3E had less overlap with video games, mostly because it tried to include simulationistic aspects which are lacking in most video games. But it of course was not completely free of them (see Dragonbaits post).
The Videogame comparison
- Thread starter Tripgnosis
- Start date
3E had less overlap with video games, mostly because it tried to include simulationistic aspects which are lacking in most video games. But it of course was not completely free of them (see Dragonbaits post).
WizarDru
Adventurer
My .sig generally sums up my feelings in these discussions (since D&D and it's associated concepts predate pretty much every video game except Pong and the Odyssey I). I'd heartily agree that D&D 4e grabs some concepts from World of Warcraft...after it lent them to the genre and fed the genre for decades in one big feedback loop. Given that World of Warcraft arguably has a larger player base than D&D has had for a long time, that's not necessarily a bad decision, IMHO.
That said, I always find it odd where people draw their imaginary boundaries with respect to verisimilitude in RPGs. Clearly some folks draw those lines at radically different places. Some folks have no problem with hong's chickens, but can't stand minions. Some folks don't bat an eye at the food requirements of purple worm or the physics of how a dragon flies, but can't accept the idea of black-powder weapons. All of which are perfectly valid choices, but it sometimes strikes me as funny how people pick and choose what they consider nonsensical or against the genre.
That said, I always find it odd where people draw their imaginary boundaries with respect to verisimilitude in RPGs. Clearly some folks draw those lines at radically different places. Some folks have no problem with hong's chickens, but can't stand minions. Some folks don't bat an eye at the food requirements of purple worm or the physics of how a dragon flies, but can't accept the idea of black-powder weapons. All of which are perfectly valid choices, but it sometimes strikes me as funny how people pick and choose what they consider nonsensical or against the genre.
BASHMAN
Basic Action Games
Well, I can offer anectdotal evidence too, about how many people I talked to about their first time playing 4e said it was like a videogame. But I don't think that would get us anywhere.
We should probably just stop having these threads and resolve something like this: "Many 4e lovers will never admit it is like videogames, and won't be convinced otherwise. Those who think 4e is like a videogame, won't be convinced it is anything but. All attempts to convince the other side, are therefor, a waste of time for all of us."
However, I think such a resolution would probably be against forum rules. Most of us are probably not arguing with any aspiration of convincing the other side, as much as to reassure ourselves that our points are right. So, no doubt, this debat will continue until 5E. C'est la guerre.
We should probably just stop having these threads and resolve something like this: "Many 4e lovers will never admit it is like videogames, and won't be convinced otherwise. Those who think 4e is like a videogame, won't be convinced it is anything but. All attempts to convince the other side, are therefor, a waste of time for all of us."
However, I think such a resolution would probably be against forum rules. Most of us are probably not arguing with any aspiration of convincing the other side, as much as to reassure ourselves that our points are right. So, no doubt, this debat will continue until 5E. C'est la guerre.
Tripgnosis
First Post
Ok, props for the fantastic 4 reference. also, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not SUPPORTING that notion that the roles are needed. What I'm saying is that I hate that the books suggests this. Like you said, it's up to the DM to take the PC's into account when he sets up the adventure. The mechanics do lend to that urge to have each of the rolls and also the urge to min-max - to make the optimal ranger or fighter or whatever. It's just too easy and obvious. You look at the rogue, and you look at the halfling, and you think "why would a halfling NOT be a rogue" and vice versa. But there's more to it than that. There's been plenty of example right here in this thread of characters who were not the obvious optimum, but were still very mechanically solid.
It would be nice if the book had also included guidelines on how to run encounters for non-standard parties.
I mean, what if your players wanted to run a group consisting of 5 fighters or 5 wizards? They are bound to have their own individual strengths and weaknesses, only problem is that the DM may not be fully aware of what those are. As a result, he would not be able to create appropriate encounters to properly challenge them.
On a side note, I don't think that 4e was based off WoW, but I do believe that the designers tried to package it more slickly like a computer game so as to appeal to a wider spectrum of players. Hence the initial perceived similarities.
I mean, what if your players wanted to run a group consisting of 5 fighters or 5 wizards? They are bound to have their own individual strengths and weaknesses, only problem is that the DM may not be fully aware of what those are. As a result, he would not be able to create appropriate encounters to properly challenge them.
On a side note, I don't think that 4e was based off WoW, but I do believe that the designers tried to package it more slickly like a computer game so as to appeal to a wider spectrum of players. Hence the initial perceived similarities.
Tripgnosis
First Post
I started this thread because the discussion is an interesting one. We all have different points of views and I've often changed my mind about things by gaining different perspectives. I've done it right here in these forums.
Maybe I set the wrong tone by saying the video game comparison "annoyed" me. That's probally too strong a word.
And your first sentence isn't evidence that 4e IS like a videogame, its evidence that people THINK so. And no one's saying they're wrong, exactly. Everyone's opinion is valid. There's no absolute here, it is in fact a matter of opinion. But the people that say this are obviously not happy with that, so changing their minds would be a service to them, they would enjoy something they previously didn't. What do I have to gain from convincing anyone? I love 4e, so I'm already happy and content. I have my criticisms, but I have criticisms about EVERYTHING. Cuz nothings perfect.
Last edited:
Tripgnosis
First Post
It would be nice if the book had also included guidelines on how to run encounters for non-standard parties.
I mean, what if your players wanted to run a group consisting of 5 fighters or 5 wizards? They are bound to have their own individual strengths and weaknesses, only problem is that the DM may not be fully aware of what those are. As a result, he would not be able to create appropriate encounters to properly challenge them.
On a side note, I don't think that 4e was based off WoW, but I do believe that the designers tried to package it more slickly like a computer game so as to appeal to a wider spectrum of players. Hence the initial perceived similarities.
That's a good point. Pointing out how a party works best is kinda redudant cuz its already obvious. You don't need the book to tell you that you should play an elf if "you want to excell at the ranger class" overstating these things just urges the min-maxxed role-based party even more. But like I said, it's not impossible to shed that perspective and break those molds. It's not even hard really. You just need to ignore the obvious choices and look at it a little longer, see what else is possible. Obviously not EVERY character concept would be mechanically easy or even viable at all. But the system is complex enouhgh so that there is more than meets the eye, and the books would have done well to mention this
WalterKovacs
First Post
Video Games took many of the building blocks from D&D in the first place. Also, since video games do not have the benefit of an "on the fly" DM, they had to build on those concepts and make them very specifically balanced. When 3.5 [and 4e] came out, a lot of work was put into balancing the game. The more effects added for game balance ... the more the world/game was "defined".
3.5 was very rigurously defined in terms of how everything worked ... how was that not like a video game? How many players in 3.5 were telling the GM what he could or couldn't do based on the rules?
3.5 was very rigurously defined in terms of how everything worked ... how was that not like a video game? How many players in 3.5 were telling the GM what he could or couldn't do based on the rules?
I think when when 4e was being compared to a video game, it was more about the way the mechanics were presented, rather than how they are being run. 3e may have been closely defined by rules, but the terminology has a rather layman feel to it, and it feels "traditional" enough to differentiate it sufficiently from a computer gaming experience.
Compare this with 4e. Encounter powers feel like normal spells with a cooldown timer, dailies are like your DoTA ultimates with an ultra-long cooldown, your at-wills are like your character's normal attacks.
Again, it is less so about how the rules actually work, but moreso about how they are being presented.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Sandbox and/or/vs Linear campaigns
