PDA

View Full Version : Epiphany on 4E.



Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-30, 12:48 AM
So, I was playing my Xbox today, and was thinking about how Gauntlet Dark Legacy, would make and AMZAING 4e campaign.
Then it struck me. The game is practically tailored for such an adventure.

Nameless PCs stepping outside, met by HORDES of nameless, faceless MINIONS, confronted by the occasional BRUTE, ELITE and CONTROLLER. And at the end of most adventures, they would come up against an ELITE BRUTE, or even a UNIQUE MONSTER.* Right down to your abilites that can only be used so often.

I thought about how Gauntlet played, and came to find that our D&D game was running a lot like it, however with towns and more NPCs.

I know it's little more than your random, "4e is this" thread, but when I looked at it, D&D4e is almost exactly like Gauntlet. From your standard characters, the PHB races, to your "unlockables", the MM races. And as it follows the game well, it is VERY suited for miniatures battles.

*capatalised as they are the divining key words.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-30, 12:51 AM
You know, this would probably be considered flamebaiting if you weren't so right. :smallamused:

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-30, 01:02 AM
Yeah sorry, I didn't want it to be flame baiting.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-30, 01:03 AM
Yeah sorry, I didn't want it to be flame baiting.No, it's not, I just found it hilarious.

thegurullamen
2008-08-30, 01:05 AM
Never played Gauntlet, but I don't find this surprising. I've always been in the 4e-has-too-many-similarities-to-video-games camp. Someone having an epiphany along those lines while playing a video game sounds very reasonable.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-08-30, 01:07 AM
Never played Gauntlet, but I don't find this surprising. I've always been in the 4e-has-too-many-similarities-to-video-games camp. Someone having an epiphany along those lines while playing a video game sounds very reasonable.

Huwhaaaaaaaaat!? *jaw drops*
Best game ever. Should you EVER find yourself looking for a badass game to sit and play with three other friends this is a MUST!

Crow
2008-08-30, 01:28 AM
At least 4e was compared to a good game for once.

Hallavast
2008-08-30, 01:40 AM
So, I was playing my Xbox today, and was thinking about how Gauntlet Dark Legacy, would make and AMZAING 4e campaign.
Then it struck me. The game is practically tailored for such an adventure.

Nameless PCs stepping outside, met by HORDES of nameless, faceless MINIONS, confronted by the occasional BRUTE, ELITE and CONTROLLER. And at the end of most adventures, they would come up against an ELITE BRUTE, or even a UNIQUE MONSTER.* Right down to your abilites that can only be used so often.

I thought about how Gauntlet played, and came to find that our D&D game was running a lot like it, however with towns and more NPCs.

I know it's little more than your random, "4e is this" thread, but when I looked at it, D&D4e is almost exactly like Gauntlet. From your standard characters, the PHB races, to your "unlockables", the MM races. And as it follows the game well, it is VERY suited for miniatures battles.

*capatalised as they are the divining key words.

Congratulations. You've made me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

On the one hand. I'm amused thinking about what fans of the edition will come up with to contest your comparison. On the other hand, I'm saddened that D&D has come down to the level of a game like Gauntlet.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-08-30, 01:46 AM
Actually if your going to compare 4rth ed to a video game I'd prefer a reference to the Tales series. A cool series with a simple easy to understand combat system that's a lot of fun and allows a whole group of friends to battle monsters and save the world. (if you have enough controllers).

Also of note I remember growing up and at one point thinking gauntlet was such a rip off of D&D... it had most of the characters (warrior,elf,wizard) and the objective was basically to go around bashing monsters to get treasure. So yeah, a game inspired by a game that later people think a new version of the game looks a lot like... hmmm

And gauntlet would be a lot of fun as a combat intensive 4rth ed game if you cut some of the minions and made more fights with "bosses" the focus. Besides with that many minions your poor characters are bound to die, they may only have 1 hp but minions do decent damage if you check the MM. Your Green Warrior turns the corner by himself and gets surrounded by 20 goblin minions a few hits later (approx 50% hit for 4 damage each...if 8 can attack per round... 16 dam per round he kills say 2 /rd assuming good rolls he needs 10 rounds to win, so might take about 160 damage... he's still in deep do do without help and perhaps some choke points/healing/friends.

Frosty
2008-08-30, 01:52 AM
I've only played Gauntlet: Dark Legacy, but yes...you are SOOOO right. The comparison even makes sense at the level of "every character works the same way but with differen power sources." Every just mashes the same few buttons and do damage to kill the enemies. Everyone has a weak and a strong attack that are at-wills, and a limited amount of Magic (they're like Encounter powers), no matter if one is a Blue Warrior...Red Wizard...or Black Jester.

Skyserpent
2008-08-30, 02:13 AM
Haha. Okay, I can get behind that.

Still love 4e though.

Myshlaevsky
2008-08-30, 02:14 AM
Man, I remember playing Gauntlet while pissed out my head at like 3 o'clock on a Wedensday morning. It was great fun. The four of us didn't know you could kill death so we went crazy whenever he appeared.

