The Videogame comparison

[phloog]

To answer those few things I can remember as I went through the last set of posts:

Matrix - - Neo challenges Smith with just the flip of his hand. I have no problem with this, because Smith is ABSOLUTELY the type to 'Come and Get It'....If Neo was using a power like CAGI, it works here because there is nothing in the very nature of Smith that would prevent it. Where it breaks is if Neo used it on the Oracle - by 4E rules the Oracle would be obliged to move up to two squares next to Neo, and be kicked to Scranton.

Realism - - The problem is not that I want absolute realism in a magical world...the problem is with the mechanics of this power, and how unless you do a huge amount of juicy rationalization, the power feels MAGICAL - and here I'm not saying I'm against magic existing, but this is a power for a WARRIOR. I would still have a problem with it disregarding the stats of the targets, but if this was a power of some new Magewarrior class it might be more 'D&D realistic' - - this is another problem I have with 4E powers of this kind, they tend to make everyone a bit mystical. Fine for a lot of campaigns, but not mine.

Pulling the carpet - - Not a bad bit of explanation, but it gets a bit strained. Also, what this means is the loss of one of the claimed benefits of 4e - easier to DM. Now, unless they want to have a LOT of carpets lying about and overuse this explanation, DMs need to come up with stories for this each time it is used on someone who wouldn't normally move. And again, a big issue for me remains the fact that it moves someone without any regard to their stats.

For me Kordeth has a really good solution (attack vs. will) - - if I look at it in terms of the written flavor and the apparent INTENT, adding an attack vs. Will of some kind will not unduly weaken the power, but will tend to make it something that is used on groups of mooks, rather than as a way to force a clever wizard into melee. The system doesn't seem to really have anything like this, but I think a cool addition would be that any target could willingly forego the attack roll - - if they really wanted the 'free movement' toward the warrior, and were willing to 'pay' for it by being attacked, have at it.

 

[Danceofmasks]

4e is not a video game.
It's a bastard cross between a board game and a card game.

 

[phloog]

4e is not a video game.
It's a bastard cross between a board game and a card game.

While I think that your choice of adjectives regarding the birth circumstances of 4e will likely lead to an unnecessary heating up of this thread, I will agree that a lot of the mechanics feel more like MT:G or a skirmish miniatures game than I enjoy in my RPGs. It's a little like Necromunda or the medieval skirmish game by GW, but each of your miniatures has a selection of 'power cards' that can be used - some any time, others which are 'tapped' when used.

But I would hate for this thread to completely devolve into another of those threads (too late?)...and of course maybe I've already sidetracked it enough into being so CAGI-specific.

 

[timbannock]

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. *SNIP*

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.

Those are some of the best fluffy descriptions ever for this stuff. I will show this to a friend of mine who constantly argues that 4e = videogame.

Also, I think at first glance, seeing things like "STR vs. AC; HIT: 2 [W] + STR and target is pushed 2 squares" does LOOK like coding language or something. However, it's my experience that 4e plays like fun fun fun but reads like bore bore bore (not quite as boring as some of 3.5's rulesy language though, but close enough).

4e is not a video game.
It's a bastard cross between a board game and a card game.

There's definitely a VERY obvious element of both those in D&D's design. The layout of powers, magic items and monsters makes them primed to be used as cards, and the IMHO elegant tactical movement and combat rules are largely wasted if you're not playing with minis on mat.

That said, you don't have to do either to get a really good 4e experience.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I don't see the issue here.
Board games are awesome, and there are some rather complex ones ..
Card games are great fun ..

It is certainly not an MMO, with their static NPCs and camping and grinding and twinking.
Those factors determine what an MMO is .. the rest of the supposedly "common" features can be found everyelsewhere.

4e is damn cool, but insofar as the notion that an RPG is supposed to be some sort of realistic simulation, hey .. you can watch me play GURPS.
I mean you could make the argument that Hero Quest or Arkham Asylum are RPGs too ... you have stats (ish), you roll dice, you can decide to negotiate with other characters, blah.

 

[Obryn]

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.

Well, hey, when I press A, I attack. When I press B, I trip my foe. When I press X.... "I could map this to a button" is hardly a necessary or sufficient reason to equate an RPG to a video game.

Again, see Troika's ToEE which models almost the complete 3.5e rules-set. I would not argue that this makes 3e a video game, but if your criteria are "I could model this rules-set as a video game," I would question why 4e would fall into the category, whereas 3e would not.

