I guess to me, backing away from my dislike of its implication, it does seem videogamey because of the way it seems almost mystical and it sucks in enemies from all around you - it's the kind of thing I would see in a Gauntlet or Marvel:UA or similar game - - you map this to the B button, push B and all enemies within that radius get sucked in and slapped.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The Videogame comparison
- Thread starter Tripgnosis
- Start date
I guess to me, backing away from my dislike of its implication, it does seem videogamey because of the way it seems almost mystical and it sucks in enemies from all around you - it's the kind of thing I would see in a Gauntlet or Marvel:UA or similar game - - you map this to the B button, push B and all enemies within that radius get sucked in and slapped.
Tripgnosis
First Post
Man, sooo much has happened while I was flippin burgers.. I was going to quote a bunch of you but that was gonna be too messy so I'll just sum up my points. Besides you all know what you said.
Phloog, most of this is in response to your posts.
I agree that alot of the powers are indeed pretty hard to explain within the context of the game world. And that abstraction does take away from the immersion.
I've felt less immersed myself, but that's more because of other reasons. At first we were all just tryin to learn the game, so it was pretty much just the mechanics for all of us, no fluff. Now we're playing a public (anyone can join) game in the local comic shop. I hate that atmosphere. Many distractions, not much continuity. And so far, our DM is still stickin pretty much to the bare bones of the encounter rules. He's still getting used to DM'ing 4e, particularly the skill challenges mechanics and how best to make them flow seamless with the rest of the adventure. That's the problem so far, things just don't flow yet. But like I said he's not really trying to fill in the fluff just yet. He's a great DM and cares about the level of detail as much as I do, so I'm not worried.
I emailed him about Stalker0's alternative skill challenge systems. I don't like the skill challenge system. I don't want a skill challenge system at all. Our DM never needed one before and was able to seamless integrate skill checks as appropriate, but now that there's a system, he wants to explore that. I think it's too limiting as is.
Previously there were tow 'modes' for D&D. Combat, and Adventuring. Adventuring was all freeform. Interracting with NPCS, exploring, using skills, etc. Now that they created a skill challenge mechanic, there doesn't seem to be an adventuring mode anymore. All those things you did in that mode are now a skill challenge which is just another kin of encounter. This makes the game feel like a series of missions, very comparable to video-game 'levels'.
But here's the thing, these flaws and limitations are only there if you stick JUST to the mechanics. There is still room to insert the fluff.
And personally I'd be fine with a total abandonment of the skill challenges system
I do admit that 4e is much more videogamey than previous editions, and in ways that can't be resolved without drastic houseruling, which I am against, because I think it throws the balance way off. One thing I hate the most is the oversimplified grid-rules of 4e. Diagonal movement and area effects should have remained unchanged. They weren't that hard to figure out. The new rules are way too simplified. ANd this happens to be one of those mechanics that can't be resolved without a drastic rewrite of the rules. *shrug*. But the game is still fun, and that's what matters in the end.
Phloog, most of this is in response to your posts.
I agree that alot of the powers are indeed pretty hard to explain within the context of the game world. And that abstraction does take away from the immersion.
I've felt less immersed myself, but that's more because of other reasons. At first we were all just tryin to learn the game, so it was pretty much just the mechanics for all of us, no fluff. Now we're playing a public (anyone can join) game in the local comic shop. I hate that atmosphere. Many distractions, not much continuity. And so far, our DM is still stickin pretty much to the bare bones of the encounter rules. He's still getting used to DM'ing 4e, particularly the skill challenges mechanics and how best to make them flow seamless with the rest of the adventure. That's the problem so far, things just don't flow yet. But like I said he's not really trying to fill in the fluff just yet. He's a great DM and cares about the level of detail as much as I do, so I'm not worried.
I emailed him about Stalker0's alternative skill challenge systems. I don't like the skill challenge system. I don't want a skill challenge system at all. Our DM never needed one before and was able to seamless integrate skill checks as appropriate, but now that there's a system, he wants to explore that. I think it's too limiting as is.
Previously there were tow 'modes' for D&D. Combat, and Adventuring. Adventuring was all freeform. Interracting with NPCS, exploring, using skills, etc. Now that they created a skill challenge mechanic, there doesn't seem to be an adventuring mode anymore. All those things you did in that mode are now a skill challenge which is just another kin of encounter. This makes the game feel like a series of missions, very comparable to video-game 'levels'.