In any case... I can actually see where you are coming from. As the novelty value wears off I'm becoming less enamoured of 4e, though I still think it's good fun. I'm most concerned about replayability.

Frosty
2008-08-30, 02:22 AM
After my current campaign ends I plan on running another 3.5 campaign. I feel 3.5 gives my players more room to be creative and personally expressive with their characters.

SadisticFishing
2008-08-30, 04:19 AM
Actually, you can do a LOT with your characters.

And somehow, this doesn't at all scream "4e" to me. It's extremely easy for 3.5 games to be like this too.

GASP RPGs have things in common.

Anyways, I was baited to the flame ;)

I did do a weird facepalm/laugh/groan thing when I read the Gauntlet Legends thing. What an amazing (MULTIPLAYER ONLY) game!

Myshlaevsky
2008-08-30, 04:27 AM
Actually, you can do a LOT with your characters.

And somehow, this doesn't at all scream "4e" to me. It's extremely easy for 3.5 games to be like this too.

GASP RPGs have things in common.

Anyways, I was baited to the flame ;)

I did do a weird facepalm/laugh/groan thing when I read the Gauntlet Legends thing. What an amazing (MULTIPLAYER ONLY) game!

Typically there are two paths, multiclassing and the interesting innovations that lie within. I did not previously compare 4e to 3.5e - indeed, no-one has except Frosty, though I can understand this is a response to that post. Nevertheless, I still have concerns with replayability. This is something that isn't (for me) currently shared with 3.5e, but it's also something that may change with time.

EDIT: My response is partially based on the fact that I believe this quote from your post:


GASP RPGs have things in common.

Refers soley to 3.5e vs. 4e. If you're calling Gauntlet an RPG, well... :smalltongue:

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 04:58 AM
If you boil it down far enough, you can make comparisons between anything and anything else. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a lot like Spider-Man because they both deal with issues of guilt and anger surrounding the loss of a father figure, have flamboyant personalities to hide their real vulnerabilities, and learn something more about themselves and being an adult and a complete human being through their life experiences.

Yes, D&D is like videogames. In both of them you fight monsters of varying strength, utilizing powers of your own as you go, many of which can only be used at certain intervals, and make progress usually marked by fighting harder enemies in different locales.

You know what, I just described Super Mario Brothers as accurately as I described Gauntlet, or D&D 4th edition... or D&D 3rd or 1st edition for that matter!

Starsinger
2008-08-30, 05:13 AM
If you boil it down far enough, you can make comparisons between anything and anything else. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a lot like Spider-Man because they both deal with issues of guilt and anger surrounding the loss of a father figure, have flamboyant personalities to hide their real vulnerabilities, and learn something more about themselves and being an adult and a complete human being through their life experiences.


Dang.. that's deep.

Sinfire Titan
2008-08-30, 05:13 AM
Actually, you can do a LOT with your characters.

And somehow, this doesn't at all scream "4e" to me. It's extremely easy for 3.5 games to be like this too.

GASP RPGs have things in common.

Anyways, I was baited to the flame ;)

I did do a weird facepalm/laugh/groan thing when I read the Gauntlet Legends thing. What an amazing (MULTIPLAYER ONLY) game!

4E has everyone using the same combat system, just with different names for each ability. This is the exact same thing that Gauntlet does.

3.5 has 6 different systems built around a single system, all of which can vary wildly. Spellcasting and Psionics are the only two that are even remotely similar (note that I am lumping Shadowcaster in with Spellcasting, as Shadowcaster is simply a variant of the Sorcerer), as Incarnum, Bo9S, Binder, and Truenamer are all based around a different type of mechanic. None of them play exactly like each other though, which is why 3.5 is not Gauntlet.

Myshlaevsky
2008-08-30, 05:17 AM
If you boil it down far enough, you can make comparisons between anything and anything else. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a lot like Spider-Man because they both deal with issues of guilt and anger surrounding the loss of a father figure, have flamboyant personalities to hide their real vulnerabilities, and learn something more about themselves and being an adult and a complete human being through their life experiences.

Yes, D&D is like videogames. In both of them you fight monsters of varying strength, utilizing powers of your own as you go, many of which can only be used at certain intervals, and make progress usually marked by fighting harder enemies in different locales.

You know what, I just described Super Mario Brothers as accurately as I described Gauntlet, or D&D 4th edition... or D&D 3rd or 1st edition for that matter!

Some comparisons are more accurate than others though. The post above me is an entirely valid argument about why there is a greater similarity between Gauntlet and 4e and Gauntlet and 3.5e. They are not, however, the same game - and both are fun. Also, the 4e classes do not play exactly like each other, IMO, whereas the classes in Gauntlet do. They use the same mechanic, however.

@Starsinger: I shot you a PM asking if I could use your stat-swap rule for a submission to your Maptool game. Could you give me a response? Hammer-throwing Dwarven Ranger is what I'm thinking of.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-30, 05:31 AM
3.5 has 6 different systems built around a single system, all of which can vary wildly. Spellcasting and Psionics are the only two that are even remotely similar (note that I am lumping Shadowcaster in with Spellcasting, as Shadowcaster is simply a variant of the Sorcerer), as Incarnum, Bo9S, Binder, and Truenamer are all based around a different type of mechanic. None of them play exactly like each other though, which is why 3.5 is not Gauntlet.

