General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
As comes to no surprise, I am incorrect. Seems to be a 3.5-based game.
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Here's what would make me interested in 4e, at least in terms of a MMORG-type thing:
(1) Get the Virtual Tabletop working.
(2) Make the VT work in conjunction with the MMORG, so that characters could 'port from the VT to the MMORG and back, bringing their changes with them.
(3) Make this interactive to enough of a degree that someone playing in a MMORG could jump into a VT game with the DM's permission in media res.
As I said earlier, I know nothing about coding, so the above might be impossible. But I would certainly give 4e an extended try to play around with this sort of setup.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Clicked on it. "The best combat of any MMO". Again, if 4e combat is so bloody hard to code, and so bloody hard to work in an MMO, colour me confused. Sorry, but Celebrim wins this one, AFAICT!
D&D Online uses a version of the 3rd edition mechanics, adapted for an MMO type combat system.
In my opinion, as someone who's worked on adapting a different turn-based game (Battletech) to the computer, 4e is not particularly well-adapted to computer-based play.
It's nice that the rules are well-edited, with less general ambiguity than previous editions. Perhaps it's that level of precision that make people think "computer", but in so many cases the rules precisely describe something that's easy to do with people sitting around a table and difficult to do on a computer.
As so many people have described here, in a a decent computer game, you really need specific phases of a turn where one person is allowed uninterrupted input, and that just doesn't happen in 4e. There are optional actions, reactions, optional reactions, and etc. Around a tabletop it's easy to call out "oh hey, I'm going to use my immediate teleport", but the interface to allow that kind of thing is just maddening in a computer game.
Of course you can adapt things, but as you can see with DDO, that's exactly what they've already done with 3e. What puts 4e in a bad position is exactly that so many iconic powers are iconic exactly because of their mechanical definition. In previous editions, a fireball was a fireball, and swinging a sword was swinging a sword. You could do that in a computer game, and plenty of games did. But in 4e, if Wolf Pack Tactics or Passing Attack doesn't work the way it does at the game table then what even is it?
As another issue, if you're talking about MMOs here, they use an entirely different system for gear. In an MMO, acquiring items is another, separate system of character progression. No edition of D&D has echoed that feel, but 3e came close. You can see how it was adapted if you check out DDO. 4e goes in the directly opposite direction, making gear into somewhat of an afterthought, with the exception of your weapons/armor/neck slot bonuses.
And finally, if you look at 4e's emphasis on teamwork, while that would make a good turn-based tactical game, most of the games that actually sell these days are first-person with at least a partial emphasis on solo play.
Really I have to agree with the conclusion that 4e seems designed specifically for tabletop play, with little concessions towards what might make a good computer game. I'm sure it will be adapted, as all the editions have been, but it will be an adaptation, using little of the actual details of 4e.
Here's what would make me interested in 4e, at least in terms of a MMORG-type thing:
(1) Get the Virtual Tabletop working.
Hear hear!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
(2) Make the VT work in conjunction with the MMORG, so that characters could 'port from the VT to the MMORG and back, bringing their changes with them.
I think that this doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I'm not understanding you. A virtual table top is only very slightly cooler than a physical table top.
The only thing that (as I see it) it could take from an MMORPG would be your character's visual appearance. It doesn't know about races, classes, abilities; it doesn't even necessarily know about movement rates, initiatives, and so on. It doesn't enforce rules, display battle options, or so on; it's just a bunch of 3d models hanging out in a bunch of 3d space with lighting and maybe a movement grid.
Maybe you're just asking for a very small feature (Let me do cool stuff with my avatar!), but I don't understand what "changes" you'd bring with you to the table top.
I guess being able to generate a D&D-compatible character sheet from an MMORPG would be pretty cool, though there are some things that just don't translate well between games, as was ninja'd above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
(3) Make this interactive to enough of a degree that someone playing in a MMORG could jump into a VT game with the DM's permission in media res.