But here's the thing, these flaws and limitations are only there if you stick JUST to the mechanics. There is still room to insert the fluff.
And personally I'd be fine with a total abandonment of the skill challenges system
I do admit that 4e is much more videogamey than previous editions, and in ways that can't be resolved without drastic houseruling, which I am against, because I think it throws the balance way off. One thing I hate the most is the oversimplified grid-rules of 4e. Diagonal movement and area effects should have remained unchanged. They weren't that hard to figure out. The new rules are way too simplified. ANd this happens to be one of those mechanics that can't be resolved without a drastic rewrite of the rules. *shrug*. But the game is still fun, and that's what matters in the end.
Last edited:
I have a couple things:
I have never understood criticizing DnD for any aspect of it being unrealistic. Half Dragons and Fireballs are realistic? Why should Fighters (or any class) be more closely tied to reality than any other? A 7th level wizard can shoot lightning from his hand, and a 7th level fighter can't even fool an enemy into attacking him?
I do get that this is comparing it to video games, but how is any of that MORE videogamey? Do video games have a monopoly on ridiculous things?
The second thing: Nobody can tell you how to play your character/game. If the PHB suggests specific race and class pairings it is because it is a book meant to be read to learn the game. Likely you will never read that paragraph (or that page, or chapter) again.
However, I think the deal is people say that 4e is more like a video game than 3.5. That is hard to tell. I never played WoW. Complaints about players being more restricted mean little to me, your DM should not tell you that you can't do something just because it is no longer in the rules. As for the lack of detail, I was a little bummed, too, that the MM had less out of combat detail for monsters, but mostly because I am less experienced than most of the players in my group. They may remember that in 3.5 gnomes normally rode dire monkeys and how dare I put them on dire kangaroos that is blasphemy!
Jay
I have never understood criticizing DnD for any aspect of it being unrealistic. Half Dragons and Fireballs are realistic? Why should Fighters (or any class) be more closely tied to reality than any other? A 7th level wizard can shoot lightning from his hand, and a 7th level fighter can't even fool an enemy into attacking him?
I do get that this is comparing it to video games, but how is any of that MORE videogamey? Do video games have a monopoly on ridiculous things?
The second thing: Nobody can tell you how to play your character/game. If the PHB suggests specific race and class pairings it is because it is a book meant to be read to learn the game. Likely you will never read that paragraph (or that page, or chapter) again.
However, I think the deal is people say that 4e is more like a video game than 3.5. That is hard to tell. I never played WoW. Complaints about players being more restricted mean little to me, your DM should not tell you that you can't do something just because it is no longer in the rules. As for the lack of detail, I was a little bummed, too, that the MM had less out of combat detail for monsters, but mostly because I am less experienced than most of the players in my group. They may remember that in 3.5 gnomes normally rode dire monkeys and how dare I put them on dire kangaroos that is blasphemy!
Jay
LostSoul
Adventurer
Do you see a difference between a power that says, "Expend these resources and this will happen" and one that says, "Roll a hit and this will happen"?
I contend that there is no difference in the game world, but there is a difference in the metagame - in what the player experiences.
If you can look at the game world as a separate thing from the metagame, then I think 4e will be a decent game. If not, it will suck.
When people complain about realism, they're rarely complaining about real-world realism (unless they're advocating that all PCs should be likely to die of dysentery before the game even starts or the like), but about realism within the D&D world. We accept fireballs and dragons because that's what the game is about. When the game tells us that fighters are heroic warriors whose physical prowess brushes the superhuman, but that they are not actually wizards, when people see a fighter ability that they can only rationalize as some form of mental compulsion or "gravity well," it steps on that verisimulitude. To some people, enemies responding to your attacks in specific, scripted ways they have no control over feels like the AI in a video game being told "Player has initiated attack X. Move to your places so you can all be hit."
On a side note, there's an easy solution to CAGI, and it goes like this:
Code:
[b]Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7[/b]
[i]You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will
never forget.[/i]
[b]Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Close[/b] burst 3
[b]Target:[/b] Each enemy in burst you can see
[b]Attack:[/b] Strength vs. Will
[b]Hit:[/b] Each target is pulled 2 squares to a square adjacent to you, if
possible. A target that can’t end adjacent to you doesn’t
move. After all hits are resolved, make a secondary attack.