You're forgetting the seventh system, used by over 50% of the classes - Non-Casting:

--------------------
|Attack <--
|Defend
|Item
|Run
--------------------

Myshlaevsky
2008-08-30, 05:39 AM
You're forgetting the seventh system, used by over 50% of the classes - Non-Casting:

--------------------
|Attack <--
|Defend
|Item
|Run
--------------------

:smallbiggrin:

Sinfire Titan
2008-08-30, 05:53 AM
You're forgetting the seventh system, used by over 50% of the classes - Non-Casting:

--------------------
|Attack <--
|Defend
|Item
|Run
--------------------

As funny as that was, that is the system the other six are based off of. All characters use the Standard Action system, some just use it more than others (Fighters). Said characters also cannot bend reality over and f*** it on their own.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-30, 09:45 AM
Dang.. that's deep.

Yeah, I mean, I've never thought about it, but Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is exactly like Spiderman (superhero Static Shock too but loosely). They do deal with guilt alot. They do learn things about themselves.

Dude, Spiderman is Will Smith!

TwystidMynd
2008-08-30, 11:28 AM
4E has everyone using the same combat system, just with different names for each ability. This is the exact same thing that Gauntlet does.

3.5 has 6 different systems built around a single system, all of which can vary wildly. Spellcasting and Psionics are the only two that are even remotely similar (note that I am lumping Shadowcaster in with Spellcasting, as Shadowcaster is simply a variant of the Sorcerer), as Incarnum, Bo9S, Binder, and Truenamer are all based around a different type of mechanic. None of them play exactly like each other though, which is why 3.5 is not Gauntlet.

6 different systems that can all be summed up by a d20 being rolled to see IF you hit, and then either a) XdY to see how much damage you do or b) a status effect is inflicted.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:38 AM
If you boil it down far enough, you can make comparisons between anything and anything else. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air is a lot like Spider-Man because they both deal with issues of guilt and anger surrounding the loss of a father figure, have flamboyant personalities to hide their real vulnerabilities, and learn something more about themselves and being an adult and a complete human being through their life experiences.

Your evading the question. you can boil down any game to a video game experience, what makes 4E unique is that it is designed as such. I could play a gauntlet 3E game, but it isn't designed for it in the same way 4E is. Your just evading the question and trying to make a very round about argument.


Yes, D&D is like videogames. In both of them you fight monsters of varying strength, utilizing powers of your own as you go, many of which can only be used at certain intervals, and make progress usually marked by fighting harder enemies in different locales.

Except that isn't the quality of the video game that the OP is talking about and you know it.



You know what, I just described Super Mario Brothers as accurately as I described Gauntlet, or D&D 4th edition... or D&D 3rd or 1st edition for that matter!

Ok, how about addressing the actual issue


4E's style of play is very much like Guantlet, and since i'm one of the people who has been saying that 4E is like a video game (Not an MMO in particular) i'm shocked i didn't think about it.

It also reminds me of Baldur's gate, Dark Alliance actually
from
EE

Artanis
2008-08-30, 11:59 AM
So, I was playing my Xbox today, and was thinking about how Gauntlet Dark Legacy, would make and AMZAING 4e campaign.
Then it struck me. The game is practically tailored for such an adventure.
*pulls out flamethrower*


Nameless PCs stepping outside, met by HORDES of nameless, faceless MINIONS, confronted by the occasional BRUTE, ELITE and CONTROLLER. And at the end of most adventures, they would come up against an ELITE BRUTE, or even a UNIQUE MONSTER.* Right down to your abilites that can only be used so often.

I thought about how Gauntlet played, and came to find that our D&D game was running a lot like it, however with towns and more NPCs.

I know it's little more than your random, "4e is this" thread, but when I looked at it, D&D4e is almost exactly like Gauntlet. From your standard characters, the PHB races, to your "unlockables", the MM races. And as it follows the game well, it is VERY suited for miniatures battles.

*capatalised as they are the divining key words.
Huh.

*puts away flamethrower*

That's actually a really good point. I would normally argue some of the finer points, but when I think about it, I really can see some real similarities to the last Gauntlet game I played (the first N64 one). I especially see how a 4e campaign could very easily be tailored to accentuate those similarities. If you invisioned the super-blasts and (maybe) magic potions as being like encounter powers and the really awesome items (like the kill-everything-in-its-path mega-arrow) as being like dailies...



However, this leaves me with the problem of having a fully-fueled flamethrower and nothing to use it on. I wonder if I can find a ".999... = 1" thread floating around somewhere. :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 12:20 PM
I'd suggest destroying all the bad Fan ficts in the world. And Dominic Deegan. Do the world a favor


Ironically, i think a 4E gauntlet game would attually be very fun. I'm just depressed about the implications
from
EE

LibraryOgre
2008-08-30, 01:34 PM
It also reminds me of Baldur's gate, Dark Alliance actually
from
EE

That's because BG:DA is a very close relative of Gauntlet (though it probably more consciously imitated Diablo).

