Batman Wizard" that is bandied about so frequently is nothing more than a logic exercise. I equate it entirely with Pun-Pun. Nothing you do to create Pun-Pun violates any rules either, that's the fun of it. Of course, no one is going to seriously use it in a game, and I've never seen someone seriously use a Batman Wizard. Wizards and Fighters should be vastly different characters to play. IMO Wizards should be more overtly powerful. (I also think it should be a hell of a lot harder to become a wizard, but that's hard to implement fairly in a game) There will be situations where a fighter shines more and these do not have to be specially designed by the DM. There are power limits to the wizard, ones that work fairly well. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with the class at all, merely with the spells they are able to cast. A lot of really ridiculous ones where added in 3E, even moreso in the various splatbooks.

From my own personal experience, wizards are not the game-stealing, world-shattering demigods they're cracked up to be. Even when I try to batman it up a bit and use little direct damage magic, too many monsters and enemies make too many saves. I'm standing (or hovering) there waving my hands about with great flashes of light and color... doing nothing terribly productive. Certainly not enough to overshadow the party fighter, who is happily cleaving through great masses of enemies every round. Until he fumbles on a charge, slams into his intended target and carries both of them through the party cleric, the whole mess ending up against a wall, twitching and groaning. But, hey, that happens to everyone once in a while.

The idea that the [insert class] and [insert class] need to be balanced against each other (ie both have a roughly equal chance of winning) in an arena style match-up just doesn't make sense. The classes in D&D are supposed to be balance with the idea that they support each other, every class filling a role that the others lack, not have a good chance of beating any of the other classes sensless. I'm not saying that balancing they're combat prowess would entirely be a bad thing, but if we must sacrifice the uniqueness of the class to do so, it's not worth it.
[/rant]

Anyway... as far as my concerns with 4E go, I am not one of those people who believe or fear that it's becoming like an MMO. Of course there are similarities between WoW and D&D, they're both fantasy games. We come to such a game with certain expectations (fighters, wizards, dragons, ect) so of course they have many of the same things. The approach to a tabletop RPG is vastly different than the approach to a MMORPG, even if it's only in player attitudes.

I do have a number of concerns and misgivings about 4E, most of these have to do with how much work will be needed to run the campaign world I want instead of the one they're hard-coding into the basic rules. (see: Tieflings)
So most of my concerns are with fluff and very little with actual rule changes, all of which I've so far seen (all three of them) are sensible and taking a promising direction.

I maintain cautious optimism about 4E, but it remains to be seen if I'll actually spend my money on it. The group I play with seems even more... unenthusiastic about the switch, so it will likely be some time after it's release that I bother looking into it.

EvilElitest
2008-02-20, 12:28 PM
Evil Elitist is one of the key offenders, there's a couple of guys who've shown up here as well. As ever if it's something that bugs you, you're going to notice it more.
Grow up Dan, you have a problem with what i say, perfectly fine, but address it rather than whining

It's also just a *general* phrase used by people to criticize pretty much any style of play they don't like.
same can be said for you, your criticizing a style you don't like in you defense


Firstly, it's not 'becoming' those things ("flashy, less consistent") because it hasn't been released yet and thus you are merely speculating based on a few preliminary releases.

I'm basing this off of the preview books, if i'm proven totally wrong well i'll be happy, but with hte information given thus far


More importantly: if you want to eschew whatever player-centric ideas because it suits your play style, that's perfectly fine; if it's not worth the effort altering it, buy a different system. That's all there is to it.

yes it would be, except those player centeric styles were far less so in 3E and are being deliberately encouraged in 4E (from what we've seen thus far)


The fact that you enjoy games where PCs die at the same rate at everyone else and NPCs are important and dynamic and all that is great.
Except i enjoyed 3E because of that. Now if i played 3E and you played Exalted, i couldn't launch a rant if the next edition of exalted is becoming more PC power centric because that is kinda the point of the game i believe. My only complaint with Exalted would be one of personal style, and i would simple not play it. However, D&D is different, the game that i enjoy is being fundamentally changed in a way that i don't like. And not in a pet peeve sort of way. Personally, i liked the old casting system for wizards, and it could be balanced if managed properly (it wasn't). However it was pretty easy to predict it being dropped, as WOTC seems to have gotten all of their popularity polls from forums, and it was dropped. Personally annoying, but i understand why they did it and i don't think it is worth making a big deal over. Personally also annoyed that wizards are now no longer batmen but nukers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnAdventurerIsYou), another pet peeve. I don't mind plenty of minor changes and enjoy some. However, some seem to change what i feel are very important aspects of the game, such as the ability to have a consistent world and verisimilitude (what is the word?). Also this new PC centric in the game both reminds me of video games and keeps me from buying an otherwise interesting game. There is no in game reason for it, it isn't necessary (I mean FR got on fine without it) and it is the new WOTC rule. This and other changes strike me as very video game like (feel free to prove me wrong) and makes the game less enjoyable. This is an edition change, not a game change


You really don't need to inform us of that in an overblown, holier-than-thou manner by insinuating that these changes are bad. Every synod of players will adjust the rules or eliminate them altogether - to suit their play style. That this incarnation's default style doesn't match yours is immaterial.
1. The issue isn't the style itself, it is the change in style
2. How is it holier than thou? Is it any worst than the attitude of some pro 4E people (not all) saying that any criticism is wrong/irrelevant/unimportant.
3. It is a major part of the game play, changing that is possible yes, but then i wouldn't be playing 4E anymore, i'd be playing a tainted version of 4E



As an aside, I take offense at your ridiculous oversimplification/stereotyping of video games.

Sure, what in particular?


On subject, the general idea of a video game is that the world revolves around you, the player. The world is rarely consistent (not totally true) and Logical world is < Player focused world. The world rarely makes logical sense (D&D is somewhat guilty of this, but it tries) and the world's nature is literally designed for the player to be powerful. I have plenty of other points i can make on the comparison , but i need to sleep
from
EE

Rutee
2008-02-20, 12:36 PM
As I said, there's no mana, but abilities still have cooldowns. Just like in MMO's, abilities have cooldowns proportional to their power - Fireball will be usable every round, while "Mordenkainen's Sword" will only be usable twice per day or somesuch.

X/Day or X/Encounter is considerred a CD now? Meaning 3.0 has /been/ using CDs?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 12:37 PM
Grow up Dan, you have a problem with what i say, perfectly fine, but address it rather than whining

Umm, I wasn't whining. I was using you as an example of people who play the "zomgMMO" card. Which you are.

I'd be more than happy to address your arguments, if you actually had any.


same can be said for you, your criticizing a style you don't like in you defense

Umm ... how is criticizing something you don't like the same as blindly and inanely shouting "MMO! MMO!" like it means a damned thing?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 12:40 PM
Fair enough. However, it's still unfair to blame all people who think alike for something only few of them said.

I don't think anybody did. I and others have complained about people comparing 4E to an MMO, nobody's said it's ubiquitous amongst 4E-skeptics.


Too true. I remember being guilty of that myself.

Oh we all have. That and "it's just hack and slash". And don't get me started on the word "Story".

Scintillatus
2008-02-20, 12:53 PM
Stop me if I'm talking out of my bum here, but isn't 4e actually becoming LESS MMO-like?

Consider;


No "eternal war" McGuffin
Only the important participants "respawn"
No author-surrogates swanning around
Each class has a solidly defined role
Healers can do more than just heal
The story is focused on the characters, rather than being "you're part of a huge world, and not even that big a part"
You start out already heroic, without any rat-killing


And other stuff, too.

You could say it's getting to be a lot more like a play, or a film, or a book, but accusing it of being like an MMO seems a bit illogical. :smallsmile:

Muyten
2008-02-20, 12:54 PM
I don't mind plenty of minor changes and enjoy some. However, some seem to change what i feel are very important aspects of the game, such as the ability to have a consistent world and verisimilitude (what is the word?).


See the problem here is that you state is as fact that 4e is going to change the ability to have a consistent world. I (and several others) disagree with that. In fact I think the way you seem to play the game would make for a less consistent world to me than the way I play the game and the way 4E seems to advocate playing the game. That's differing styles of play.

Does 3.X support both styles of play? Yes to some extent but it promotes your kinda play more than mine. Does 4E support both? We don't know since
it's not out yet but from everything I've heard it will only now it will promote my style of play more than yours. So in short it's not that 4E is completely ruining everything for you (you seem to skip a lot of usualys and mostlys in your arguments) it's just that it will not be the recomended style of play.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 12:58 PM
Stop me if I'm talking out of my bum here, but isn't 4e actually becoming LESS MMO-like?

Consider;


No "eternal war" McGuffin
Only the important participants "respawn"
No author-surrogates swanning around
Each class has a solidly defined role
Healers can do more than just heal
The story is focused on the characters, rather than being "you're part of a huge world, and not even that big a part"
You start out already heroic, without any rat-killing


And other stuff, too.

You could say it's getting to be a lot more like a play, or a film, or a book, but accusing it of being like an MMO seems a bit illogical. :smallsmile:

Ironically, each one of these has been listed as something making the game *more* MMO-like.

Rutee
2008-02-20, 01:21 PM
Stop me if I'm talking out of my bum here, but isn't 4e actually becoming LESS MMO-like?

Consider;


Each class has a solidly defined role
Healers can do more than just heal

To be fair, these are enormous trends in MMOs as well (City Of Heroes Support = Wintastic because there's very little healing if you're doing it right), but yes, your point as a whole stansd.



You could say it's getting to be a lot more like a play, or a film, or a book, but accusing it of being like an MMO seems a bit illogical. :smallsmile:

Yes. Yes you could. And you'd be more accurate.

Farmer42
2008-02-20, 01:21 PM
i feel are very important aspects of the game, such as the ability to have a consistent world and verisimilitude (what is the word?)

