D&D 4E Find the Anime/Video games in 4e

[Cadfan]

Henry- a better analogy would be,

Person 1: I hate Jones.
Person 2: Why?
1: Because he's a computer technician, and I hate those.
2: Umm. That's odd. And besides, he's not a computer technician.
1: Yes he is.
2: Prove Jones is a computer technician.
1: Well, Jones is blonde, and so is Suzy, and she's a computer technician. Also, I hate all computer techicians, blondes, and Suzy, and I hate Jones too, so that pretty much clinches it.
2: Umm... You're insane. *walks away*

1 then goes off to talk to 3

1: Person 2 never listens to me!
3: What do you mean?
1: I was talking about how I hate Jones, and he kept defending Jones and telling me I was wrong!
3: Why do you hate Jones?
1: Because he used to hack computers in high school before he dropped out to become a bank robber, and because he used his skills to impersonate a blond computer technician as part of a scheme to steal millions of dollars of diamonds and sell them to an international ring of thieves and smugglers. I lost millions due to his perfidy!
3: WHAT???
1: Yeah, here's the documentary proof.
3: And Person 2 didn't understand why you hate Jones???
1: No, he wouldn't even listen! What a jerk!

Moral of the story- If you've got something specific you don't like about 4e, SAY SO. Don't like names like Dragon Tail Cut because they're too ornate, and you prefer a more austere gaming world? SAY SO. Don't make up crap about video games and anime. It will just make the rest of us think bad things about you, and stop listening.

We don't have an obligation to assist YOU in making YOUR point, if you can't make it yourself.

Editted because I am a moron and left a typo that ruined the whole point.

 

[bonethug0108]

However, if they were influenced by D&D, why do they look so different (in the case of per encounter versus per day) when they are "imported" back into D&D? They've been filtered through their own experience and usage in the games they were used in, and that mechanic, interpreted for use in a tabletop RPG, can be VERY different in practice from the previous edition.

If when 4E comes out it does do to D&D what Saga did for Star Wars, then it will mean that 4E won't support several styles of play that were present in previous editions, and for better or worse it will mean that some gamers will not be using it. For Star Wars, I think Saga had some good changes, because of the feel of the films, but the feel of the prequels is VERY different from the feel of the first three films, and both are not the feel of play of earlier editions of D&D. (Admittedly, this argument has been around ever since 3E debuted, it's just more pronounced for 4E, when they announced several of the changes.)

I've said straight out that concepts like respec-ing and per encounter very well likely came from video games, as well as many newer mechanics.

But the argument most people tote around is that d&d is becoming too hack and slash like video games when it was d&d that was hack and slash to begin with. It was the players that turned it from a hack and slash tatical squad based game to a true roleplaying game. Then in response the designers started building the game around that.

As for styles of play, that is your opinion that they become invalid, and I see it as a false statement to begin with. Name a style of play that is now invalid with saga and maybe I can see what you mean. Otherwise you have no leg to stand on with this statement.

 

[The Little Raven]

Capa Ferro, Agrippa, Thibault, and Bonetti are all fencing masters.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro

 

[bonethug0108]

Henry- a better analogy would be,

Person 1: I hate Jones.
Person 2: Why?
1: Because he's a computer technician, and I hate those.
2: Umm. That's odd. And besides, he's not a computer technician.
1: Yes he is.
2: Prove Jones is a computer technician.
1: Well, Jones is blonde, and so is Suzy, and she's a computer technician. Also, I hate all computer techicians, blondes, and Suzy, and I hate Jones too, so that pretty much clinches it.
2: Umm... You're insane. *walks away*

1 then goes off to talk to 3

1: Person 2 never listens to me!
3: What do you mean?
1: I was talking about how I hate Jones, and he kept defending Jones and telling me I was wrong!
3: Why do you hate Jones?
1: Because he used to hack computers in high school before he dropped out to become a bank robber, and because he used his skills to impersonate a blond computer technician as part of a scheme to steal millions of dollars of diamonds and sell them to an international ring of thieves and smugglers. I lost millions due to his perfidy!
3: WHAT???
1: Yeah, here's the documentary proof.
3: And Person 2 didn't understand why you hate Jones???
1: No, he wouldn't even listen! What a jerk!