Ecalsneerg
2008-08-30, 01:37 PM
Yeah, I mean, I've never thought about it, but Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is exactly like Spiderman (superhero Static Shock too but loosely). They do deal with guilt alot. They do learn things about themselves.

Dude, Spiderman is Will Smith!

Make me this movie now.

Suzuro
2008-08-30, 01:48 PM
However, this leaves me with the problem of having a fully-fueled flamethrower and nothing to use it on. I wonder if I can find a ".999... = 1" thread floating around somewhere. :smalltongue:


One time I was in calculus and I accidentally proved that two is equal to 64,000.....seven times.

-Suzuro

Artanis
2008-08-30, 01:53 PM
One time I was in calculus and I accidentally proved that two is equal to 64,000.....seven times.

-Suzuro
It works that way in N mod 2

...but then, abstract math is wierd. :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 02:01 PM
That's because BG:DA is a very close relative of Gauntlet (though it probably more consciously imitated Diablo).

same vein basically
from
EE

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 02:03 PM
Your evading the question. you can boil down any game to a video game experience, what makes 4E unique is that it is designed as such. I could play a gauntlet 3E game, but it isn't designed for it in the same way 4E is. Your just evading the question and trying to make a very round about argument.

No, I don't think I am. I'm arguing that reducing something to its component parts to compare it to something else makes the comparison invalid. I tried to elucidate this by making a comparison between the Fresh Prince and the Webslinger by boiling them both down to the component parts that are similar.

The only thing that seems evocative of Gauntlet in D&D4e to me is the minion mechanic, and I wish I had magical rhetoric powers to get across to people that minions are some of the most dangerous things you'll face in 4th edition, and they aren't things to push around as much as they will tear your face off.



Except that isn't the quality of the video game that the OP is talking about and you know it.

Actually, I mined the OP's post to find the issues he's talking about. I couldn't find anything beyond "Fights monsters of varying strength until you get to a boss along with more powerful abilities you can only use at certain intervals." If the OP had a spoilered section that I didn't notice, or was trying to imply something not directly stated, I'm sorry if I missed it, but that's literally all that was really said, it was just stated in the terms 4th edition uses.


Make me this movie now.

Will Smith could probably do a better job than Tobey McGuire with the character. Of course, I liked Hancock, and I heard that got slammed by critics, so maybe I'll just like anything about Superheroes. And Will Smith. I personally don't mind if Spider-man is black... they made Wolverine an Anglo-Australian instead of a Canadian and no one seemed to mind.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 02:16 PM
No, I don't think I am. I'm arguing that reducing something to its component parts to compare it to something else makes the comparison invalid. I tried to elucidate this by making a comparison between the Fresh Prince and the Webslinger by boiling them both down to the component parts that are similar.

you most certainly are, because instead of addressing the issue, which is why 4E is being compared to gauntlet, your just going off on a rant about flaws in comparisons in general, which while it sounds nice at first, doesn't actually hold up. Sure, you can compare everything no matter how irrelevant, but that doesn't actually mean all comparisons are wrong. Gauntlet and 4E are very much in the same vein and by trying to make comparisons in general seem silly is simply evading the point entirely


The only thing that seems evocative of Gauntlet in D&D4e to me is the minion mechanic, and I wish I had magical rhetoric powers to get across to people that minions are some of the most dangerous things you'll face in 4th edition, and they aren't things to push around as much as they will tear your face off.
first off, as a main complainer about the minion mechanic, i simply don't care how challenging minions are, i don't like the existence of the minion mechanic. How challenging they are makes no difference to me.

Secondly, Gauntlets style of play is the exact thing 4E is designed to represent. A massive fighting game where you run around with PC only super powers slaughtering mindless monsters then fighting bosses. in a sense 4E could be viewed as the D&D adaptation of Gauntlet/Dark Alliance
from
EE

ken-do-nim
2008-08-30, 10:48 PM
Btw, over on anther forum we discussed the 4E-Gauntlet comparison months ago.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 10:53 PM
Btw, over on anther forum we discussed the 4E-Gauntlet comparison months ago.

damnit, not i never even thought to compare 4E to that, it is such a well done comparison
from
EE

Jerthanis
2008-08-30, 11:29 PM
you most certainly are, because instead of addressing the issue, which is why 4E is being compared to gauntlet, your just going off on a rant about flaws in comparisons in general, which while it sounds nice at first, doesn't actually hold up. Sure, you can compare everything no matter how irrelevant, but that doesn't actually mean all comparisons are wrong. Gauntlet and 4E are very much in the same vein and by trying to make comparisons in general seem silly is simply evading the point entirely

Uh... I don't think 4e is like Gauntlet at all, and I disagree that the OP or anyone has stated a strong enough case to make me believe it is. I'm sorry, I haven't done competitive debates, but I was under the impression that pointing out insufficient evidence is a valid debate strategy.

However, I can't definitively 'prove' that 4th edition is NOT like Gauntlet, so maybe I shouldn't expect the same the other way around, but I do feel like the comparison is only valid for a very specific type of gaming that 4th edition encourages no more than any other edition.



first off, as a main complainer about the minion mechanic, i simply don't care how challenging minions are, i don't like the existence of the minion mechanic. How challenging they are makes no difference to me.