The problem is that you assume what is verisimilitudinous to you is that way for everyone. Verisimilitude is a subjective noun, not a objective noun. It references a feeling. An emotion. You want to apply your own feelings across the board, and have state that what works for other simply cannot, because it doesn't for you. This is not the case. Your argument relies on modus ponens, but with a lack of objective points, it cannot stand up.

The rules do not create verisimilitude. The feeling of a real world is dependent on the execution of the designer, author, filmmaker, etc. The rules provide a framework for them to work in, they do not themselves create the story or world. The same goes for consistency. The rules, which we haven't seen yet, really, should be internally consistent. We cannot judge the internal consistency yet. Therefore, we cannot complain about whether or not they are consistent. And before you say anything about PCs and NPCs using different rules, if it is specified in the rule set that they do, it is, in fact, internally consistent. That's part and parcel of rules, some people get different ones. The feeling of consistency, again, fall into the hands of whoever is running the story, so in gaming terms, the DM. It is their responsibility to provide these things for you.

Morty
2008-02-20, 01:36 PM
Stop me if I'm talking out of my bum here, but isn't 4e actually becoming LESS MMO-like?

Consider;


No "eternal war" McGuffin
Only the important participants "respawn"
No author-surrogates swanning around
Each class has a solidly defined role
Healers can do more than just heal
The story is focused on the characters, rather than being "you're part of a huge world, and not even that big a part"
You start out already heroic, without any rat-killing


And other stuff, too.

You could say it's getting to be a lot more like a play, or a film, or a book, but accusing it of being like an MMO seems a bit illogical. :smallsmile:

Of course you could, although wheter those things you listed are good things and wheter D&D being more akin to play, movie or book is good trend is a discussion that could fill several threads of its own.

Scintillatus
2008-02-20, 02:17 PM
To be fair, these are enormous trends in MMOs as well (City Of Heroes Support = Wintastic because there's very little healing if you're doing it right), but yes, your point as a whole stansd.

I think City of Heroes breaks the mould as far as MMORPGs go - and it's neither fantasy nor the dreaded "WoW", either. :smallwink:

Fair point, though.

Another thing - is it just me, or is this turning out to be nWoD all over again? One side saying "well, simplification makes it much easier to run and play in, and more fun" and the other saying "dumbing down will fill my games with kiddies!"?

Mr. Friendly
2008-02-20, 02:51 PM
Some points I'd like to address...



I'm seeing a lot of comments in the thread tying into the Great Class Balance debate. Namely the idea that wizards are horribly and irrevocably broken unless the DM does something to stop them from Taking Over the World. I have played many games of D&D and have yet to see a Wizard dominate the scene, marginalize the party, steal the spotlight, or anything of that nature. Except of course in situations where they're supposed to. Is the Fighter going to help the party levitate to that ledge that's just out of throwing range for the grappling hooks? Is the rogue going to decipher that ancient mystical text to solve the riddle so the ceiling doesn't fall on our heads? (ok, maybe, but as a general rule the wizard is in charge of all things ancient/mystical)

I have also played many games of D&D, most of the time as wizard, priest or other spellcaster. In every case, I didn't outshine the other PCs because I had to intentionally hold back and do nothing for 5 or 10 rounds to allow the fighters to get some kills. I typically give myself a random spell list. (as in, roll dice, take what comes up) *a* wizard, cleric or druid can replicate or do almost as well (sometimes better) the jobs of every other party member - and not as some theoretical thought experiment either. Often, the power isn't even readily apparent to new payers, who can, on accident, make unbalanced characters who outstrip the rest of the party.

"I'm playing a Druid - I like animals. I am a newbie. I have to pick a new feat. Oh hey, look. It's that feat that only Druids can take. 'Natural Spell'; that sounds really cool...."


This "Batman Wizard" that is bandied about so frequently is nothing more than a logic exercise. I equate it entirely with Pun-Pun. Nothing you do to create Pun-Pun violates any rules either, that's the fun of it. Of course, no one is going to seriously use it in a game, and I've never seen someone seriously use a Batman Wizard. Wizards and Fighters should be vastly different characters to play. IMO Wizards should be more overtly powerful. (I also think it should be a hell of a lot harder to become a wizard, but that's hard to implement fairly in a game) There will be situations where a fighter shines more and these do not have to be specially designed by the DM. There are power limits to the wizard, ones that work fairly well. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with the class at all, merely with the spells they are able to cast. A lot of really ridiculous ones where added in 3E, even moreso in the various splatbooks.

Yeh. I think a lot of the major broken spells come out of that one really broken book, what's it called.. oh um, yeah, the Players Handbook. Shapechange? Wish? Magic Jar? Ringing any bells?


From my own personal experience, wizards are not the game-stealing, world-shattering demigods they're cracked up to be. Even when I try to batman it up a bit and use little direct damage magic, too many monsters and enemies make too many saves. I'm standing (or hovering) there waving my hands about with great flashes of light and color... doing nothing terribly productive. Certainly not enough to overshadow the party fighter, who is happily cleaving through great masses of enemies every round. Until he fumbles on a charge, slams into his intended target and carries both of them through the party cleric, the whole mess ending up against a wall, twitching and groaning. But, hey, that happens to everyone once in a while.


While that's a cute story, your play experience is vastly different from mine, or the majorities.

The idea that the [insert class] and [insert class] need to be balanced against each other (ie both have a roughly equal chance of winning) in an arena style match-up just doesn't make sense. The classes in D&D are supposed to be balance with the idea that they support each other, every class filling a role that the others lack, not have a good chance of beating any of the other classes sensless. I'm not saying that balancing they're combat prowess would entirely be a bad thing, but if we must sacrifice the uniqueness of the class to do so, it's not worth it.
[/rant]

Ok, so let's be clear, your premise is that: Class Balance is a false concept because the classes are all balanced around each other. If that were the case, then it should take (4) characters, of differing classes, filling different roles, to support each other and defeat an appropriate challenge. I wish that were how it was and hopefully 4e will be more like that, however, it isn't.

Consider this: In a purely random encounter setting, using your concept that the classes all support each other, the party that is composed of one class should lose most, if not all, encounters. However, I have personally played in all Cleric and all Wizard campaigns, with the DM *actively* using heavily anti-spellcasting tactics and still frustrated the DMs to the point of quitting. In purely random encounters, the all caster party still wins almost every time, if not every time.

It is no thought experiment to see that Clerics, Druids and Wizards are broken without anything special. In fact it takes willfull ignorance to choose to not see it.[/QUOTE]

SpikeFightwicky
2008-02-20, 03:17 PM
Also, you said nothing to refute my "talent tree claim" sure, they choose a weapon and get bonuses based on that, after that, there's three categories you get to specialize in, as I understand it, that is the freakin' talent tree.

Are you serious? Lets take a look at some non-MMO talent systems:

Strong Hero
Extreme Effort Path, Ignore Hardness path, Melee Smash path

Fast Hero
Defensive Path, Increased Speed Path

Tough Hero
Damage Reduction Path, Energy Resistance Path, Unbreakable Path

etc...

So what... the creators of D20 Modern travelled to the future when WoW was released, stole their talent path idea and created it after they returned?

They liked the talent system so much, they figure Saga edition could benefit from it.... and it did! Soldiers are no longer bland feat monkeys! The logical thought process they took was to implement this system into regular D&D.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-20, 04:43 PM
I think City of Heroes breaks the mould as far as MMORPGs go - and it's neither fantasy nor the dreaded "WoW", either. :smallwink:


Wait, what about Pirates of the Carribean Online? It is a MMORPG that you can actually play solo (harder but not impossible like most MMORPGs).

EvilElitest
2008-02-20, 07:49 PM
Umm, I wasn't whining. I was using you as an example of people who play the "zomgMMO" card. Which you are.

I'd be more than happy to address your arguments, if you actually had any.


same can be said for you, your criticizing a style you don't like in you defense
Umm ... how is criticizing something you don't like the same as blindly and inanely shouting "MMO! MMO!" like it means a damned thing?

Oh grow up and get over yourself. You haven't addressed any of the points i've brought up during this thread, despite my writings. You've made an untrue personal attack in an immature manner, ignoring the fact that i specifically said i think 4E is becoming more like video games in general, not WOW or MMO specifically said. So your ether a liar or a hypocrite. YOu claimed you'd be willing to counter arguments and yet you haven't, and you have the audacity to accuse me of being a flamer based upon nothing in a flaming manner. you also did so in a manner that mirrors the same that you accuse me of, so ether apologize and respond in a civil and polite manner, or be polite enough to cease these untrue attacks. I am not going "ZOMG" i make my stance on MMO's clear, so be civil. Farmer 24 and Muyten can do so, follow their example


See the problem here is that you state is as fact that 4e is going to change the ability to have a consistent world. I (and several others) disagree with that. In fact I think the way you seem to play the game would make for a less consistent world to me than the way I play the game and the way 4E seems to advocate playing the game. That's differing styles of play.


On several times in both books, specifically in Worlds and Monsters they have directly stated taht they want to get ride of the world's Verisimilitude. Want a quote to prove this? They have out ride stated this

Now about styles of play, they have also stated that they want to design their generic game around the concept that it leaves nobody out. However this is frankly sadly untrue, despite their claims.