[b]Secondary Target:[/b] Each adjacent enemy you can see.
[b]Attack:[/b] Strength vs. AC
[B]Hit:[/B] 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.That gives the targets a chance to resist, and compensates for the decreased number of affected targets by bumping the damage to be equal to other level 7 encounter powers. Yes, Str vs. Will is a little odd, but Fighters don't need Cha, and requiring it for this power would be lame.
Last edited:
Tripgnosis
First Post
Half dragons and fireballs are unrealistic from the perspective of the real world. Square fireballs are unrealistic even within the context of the game-world. That's the issue. EDIT: I guess Kordeth got to this before me....
I agree wholeheartedly. Problem is people aren't looking past what the book suggests. And it's not just suggested, the mechanics make it seem like certain choices are just plain better. The obvious optimal choices are too obvious and too optimal. But as I've said, there are plenty of other character builds that are just as viable as these obvious choices, just as mechanically solid, but alot of people are just not looking outside the box enough.
Good point. As for detail I wasn't really that concerned for the lack of it from the books, cuz DM's and players should add the fluff and the purpose of the books is to provide the mechanics. But now I think that perspective is flawed. For exampl, I'm currently playing a dopppelganger, and was just telling my DM the other day that I wish there was some kind of background info. Sure, it's up to me to come up with a background for my char, but my character is of a specific race which likely would have a specific culture. I don't wanna have to define doppelganger culture for my character to have depth. And that bothers me cuz I really like my characters to have depth. And as a DM I'd want to know the background details of monsters I'm gonna be using cuz thats helpful when writing a story to base an adventure on. And I don't wanna have to create my own versions of everything.
Last edited:
inati
First Post
Nope, I have no problems with Come and Get it. On the contrary, I love it. So, please don't accuse me of disliking something that I actually favor. What I do have problems with are people thinking that it's not a power Monsters can get and that therefore it means PC vs PC.
Is Come and Get It the only power that people can bring up in trying to "prove" that 4E is videogame like? It certainly seems to be the only one people are arguing about.
As for the actual topic, I think many detractors of 4E who are hollering at the top of their lungs that 4E == Videogame are in actuality not upset that 4E is really a videogame, but that 4E is not 3.5 .
That One Guy
First Post
(This is just a general comment on the comparison in general, not any specific comparison)
Do you all remember when anime was getting into the mainstream a couple years back? Almost a decade ago, Around when the Matrix could do no wrong. ~99? 3e Feats were described as anime powers. Cleave. You kill a guy and get to attack another guy? Great Cleave - you can keep going! How animetastic.
(Yes, I'm being a tad bit snarky, but I don't mean it as an attack on anyone, merely setting up a point...)
WoW and other mmos have become much more mainstream than videogames of the past. Isn't World of Warcraft insanely popular internationally? People who have no interest in it know at least one person who plays (Granted, I'm in college so my perception could be skewed...). [Video]Games are what are popular and so [video]games are what D&D'll be compared to.
(Ironically, how often do WoW players say, "Oh man, this is so like Living Greyhawk... what a rip-off!")
What I am arguing is that videogames are a concept in the mass consciousness and therefore what people compare new things to.
It is the meaning of this critique that is difficult to ascertain. A few of my friends played D&D 4e for the first time and said it was like a videogame... in that it was fun and easy to pick up. I've heard [it being like a video game] said in person several times as a compliment to the system. I know some people mean it as an insult - lacking creativity or mechanically similar/ripping off. But, I think the personal meaning of 4e being like a video game is worthy of consideration.
Do you all remember when anime was getting into the mainstream a couple years back? Almost a decade ago, Around when the Matrix could do no wrong. ~99? 3e Feats were described as anime powers. Cleave. You kill a guy and get to attack another guy? Great Cleave - you can keep going! How animetastic.
(Yes, I'm being a tad bit snarky, but I don't mean it as an attack on anyone, merely setting up a point...)
WoW and other mmos have become much more mainstream than videogames of the past. Isn't World of Warcraft insanely popular internationally? People who have no interest in it know at least one person who plays (Granted, I'm in college so my perception could be skewed...). [Video]Games are what are popular and so [video]games are what D&D'll be compared to.
(Ironically, how often do WoW players say, "Oh man, this is so like Living Greyhawk... what a rip-off!")
What I am arguing is that videogames are a concept in the mass consciousness and therefore what people compare new things to.