D&D Online uses a version of the 3rd edition mechanics, adapted for an MMO type combat system.
To be honest, I hadn't really been aware of D&D Online. When I saw the banner, I thought it was new.
Quote:
In my opinion, as someone who's worked on adapting a different turn-based game (Battletech) to the computer, 4e is not particularly well-adapted to computer-based play.
I appreciate your analysis. This isn't an area that I am particularly well versed it (perhaps better described as an area that I am particularly ill-versed in! )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lackhand
I think that this doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe I'm not understanding you. A virtual table top is only very slightly cooler than a physical table top.
What I mean is a game where you could play with a real DM, or with the computer MMORG, and keep the same character, with both adding to the character. In other words, the real DM's work would add to the MMORG world, and all players would potentially gain the benefit of all the work of all DMs involved. I imagined that the "real DM" games would have to take place on the VT, because the VT would port the information into the MMORG (and vice versa).
I may not be explaining what I mean well, and what I am suggesting might require Star Trek technology to work.
There would also have to be systems in place to prevent the real DMs from corrupting/unbalancing the overall MMORG world.
If anyone can understand what I am trying to describe, and can describe it better, please do so!
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I*think* that I understand what you are describing. I will try to rephrase it another way.
I start off playing an MMO (Let's say, for sake of argument only, one that is based on the SW:SAGA rules). I get to a point, and I geta pop up (or other notification) that Raven Crowking is running this over a virtual tabletop. "Do I want to join?" If I say yes, my character is pulled out of the MMO and placed on the virtual tabletop to play with RC as the DM, as opposed to a computer somewhere.
I*think* that I understand what you are describing. I will try to rephrase it another way.
I start off playing an MMO (Let's say, for sake of argument only, one that is based on the SW:SAGA rules). I get to a point, and I geta pop up (or other notification) that Raven Crowking is running this over a virtual tabletop. "Do I want to join?" If I say yes, my character is pulled out of the MMO and placed on the virtual tabletop to play with RC as the DM, as opposed to a computer somewhere.
Is that accurate??
Yes.
And when you are done in the VT, your character, updated based on the events in the VT returns to the MMO. Moreover, the VT area becomes "part of" the MMO, and can be modified or run by other DMs using the VT for other players.
(Imagine, if you would, a megadungeon that is, essentially, also part of the MMO world, and evolved through the work of other DMs even when you are not running it yourself.)
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
(Imagine, if you would, a megadungeon that is, essentially, also part of the MMO world, and evolved through the work of other DMs even when you are not running it yourself.)
And when you are done in the VT, your character, updated based on the events in the VT returns to the MMO. Moreover, the VT area becomes "part of" the MMO, and can be modified or run by other DMs using the VT for other players.
(Imagine, if you would, a megadungeon that is, essentially, also part of the MMO world, and evolved through the work of other DMs even when you are not running it yourself.)
RC
Pretty awesome but the technical difficulties are huge and there are big issues with the economy and balance with in the MMO.
I think with current technology the best you could hope for would be a living type campaing where the MMO quests and the VTT quests would all form part of the living campaign. So you could level from say 1 to 4 in the MMO and then take the character into a VTT adventure where you gain a level and some toys. The DM signs off on the XP gained and other relevant info (Contacts made and so forth) and that information gets updated into the MMO so when you get back to the MMO the character is now leveled up and has whatever was gained in the VTT adventure.
From a purely technical point of view, designing a mod mapper that produces 3d terrain and fixtures that looks good is generally a non trivial piece of software that is not easy to use and too much of a learning curve for most DMs as well as being far to complex for the requirements of a VTT.
In my opinion the VTT should be capable of being used in a very basic fashion.
It can have a lot of graphical bells and whistles for the artictically inclined or those with the time on their hands to make use of it. But many DMs (myself included) are happy enough with a battle mat and dry erase markers too much fancy graphics in the VTT is too much work.
Like I said, I'm not a coding guy by any means, but I do think that (eventually) coding will allow MMOs and real-GM games to hook up in awesome ways.