Does 3.X support both styles of play? Yes to some extent but it promotes your kinda play more than mine. Does 4E support both? We don't know since
it's not out yet but from everything I've heard it will only now it will promote my style of play more than yours. So in short it's not that 4E is completely ruining everything for you (you seem to skip a lot of usualys and mostlys in your arguments) it's just that it will not be the recomended style of play.
It is more than the recommended style of play, it is "the way to play". In 3E , the manner of play was really left up to the players, nothing forced you to be consistent in your world. Sure your style of play might not have been supported totally (technically nether was mine, i don't like 3E's diplomacy and what not) but nothing forced you. I was able to play my way, you could play your way. however from what i've seen from 4E, they are deliberately destroying my way of playing under the pretense that it "wasn't fun", including claims that a game based upon the real world (like Mid-Evil Europe) and involving political boundaries (in the generic world, most of the non monster races are living in small stable communities surrounded by dark and dangerous monster filled land, called the Pins of Light concept), this is far more pretentious and insensitive toward other gaming styles than anything i have ever claimed




The rules do not create verisimilitude. The feeling of a real world is dependent on the execution of the designer, author, filmmaker, etc. The rules provide a framework for them to work in, they do not themselves create the story or world. The same goes for consistency. The rules, which we haven't seen yet, really, should be internally consistent. We cannot judge the internal consistency yet. Therefore, we cannot complain about whether or not they are consistent. And before you say anything about PCs and NPCs using different rules, if it is specified in the rule set that they do, it is, in fact, internally consistent. That's part and parcel of rules, some people get different ones. The feeling of consistency, again, fall into the hands of whoever is running the story, so in gaming terms, the DM. It is their responsibility to provide these things for you

The rules have justification, but to an extend your right, in themselves they do not provide verisimilitude. However the way the rules are played and the way the game is designed causes problems. For example, is their an in game reason for why the PCs are so powerful? Why are they super unique? I don't know, no reason is provide other than "they are the players" which doesn't make sense from an in-game perceptive.
from
EE

Da Beast
2008-02-21, 12:08 AM
I'm going to have to disagree on this on, because i think balance is essential in any game, and wizards being over powered was one of the biggest problems of 3E.

Anyways back on topic


I'm going to bump the issue slightly and compare 4E to video games in general, not specifically MMOs

Now a while ago people were saying how 4E was far too anime, and i think that is rather unfair. I think 4E is more like general video games


Now i'm going to just bring up one single issue, and this is the NPC/PC realtionship and world consistency/mechanics vs. fluff

Now in a video game the world literally revolves around you. Everything is focused upon you the PC(s). You are special, unique, god like, one of a kind (except MMOs but same idea) ect. The world is built around you, nothing gets solved without your help, nothing changes unless you do, nobody else (other than other players) have similar powers or abilities. Basically, you are the only person in the world with your powers who can get things down. Without you the world would never change. In WOW or Legend of Zelda, nobody other than you really gets stuff accomplished (this isn't quite true for WOW but still)
The world bends backward to accommodate you. Not only does it not change if you don't help it, the world is specially tailored to suit your needs. Be it special abilities, method to obtain something, or strangely convenient world, everything works out for you. the world's luck is really looking out for you, need a password, hey those guys are talking about it outside. Need your weapons back, don't worry, the NPCs won't take them and use them for their own use, they will just leave them in a near by chest. Hey, the bad guy's big weak point has a shiny light over it. Oh my god, just when i need a special item the path that was blocked until then opens. You get the idea. You never have to really act like your in a realistic world because the world obeys you, every time you need something it accommodates, it is like a very loving teacher who guides you through every problem (real life is that teacher who secretly hates you and loves to see you suffer).

In video games for obvious reasons, you have very limited freedom. In assassin's creed i have only four ways to get information on my target (beat his best friend until he tells me information then shank him, listen to dudes form 15 yards away, pick pockets and do odd jobs for my own men before they tell me crucial information). Rather simplistic , but hte game doesn't have you simple wander around the city talking to random people (screw that, i can't talk to anyone, or open doors or pick up money) or sneak into your target's house and slit his throat, informants be screwed. Now in a video game this is understandable, they simple can't pull that sort of deal off with current tech. However in D&D nothing limits you. But moving on

NPCs in video games are the worsts, they are freaking useless

They are ether quest givers, walking exp, mindless monsters, shop keepers or dudes who just randomly talk to you (not all the time but most of the time). They are often totally unaware of the world they live in, and never do the smart thing (for example, why doesn't the Hoard send troops to wipe out the low level monsters, they have level 55 guards in most of those cities. Or why don't the guards in Assassin's creed act so bloody stupid? Ect). They are often totally unable to defend themselves and will never never never help you in a useful way if they can help it (DAMN YOU NAVI, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, sob). They are basically, useless and exist for scenery or the plot. The villains never play smart ether, they don't do things like killing you in your sleep (if you sleep that is) or send all their guys at your at once. This isn't even hand waved most of the time, they just don't.

They are also normally very 2-D in personality, doubly so for the monsters (this is rather debatable, i mean Jade Empire and Baldur's Gate had some really cool NPCs) but most monsters are basically mindless mooks who swarm forward and let you bring them down. Like in the Lord of the Rings action games. This also goes along with inconsistent mechanics. What applies to you doesn't apply to other people. For example, in Assassin's creed, every enemy will go down one hit in a sword fight if you hit their blade enough times (strangely hitting them in the back doesn't work however?) but you can take like a few dozen hits before becoming near death. Or they fall from a two story building they are dead, you fall from a six story and your down half health. Bad example, this is true in D&D as well because of hit points, but Assassin's creed tries to be realistic so.....

Better example, in Lords of the Rings Two Towers you get these special powers that you can buy like flaming swords and magic arrows. But nobody else uses even the most basic of these and no explanation is offered. Or in any final Fantasy game, the powers you have as a black mage, white mage ect are never commonplace, you are normally hte only black mage, white mage, red mage ect. Also in Final Fantasy, i have maybe 69 Phoenix downs but i can't use any of them (tales of Smphotnia i'm looking at you as well, your cool plot regardless) or how in Fable nobody uses real spells. Often times monsters won't be a monster version of your class, but a monster who happen to cast their own spells. NPCs are generally simple lesser to PCs, they just suck. In battle of Middle earth Heros are better than entire armies of foot troops. Yes Freaking Pippin and Same are worth more than a few orc hoards. Ever notice in Fable why they are no other people who's physical appearance changes because of alignment. Final Fantasy, you are amazing because your the main character most of the time. Warcraft III with the heros, or WOW with the fact that NPCs are freaking useless in taht they often don't have powers that PCs do or are totally unable of solving their problems (your level 33, i'm level 18, what are you thinking?). In resident evil 4 the fact that they send you in alone on such an important mission with a single hand gun is absurd

Is this a bad thing on all video games? No, it can be excused, it is part of the genre. However D&D doesn't have those limitations and shouldn't fall for those problems. 3E was flawed yes, i'm not going to deny that, but it was (mostly) consistent, and "realistic" in its setting. Monster races were just monsters with classes, magic worked the same, everybody died at -9 not just PCs. It was a consistent, somewhat believable world, and that is being changed. It is becoming more flashy, more simplistic, less consistent, and more focused upon the video game ideal of "the world literally, not figurativlly revolves around the PCs", this lead to



well i'm coughing up blood all of sudden, um, i'm going to a doctor, talk later
from
EE


Almost everything you said is a problem with how the game world is managed which is something that is almost entirely up to the DM. Wizards has said that in 4th E the PCs are supposed to be the movers and shakers in the world but is that really a bad thing? I suspect that this was just to get players excited about the new edition than anything that has a real affect on the rules. Maybe meant to appeal to people who are tired of an epic caster around every corner of Faerun. This may play into the reworked versions of campaign settings but not the core rules. Furthermore I can't think of anything within the rules of 3.X that encourage you to do anything different with your world.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-21, 02:07 AM
On several times in both books, specifically in Worlds and Monsters they have directly stated taht they want to get ride of the world's Verisimilitude. Want a quote to prove this? They have out ride stated this

Yes, I want a quote, and I want context. Why? Because thus far your reading comprehension regarding other 4e things has been about as good as your post writing composition: piss poor. I don't know why I bother responding to your terrible posts, but I wager it has something to do with me wanting people to be properly informed and not going off of your vitriolic, anti-4e demagoguery. If that means I have to seem like a vitriolic, pro-4e WotC mouthpiece, so be it.

Solo
2008-02-21, 02:33 AM
On several times in both books, specifically in Worlds and Monsters they have directly stated taht they want to get ride of the world's Verisimilitude. Want a quote to prove this? They have out ride stated this

If that is true, then you should have no trouble proving it.

It should be an easy task for you to back up your claim with a direct quote if they have outright said it.

Your move.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 12:52 PM
If that is true, then you should have no trouble proving it.

It should be an easy task for you to back up your claim with a direct quote if they have outright said it.

Your move.

Gladly

"The Burden of History

The D&D game has always been influenced by European history and culture. If you look back at the game's roots, you can see why. Gary Gygax's Chainmail game, D&D's precursor added fantastic elements to a medieval battle game that he had already developed.
the various editions of D&D continued this trend by drawing source material form the real world. Supplements and magazine articles delved into minutiae-everything from the myriad blades used on pole arms by various cultures to how monstrous inhabitants of dungeons get clean air and remove waste. Through interesting from a historical and scientific, such details have very little effect on how the game is played. They add verisimilitude but rarely increase the fun of playing.
The 3rd Edition of the game took a first step away from reliances on real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons, but the urge to make fantasy reflect reality remained. The setting was still a historic, medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted......."

Generic Setting concept
"One of the first things we tackled in the Scramjet team was the creation of a set of "key conceits"- things we knew we wanted to be true about teh game world and the character's role in it.
During those discussions we found ourselves wandering into a debate about campaign designing and the "typical" D&D game. Many of the campaign settings we created in previous editions look a lot like the map of the modern world-neat borders are drawn around countries,l implying that the world is more or less carved up between an number of political entities or civilizations. Were weren't very happy with that, to tell you the truth. It works against the sense of mystery, wonder, and dread you'd like to see in most D&D settings."



Yes, I want a quote, and I want context. Why? Because thus far your reading comprehension regarding other 4e things has been about as good as your post writing composition: piss poor. I don't know why I bother responding to your terrible posts, but I wager it has something to do with me wanting people to be properly informed and not going off of your vitriolic, anti-4e demagoguery. If that means I have to seem like a vitriolic, pro-4e WotC mouthpiece, so be it.

