The Videogame comparison

[Tripgnosis]

This has annoyed me. The notion that 4e has been turned into a "video-game on paper"

I agree that the mechanics give that impression. Having mechanics in the first place kinda makes it lean that way. Everything has been broken down to cause and effect, it's well defined and predetermined and this is the correct way to handle that. The rule books are kinda the physics engine.

In older versions, more was left up to the whim of the DM. Not every situation was accounted for in the books. It wasn't all broken down for us. It was more freeform and less mechanical.

But the old way was alot harder on the DM. And the more creative and imaginative the players were, the more difficult the DM's job was. But being creative and imaginative was kinda the point. So the newer versions started accounting for more and more varied situations, and started defining things in a more cut and dry mechanical sense. Not to take the fun out of it, but just to make it easier on the DM. So he can have a page to quickly turn to and say, "ok, THAT is how you do it". All these new things that we have rules for now, were never dissallowed in older versions. You just had to figure it out yourself. But now that we have so many more rules people are starting to see them being a restriction. People just aren't trying as hard to think outside the box, because the box has got enough in it to keep em happy. These rules are better, but the side effect of that is that it allows people - DM's AND players - to be more lazy and to use em as a crutch.

My point is this: 4e isn't the entire D&D experience. It's just the backbone. The big difference between D&D and video games, no matter what the edition, is that we're NOT restricted. The DM is a person, with imagination, common sense, and a will of his own. The DM is not a mindless set of equations bound by what has been predetermined. This is the beauty of table top RPG's. We're in charge, and it only feels like a video game if we want it to, or if we allow it to.

 

[BASHMAN]

This has annoyed me. The notion that 4e has been turned into a "video-game on paper"

I agree that the mechanics give that impression. Having mechanics in the first place kinda makes it lean that way. Everything has been broken down to cause and effect, it's well defined and predetermined and this is the correct way to handle that. The rule books are kinda the physics engine.

In older versions, more was left up to the whim of the DM. Not every situation was accounted for in the books. It wasn't all broken down for us. It was more freeform and less mechanical.

But the old way was alot harder on the DM. And the more creative and imaginative the players were, the more difficult the DM's job was. But being creative and imaginative was kinda the point. So the newer versions started accounting for more and more varied situations, and started defining things in a more cut and dry mechanical sense. Not to take the fun out of it, but just to make it easier on the DM. So he can have a page to quickly turn to and say, "ok, THAT is how you do it". All these new things that we have rules for now, were never dissallowed in older versions. You just had to figure it out yourself. But now that we have so many more rules people are starting to see them being a restriction. People just aren't trying as hard to think outside the box, because the box has got enough in it to keep em happy. These rules are better, but the side effect of that is that it allows people - DM's AND players - to be more lazy and to use em as a crutch.

My point is this: 4e isn't the entire D&D experience. It's just the backbone. The big difference between D&D and video games, no matter what the edition, is that we're NOT restricted. The DM is a person, with imagination, common sense, and a will of his own. The DM is not a mindless set of equations bound by what has been predetermined. This is the beauty of table top RPG's. We're in charge, and it only feels like a video game if we want it to, or if we allow it to.

Well there are restrictions. There are 4 roles for starters, and a great lack of character customization. Want to make a halfling ranger? Sure go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot by not being an elf. That is one of the downsides to each race giving 2 stat boosts-- less "optimal" choices.

I think that the video game analogy is too simplistic... and yet, several folks tell me after their first time playing it that it seemed like a videogame. I think it has some elements in common with videogames, and honestly, far more than say 3.5 or AD&D had with videogames. But it also reminds me a lot of hero-quest the board game, just with a lot more options for your playing piece to do on its turn.

I think there is a lot to be said for letting the GM and players use their imaginations... but that is just me. When I want to play real D&D, I reach for the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, or its heir, Castles & Crusades. When I want to play what everyone else is playing because I don't feel like arguing, I break out the cookie cutter and make my 4E character with the right race for the right class, to fit the right role for the party.

 

[phloog]

I have no real issue with 4e being more or less like a videogame - ANY set of rules which changes cannot avoid moving either toward or away from videogameyness (which is a real word, I've decided just now), and toward or away from simulation, roleplaying focus...pick your aspect.

Frankly, many of the things that help it accomplish that noble goal of DMsuperfriendliness (a real word also, also just now decided) are the very things that make it closer to a videogame...rather, not so much a console videogame, but something like the Quake engine - - a game creator doesn't have to calculate where that skull bounces, the engine does it for her.

The problem in my opinion arises when this 4E engine attempts to build or reinforce the ROLES via mechanics. I bring this up often, but it's the best example I have - - - there is a power that when used moves all enemies within X closer to the character by Y, and allows him to attack each. This is independent of any of these enemies stats, willpower, wisdom, awareness of the threat posed by the character, etc.

More than the roles alone, it is these kind of 'cute' mechanics that make it feel like a videogame to me. In 3E you had Cleave and similar, which required very little mental/verbal acrobatics to explain in game terms. Now you have a choice with 4E - - you can either create convoluted reasons why suddenly this warrior becomes an irresistable gravity well, or you can just brush it off as 'I turn on my power'...that for me is what makes it feel more like a videogame.

And this breaks the Quake engine analogy...now, rather than providing the VERY useful help in calculating where things fall, how high a player can jump, etc...the game system is going beyond the engine stuff and providing all these freaky powers, trying to also serve the purpose of role reinforcement, and you end up with the (my opinion) goofy VG stuff.