Moral of the story- If you've got something specific you don't like about 4e, SAY SO. Don't like names like Dragon Tail Cut because they're too ornate, and you prefer a more austere gaming world? SAY SO. Don't make up crap about video games and anime. It will just make the rest of us think bad things about you, and stop listening.

We don't have an obligation to assist YOU in making YOUR point, if you can't make it yourself.

This guy sums it up well. Making false claims based on faulty knowledge does not have to be tolerated just because it is an opinion. If it can be proven false, then you are basically spreading lies.

 

[hero4hire]

Henry- a better analogy would be,

Person 1: I hate Jones.
Person 2: Why?
1: Because he's a computer technician, and I hate those.
2: Umm. That's odd. And besides, he's not a computer technician.
1: Yes he is.
2: Prove Jones is a computer technician.
1: Well, Jones is blonde, and so is Suzy, and she's a computer technician. Also, I hate all computer techicians, blondes, and Suzy, and I hate Jones too, so that pretty much clinches it.
2: Umm... You're insane. *walks away*

2 then goes off to talk to 3

2: Person 1 never listens to me!
3: What do you mean?
2: I was talking about how I hate Jones, and he kept defending Jones and telling me I was wrong!
3: Why do you hate Jones?
2: Because he used to hack computers in high school before he dropped out to become a bank robber, and because he used his skills to impersonate a blond computer technician as part of a scheme to steal millions of dollars of diamonds and sell them to an international ring of thieves and smugglers. I lost millions due to his perfidy!
3: WHAT???
2: Yeah, here's the documentary proof.
3: And Person 1 didn't understand why you hate Jones???
2: No, he wouldn't even listen! What a jerk!

Moral of the story- If you've got something specific you don't like about 4e, SAY SO. Don't like names like Dragon Tail Cut because they're too ornate, and you prefer a more austere gaming world? SAY SO. Don't make up crap about video games and anime. It will just make the rest of us think bad things about you, and stop listening.

We don't have an obligation to assist YOU in making YOUR point, if you can't make it yourself.

Okay 1 hates Jones because 1 is crazy and 2 hates Jones because Jones screwed him over?
2 didnt even tell 1 he hated Jones. So I am confused.

 

[bonethug0108]

Okay 1 hates Jones because 1 is crazy and 2 hates Jones because Jones screwed him over?
2 didnt even tell 1 he hated Jones. So I am confused.

I think in his second example 2 is supposed to be 1. Read it as such and it makes sense.

 

[vulcan_idic]

Capo Ferro="Iron Head," I think.

I would probably try to translate it as Iron Captain - interpreting the Head of Capo more in reference to the military rank (or mob rank) and it's translation rather than a literal word for word translation. Particularly in a relation to a fighting technique speaking of an Iron Captain or Captain of Iron makes more sense to me that talking about an Iron Head unless you're saying that the person using it seems quite dense, which I doubt. But I'm not terribly familiar with Italian or Latin so don't take my word for it.

As for whether D&D should represent pseudo-medieval or asian concepts, I think it should be able to do both. I think the only limits to "D&D Style Fantasy" should be the limits of my own imagination whatever they mey be and, thus to do so for me, and every other system user out there, be able to represent and tell, with a bit of work and creativity, nearly any fantastical concept concievable by any system user. This neccesitates a sufficiently simple and flexible system that it allows great, nearly infinite, complexity to be arrived at from various combinations and interactions of those simple, yet flexible rules. This seems to me the design task they have essentially set themselves whether they voice it that way or not. And it is in my opinion a tremendous challenge, extremely difficult, but a noble one well worth attempting to achieve, and one which I hope they do succeed in.