Piss-poor. Wow it is good thing you provided a quote to prove that, or supported your argument, because if you didn't it would seem like an immature flame. Wait, you didn't support you argument, nor did you prove that in any way, wow, so that makes me think that you are a liar.

How am i not informing people? How am i lying? Please do tell



Almost everything you said is a problem with how the game world is managed which is something that is almost entirely up to the DM. Wizards has said that in 4th E the PCs are supposed to be the movers and shakers in the world but is that really a bad thing? I suspect that this was just to get players excited about the new edition than anything that has a real affect on the rules. Maybe meant to appeal to people who are tired of an epic caster around every corner of Faerun. This may play into the reworked versions of campaign settings but not the core rules. Furthermore I can't think of anything within the rules of 3.X that encourage you to do anything different with your world.
1. The NPC PC thing seems from all quotes on the matter to be a real in game thing

"the Adventures created by the players are pionners, explorers, trailblazers, thrill seekers, and heroes of the D&D world. Althought some player characters might have a class and gain powers, they do not nececessarily advance as the PCs do, and they exist for a different purpose. Not everyone in the world gains levels like the PCs. An NPC might be a veteran of many battles and still not become a 3rd level fighter, and army of elves is largely made up of non classes soldiers."
Worlds and Classes p.13
3. 3E didn't really have any setting concept at all really, if you weren't familiar with Greyhawk, you pretty much had to but a setting or make your own world

Edit
This is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and i know it is not a real point but i found it funny

D&D and WOW by halivar:
It appears (to me, at least), that many of the new rules-changes mirror popular MMO's like WOW. How much influence do the designers derive from video games; and, to the extent that D&D 4th resembles WOW, is this a conscious effort to reach the MMO-generation of gamers with table-top role-play?

WotC:
Just as the design teams of most computer games draw on their experiences with Dungeons & Dragons and other tabletop games, we look to other games for inspiration and innovation. Many of us in RPG R&D play or have played MMOs and other computer games. Some of the lessons we learned about gameplay on those platforms have helped us craft a better tabletop RPG, both for current D&D players and for potential new players who either haven't yet tried D&D or haven't found previous iterations of the game to their liking.

from
EE

Farmer42
2008-02-21, 01:03 PM
Gladly

"The Burden of History

The D&D game has always been influenced by European history and culture. If you look back at the game's roots, you can see why. Gary Gygax's Chainmail game, D&D's precursor added fantastic elements to a medieval battle game that he had already developed.
the various editions of D&D continued this trend by drawing source material form the real world. Supplements and magazine articles delved into minutiae-everything from the myriad blades used on pole arms by various cultures to how monstrous inhabitants of dungeons get clean air and remove waste. Through interesting from a historical and scientific, such details have very little effect on how the game is played. They add verisimilitude but rarely increase the fun of playing.
The 3rd Edition of the game took a first step away from reliances on real world by designing new and unique appearances for armor and weapons, but the urge to make fantasy reflect reality remained. The setting was still a historic, medieval world onto which fantasy elements were grafted......."



That isn't about removing verisimilitude, that's about removing excess from the rules that we don't need, because the DM can provide it for us. Your average PC doesn't care how a beholder takes a dump. While the page that told us how that works in LoM was nice, and it did add that kind of detail, that isn't something we need in the CRBs. That's what splatbooks exist for.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 01:08 PM
That isn't about removing verisimilitude, that's about removing excess from the rules that we don't need, because the DM can provide it for us. Your average PC doesn't care how a beholder takes a dump. While the page that told us how that works in LoM was nice, and it did add that kind of detail, that isn't something we need in the CRBs. That's what splatbooks exist for.

But those encourage verisimilitude, and WOTC has stated they are against such ideas. Personally, i'd want to know how they define average PC wants and needs, because i was belittled in my first game for having a dungeon that nobody could logically live in.
from
EE

SmartAlec
2008-02-21, 01:14 PM
Stuff

That doesn't sound like they want to get rid of verisimilitude itself. They just want to cut down on the amount of turgid, unnecessary detail.

Verisimilitude is, literally, the appearance of truth, and I think what WotC are trying to say is that the appearance of exact truth is not needed. We all know it's not real! We willingly suspend disbelief and exercise our imaginations to make this whole thing work. As long as a setting makes a general amount of sense, we don't need to know mundane details about forging techniques, styles of clothing or an exact breakdown of the region's economic processes.

So they're not making war on believability. They just want to trim the fat. If a DM wants to think about this kind of thing, that's ok - but WotC don't want to make it look like it's necessary. Because, really, it isn't.

[Ninja'd!]

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-21, 01:20 PM
But those encourage verisimilitude, and WOTC has stated they are against such ideas.

Logic, dear boy, logic. What *do* they teach them in these schools.

Your argument is as follows:

1. Concepts X, Y and Z increase verisimillutude.
2. WotC are against concepts X, Y and X.
3. Therefore WotC are against verisimillitude.

This is incorrect.

Similar examples of the same logic:

1. Mushrooms and eels are food.
2. I do not eat mushrooms and eel.
3. Therefore I do not eat food.

1. My cat is grey.
2. My jumper is grey.
3. Therefore my jumper is my cat.

1. Your arguments oppose the changes being made in 4th Edition.
2. Your arguments are illogical, incoherent, poorly thought out and abysmally expressed.
3. Therefore 4th edition will rock.

Farmer42
2008-02-21, 01:31 PM
1. Your arguments oppose the changes being made in 4th Edition.
2. Your arguments are illogical, incoherent, poorly thought out and abysmally expressed.
3. Therefore 4th edition will rock.

QFT...Errmm...I mean, we'll find out come this summer.

Seriously, though, just because the designers don't want excruciating detain in the rules and core rule books doesn't mean they don't want reality. As Dan_Hemmens pointed out, you're making leaps in logic and skipping the middle bits.

Remember, the books go up in price the more pages there are. The more detail in the books, the more pages or less art. We want lots of pretty pictures. So the viable option is more pages. More pages costs more money to produce. Which means the already exorbitant prices rise. We want cheap books, and we've proven we have imagination, so the designers are giving us a break here. Or at least that's my thought process on this whole thing. YMMV.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-02-21, 01:33 PM
I have reached my wit's end when it comes to dealing with anti-4e people who cry that 4e is becoming Worlds of Warcraft. It's not.

I am also a long time, on again, off again MMO player, going as far back as Everquest: Ruins of Kunark.



Sweet deal... some of us have been playing mmos since ultima online 2nd age?
And even before then with muds.



On both counts over the years I have changed systems and games, meandering around. The two experiences are so vastly different on so many levels that I could not hope to fully describe them in a single post and quite frankly I don't know that I have enough words or the right words to fully describe the difference.

There are some similarities though. Most of my MMO experience is through EQ/EQ2/WoW. (currently playing EQ2 again; I hated WoW) From a mechanical standpoint, both D&D and MMOs use random numbers, with various bonuses added, critical hits, skill checks and myriad special abilities.

The thematic similarities are there because all others derive from D&D. D&D is the sourcecode of Everquest and to a lesser extent, WoW. WoW of course is a derivative of Blizzard's own work as well as drawing on the highly successful model of Everquest; thematically it is based on Warcraft, which was based on Warhammer, which was based on D&D.


Ok first of all sadly warhammer didn't come from d&d. Technicaly Warhammer came out first in the uk before d&d did, However d&d was more popular (in amarica atleast) then warhammer.

The source code for EQ looks nothing like dnd, Ad&d or frist ed d&d. As I have worked with the EQemu and its sadly nothing like it.

Actualy if you look at wow and you look at DAOC you can find more simularities. Then EQ and wow.

See the problem is, is that alot of people will compare games to video games for the sensless kick down the door style of game. Now not every one likes that style of game I know I for one am not a huge fan. However I can tell you that 3.x is very very similar to diablo 2, I know in my local area when some one is running a kick down the door style game we refer to it as your playing a diablo 2 style RP.
Its just a way for people to say that its not complex enough and its getting to simplified and directed twords combat.


Also ps... in the FAQ put out by WotC about 4E they said that they are taking a few ideas from MMO's.

TempusCCK
2008-02-21, 01:38 PM
There was no reason for this thread to degrade into such tomfoolery! TOMFOOLERY SAYS I!

There are bad arguments on each side, and we as people should be responsible enough to understand that this is debate, not FlameWars in the Playground (FWitP).

As for what I have said, I have retracted my statements regarding the online service, now that they have said the SRD was going to be released for free, which is really the important part.

Also, everything I have said was my opinion based on some very close similarities between the two games, that does not mean they are 100% congruent and don't take from each other, I'm simply presenting what I see as a few tendancies being put into there. It is not 100% fact, it is my observation, it is subject to change, please don't hurt yourself getting angry because I happen to notice some similarities.

As for other peoples responses: Once you define a class role for each individual class, I can only see it becoming more restricting from there. New source books are going to release material to make the Figher better Defenders and Rogues better Strikers, and I highly doubt there will be much in the way of new material for switching class roles. This may be cynical and completely false, but time will tell. A good multiclassing system MAY help this.

So, for anyone upset at my comparison, please, read the beginning of my first post on this thread, I'm not claiming they are one and same, I just see some tendencies popping up that can be made into a correlation.

And please, for the Love of All That is Holy(itP) can we please act a bit more maturely. If you have a idea that refutes someone elses, present it in a calm, concise, and insult free manner.

Artanis
2008-02-21, 01:43 PM
Also ps... in the FAQ put out by WotC about 4E they said that they are taking a few ideas from MMO's.
Just to head things off at the pass before this sparks yet another flame war...


"Taking a few ideas from MMOs" basically means nothing, really.