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Like I said, I'm not a coding guy by any means, but I do think that (eventually) coding will allow MMOs and real-GM games to hook up in awesome ways.
Possibly in the medium term and I could see it as an eventual revenue stream for WoTC, in that modules could be sold via the DDI with 3d terrain maps for use in 3d VTTs and eventually these could be imported in to an MMO.
Possibly in the medium term and I could see it as an eventual revenue stream for WoTC, in that modules could be sold via the DDI with 3d terrain maps for use in 3d VTTs and eventually these could be imported in to an MMO.
It would be the height of foolishness for WoTC to develop a VTT and not release adventures to use with it.
RC - that would be very, very cool. It basically marries the best of both worlds. You can play D&D by yourself on the MMO, then play with a group.
I suppose an issue would be if you wanted to play with the same group week after week. If your achievements ported back and forth between systems, how would you do it? You would have a 1st level character suddenly (possibly) jump three levels between sessions and have all sorts of loot as well.
I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but, it would be very difficult for DM's to run anything more than one shots.
---------------------
After all this talk of why changes were made, allow me to re-introduce my tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. I freely admit I have nothing more than circumstantial evidence and this has some very serious holes in it. But, in my mind, I think that there is a very strong, single element that informs almost all the changes made with 4e.
The RPGA.
Let me present my evidence, such as it is. What is the biggest impediment to organized play? To me, it's vague rules that allow players to do stuff the designers can't prepare for. So, 4e yanked almost all those elements. Organized play runs much, much smoother.
Think about it for a second. Take cohorts/pets as an example. It's extremely difficult to prep an adventure with the assumption of cohorts/pets. They can dramatically increase the abilities of the party. ((Imagine for a second that 4 players sit down to a RPGA game and all have cohorts - that's a much stronger party than 4 players without)) So, cohorts/pets are gone. This has a secondary effect I'll get into later.
We saw this as well in late 3e Living Greyhawk with the various rewrites of polymorph. Polymorph in a home game probably wasn't that big of a deal. In organized play, it was huge. So, yank, gone.
Another thing is the whole "everything is core" idea. In RPGA, everything is core. You can generally use any book outside of setting specific ones. So, if you are going to focus on the RPGA, why not make that the standard?
Going back to the cohort/pet thing. In organized play, it's quite possible that players have paid to play. I'd be pretty annoyed if I sat down with my rogue and my turn in combat takes thirty seconds and the guy next to me takes five minutes because he has a pet, summoned creatures AND a cohort. And that's if he's on the ball. If he's not on the ball, the game grinds to a halt.
Same with the more complicated rules like grapple. Sure, in a home game, you work out how grapple works as a group. But in RPGA, you don't play with the same people all the time and it's quite possible that the DM or a player doesn't have a firm grip on the rules and you spend way too much time futzing about. So, again, yank, gone. This also has the effect of not limiting adventure design. You have to design for a 4 hour session. That means you can't use a bunch of grapple monsters (for example) because you will grind the session to a halt. Removing grapple removes that issue for designers.
RPGA is now giving very tangible rewards. We've seen a few posts on people getting nice little goodies from the RPGA for playing. That's gotta be a huge expense. But it sure brings in people to the group. Everyone likes getting free stuff. And getting free stuff for playing D&D? WIN!
Another post here talked about how at a recent large con, there were no 4e games. It wasn't that there were no 4e games, but all the games were under the auspices of the RPGA. That's a huge shift. And, in my mind, a sign of things to come.
To me, this also explains the abandonment of the OGL. After all, OGL material isn't used in RPGA play. It doesn't do anything for the RPGA and actually allows people to play D&D in a non-RPGA environment. Keeping everything under the WOTC umbrella means that even non-RPGA tabletops are still playing RPGA style games (at least rules wise) which makes transition very easy from a regular tabletop to an RPGA tabletop.