In terms of naming conventions of feats, if this bothers you past the pale, then in your campaign world... rename it! I made an at length paraphrase in the "Enchanters, Necromancers, and Summoners" (which I thought was clever and apt) of a particular scene, the ever famous balcony scene, of Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet makes the surprisingly wise, considering her other actions in the play, comment observing, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The feat named "Lightning Panther Strike" turn you off? Call it "Quick Strike" with the same mechanics... does it work? It will smell as sweet, or sour whatever the name, so why worry about the name, which is certainly changed easily enough. What about the mechanical content? Is that acceptable?

Which brings me back to something closer to on-post-topic... I don't really care where mechanics come from - anime, videogame, or swamp slime - as long as they serve the bottom-line purpose to *make the game better*. Some have commented that too easy access to resurrection type magics cheapen death and make D&D a "cheap videogame rip off", to which my reply is - there are many kinds of videogames, both bad and good. In my experience and opinion (YMMV - and probably does) in the final analysis whether a videogame is a good one or a bad one has less to do with flashy graphics or game mechanics or concepts as with how good of a story they tell and how well they tell it. The flashiest graphics or best designed system cannot in the end cover a story with huge gaping plot holes or one that is poorly told while conversely a good and well told story will hold players in a game even through bad graphics and game mechanics. Back in the days of the original nintendo the games seemed to me to have better stories, because they had to - they didn't have much graphics to fall back on; now that they have amazing photorealistic graphics and pretty pictures, I find many modern games lacking in the story area and merely trying to dazzle me with bells and whistles that, once the first rush fades, reveals a lackluster frame upon which the bells and whistles are draped.

And to me this is the best lesson that videogames can teach us about our beloved tabletop RPGs - what ever system you use to play - D&D, D&D 2E, AD&D, D&D 3E, D&D 4E, GURPS, WoD, etc. - have a good story to tell and tell it well - this matters far more than the system used or what the rules of that system were inspired by.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I...
Ok lets take the per encounter idea.

Take a game like Halo. You have shields that replenish themselves, (provided you don't take any hits for a few moments) and guns that replenish themselves (provided you don't fire them for a few moments.)

I've played plenty of science fiction games where shield regenrated or reset to full if they dont' get kocked down in a round and power systems allowed effectively unlimited use of weapons if one marshalled resources correctly. Halo and computer games hardly have a lock on that concept.

 

[Rechan]

Capo Ferro="Iron Head," I think.



Good at emulating medieval Europe or not, staying true to D&D's medieval-esque fantasy roots is one of the stated design goals of 4th Edition, per the "Races & Classes" preview. To me, that sounds like Asian-style monks, etc. will take a back seat to armoured knights and other standard Euro-style fantasy tropes. IMO, this is as it should be; I freely admit my personal bias in favor of medieval European-flavored D&D. I don' think it's unfair to ask the fans of monks, samurai, shugenja, etc. to wait for the inevitable "Oriental Adventures" book.

Except that I don't believe all the ideas that are universal need to be segregated to "Culture Book Over Here". The 4e D&D book does not need to drip European Fantasy for it to be D&D, it just has to let you be able to run European Fantasy.

A shaman who speaks to spirits? Not Medieval European Fantasy, but it fits in Fantasy.

A Hercules-style strong man who uses his fists, grapples and pummels his enemy? Not Medieval Fantasy, but fantasy.

Who do these need to be shoved into the Oriental Book when they fit in D&D without cultural significance.

I disliked the Monk in the 3e book both because of its mechanical issues, and because the only design is the Kung Fu Mystic. How about a straight unarmed fighter without mystical abilities?

The "Monk" class, without the oriental flavor and mystical abilities, can range from Assassin to Body Guard to Operative.

So I don't think D&D should be limited to "Just knights, wizards and rangers, and everything else is sequestered to the cultural books". C'mon, fantasy is a little more broad than that.