Take Star Wars as an example. The idea of having Lightsaber fights? That came because Lucas thought Samurai movies were cool, but I don't see anybody complaining that what is now a staple of Sci Fi was "too Japanese". The Millenium Falcon's shape was inspired by a f***ing hamburger, but nobody ever complains that one of the most famous ships in the history of Sci Fi turned Star Wars into the Iron Chef.


In short, just because something is inspired by a facet of something that may very well be a damned good idea despite the source doesn't mean it's turning the end product into the source of said inspiration.

Weiser_Cain
2008-02-21, 02:29 PM
Star Wars is about as japanese as a lot of westerns, which is to say a complete rip off of samurai movies. The later movies then ripped off those wire-driven (mostly)kung fu movies. Thus giving birth to the horror that is kung fu yoda.
So yeah it is more like a video game.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-02-21, 02:36 PM
Just to head things off at the pass before this sparks yet another flame war...


"Taking a few ideas from MMOs" basically means nothing, really.

Take Star Wars as an example. The idea of having Lightsaber fights? That came because Lucas thought Samurai movies were cool, but I don't see anybody complaining that what is now a staple of Sci Fi was "too Japanese". The Millenium Falcon's shape was inspired by a f***ing hamburger, but nobody ever complains that one of the most famous ships in the history of Sci Fi turned Star Wars into the Iron Chef.


In short, just because something is inspired by a facet of something that may very well be a damned good idea despite the source doesn't mean it's turning the end product into the source of said inspiration.

O I agree with you about the associations. its pritty funny about how the Falcon came to be. i was mearly bring up the point as to why people are compairing it to MMO's as the press about 4ed has stated that there drawing inspiration from MMO's which like you said realy meens sh*t. i personaly don't realy care as when 4th ed comes out im moving on to other systems... such as WOD or even some of the lesser known ones like deadlands... heh deadlands...

Artanis
2008-02-21, 02:39 PM
O I agree with you about the associations. its pritty funny about how the Falcon came to be. i was mearly bring up the point as to why people are compairing it to MMO's as the press about 4ed has stated that there drawing inspiration from MMO's which like you said realy meens sh*t. i personaly don't realy care as when 4th ed comes out im moving on to other systems... such as WOD or even some of the lesser known ones like deadlands... heh deadlands...
Yeah. I wasn't trying to argue with you, just trying to ward off the kind of ****storm that tends to turn up around that sort of thing :smallwink:

ShadowSiege
2008-02-21, 02:53 PM
Piss-poor. Wow it is good thing you provided a quote to prove that, or supported your argument, because if you didn't it would seem like an immature flame. Wait, you didn't support you argument, nor did you prove that in any way, wow, so that makes me think that you are a liar.

How am i not informing people? How am i lying? Please do tell

I didn't provide any quotes because all people have to do is read your posts in this thread to see you have terrible composition. It's spelled "medieval," by the way. MediEvil is a PSX game, MidEvil is a board game.

I do thank you for actually providing a quote that you derived your claim of "no more verisimilitude in 4e." As others have said,

That doesn't sound like they want to get rid of verisimilitude itself. They just want to cut down on the amount of turgid, unnecessary detail.
and

Logic, dear boy, logic. What *do* they teach them in these schools.

Your argument is as follows:

1. Concepts X, Y and Z increase verisimillutude.
2. WotC are against concepts X, Y and X.
3. Therefore WotC are against verisimillitude.

This is incorrect.


So, once again, you originally failed to provide the information you gained your claims from. Instead, you provided your interpretation of it. Which, in the estimation of others, is an incorrect interpretation. You've done this before in other posts. One example is the thread you started, "4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true." You were kind enough to provide a quote again in this case, which didn't state that Evil would no longer fight Evil, but rather that there would be a reduced emphasis on it, especially with the Blood War being eliminated. Your "Races and Classes" review thread is full of them. I'd link to it or provide quotes, but the search function on the forums is hacking up an error.

TricksyAndFalse
2008-02-21, 02:54 PM
However, D&D is different, the game that i enjoy is being fundamentally changed in a way that i don't like. And not in a pet peeve sort of way.

Respectfully, the game you enjoy is not changing at all. WotC is releasing a new, different game.

illathid
2008-02-21, 02:56 PM
Logic, dear boy, logic. What *do* they teach them in these schools.

Your argument is as follows:

1. Concepts X, Y and Z increase verisimillutude.
2. WotC are against concepts X, Y and X.
3. Therefore WotC are against verisimillitude.

This is incorrect.

Similar examples of the same logic:

1. Mushrooms and eels are food.
2. I do not eat mushrooms and eel.
3. Therefore I do not eat food.

1. My cat is grey.
2. My jumper is grey.
3. Therefore my jumper is my cat.

1. Your arguments oppose the changes being made in 4th Edition.
2. Your arguments are illogical, incoherent, poorly thought out and abysmally expressed.
3. Therefore 4th edition will rock.

In other words, EE is committing the formal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy) of "denying the antecedent" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent).

I knew that symbolic logic class would come in handy someday. :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-02-21, 04:15 PM
Logic, dear boy, logic. What *do* they teach them in these schools.
Paranoia. And computers.

And yeah, glad Artanis said it; We really can't fault people for drawing good inspiration from other sources.

Deepblue706
2008-02-21, 04:54 PM
Respectfully, the game you enjoy is not changing at all. WotC is releasing a new, different game.

Yep.

But, I do believe many feel there's much that can be done about the system they've grown to love...probably wish that instead of getting more of what they see as "crap", that they could have their old system improved.

I think WotC recognizes that, and intends to wow everyone enough so that they forget about the outdated systems and try 4ed, as the latest edition is always supposed to be the "best" one.

Really, I don't blame people for having doubts of what's to come - personally, I don't trust WotC to make a high-quality product (but rather mass quantities of poor to mediocre products). But, I think that some could use more restraint than to immediately judge the new edition - as still, nobody has full copies of the rulebooks.

Is fourth edition going to be WoW? I very much doubt it. However, they did admit things like this influenced them. Anybody here like music? I hate the band Pixies, but boy do I love Radiohead, so, I imagine things could actually turn out very well (even if I am, again, expecting a mediocre game). Just because they're drawing ideas from something people might think is crappy doesn't mean it can't come out amazing, or that it'll actually be any worse than any previous edition. Regardless, until you have all the facts sitting in front of you, you can't really begin to pass judgment. So, let's put this argument on hold, for now.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 05:58 PM
I didn't provide any quotes because all people have to do is read your posts in this thread to see you have terrible composition. It's spelled "medieval," by the way. MediEvil is a PSX game, MidEvil is a board game.

1. Thank you for proving that you don't have any evidence and making it clear that you have nothing to justify your personal attack. So you don't have anything to back your up and are basicaly flaming
2. thank you


I do thank you for actually providing a quote that you derived your claim of "no more verisimilitude in 4e." As others have said,

and
I'm going to make myself clear on this, as people are moving ahead here

WOTC has made many decisions that are against verisimilitude, such as death, monsters, NPC/PCs, logical worlds (really, why do the monsters live in dungeons? I'd want to know) and moving away from the real world basis (something we can understand and use a reference). They have many only a few steps in the direction of verisimilitude, and plenty away, in a video game like manner (see earlier post)



So, once again, you originally failed to provide the information you gained your claims from. Instead, you provided your interpretation of it. Which, in the estimation of others, is an incorrect interpretation.
1. To an extent, i am basing this off the books, which you are not
2. And in the estimation of others it is a correct interpretation



You've done this before in other posts. One example is the thread you started, "4th Edition, Evil Vs. Evil is no longer true." You were kind enough to provide a quote again in this case, which didn't state that Evil would no longer fight Evil, but rather that there would be a reduced emphasis on it, especially with the Blood War being eliminated.
Yet again, if you didn't act like a flamer and read the post in question, you'd catch on, because i already defended myself there. I am against WOTC reason for less evil vs. evil.



Your "Races and Classes" review thread is full of them. I'd link to it or provide quotes, but the search function on the forums is hacking up an error.

Well that was directly stated to be an option, but you responded in the same hypocritical way there as well.
from
EE

Poison_Fish
2008-02-21, 06:13 PM
WOTC has made many decisions that are against verisimilitude, such as death, monsters, NPC/PCs, logical worlds (really, why do the monsters live in dungeons? I'd want to know) and moving away from the real world basis (something we can understand and use a reference). They have many only a few steps in the direction of verisimilitude, and plenty away, in a video game like manner (see earlier post)

Correction. Your verisimilitude. Your idea of a real world basis (Which, by the way, IMO, you are making the abstract to real, which isn't a real world basis).

This isn't a Black and White Issue, EE. Just as verisimilitude isn't measured in a scale. Your truth isn't my truth. This falls on to the lines of how we run games, not how we run systems. Hence, your statement is entirely subjective theorizing and your opinions are exaggerated interpretations of what little Wizard's has released. See: The thread with "no evil vs. evil" as a large example of this.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 06:20 PM
Correction. Your verisimilitude. Your idea of a real world basis (Which, by the way, IMO, you are making the abstract to real, which isn't a real world basis).

And one of the general rules of all verisimilitude is consistency (unless their is an in-game excuse) and 4E is going against this, in a manner much like video games (not MMO's specifically)



This isn't a Black and White Issue, EE. Just as verisimilitude isn't measured in a scale. Your truth isn't my truth. This falls on to the lines of how we run games, not how we run systems. Hence, your statement is entirely subjective theorizing and your opinions are exaggerated interpretations of what little Wizard's has released. See
1. What isn't black and white is people's options on the changes, not the changes themselves. If people were like "Oh it is a video game but i enjoy that" then that is personal option
2. Personal option doesn't counter the comparasion between WOTC's approach and a video game
3.can people produce evidence to counter the quotes i showed? Anyone?
from
EE

Artanis
2008-02-21, 06:28 PM
And one of the general rules of all verisimilitude is consistency (unless their is an in-game excuse) and 4E is going against this, in a manner much like video games (not MMO's specifically)
Bull****.