To me, the reason that 4e looks the way it does is to facilitate RPGA play. It's easier to design for and the rules have a lot less fudge factor, making it much easier to adjudicate for strangers. It's not to create a MMO. That doesn't really sell books. But, a strong RPGA means you can sell books forever. Last RPGA number I saw, which was a few years ago in Dragon, put RPGA membership at about 150 000. Imagine for a second they can ramp that up to 500 000. That's 500 k players, many of whom will buy the latest book because they will very likely USE it in their RPGA games. And they can use it because it's core.
Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory. Take from it what you will.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
After all this talk of why changes were made, allow me to re-introduce my tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. I freely admit I have nothing more than circumstantial evidence and this has some very serious holes in it. But, in my mind, I think that there is a very strong, single element that informs almost all the changes made with 4e.
The RPGA. <snip>
Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory. Take from it what you will.
DannyA - How did you manage to remove all the caps from only the first paragraph of your quote?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
It was actually the site itself. I wanted my part of the post to be in all CAPS, but instead, ENWorld eliminated all of the caps. I put back what I could remember of yours when I went back to edit mine.
Anyway, that's my conspiracy theory. Take from it what you will.
Hussar, I think you hit the jackpot...
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that nearly EVERY change 4e had was made with an RPGA mindset.
A variety of classes filling 4 unique mechanical niches? Not so useful in a game that can be tailor-fit to PCs, but immensely useful for RPGA/module scenarios.
Skill checks codified to create "non combat" encounters that have fixed result options, set DC/success ratios, and allow all PCS to be involved? Yup.
The Delve Format? Yeah.
Moreso than anything else, 4e seems to reward predictability. If not from the players, at least from the game mechanics. 3e was trending this way; 4e broke the barrier. Your wizard might have a few cantrips for creating mischief, but none of the plot-altering spells like charms, summons, polymorphs, or illusions. Rituals are too long and costly (not to mention specific) to use them to break plots. Even the monster design allows a lot more "villain runs away" elements (high hp, AP, solo-save bonus). Lastly, you know the rogue can sneak/steal, the cleric can heal, the wizard shoot lightning, and the fighter has a big weapon and armor (No more oddball parties of diplomat rogues, enchanter-wizards, archer-fighters, and battle-buff cleric-tanks).
All those things are key if you want the game to have certain universal assumptions. Assumptions you need to create scripted scenarios. For modules, the RPGA, VTT-style games, and MMOs.
Well, I've already disagreed on the MMO thing. But, I'll leave that to people who actually know anything about coding to argue. Again, considering that every edition has been turned into a CRPG, which means it was possible, I'll certainly agree that its possible to do it with 4e. I'm only disagreeing with the idea that it's somehow easier. I don't know, and I highly, highly suspect that many of those claiming that it's easier don't have any idea either.
As far as VTT style games, I actually have to disagree. 4e and 3e are both a PITA for VTT because of the focus on battlemaps. You have to have a battlemap and minis prepped for every single session you play on a VTT. I would say about half my prep time in 3e is spent prepping minis and the battlemap and, after seven years of doing it, I'm pretty quick. Plus, all those damn rules makes coding macros a PITA as well.
I just prepped 4 scenarios for a rules light game called Sufficiently Advanced. Took me an hour. 1 macro for all actions. Done. No battlemaps because the game doesn't use grid combat. Half an hour to troll Google Image Search for background images, another half an hour to get some cool images and I'm totally prepped for 4 scenarios. It took me a lot longer to get the actual scenarios written.
For a VTT, if you want easy, use 1e or 2e. Again, you don't need battlemaps and you have so few options that creating macros would take you little or no time.
You want to see what it takes to automate 4e in Maptool? Look here
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that nearly EVERY change 4e had was made with an RPGA mindset.
A better question is what proportion of 4E WotC books have been purchased by RPGA players. I would guess that if there is a significantly large proportion of 4E books sales that went to RPGA players (in comparison to non-RPGA players), it would make sense to cater to the RPGA.
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