Well, I don't care about your personal feelings about minions, the fact is, minions are deadly, and are no mere cannon fodder, to serve as a means to make PCs feel awesome. If you feel the mechanic shouldn't exist, a mechanic mostly existing to allow speed and adroitness in play, then I really can't complain, but I can complain about depicting them in an inaccurate way by characterizing them as mindless stooges to be waded through effortlessly... because that's NOT how they act in play.



Secondly, Gauntlets style of play is the exact thing 4E is designed to represent. A massive fighting game where you run around with PC only super powers slaughtering mindless monsters then fighting bosses. in a sense 4E could be viewed as the D&D adaptation of Gauntlet/Dark Alliance
from
EE

If you decided to run a game like that, yes, 4th edition would be a better system than 3rd or 2nd, because combat in 3rd was slow to resolve and 2nd edition was too deadly to run combats too frequently. The fact that an RPG can accomplish combat heavy gameplay and still be fun should be a point in its favor, since a game has exactly as much combat as the DM plans for. If the DM plans for a climactic finish to an epic story arc where the PCs fight their way through the evil Baron's castle to finish him off on the tallest spire of his tower before he sacrifices the last virgin necessary to complete his ritual of immortality, and the whole session is combat, and the players can continue to have fun for the whole length of the session, that's a good thing.

Meanwhile, RPing is exactly as good as the effort the DM and players put into it, with any mechanical system. 4th Edition didn't invent Hack and Slash gameplay, and the fact that it's better at it doesn't mean it's worse at the RP angle.

EvilElitest
2008-08-30, 11:38 PM
Uh... I don't think 4e is like Gauntlet at all, and I disagree that the OP or anyone has stated a strong enough case to make me believe it is. I'm sorry, I haven't done competitive debates, but I was under the impression that pointing out insufficient evidence is a valid debate strategy.

1) And yet you haven't actually demostarted any evidence to why you don't think it is like Guantlet other than proclaiming you don't think so and using irrelevant statements about the nature of comparison
2) except you didn't point out any insufficient evidence, you made a blanket statement about comparisons in general and presented it as evidence. not all comparisons work yes, but taht doesn't make all of them irrelevant


However, I can't definitively 'prove' that 4th edition is NOT like Gauntlet, so maybe I shouldn't expect the same the other way around, but I do feel like the comparison is only valid for a very specific type of gaming that 4th edition encourages no more than any other edition.

except you don't back this

4E is like guantlet more than 3E because while in 3E taht style of gaming is possibly, it is limited (monsters having their own classes like you, NPC/PC rules, monsters having actual depth rather than existing as fodder, the class/combat design ect) so a guantlet 3E game is possible, but wouldn't work very well
4E on the other hand, is custom built for this style of play, from the class design, to the way combat is handled, to world design, monsters, magic, items, economy, and game focus


Well, I don't care about your personal feelings about minions, the fact is, minions are deadly, and are no mere cannon fodder, to serve as a means to make PCs feel awesome. If you feel the mechanic shouldn't exist, a mechanic mostly existing to allow speed and adroitness in play, then I really can't complain, but I can complain about depicting them in an inaccurate way by characterizing them as mindless stooges to be waded through effortlessly... because that's NOT how they act in play.


And the complaint doens't come from their challenge or lack their of, the complaints come from the implementation of the rule itself, and their very existence as a game device


If you decided to run a game like that, yes, 4th edition would be a better system than 3rd or 2nd, because combat in 3rd was slow to resolve and 2nd edition was too deadly to run combats too frequently. The fact that an RPG can accomplish combat heavy gameplay and still be fun should be a point in its favor, since a game has exactly as much combat as the DM plans for. If the DM plans for a climactic finish to an epic story arc where the PCs fight their way through the evil Baron's castle to finish him off on the tallest spire of his tower before he sacrifices the last virgin necessary to complete his ritual of immortality, and the whole session is combat, and the players can continue to have fun for the whole length of the session, that's a good thing.

every d&D edition can handle that example you mentioned, and that is besides the point. The point is that 4E is custom designed with the same style of play as guantlet


Meanwhile, RPing is exactly as good as the effort the DM and players put into it, with any mechanical system. 4th Edition didn't invent Hack and Slash gameplay, and the fact that it's better at it doesn't mean it's worse at the RP angle.
The game doesn't have any fluff with any depth within it, so you can't call it an RP game by design. You can RP with it, but i can also play Exalted without any epic, that isn't what they are designed for
from
EE

Jerthanis
2008-08-31, 12:13 AM
The game doesn't have any fluff with any depth within it, so you can't call it an RP game by design. You can RP with it, but i can also play Exalted without any epic, that isn't what they are designed for
from
EE

I guess I just read the mechanics, fluff and story presented in the 4th edition books and see a cool basic game to flesh out and personalize and fit to my desires while you see something completely unworkable and lame. We probably just want different things out of our fluff. Where I want just enough inspiration to serve as a jumping off point to making my own events and locales, personalizing and worldbuilding to my own liking, you may want something more definitive, "No SRSLY Planar Cosmology follows these exact rules, and here's how the afterlife works in detail, and here's the mating habits of carrion crawlers, and you know what demons and devils do with all their time? Fight each other!" I just wish you wouldn't basically say that a game that doesn't conform to your specific wishes were somehow absent of the capacity to be liked FOR the things you dislike about it. It's like this: Someone might like the idea of something called the "Spellplague" wiping out most magicians in the wake of the death of the god of magic, but I think it's corny. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's entirely unlikable.