I find plenty of consistency in many of the changes. In fact, I find MORE consistency in many of the changes. Many of the changes that you say hurt verisimilitude are the exact opposite for me, INCREASING the believability of the world.

Take "points of light", for example. You don't like it. Me, I think it actually makes more sense for monsters that can annihilate armies to be big and bad and scary, rather than cowering in a hidey-hole hoping against hope that a horde of Commoners doesn't come and poke them to death with pitchforks.

Consider PCs vs. NPCs. You don't like that they work on different rules. Me, I think it makes more sense for PCs to be better than John Q. Shmuck the local dirt farmer. Why? Because if PCs were as pathetic as the local rabble, they wouldn't be heroes, they'd be staying at home being pathetic rabble.

Or how about death? Mooks stay dead. You don't like it. I, personally, think it makes MORE sense for mooks to stay dead, because otherwise they wouldn't be mooks. If somebody is worth resurrecting, they're worth not sending to their death pointlessly because resurrection tends to be expensive. If somebody is worth sending to a pointless death, then it's almost certain that they're easier to simply replace than to go through the trouble of finding the caster and the reagents required for a resurrection.

So no, verisimilitude is not objective by any means of the imagination. And no matter how many times you say it, no matter how many ways you try to word it to weasel it around to supporting you, it's going to stay that way. Your idea of verisimilitude IS NOT MINE, so stop trying to say that it IS mine, much less universal.

Dragor
2008-02-21, 06:41 PM
I just read this thread, and I'm kinda embarrassed. Come on guys, we can be more civil than this. There are justifiable arguments on both sides- but they're not coming through as coherently as they could be.

I'm decidedly neutral here, by the way.

Please be nice... please? :smile:

Rutee
2008-02-21, 06:43 PM
And one of the general rules of all verisimilitude is consistency (unless their is an in-game excuse) and 4E is going against this, in a manner much like video games (not MMO's specifically)
Do you read the changes you post, by any chance? They work towards my definition of verisimilitude, and are predominantly consistent.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 07:04 PM
Bull****.

Elegant


I find plenty of consistency in many of the changes. In fact, I find MORE consistency in many of the changes. Many of the changes that you say hurt verisimilitude are the exact opposite for me, INCREASING the believability of the world.
Some of them, such as? Personally, i think giants were good


Take "points of light", for example. You don't like it. Me, I think it actually makes more sense for monsters that can annihilate armies to be big and bad and scary, rather than cowering in a hidey-hole hoping against hope that a horde of Commoners doesn't come and poke them to death with pitchforks.
1. I like the concept, i just think it should be a setting specific
2. Why wouldn't most of these monsters do what real world societies do and create countries
3. Why would the good races be so weak. Points of light works if there is a reason. For example, in my take of it the area went through a massive civil war and everything fell apart due to political infighting



Consider PCs vs. NPCs. You don't like that they work on different rules. Me, I think it makes more sense for PCs to be better than John Q. Shmuck the local dirt farmer. Why? Because if PCs were as pathetic as the local rabble, they wouldn't be heroes, they'd be staying at home being pathetic rabble.
1. Why do you have the assumption that all NPCs are totally useless commoners.
2. Adventures would be different than the local dirt farmer, but adventure isn't a PC only class. elite guards, other wizards ect.


Or how about death? Mooks stay dead. You don't like it. I, personally, think it makes MORE sense for mooks to stay dead, because otherwise they wouldn't be mooks. If somebody is worth resurrecting, they're worth not sending to their death pointlessly because resurrection tends to be expensive. If somebody is worth sending to a pointless death, then it's almost certain that they're easier to simply replace than to go through the trouble of finding the caster and the reagents required for a resurrection.

Wait a second so the in game reason for resurrection is that some people are naturally special and others aren't. That would be fine, except that WOTC hasn't given us a reason, other than "It is the PCs"

And in game wise, why are they people considered mook just because they aren't being played by people

from
EE

Flabbicus
2008-02-21, 07:17 PM
Wait a second so the in game reason for resurrection is that some people are naturally special and others aren't. That would be fine, except that WOTC hasn't given us a reason, other than "It is the PCs"

And in game wise, why are they people considered mook just because they aren't being played by people

from
EE

Some people are intrinsically more likely to be brought back from the dead. Especially if they have the money to do so.

Think about it this way, would someone be more likely to begin the length process of bringing you back from the dead if you were a famous celebrity/philosopher/scientist/conquering hero who died in an untimely fashion or a working-class stooge who took the farm?

It would make sense for them to care more about bringing the world-saving warrior back to life than to occupy their time with bringing back a peasant killed in a viking-raid. PC or NPC doesn't make much difference as long as they're important enough to matter to the person. They get the best care, treatment, or in this case, magical spells or what-have-you. That's usually how the world works.

Artanis
2008-02-21, 07:21 PM
Some of them, such as? Personally, i think giants were good
I listed them. You quoted them



1. I like the concept, i just think it should be a setting specific
2. Why wouldn't most of these monsters do what real world societies do and create countries
3. Why would the good races be so weak. Points of light works if there is a reason. For example, in my take of it the area went through a massive civil war and everything fell apart due to political infighting
1) A setting like...say...genericlandia?

2) Because they're monsters. Dragons don't get together and form a parliament, they fly around eating people. Zombies don't hold elections, they shamble along looking for braaaaaaiiiinnnnzzzz to eat. You get the picture.

3) Because they're up against monsters. Seriously, a mid-rank Dragon - not even a Great Wyrm, just an Adult, tops - can annihilate an entire army without so much as a scratch. When you have something like THAT lurking behind the next mountain, there's a damned big incentive to not bother trying to root out the occasional bandit or necromancer that hangs out in Dragon-Buffet-Land.


1. Why do you have the assumption that all NPCs are totally useless commoners.
2. Adventures would be different than the local dirt farmer, but adventure isn't a PC only class. elite guards, other wizards ect.
Nothing is stopping you from using PC generation rules for an NPC.

1) Because that's explicitly what the differing rules are about. If an NPC is worth using the PC generation rules for, then by all means, do so. But if an NPC is just going to be some guy who says, "hey, whassup?" and walk off, never to be seen again, there isn't a whole lot of point to going through the rigamarole of going whole-hog with the character generation. The same goes for guys whose only impact on the story is to get some blood on the PCs' blades: there's little point in bothering with all the rules when they won't live long enough to actually use all of them, so there's literally no mechanical disadvantage to using a few shortcuts designed specifically for just such a situation.

2) If the Elite Guards, Other Wizards, etc. are worth using PC generation rules on, then NOTHING is stopping you from doing so. The NPC generation rules are fully optional.


Wait a second so the in game reason for resurrection is that some people are naturally special and others aren't. That would be fine, except that WOTC hasn't given us a reason, other than "It is the PCs"
You just contradicted yourself.

Some people are special. And because they are special, they become PCs (NOT the other way around).

Going back to my last point, some NPCs are worth treating as more than just mooks (such as the BBEG, major plot figures, etc.), and they're worth getting resurrected if the situation calls for it. But the Third Stormtrooper on the Left? Han Solo doesn't have to go and inspect, cremate, and scatter the ashes of every last stormtrooper he shoots because that's boring. They're Stormtroopers. They die. It's what they do.


And in game wise, why are they people considered mook just because they aren't being played by people

from
EE
They aren't considered mooks "just because they aren't being played by people". The BBEG isn't a mook. He probably has some lieutenants who aren't mooks. Maybe some questgivers are not mooks.

No, certain NPCs are mooks for the simple reason that they're mooks. In Star Wars, the Stormtroopers are mooks because that's their purpose in the story. A Stormtrooper's purpose is to get shot by the good guys. That makes them mooks.

horseboy
2008-02-21, 07:31 PM
Just because they're drawing ideas from something people might think is crappy doesn't mean it can't come out amazing, or that it'll actually be any worse than any previous edition. Regardless, until you have all the facts sitting in front of you, you can't really begin to pass judgment. So, let's put this argument on hold, for now.
Question I don't know the answer to: "How many people actually play D&D?" Not just "has played", or "into RPG's," but how big is Hasbro's actual customer base? Is it 10 million? I honestly don't know, but the fact that Blizzard has that many subscribers is considered a major milestone. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably less. Is it really wrong for a company to try and emulate success?

Deepblue706
2008-02-21, 08:14 PM
Question I don't know the answer to: "How many people actually play D&D?" Not just "has played", or "into RPG's," but how big is Hasbro's actual customer base? Is it 10 million? I honestly don't know, but the fact that Blizzard has that many subscribers is considered a major milestone. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably less. Is it really wrong for a company to try and emulate success?

I'm afraid I'm not sure of the numbers either, but I know there are many, many WoW players. And, with their advertisements featuring Mr. T and William Shatner, they not only show they've been hugely successful (getting those guys isn't exactly cheap, even if they're not A-list), and I'm sure that only draws in countless more people.

Emulating success certainly isn't wrong. And, what WotC chooses to emulate and how, could be, for many people, an improvement upon the game. It may turn out poorly, yes, but when you're trying to make money, you have to go with what helps you meet that end. They're trying to read the market, and then go with it. Ignoring the market could very well lead to a total flop, and then a lot of developers will be seeking new employment.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 08:17 PM
I listed them. You quoted them


No other than what i said


1) A setting like...say...genericlandia?

2) Because they're monsters. Dragons don't get together and form a parliament, they fly around eating people. Zombies don't hold elections, they shamble along looking for braaaaaaiiiinnnnzzzz to eat. You get the picture.

3) Because they're up against monsters. Seriously, a mid-rank Dragon - not even a Great Wyrm, just an Adult, tops - can annihilate an entire army without so much as a scratch. When you have something like THAT lurking behind the next mountain, there's a damned big incentive to not bother trying to root out the occasional bandit or necromancer that hangs out in Dragon-Buffet-Land.