I don't at all see why it has to be mystical. Hyp came up with a few possibilities, but they're not the only ones. 4e powers make the most sense when viewed in terms of narrative control - CAGI is just the Fighter's player asserting narrative control in the scene. (And I have no problems whatsoever with its use against the PCs, along the same lines.)

-O

 

[Danzauker]

4e is not a video game.
It's a bastard cross between a board game and a card game.

This I agree to a certain point. Not that I see it as a bad thing anyway.

Combat has gone definitely towards a board game. Actually, I don't think you can have a tactical combat system without a grid of some kind.

Cards are quite handy, and a very practical way of running combat. Well, no wonder that WotC knows it.

In facts, latest trends in light wargames tend to use cards for mechanics (see BattleLore or Memoir '44) just for their ease of use.

But at the core D&D is always a roleplaying game. When you enter combat, you take out your tokens, minis, grid, cards and character sheet and run it.

But outside combat, I don't see much changed.

I don't think that the props and game aids used for a game change its intimate nature no more than rolling percentile dice on a random table instead of using Chance Cards makes Monopoly a roleplaying game all of sudden!

 

[Danceofmasks]

Ah, but the mechanics determine your role ..

You can't act all charming and erudite if your stats say you can't charm a gullible child with candy.
Nor can you act like the gods' gift to swordfighting if you'd lose 1/3 of your fights vs. a level 4 guard.

Just saying.

 

[MwaO]

Now, unless they want to have a LOT of carpets lying about and overuse this explanation, DMs need to come up with stories for this each time it is used on someone who wouldn't normally move. And again, a big issue for me remains the fact that it moves someone without any regard to their stats.

For me Kordeth has a really good solution (attack vs. will) - - if I look at it in terms of the written flavor and the apparent INTENT, adding an attack vs. Will of some kind will not unduly weaken the power, but will tend to make it something that is used on groups of mooks, rather than as a way to force a clever wizard into melee.

That does significantly weaken the power - the advantage of CAGI is that a Fighter, without knowing the capabilities of his opponents, can force them all next to him, and then mark them. It also works on opponents immune to psychic or charm attacks.

A way of possibly looking at it is that the Fighter makes it obvious that if the targets don't come up to him, there is some clearly worse thing that then happens. Perhaps as an example, he becomes a whirlwind of swings and shifts(that don't trigger any 'when opponent shifts' immediate actions), doing 2 - 2[w] close burst 3s, that can be avoided only if:
the targets shifts one per burst towards the Fighter
an individual target is unable to end adjacent to the Fighter by shifting(likely because the Fighter can't easily shift towards that target either and therefore can't reach it)

The Wizard might not want to move up to the Fighter and take a 1[w] attack, but he doesn't want 2*2[w] more...and instead of giving the NPC a choice in the matter, it simply forces him to make that movement. And if 2*2[w] isn't significant enough, maybe he close bursts 1 every single square in that huge area 3-8 times each.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ah, but the mechanics determine your role ..

You can't act all charming and erudite if your stats say you can't charm a gullible child with candy.
Nor can you act like the gods' gift to swordfighting if you'd lose 1/3 of your fights vs. a level 4 guard.

Just saying.

And in Amber (one of the most freeform, mechanics-lite RPGs that I am aware of) someone with Human Rank Strength isn't a bulwark of Herculian might. I fail to see your point.

All RPGs need stats to describe your character's strengths and weaknesses. Without stats, you're playing "let's pretend".

I think you're getting a little too hung up on the "role" concept. A role is nothing more than a loose definition of where your character shines in combat, with respect to the rest of the party. The fighter defends the more vulnerable party members, the wizard controls the enemies' movements (limiting their options), the rogue strikes from the shadows (inflicting serious harm on his unlucky victims), and the warlord provides leadership (enhancing the group's performance as a whole).

Roles have very little meaning outside combat. A fighter raised on the streets might be just as streetwise as a rogue. A warlord can be just as threatening as a warlock.

So what if "you can't act all charming and erudite if your stats say you can't charm a gullible child with candy"? If you want to act all charming and erudite, don't use Charisma as a dump stat. Take Skill Training: Diplomacy.

Don't complain that your character can't be something because he doesn't have the stats. Give him the stats so that he can be what you envision him to be.