I think 4th edition fluff and depth is plenty to run whatever dramatic stories I can come up with. If you can't see a 4e game that centers on anything other than the friggin awesome combat, it doesn't mean the pages of RP advice in the PHB, and the excellent story-structuring advice present in the DMG don't exist.

I'm not saying 4th edition is god's gift to gaming, I only put it at a 6 out of 10 on a different thread. I just think it gets a lot of undeserved flak for being a game that just happens to have fun combat. WoD games aren't rated as being awesome for RP because their combat systems are bad, but that they found an interesting premise. Similarly, 4e has an interesting premise for me to RP, so I like it. The fact that its combat rocks and a box of pastries is just a bonus.

Anyway, in the first half of my last post I was basically conceding that 4e is as much like Gauntlet as you want to frame it, and that I had a no more legitimate framing position than anyone else, I'm sorry if it didn't come across like that.

ashmanonar
2008-08-31, 01:14 PM
Dang.. that's deep.

I was looking for the Bel-Air in there.

Sinfire Titan
2008-08-31, 07:46 PM
6 different systems that can all be summed up by a d20 being rolled to see IF you hit, and then either a) XdY to see how much damage you do or b) a status effect is inflicted.

No, sometimes its just Save or Die, Summon something, Polymorph, etc.

Knaight
2008-08-31, 08:01 PM
Save or die-death as a status effect
Summon Something-not a status affect
Polymorph-multiple status affects, affecting stats like size, and abilities. Still a status affect.

Sinfire Titan
2008-08-31, 08:31 PM
Save or die-death as a status effect
Summon Something-not a status effect
Polymorph-multiple status effects, affecting stats like size, and abilities. Still a status effect.

Well, when you look at it that way, any kind of injury is a status effect.

What about effects like Wall of Stone or Plane Shift? Those can't be lumped into the Status Effect list or Roll a Die, check to see if you hit list. Hell, if you get right down to it, same thing applies to Wish or Miracle.

Kompera
2008-08-31, 11:13 PM
Your evading the question. you can boil down any game to a video game experience, what makes 4E unique is that it is designed as such.

{scrubbed}

Viruzzo
2008-09-01, 06:57 AM
{Scrubbed}
I... I think I love you! :smallredface:

nagora
2008-09-01, 07:12 AM
{Scrubbed}
Marking rules. Per encounter powers. Character roles defined as combat roles. Resting rules.

Dausuul
2008-09-01, 08:15 AM
4E's style of play is very much like Guantlet

Oh really? I'm sure my players, with all the social encounters and the complicated plot and the strategic challenges they face in my campaign, would be fascinated to hear how really they're just playing Gauntlet.

Yeah, you can run a Gauntlet-like game with the 4E rules; and the rules are better able to support that style of game than the 3.X rules were. Which is not the same as 4E "playing like Gauntlet." It only plays that way if you set out to play that way.

Myshlaevsky
2008-09-01, 11:02 AM
Oh really? I'm sure my players, with all the social encounters and the complicated plot and the strategic challenges they face in my campaign, would be fascinated to hear how really they're just playing Gauntlet.

Yeah, you can run a Gauntlet-like game with the 4E rules; and the rules are better able to support that style of game than the 3.X rules were. Which is not the same as 4E "playing like Gauntlet." It only plays that way if you set out to play that way.

This I agree with rather a lot. I do feel that eventually replayability may become more of an issue than it was with 3.5e however. That said, I've still to see any major splatbooks.

Lord Tataraus
2008-09-01, 11:26 AM
Oh really? I'm sure my players, with all the social encounters and the complicated plot and the strategic challenges they face in my campaign, would be fascinated to hear how really they're just playing Gauntlet.

Yeah, you can run a Gauntlet-like game with the 4E rules; and the rules are better able to support that style of game than the 3.X rules were. Which is not the same as 4E "playing like Gauntlet." It only plays that way if you set out to play that way.

Uh, yeah, that's why he didn't actually say that, you conveniently misquoted the quote you had at the top. It doesn't say 4E is "playing like Gauntlet", it says "4E's style of play is very much like Gauntlet". Not the "style of play" part meaning the out-of-the-box style of 4E which is "very much like Gauntlet" note the "very much" as in not-exactly-but-close-to. 3.5 had lots of fluff examples for combining mechanics with RPing (most obvious are certain PrC prerequisites that are purely fluff-based and the Paladin's code). This is not to say that 4e is completely devoid of RP meeting mechanics, but it is far less than it was in 3.5, 4e's out-of-the-box play is going around beating up monsters.