1. well in 3E the setting was basically "here are the gods, here are the races, here are the classes, go have a blast
2. Goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, gnomes (monsters now), giants and the like do have cultures. Also dragons can dominate nations, nothing stops them. Zombies are mindless
3. And the humans have wizards, clerics, ect (ok, maybe not anymore) and could try to take out the smaller evils. Here is a question, why don't the evil forces destroy these settlements of light?



Nothing is stopping you from using PC generation rules for an NPC.

Sure and nothing stops me from changing the diplomacy rules in 3E, that doesn't make the system good


1) Because that's explicitly what the differing rules are about. If an NPC is worth using the PC generation rules for, then by all means, do so. But if an NPC is just going to be some guy who says, "hey, whassup?" and walk off, never to be seen again, there isn't a whole lot of point to going through the rigamarole of going whole-hog with the character generation. The same goes for guys whose only impact on the story is to get some blood on the PCs' blades: there's little point in bothering with all the rules when they won't live long enough to actually use all of them, so there's literally no mechanical disadvantage to using a few shortcuts designed specifically for just such a situation.
1) That is what NPC classes are for, however this is different.
2) If the Elite Guards, Other Wizards, etc. are worth using PC generation rules on, then NOTHING is stopping you from doing so. The NPC generation rules are fully optional.
1.
2. No that is in 3E, in 4E it seems Pcs are the only dudes with their powers
You just contradicted yourself.



Some people are special. And because they are special, they become PCs (NOT the other way around).
From all we've seen only the PCs are special in that way, in 3E both of them could be equally special together


Going back to my last point, some NPCs are worth treating as more than just mooks (such as the BBEG, major plot figures, etc.), and they're worth getting resurrected if the situation calls for it. But the Third Stormtrooper on the Left? Han Solo doesn't have to go and inspect, cremate, and scatter the ashes of every last stormtrooper he shoots because that's boring. They're Stormtroopers. They die. It's what they do.


by 3E terms that just gets them considered NPC classes however they are other Jedi other than luke out there
Also media, game, different things



They aren't considered mooks "just because they aren't being played by people". The BBEG isn't a mook. He probably has some lieutenants who aren't mooks. Maybe some questgivers are not mooks.

No, certain NPCs are mooks for the simple reason that they're mooks. In Star Wars, the Stormtroopers are mooks because that's their purpose in the story. A Stormtrooper's purpose is to get shot by the good guys. That makes them mooks.

1. Yet again, we had NPC classes for that
2. In game remember? IN game, those mooks have a perfectly good reason for doing what they are doing, they don't think their only point is to be killed by the good guys.
from
EE

Flabbicus
2008-02-21, 08:30 PM
I'll take your silence as an admission of my victory.

Victory I say!

Or maybe it was ignored because I have nothing to add in term of 4E content or news to support this, common sense isn't so refutable I guess.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 08:34 PM
I'll take your silence as an admission of my victory.

Victory I say!

Or maybe it was ignored because I have nothing to add in term of 4E content or news to support this, common sense isn't so refutable I guess.

Oh close, but i summon the Light Birgade. They will turn your victory into....well i won't talk about that

I didn't see you, i'll address that right now


Some people are intrinsically more likely to be brought back from the dead. Especially if they have the money to do so.

Think about it this way, would someone be more likely to begin the length process of bringing you back from the dead if you were a famous celebrity/philosopher/scientist/conquering hero who died in an untimely fashion or a working-class stooge who took the farm?

It would make sense for them to care more about bringing the world-saving warrior back to life than to occupy their time with bringing back a peasant killed in a viking-raid. PC or NPC doesn't make much difference as long as they're important enough to matter to the person. They get the best care, treatment, or in this case, magical spells or what-have-you. That's usually how the world works.

Oh but your working under the assumption that resurrection is even available to NPCs, sadly it doesn't seem to be. While PC get raising powers relativity easily, NPCs rarely if ever come back via WOTC.
from
EE

Flabbicus
2008-02-21, 08:41 PM
So, not quite victory....

I didn't know that resurrections were not available to NPC's, and I hadn't noticed any mention of it being shut off from non player characters, so I'll just concede.

Rutee
2008-02-21, 08:43 PM
So, not quite victory....

I didn't know that resurrections were not available to NPC's, and I hadn't noticed any mention of it being shut off from non player characters, so I'll just concede.

They're available to NPCs. If EE said otherwise, he's deliberately omitting the truth. Specifically, "Most NPCs don't come back, but if the DM's got a reason to rez someone, they sure can".

The idea, I think, is to discourage DMs from requiring players to burn the bodies if all their foes, even the Red Shirts, trap the souls, and the like, a la Hackmaster. In short, I view it as encouraging the social contract most GMs work off of; "You don't murder beyond resurrection everyone you kill, and I only resurrect when dramatically appropriate". But I could be wrong; I can't confirm my view, but I can explicitly disprove any statement along the lines of "NPCs can't come back" using WotC's words.

Da Beast
2008-02-21, 08:47 PM
1. The NPC PC thing seems from all quotes on the matter to be a real in game thing

"the Adventures created by the players are pionners, explorers, trailblazers, thrill seekers, and heroes of the D&D world. Althought some player characters might have a class and gain powers, they do not nececessarily advance as the PCs do, and they exist for a different purpose. Not everyone in the world gains levels like the PCs. An NPC might be a veteran of many battles and still not become a 3rd level fighter, and army of elves is largely made up of non classes soldiers."
Worlds and Classes p.13
3. 3E didn't really have any setting concept at all really, if you weren't familiar with Greyhawk, you pretty much had to but a setting or make your own world

These are still issues with how the world is run which is entirely up to the DM. Unless They're going to include quite a bit of setting material in the core books (which, to be honest, would annoy me) I don't see how this tiny, easily ignorable bit of the designers imagined setting will affect you and your ability to run the world you want at all. Furthermore, this isn't new. Eberron, the only setting built entirely with 3.5 rules, was built like this.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 08:47 PM
So, not quite victory....

I didn't know that resurrections were not available to NPC's, and I hadn't noticed any mention of it being shut off from non player characters, so I'll just concede.

contrary to what Rutee says, in general PCs will be coming back pretty much the same way they did in 3E, while NPCs will come back on very rare occasions (no in game reason is given)

Good game charge of the light brigade
from
EE
edit


These are still issues with how the world is run which is entirely up to the DM. Unless They're going to include quite a bit of setting material in the core books (which, to be honest, would annoy me) I don't see how this tiny, easily ignorable bit of the designers imagined setting will affect you and your ability to run the world you want at all. Furthermore, this isn't new. Eberron, the only setting built entirely with 3.5 rules, was built like this.
no it isn't the heros being great that is the problem, it is the fact that PCs are the only heros that are great (even Ebberon doesn't do that)
Also Ebberon wasn't built entirely with 3.5 rules, they have their own special rules

Solo
2008-02-21, 08:50 PM
I'll take your silence as an admission of my victory.

Victory I say!

Or maybe it was ignored because I have nothing to add in term of 4E content or news to support this, common sense isn't so refutable I guess.

You were ignored because you are only a minor character!

Da Beast
2008-02-21, 08:58 PM
contrary to what Rutee says, in general PCs will be coming back pretty much the same way they did in 3E, while NPCs will come back on very rare occasions (no in game reason is given)

Good game charge of the light brigade
from
EE

Common resurrection magic yet for some reason the PCs are the only ones who come back every time they die. That sounds familiar. Sort of like 3rd edition.


no it isn't the heros being great that is the problem, it is the fact that PCs are the only heros that are great (even Ebberon doesn't do that)
Also Ebberon wasn't built entirely with 3.5 rules, they have their own special rules

Once again, the designers saying "in fourth edition, you get to be the heroes" to excite people about their new product in no way hinders your ability to run your world in the way you choose.

And by "built entirely with 3.5 rules" I mean that it was constructed during the run of 3.5 with no hold over material from previous editions. A few feats, races and an action point rules hardly set the world apart as having it's own system.

Anima
2008-02-21, 09:00 PM
It seems to me, that here are quite a few misunderstandings concerning some terms.
To see what a generic setting should be, we should look at the definition of generic and setting. (Both taken from Wikitionary)
setting (plural settings)
The way or place in which something is set.
generic (comparative more generic, superlative most generic)
Very comprehensive; pertaining or appropriate to large classes or groups as opposed to specific
So a generic setting tells us about a world only in classes, not in specifics.
Now we enter the murky waters of interpretation. At least I would say that "There are many city states surrounded by an untamed and hostile wilderness" is pretty generic. Specific would look more like:"The city of Mursk lays in the centre of the great salt desert, guarding the only well for a hundred miles, besieged by the rotten undead corpses of those who died under the unforgiving sun."

Methinks, the term you are looking for is universal, EvilElitest. But an universal setting wouldn't be a setting at all, therefore I would like to ask you what purpose does such a setting serve?

The second term is MMORPG, which is defined as:
massively multiplayer online role-playing game
An online computer role-playing game in which a large number of players can interact with one another in the same game at the same time. Abbreviation: MMORPG
Even with the arrival of a Software for on-line Gaming, D&D would still fail for the criteria of "large number of players", so no the fourth edition of D&D will not turn your beloved game into an MMORPG. Worry again when VR technology will receive a major breakthrough.

Of course the answer would be that it was not the intention behind all this name calling, but I would like to raise two objections against this practice.
First and foremost, does a good idea stops being a good idea when someone you do not like had it? The second objection is more straight forward, please say what you mean and refrain from using buzz words or hyperboles. It would reduce the rate of misunderstandings, not only in these topics, but also in general, by an enormous amount.

In case of mistakes, please bear with me, it has been quite some time, since I wrote anything in English.