This is not saying that it isn't fun, or isn't a great game.

 

[Snotboy]

I'll add this quick note:

More than a few people complained that 4E 'copied World of Warcraft'.

My group consists of a non-WoW player DMing for myself and 3 other players have played WoW since launch, all of us having played WoW since it launched 4 years ago. We don't see it. Seriously.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And this breaks the Quake engine analogy...now, rather than providing the VERY useful help in calculating where things fall, how high a player can jump, etc...the game system is going beyond the engine stuff and providing all these freaky powers, trying to also serve the purpose of role reinforcement, and you end up with the (my opinion) goofy VG stuff.

I am not sure the analogy with the Quake engine still holds, but the analogy with any "black-block" system would still hold. You state your intent "I want the enemies to move closer to me so I can whack them, just like that scene in movie X" (the part behind the comma is an optional parameter ), and the black box makes it happen - without telling you how exactly it did it - it just did.(The "don't tell you how" is the problem for players. Without any attempt to narrate it ourself, it might as well be magic.

 

[Tripgnosis]

Want to make a halfling ranger? Sure go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot by not being an elf...
...I break out the cookie cutter and make my 4E character with the right race for the right class, to fit the right role for the party.

I have to agree with you on this perspective, at least somewhat. I too feel like the race builds and class builds kinda push you towards that min-max way of building a character. But only if your goal is to make the best possible ranger. But there's more to a character than that. Or at least their could be. So what if some aspects of your character aren't "optimal." This mindset just helps it to be like a videogame. The problem is that there are is so much more in the way of mechanic to 4e, that people are having a hard time seeing past the mechanics and just making the character you want to make regardless of what would be "optimal" A halfling ranger may not be as good at being a ranger than an elf would, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't be fun to play. He'd certainly be more interesting, and unique. I think the halfing would be saddened to hear that the only important thing about him is how good he is at his class. To me, ho I do in combat and how optimal my stats are aren't the only important thing about my character. And I often forego the optimum choice in favor of what gives my character more depth and makes him more interesting and complex. Like giving my fighter skill training in sleight of hand to represent his shady childhood as a pickpocket. I happily spent the 2/1 skill point ratio in 3.x to do this, and I've 'wasted' a feat to get skill training like this in 4e as well.

The DM is as much to blame as the player for these things. If he/she sticks to the 'everything is a specific kind of encounter' mechanic, these freeform, non-optimal choices never get to shine. This is why i hate skill challenges. On one hand they provide a good mechanic for handling non-combat situations. But DM's are using it as a crutch. A good DM was already handling these situations well, and didn't need the help of this new mechanic, but now their stickin to it. Again, their having a hard time thinking outside the given mechanics.

 

[Runestar]

More than a few people complained that 4E 'copied World of Warcraft'.

The funny thing is that it seemed to remind me more of DoTA.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Well there are restrictions. There are 4 roles for starters, and a great lack of character customization. Want to make a halfling ranger? Sure go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot by not being an elf. That is one of the downsides to each race giving 2 stat boosts-- less "optimal" choices.

I can't convey how much I completely disagree with this. I have a player with an extremely effective halfling ranger in the group I'm DMing for - and he rocks.

He's an interesting character, he's got personality, he's mechanically solid and everyone round the table likes him. This idea that no one should play a halfling ranger because it's not the 'optimal choice' is something I find very odd, and a little concerning.

There is a lot more to D&D - any edition - than matching up 'expected' races with their 'expected' classes. It's about having fun round a table (or online), not just going with the obvious.

Next you're going to tell me that our Eladrin Paladin who took the Wizard multi-class and used Thunderwave to knock the BBEG out of his defensive magic circle isn't optimized either. Who cares? It was a great moment, and it happened because a player took a bit of a risk with his character creation.

 

[Tripgnosis]

The problem in my opinion arises when this 4E engine attempts to build or reinforce the ROLES via mechanics.

This I agree with. I HATE that the notion that a party must consist of certain 'roles'. Not only does the mechanic support this, but it's even STATED in the books. That a party should ideally contian this and that and that this class is that role. It's not impossible to break from this. For example, I played a Dragonborn infernal warlock who was the party's tank.

you can either create convoluted reasons why suddenly this warrior becomes an irresistable gravity well, or you can just brush it off as 'I turn on my power'

This I eagerly disagree with. Most players (particularly those of the powergamer/hack'n'slash molds) don't bother describing what they do within the context of the game. They just announce which powers they use and what their rolls were. And DM's follow suit with repsonses like, "you miss, next initiative" or "you hit, roll damage." No fun descriptions of anything. this is where the mechanic ends and the imagination begins. And I certainly don't think the only possible descriptions would be convoluted. Keep in mind that within the context of the game the rules aren't meant to be literal. HP for example isn't the amount of blood in your body. It represent your ability to absorb, deflect, or roll with a blow - as well as morale. The morale part helps explain why certain things like Marks can damage the character. It's not damage like a wound is damage, it just means that the charcaters morale was lowered significantly enough so that he has a harder time dealing with future damage, and that the wounds already taken are now harder to ignore.

... the black box makes it happen - without telling you how exactly it did it - it just did.(The "don't tell you how" is the problem for players. Without any attempt to narrate it ourself, it might as well be magic.

So narrate it yourself....

 

[cmbarona]

The funny thing is that it seemed to remind me more of DoTA.

Hmm... come to think of it, making a WC3 custom map based on D&D 4e could be very fun...