Reinforcements
2008-09-01, 12:02 PM
damnit, not i never even thought to compare 4E to that, it is such a well done comparison
from
EE
If he's talking about the WotC forums, it went EXACTLY like this thread, too - with the OP being totally innocent, posting with the unspoken, "And they're both AWESOME," and it was immediately swarmed by "Stop comparing 4e to videogames grr" and on the other side with "lol see 4e IS just like a stupid videogame rite".

More importantly, I submit the following Wikipedia entry*:

In his first appearance, Peter Parker is introduced as an orphaned science whiz teenager living with his aunt and uncle in the Forest Hills section of New York City. He is a brilliant student but the subject of mockery by his peers who regard him as a bookworm. One day he gets bitten by a radioactive spider during a science demonstration. He gains spider-like powers such as super-strength the ability to climb walls and a phenomenal jumping skill. Peter's own cleverness enables him to develop gadgets that fire webbing.

As Spider-Man, he becomes a successful TV star. One day at a studio he refuses to stop a thief, saying that it is the job of the police not that of a number one star. Weeks later his beloved guardian, Uncle Ben, is murdered and his mom got scared and said, "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." When he does, he is horrified to find that the man is none other than the thief he refused to arrest. Learning that with great power comes great responsibility, Spider-Man becomes a vigilante.

*Not in fact a Wikipedia entry.

nagora
2008-09-01, 12:55 PM
More importantly, I submit the following Wikipedia entry*:
The problem with that analogy is that the Fresh Prince and Spiderman are not alike in any core way. Specifically: they don't fight crime and have super powers and secret identities. These are more important features than the stuff the joke comparison is based on. This is similar to the point that what makes a ranger a ranger is all the woodcraft stuff, not the amount of damage s/he does, where they stand in a combat, or the way s/he holds a sword.

Missing these core features means completely misunderstanding Spiderman, the Fresh Prince, or Rangers or whatever else you apply the technique to.

Reinboom
2008-09-01, 03:45 PM
The problem with that analogy is that the Fresh Prince and Spiderman are not alike in any core way. Specifically: they don't fight crime and have super powers and secret identities. These are more important features than the stuff the joke comparison is based on. This is similar to the point that what makes a ranger a ranger is all the woodcraft stuff, not the amount of damage s/he does, where they stand in a combat, or the way s/he holds a sword.

Missing these core features means completely misunderstanding Spiderman, the Fresh Prince, or Rangers or whatever else you apply the technique to.

Rangers do woodsy stuff?
I thought they wore foreign outfits with futuristic gadgets while doing mock martial arts dancing and inevitably jumping in to giant robots in order to take down whoever this episodes current "the man" is.

Y'know, like they do in shadowrun.

Thrud
2008-09-01, 03:49 PM
Rangers do woodsy stuff?
I thought they wore foreign outfits with futuristic gadgets while doing mock martial arts dancing and inevitably jumping in to giant robots in order to take down whoever this episodes current "the man" is.

Y'know, like they do in shadowrun.

That's it. I'm going to have to kill myself now, and it is all your fault.

*Wanders outside and waits to be stepped on by giant pink robot.*

Jerthanis
2008-09-01, 04:59 PM
More importantly, I submit the following Wikipedia entry*:


I was hoping someone would post something like this, thanks. You made my weekend.



Missing these core features means completely misunderstanding Spiderman, the Fresh Prince, or Rangers or whatever else you apply the technique to.

That was kind of my point. Will Smith may have a thing or two in common with Peter Parker, but for every thing they share in common, there's a dozen that aren't similar at all. Similarly, if you want to make a comparison between a hack and slash videogame and Dungeons and Dragons, you're going to be ignoring so many aspects of both to make the comparison seem accurate that you could make equally valid comparisons between Super Mario Brothers and ICO, or between Metal Gear Solid and Shadow Hearts... or between The Fresh Prince and Spider-Man.

Even within the narrow paradigm of them being hack and slash fantasy combat engines, and ignoring the many types of game 4e supports, the differences are multitudinous. For example, Party Roles and Character Customization.

Knaight
2008-09-01, 07:23 PM
Marking rules. Per encounter powers. Character roles defined as combat roles. Resting rules.

1. Marking basically consisting of paying more attention to one opponent than the others(Oh wow, maybe that guy with the flaming sword who just cut and melted through the pillar in the center of the room is worth paying attention to more than those 4 little green guys with rusted short swords)

2. You've done it, they aren't going to fall for it again/you need a short rest(magic). Its daily martial powers that are weird, and most videogames don't have encounter powers, they have recharge times, and mana costs. For everything. Well everything that isn't a random series of button mashing combo that they expect you to remember.

3. Agreed, thats just irritating.

4. You sleep, and it helps you. This is based off of real life here, you rest, you wake up, and your able to do more because you've slept recently.

Kompera
2008-09-02, 04:25 AM
Marking rules. Per encounter powers. Character roles defined as combat roles. Resting rules.
None of which is at all any kind of "proof" that 4e was uniquely designed to play like a video game.