Rutee
2008-02-21, 09:03 PM
I didn't know Eberron was that new. Huh...

Flabbicus
2008-02-21, 09:03 PM
You were ignored because you are only a minor character!

Narrative dictates I must return later on to do something completely unexpected. Like write down all the happenings in this thread for future generations, even though this facet of my character was never mentioned beforehand.

And then I'll die.

EvilElitest
2008-02-21, 10:19 PM
Common resurrection magic yet for some reason the PCs are the only ones who come back every time they die. That sounds familiar. Sort of like 3rd edition.

Who says? you just need money and a cleric to come back from teh dead in 3E (silly but true)



Once again, the designers saying "in fourth edition, you get to be the heroes" to excite people about their new product in no way hinders your ability to run your world in the way you choose.

Sure i could fix 3E without using up money and play that.


And by "built entirely with 3.5 rules" I mean that it was constructed during the run of 3.5 with no hold over material from previous editions. A few feats, races and an action point rules hardly set the world apart as having it's own system.
ok then, but they also have teh magic tech thing going for them




It seems to me, that here are quite a few misunderstandings concerning some terms.
To see what a generic setting should be, we should look at the definition of generic and setting. (Both taken from Wikitionary)
setting (plural settings)
The way or place in which something is set.
generic (comparative more generic, superlative most generic)
Very comprehensive; pertaining or appropriate to large classes or groups as opposed to specific
So a generic setting tells us about a world only in classes, not in specifics.
Now we enter the murky waters of interpretation. At least I would say that "There are many city states surrounded by an untamed and hostile wilderness" is pretty generic. Specific would look more like:"The city of Mursk lays in the centre of the great salt desert, guarding the only well for a hundred miles, besieged by the rotten undead corpses of those who died under the unforgiving sun."
not quite, because they have stated that in this generic setting, monsters would have control over most of the world and political boundaries no longer exist



The second term is MMORPG, which is defined as:
massively multiplayer online role-playing game
An online computer role-playing game in which a large number of players can interact with one another in the same game at the same time. Abbreviation: MMORPG
Even with the arrival of a Software for on-line Gaming, D&D would still fail for the criteria of "large number of players", so no the fourth edition of D&D will not turn your beloved game into an MMORPG. Worry again when VR technology will receive a major breakthrough.
Personally i'm talking about video games generally, not MMOs


Of course the answer would be that it was not the intention behind all this name calling, but I would like to raise two objections against this practice.
First and foremost, does a good idea stops being a good idea when someone you do not like had it? The second objection is more straight forward, please say what you mean and refrain from using buzz words or hyperboles. It would reduce the rate of misunderstandings, not only in these topics, but also in general, by an enormous amount.

In case of mistakes, please bear with me, it has been quite some time, since I wrote anything in English.
nice
from
EE

Artanis
2008-02-21, 10:28 PM
No other than what i said
You want MORE examples? I gave you three of 'em, and you want more?

Tell you what. You list some things that you feel break verisimilitude, and I'll tell you how I feel about them. Fair? :smallwink:




1. well in 3E the setting was basically "here are the gods, here are the races, here are the classes, go have a blast
2. Goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls, gnomes (monsters now), giants and the like do have cultures. Also dragons can dominate nations, nothing stops them. Zombies are mindless
3. And the humans have wizards, clerics, ect (ok, maybe not anymore) and could try to take out the smaller evils. Here is a question, why don't the evil forces destroy these settlements of light?
1) And I don't see a whole lot of difference in 4e. 3e told you how the cosmology works, 4e tells you how the cosmology works. 3e gives you monsters to do whatever the hell you like with, 4e gives you monsters to do whatever the hell you like with.

If anything, 4e is MORE general than 3e, thanks to the relaxation of alignment. In 3e, you could never, ever, at any point, for any reason, have a Good Red Dragon or an Evil Silver Dragon. If you wanted a Red Dragon, you had absolutely zero choice by RAW but to make him evil. In 4e, you can make that Red Dragon behave however the hell you want him to behave.


2) Ok, I'll address this possibility.

First, some of the races you mentioned might be civilized in whatever setting you're working with. Like Eberron, where Hobgoblins (and their buddies) have their own kingdom with its own, in-depth history. Likewise for Orcs. At this point, they are no longer bad guys, but they become one of the "points of light"

Second, some of the races might be working together but pretty much *******s. A big, evil Orcish horde that hangs out in Orclandia until they get a hankerin' to do some raping and pillaging. At this point, Orclandia becomes part of the "dark area" surrounding the "points of light", merely reinforcing the "points of light" concept. If the bad guys have an outright border, then that's all the more reason for the "good guys" to be unable to make it safe for their people there.


3) They do. That's the whole POINT of the "points of light" concept, if you'll forgive the pun. The "points of light" are areas where the good guys are in control, keeping out the bad guys by wiping out their settlements and whatnot. The "dark" areas around the "points of light" are the areas where the good guys aren't strong enough to do that, and the bad guys are being a pain in the ass, making it anywhere from a mildly dangerous place to live all the way up to "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here".



Sure and nothing stops me from changing the diplomacy rules in 3E, that doesn't make the system good
Who said anything about changing the rules? It's in the rules that you can use PC stuff for NPCs.

In 3e you could use an NPC class for an NPC, or if you wanted to make him really cool, you could give him a "real" class like Fighter or Wizard. In 4e, you do the same thing: you use the PC rules for whoever you feel is worth using the PC rules on...which could very well be every single NPC in the entire game world, if you so choose.

No rule changing takes place.


1. 1) That is what NPC classes are for, however this is different.
2. No that is in 3E, in 4E it seems Pcs are the only dudes with their powers
You just contradicted yourself.
I think you botched up the quote here, but I think this is how it was supposed to turn out. If I'm wrong about that, I'll give it another go. :smallwink:

1) How is it different? In 3e, if you wanted some shmuck NPC, you used the rules for a shmuck NPC and gave him levels of Aristocrat or Adept or whatnot. If you wanted a good NPC, you used the rules for a PC and gave him PC levels.

The same applies in 4e. If you want some shmuck NPC, you use the rules for whipping up a shmuck NPC. If you want a good NPC, you use the PC rules.

Sounds pretty much the same to me.


2) I didn't contradict myself because PCs aren't the only ones with their powers unless the DM decides he wants it that way. If the DM wants to give NPCs the powers of PCs - and not just class levels, but the chance of being resurrected when they kick the bucket, and actually rolling when at 0hp or less instead of just being declared "dead", and whatever - then he's officially well within his rights to do so, just like in 3e.

And if the DM decides he doesn't want NPCs to have any of the shiny stuff that the PCs have, then it's no different from if the DM decides that very same thing in a 3e campaign. But there's NOTHING in the 4e rules keeping the DM from doing the exact same things with NPCs that he did in 3e.



From all we've seen only the PCs are special in that way, in 3E both of them could be equally special together
This is just flat-out false. They've gone out of their way to make it clear that if the DM wants to make an NPC just as special as the PCs, then he can do so, just like he did in 3e.


by 3E terms that just gets them considered NPC classes however they are other Jedi other than luke out there
Also media, game, different things
All this time, you're railing against different treatment for NPCs, and then you turn around and say that they should be treated differently. Well guess what, 3e had different rules for shmuck NPCs than PCs. The Warrior didn't get the cool feats a Fighter did. The Adept didn't get crap worth of spells, especially compared to a Wizard or whatnot. And a Commoner...well, a Commoner could be mauled to death by Fluffy the Kitten.

The upshot is that if the DM wants a good NPC, he makes a good NPC using the PC rules in both editions. If the DM wants a shmuck NPC, he makes a shmuck NPC using the shmuck-NPC-specific rules in both editions.



And yes, I know the difference between a movie and a game. I was trying to give an example of why paying too much attention to mooks sucks, which carries over between them: because mooks don't matter to the story except to get offed by the heroes.


1. Yet again, we had NPC classes for that
2. In game remember? IN game, those mooks have a perfectly good reason for doing what they are doing, they don't think their only point is to be killed by the good guys.
1) Yes, yet again, we ALREADY HAD SPECIALIZED NPC RULES FOR DEALING WITH MOOK NPCS. 4e is no different in this regard. In 3e, if you wanted mooks, you would turn to the mook NPC page and make them using the mook NPC rules, which included NPC classes. In 4e, if you want mooks, you turn to the mook NPC page and make them using the mook NPC rules.

2) Your point being? Sure, you can give Scratchy the Kobold an elaborate backstory and compelling reason for fighting the PCs...and then Scratchy gets stabbed six seconds after he appears. His wife and kids back home? Nobody ever sees him. The fact that his hopes and dreams have been dashed? Doesn't matter to the PCs, they've already moved on to the next encounter. Scratchy and his legacy are never seen again.

And this is in 3e.

The only difference with 4e is that it acknowledges that this is the case. It says "it doesn't really matter what Scratchy the Kobold's motivations are, because he's going to appear, die, and be forgotten anyways. If that's going to happen, you might want to think about not bothering to make his backstory too deep, because it won't be a bit of difference."


contrary to what Rutee says, in general PCs will be coming back pretty much the same way they did in 3E, while NPCs will come back on very rare occasions (no in game reason is given)
Prove it.
Prove that it's more rare than in 3e.
Prove that they have officially and mechanically restricted the DM's ability to bring back whoever he damned well pleases BEYOND any restrictions that 3e already may have had.

Go ahead. Prove it.


no it isn't the heros being great that is the problem, it is the fact that PCs are the only heros that are great
Prove it.
Prove that the DM is officially and mechanically banned from making a great hero of an NPC.

And do keep in mind that explicitly, officially, and by default NPCs CAN be made using PC creation rules if that's what the DM wants to do.

Go ahead. Prove it.

Roland St. Jude
2008-02-21, 11:48 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please treat other posters with respect and abide by all the Forum Rules.