D&D 4E 4e D&D Plays Like a Video Game, and That's Awesome

[hexgrid]

But it can never do what a video RPG does best - speed and visual immersion. And on the other hand, video RPGs still can't do what tabletop does best: using the imagination of both player and GM to tackle obstacles and opponents in unexpected but satisfying ways. (nor can video RPGS have the plot come off the rails completely because one of the players decides to make his/her character behave like a total jackass all of a sudden ).

You're excluding a huge middle here. There's a lot more to both CRPGs and TRPGs besides what you happen to think each is best at, and plenty of room for each to borrow aspects from the other.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think 4e is going to succeed in converting even one quarter of video RPG gamers to table top enthusiasts. It obviously works for some people (dreadgazebo's wife, lucky devil!). But I feel many of the video game-based design choices are among the least successful elements of the game and were responsible for much of the backlash against the game when it was released - and IMO it's no coincidence that Essentials is going back to evoking the classic RPG feel in its fluff and descriptions (even if the video RPG-rules are still in effect).

I have to say, I was a video-gamer before I was a table-top player, and 4e was the edition I came into. Partly, this was timing, 4e was new and people near me were running it. But I have to say, I do enjoy it more than video-games most of the time.

But on the same token, I don't think "conversion" is the key here. I still play video-games. I'm an avid WoW player, I still console game, I play a variety of tactical war games. 4E doesn't need to "convert" anyone, it just opens a new door for them, if people choose to walk through it, that's up to them.

Well yeah, the new Neverwinter title is going to be the first video game to use 4e. But the developers don't know their ass from a hole in the ground so it will probably end up being an embarassment. I wrote a little something about it not too long ago

Cryptic’s “Neverwinter”, looking bleak?

Tell me about it. Champions Online was fun, but overall, insanely buggy and all around annoying to play. The fact that it's going free now only indicates the loss of players. The added fact that NCSoft is behind Cryptic only makes the whole thing more disgusting, as the only thing any Korean gaming company is concerned with is making more money(if you think American companies are bad, think again!). The only saving grace to Guild Wars was the fact that ArenaNet told NCSoft to shove it and leave them to make their games in peace.

 

[Riastlin]

Good post. I agree with the basic sentiment you present. If WotC wants D&D to be a success long-term (i.e. for decades on out), it has to bring in new customers and cannot simply rely upon the grognards. Certainly, the grognards should not be forgotten, but they cannot be WotC's only concern. From a business standpoint, it does make sense to take a look at models like WoW and try to determine what it is about those products that have made them succesful. Making D&D at least feel somewhat familiar to the WoW veteran is not an entirely bad thing.

I agree that many things in 4th Ed don't seem to make sense on the surface (such as recharge timers), but when you are talking about a game with magic, dragons, elves and primordials, there has to be a certain amount of faith leaping on the part of the participants. One nice thing about the recharge timers of daily and encounter powers is that they (in my opinion) make the game more interesting as it gives the players more options in combat. If everything were at-will, players would simply spam their most powerful attack (perhaps only switcing between ranged, melee, and area/burst/blast) powers.

The key though, is to still make certain that the P&P game maintains its own unique character. A straight copy of WoW will not work either as if I want to play WoW, I'll play WoW, not a P&P version of it. I think a lot of people looked at the MMO elements of 4th Ed. and simply stopped there. The books (at least the early ones) don't provide a whole lot of emphasis or encouragement of roleplaying for instance and when that was added to the added complexity of 4th Ed combats, it lead many to the conclusion that 4th Ed is a rollplaying game instead of a roleplaying game. Ironically, earlier editions didn't do a whole lot to promote/encourage/foster roleplaying either, but their combats were sufficiently less complex that many felt as though they did when compared to 4th Ed. In a way, less was more.

The big thing to take out of any edition of a P&P game is that while the RAW may draw from (even heavily) video games, P&P will always provide an element that video games cant -- the ability to make it up as you go (or put another way, the ability to adapt the rules to the tastes of your group).

 

[purgatorybound]

I think 4E does tend to have more video game like qualities, but you ahve to realize that any Role Playing video game got its start from DND... Tabletop games like DND have been going hardcore since the 70s, when video games were relatively young. I didn't start playign DND until 3.5 and when I switched to 4E, I was sorely dissapointed in the skills more than anything. I miss the fact that anything I wanted to do had a skill related to it and that I could specialize a character more in depth that way. That being said, in nearly any video game I have ever played, I have wanted more customization options... in DND 3.5 I had those options, but in 4E I don't feel like I have as many of them. Basically I agree that 4E plays like a video game, but not that its awesome.