{Scrubbed}

nagora
2008-09-02, 04:34 AM
1. Marking basically consisting of paying more attention to one opponent than the others(Oh wow, maybe that guy with the flaming sword who just cut and melted through the pillar in the center of the room is worth paying attention to more than those 4 little green guys with rusted short swords)
Exactly. In a roleplaying game what you said is all that's needed for the DM to have the character pay attention to you. In a computer game you need special rules to generate the AI to make that happen.


4. You sleep, and it helps you. This is based off of real life here, you rest, you wake up, and your able to do more because you've slept recently.
So if I beat you to within an inch of your life in "real life", after six hours rest you'll be as fit as if you had never been touched? Where do you want to meet up to demonstrate this?

Knaight
2008-09-02, 07:59 AM
Marking doesn't make the monster pay attention to you, it makes you pay attention to the monster. Its kind of like a facing system, but without facing, you might have some people behind you, but your focusing on one of them, trying to prevent them from doing anything. And hit points pretty much represent luck and stamina now, because an actual wound system such as in Fudge, Mutants and Masterminds, Ars Magica, or even SAGA, is missing. With what hit points represent, its more like me playing a sport until I'm tired, sleeping, then waking up refreshed, because nobody ever seems to get more than a scratch, due to the lack of a wound system. Unless being at full health and at 1 hit point actually makes sense for being just as capable to fight.

nagora
2008-09-02, 12:41 PM
Marking doesn't make the monster pay attention to you, it makes you pay attention to the monster.
What? It gives you opponent a penalty if they don't attack you. In other words, it's free to pay attention (ie, attack) someone else, but it will be penalised if it does, which might even include free damage.

Here's a quote from WotC material (my bolding):


Of course, the fighter (the other Player's Handbook defender) features a different effect, dissuading her mark from taking the battle elsewhere.

Marking is directly inspired by AI game programming and is out of place in a proper RPG, as your earlier post demonstrated very well. If you are a threat, then your opponent will pay attention to you. If it chooses not to, then the chances are that you will get a flank or rear attack bonus.

hamishspence
2008-09-02, 12:46 PM
given that mark goes away if you do not concentrate on monster, it works both ways.

The New Bruceski
2008-09-02, 02:15 PM
Marking is directly inspired by AI game programming and is out of place in a proper RPG, as your earlier post demonstrated very well. If you are a threat, then your opponent will pay attention to you. If it chooses not to, then the chances are that you will get a flank or rear attack bonus.

And if you're trying to make a defender who doesn't bring more pain than the strikers, how do you make him a threat? You introduce a mechanic to represent him actively keeping the enemy occupied, that does Bad Things if the enemy turns its back on him.

Knaight
2008-09-02, 04:39 PM
What? It gives you opponent a penalty if they don't attack you. In other words, it's free to pay attention (ie, attack) someone else, but it will be penalised if it does, which might even include free damage.

Yes, because if they try to attack someone else they are leaving themselves open to you, and your going to make it difficult, which is why this is done at a melee. The only real exception is the paladins challenge. If you are both paying attention to eachother, then its normal fighting. It can pay attention to someone else, yes, which is when you get in the way, screwing up any attacks they may be trying. The AI stuff is some of the fighter abilities that draw enemies towards you, not marking.

Kompera
2008-09-02, 10:21 PM
Marking is directly inspired by AI game programming and is out of place in a proper RPG, as your earlier post demonstrated very well. If you are a threat, then your opponent will pay attention to you. If it chooses not to, then the chances are that you will get a flank or rear attack bonus.
Where is your proof that marking comes from AI game programming? Is the GM now a computer to you? This is a ridiculous assertion.

As you quoted:

Of course, the fighter (the other Player's Handbook defender) features a different effect, dissuading her mark from taking the battle elsewhere.
This is the inspiration. In any prior version of D&D there was no reason for a monster not to run past the fighter and eat the Wizard (except, of course, that the Wizard is flying 60' above the ground, and has Contingency and several other spells of greater than a 24 hour duration, but aside from that), because the Fighter is no threat at all. If the monster can find 5' to spare the Fighter doesn't even get an AoO on the monster.

4e changes this. The monster can still do the run by, but in doing so it gives that same chance for AoO plus the Fighter gains other, very rational, benefits for being ignored as a threat.

Please explain how this in any way is any more like a computer AI than the same kind of NPC monster decision making that the GM had to do in any prior version. You can not.

Aahz
2008-09-03, 06:47 PM
I think the point is that marking is similar to MMO-style tanking tactics (like intimidation from DDO) which ensure that the tank maintains aggro even if other players do damage to the monster. While D&D monsters don't automatically attack the caster after taking enough damage like they do in video games, the problem of the monster bypassing the crunchy and attacking the squishy still exists, hence the marking system.

Knaight
2008-09-03, 09:50 PM
Except for most tanking tactics involve taunts, not physically getting in the way of your opponent and screwing them up.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2008-09-03, 10:05 PM
Except for most tanking tactics involve taunts, not physically getting in the way of your opponent and screwing them up.

Well sometimes if you're not good at taunting it's the only way to get them to pay attention to you. :D