The Videogame comparison

[Tripgnosis]

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.

****ing awesome. I thank you and your players for existing.

 

[Obryn]

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.

Strangely enough, we use our imaginations plenty in our 4e D&D game. And, as for sub-optimal characters, one of my players has a gnome ranger, and he's consistently one of the most enjoyable characters in the game.

4e is a lot closer to RC than 3e is when it comes to just making stuff up to fit the game. It's moved away from the 3e concept that PCs, NPCs, and monsters basically follow the same set of rules.

-O

 

[robotsinmyhead]

While I agree to a point that the lack of character customization is a bit of a drag, the game is still in early stages compared to 3.5 and you pretty much have to take it as it is. I really loved prestige classes in 3.5, and you could start delving into them very early on, whereas in 4e, the paragon paths aren't available until level 11. I'd really love to see some of the classic basic classes back in 4e as well, like the forthcoming Barbarian, the Druid, or the Scout (my personal favorite class)

That said however, there's a lot of fun ways to build the relatively limited number of classes and races if you can resist the urge to min-max. In the end, the game type and setting, the DM, and the Players themselves can steer the game into wildly different experiences.

 

[Danzauker]

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.

I don't agree.

The rules say that "if you want an optimal party" you MUST have all the roles covered. This is indeed true.

But the big question is: "do you really want to have an optimal party in YOUR game?".

If the answer is no, then all you have to do is having your DM adjust the encounters and campaign AROUND your party.

This is why D&D is not equal to a videogame. In a videogame, the "dungeon master" does not play WITH the players in order to adjust the setting so that everyone has fun.



Besides, it's not that nobody ever had to do this before. Try playing a 3.x campaign with undead-heavy encounters without a cleric. If your DM did not tone down the monsters a good bit, you're toast.

And going back to BECMI, I remember published modules stating "this adventure is recommended for a party totalling X levels with at least one cleric of level Y and a magic-user of level Z" or something like that IN THE FIRST PAGE of the adventure.

They just didn't call them roles, but roles have always been there. Heck, even the Fantastic Four are more or less made up of a defender, a striker, a controller and a leader!!!

 

[ExploderWizard]

As the game plays out you can narrate it like a videogame, anime, or whatever you like and gives you the feel you are looking for.

It becomes a little more videogame like in the campaign continuity department. Doing a "respec" upon gaining a level makes the characters feel like toons and less like people. It reinforces the playing piece aspect of the character. This too can be explained away with hot air but that doesn't give the characters any more substance.

 

[Wormwood]

Considering how fun and engaging certain video games are, I view the statement "D&D is like a videogame" as praise, not derision.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Considering how fun and engaging certain video games are, I view the statement "D&D is like a videogame" as praise, not derision.

Silly you - when we describe something as "videogamey", we obviously refer to the bad ones that you can't even play with friends, have bad graphics, a bad interface, and a boring story-line and tedious gameplay.
If we wouldn't talk about them, we would call the game "roleplayinggamey". But this term is almost never used these days...

 

[Derren]

4E certainly has more things in common with certain videogames than older editions.
Thats because 4E abandons simulation for a more gameist centric approach and thats exactly what many videogames do too.

Lets take for example Diablo 2. The game world in this game is not functional and only exists to support the players hack&slay adventures. 4E uses a similar nonfunctional world where everything in the world just exists to provide a challenge for the PCs or allow them to sell their loot. In a simulated world the economy would work totally different than in 4E and minions wouldn't exist either.

Other things 4E has in common with video games is its complete focus of balance and all the restrictions needed to get those balance. Class restrictions, equipment restrictions, utility power restrictions, etc.

4E certainly is not a video game as it lakes the "video" part, but it has many things in common with them, for some people too many.

 

[Dragonbait]

Yes, D&D is very videogamy.

A numeric value to determine damage, a numeric value to represent how much damage one can handle before death, teh ability to return from the dead, a numeric defense (Armor Class), saves, set movement, combat based on rounds where 1 character acts as a time, and so on. All of these things are in 4E and therefore it is bad and wrong.

 

[ValhallaGH]

4E uses a similar nonfunctional world where everything in the world just exists to provide a challenge for the PCs or allow them to sell their loot. In a simulated world the economy would work totally different than in 4E and minions wouldn't exist either.

Do you find this to be different from the 3.xE line?

I don't, but I'm mildly curious if you do.