It is the meaning of this critique that is difficult to ascertain. A few of my friends played D&D 4e for the first time and said it was like a videogame... in that it was fun and easy to pick up. I've heard [it being like a video game] said in person several times as a compliment to the system. I know some people mean it as an insult - lacking creativity or mechanically similar/ripping off. But, I think the personal meaning of 4e being like a video game is worthy of consideration.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
To beat a possibly dead horse: Come and Get It
I particularly remember a scene in Matrix, where Neo challenges Agent Smith by a simple hand gesture. What is he doing there in a game system? Is he rolling an attack roll against Agent Smith Willpower? Did Smith fail his Will Save?
I don't think any of this accurately describes it. There is nearly no way this scene could not happen the way it did happen. (I can only think of The Princess Bride where the opposite happens in a similar scene).
Come and Get It sets up exactly such a scene - a scene where it just doesn't feel right for the opponents to not react to the PCs challenge. I suppose that exemplifies the narrative aspects of D&D 4. In a game without narrative rules, I just wouldn't know how to setup such a scene. Would it feel believable if the PC rolls a Taunt/Bluff/Intimdiate check against the enemy? Or would it just have to be something done entirely by role-playing that scene well?
I particularly remember a scene in Matrix, where Neo challenges Agent Smith by a simple hand gesture. What is he doing there in a game system? Is he rolling an attack roll against Agent Smith Willpower? Did Smith fail his Will Save?
I don't think any of this accurately describes it. There is nearly no way this scene could not happen the way it did happen. (I can only think of The Princess Bride where the opposite happens in a similar scene).
Come and Get It sets up exactly such a scene - a scene where it just doesn't feel right for the opponents to not react to the PCs challenge. I suppose that exemplifies the narrative aspects of D&D 4. In a game without narrative rules, I just wouldn't know how to setup such a scene. Would it feel believable if the PC rolls a Taunt/Bluff/Intimdiate check against the enemy? Or would it just have to be something done entirely by role-playing that scene well?
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
My approach to 4E is the same as my approach to Mutants and Masterminds - it's an effects-based system, and the flavour can be bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated so that it makes that effect make sense in the circumstances.
Come and Get It? The fighter's player declares the use of the power. What's the effect? Enemies get pulled closer, and he makes a melee attack against them.
The wizard has all manner of nasty, zappy, evocation effects. He's not going to run up to punch the fighter because the fighter insulted his mother! So what's some flavour that makes "Wizard pulled closer" make sense?
"Foolish warrior!" the wizard sneers. "I can burn you where you stand, before you ever get close enough to hit me with that sword." Regdar opens his mouth to reply... then swiftly leans down to grab the edge of the rug on the floor. The rug the wizard is standing on the opposite end of...
One swift yank, and the wizard staggers forward, desperately trying to regain his footing. And succeeds... looking up just in time to see Regdar's blade arcing towards him...
But what if there are two wizards?
"Foolish warrior!" one wizard sneers. "How will you defeat us both? Move on one, and the other shall burn you where you stand!" Regdar's eyes narrow... and he lashes out to his right with his sword, hacking cleanly through a rope affixed to the wall. A heartbeat later, both wizards comprehend... and dive out of the way an instant before the massive chandelier crashes to the ground where they were standing. Clambering to their feet, the wizards realise that their escape from the frying pan has only led them to the fire, for they are now within reach of Regdar's blade...
Two goblin archers, up a tree. Regdar can't climb and hold his sword at the same time, and they'd be foolish to climb down when they have perfectly good shortbows to plink at him with, no matter what he says about their mothers!
Effects-based system.
Another arrow bounces from Regdar's shield - the goblins jeer at him yet again. But Regdar grins, and raises his sword... angling the shining steel to reflect the glare of the late afternoon sun directly into the eyes of one of his harassers. The goblin throws up an arm, dazzled... and loses his balance. His companion clutches at him desperately, but only succeeds in overbalancing himself.
Both goblins tumble through the lower branches and bounce across the stony ground. They roll to their feet, still clutching their bows triumphantly... but bows are a poor choice for parrying a heavy blade like the one whistling through the air towards them...
The effect is fine. There's nothing wrong with "Pull enemies two squares and make a melee attack". And if the flavour is what's bothering you? Change the flavour.
-Hyp.
Similar Threads
