The Videogame comparison

[Runestar]

As a quick sidebar... Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil. Proof that 3e is video-game-like?

-O

I have never played it before, so what about it?

 

[Obryn]

I have never played it before, so what about it?

It's pretty much a comprehensive 3.5 game that adheres very strictly to the game rules, from characters to combat. (Unlike NWN and NWN2 which were somewhat real-time variants of 3e and 3.5.)

Really, it's like playing a whole party of adventurers running through a 3.5 version of ToEE.

The Temple of Elemental Evil (computer game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

-O

 

[Runestar]

So we are now back to the old "Chicken and Egg" debate...

 

[Regicide]

Well lets see, just off the top of my head and nowhere near complete...

Weapons have range X where you can see enemies but not actually shoot them with your longbow is very very videogameish.

Healing "just happening" is very videogameish.

"At-Will" powers are pretty videogameish, scorching blast round after round is diablo pretty much.

"encounter" and "daily" powers are very videogameish, matching cooldowns you often see in MMOs like WoW or 10min/2hr powers from FFXI etc.

A lot of the powers have weird effects that are inexplicable, very videogameish.

Monsters not following player rules is pretty videogameish where parties are 5 or 6 players so monsters tend to have 3-10x the HP of a player is one example. Monsters not healing much (compared to the party) is another.

"Treasure Bundles", "get a wish list of magic items to give to the players" and the clear direction from the game that players are expected to win and get what they want to drop from the monsters and to reach maximum level is pretty standard videogameism as well.

Carts going 1mph that do enough damage easily kill people is a nice one too.

It's not QUITE at the point where you gulp down food as a minor action to gain HP during combat, break open barrels to find gold inside, or kill a bat and a breastplate mysteriously falls to the ground from it, but they have taken a lot of elements from video games and incorporated them. It's clearest when they take something that comes about because of a limitation of computers that people just accept, but are VERY out of place in pen and paper, such as the range limit on weapons meaning you can often see a creature but not shoot at it. Shooting an arrow half a mile is not out of the realms of reason for a legendary archer with the best bow in existance given to him by a god and would work fine in DnD if they let you, in a videogame where shooting half a mile means the entire zone will train down on you... not so much, it would be too good a way to grief, exploit, or die horribly because you accidently clicked the wrong target.

 

[RefinedBean]

It would be nice if the book had also included guidelines on how to run encounters for non-standard parties.

Come to think of it, that would be a nice little subsection for any fantasy role-playing game ever.

For 4E, I think the answer lies with enemy types; they're the main equation used to balance out a party, so it should be conceivable to balance something for, say, 5 Wizards.

Then your only problem is healing, but players in a game like that, well...they might expect some death.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

"At-Will" powers are pretty videogameish, scorching blast round after round is diablo pretty much.

I think that Wizards being able to use their basic powers whenever they want is something you could claim as having come from literature, for example, Harry Potter seems to be able to throw Stunning Charms whenever he likes.

Wizards NOT being able to cast spells or work magic whenever they want is a construction, rather than the other way around, surely?

 

[Danzauker]

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.

Well, that's because the books are meant to teach the game to newbies. 4E core books more than 3.xE, IMHO.

When you introduce someone new to the game, usually the best way is go with archetypes and stereotypes. The powerful and muscular dwarven fighter. The weak and intelligent elf wizard. The quick and sly halfling rogue, and so on.

When players and DM are more experienced they can of course try more exotic party mix, being confident that the DM can handle the different approach and tone the threat level accordingly.

But on day one, I think it's the best way to go.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As a quick sidebar... Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil. Proof that 3e is video-game-like?

-O

Temple of Elemental Evil proves that D&D games feel best if they are round-based.

Really, I loved that about the game. The combat felt really like D&D and I always understood what was going on. NWN might have shown me the dice rolls, but positioning, movement, the action "economy", all got lost in the translation to real time strategy. Maybe it was still existent in the background of the system, but I couldn't see it - and I did not like that! (Otherwise, the game was pretty good).

It's a bit strange that, when playing a CRPG, I want to see all those bolts and nuts of the system it is based on, where in every other case, one might prefer to not see these details because they get in the way of "role-playing".

 

[Tripgnosis]

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?

Well that's a flaw with the players and the GM. They forgot golden rule #1, The DM is always right.
That rule isn't there to allow the DM to be a tyrant, it's there to support the fact that the rules and mechanics are only the backbone and the real meat of the game is imagination.

Weapons have range X where you can see enemies but not actually shoot them with your longbow is very very videogameish.

You can still shoot them. It just isn't supported by the mechanics. Do it anyway. A good DM should be able to figure out how to resolve it. The big bonus of table top RPG's over videogames is the freedome to do whatever you want. You take that away and it is like a video game. But the books can't take that away if you don't want it gone. Remember, the DM is a person, with imaginatiion, common sense, and the free will to go outside the box

Healing "just happening" is very videogameish.

"At-Will" powers are pretty videogameish, scorching blast round after round is diablo pretty much.

"encounter" and "daily" powers are very videogameish, matching cooldowns you often see in MMOs like WoW or 10min/2hr powers from FFXI etc.

A lot of the powers have weird effects that are inexplicable, very videogameish.

These just need an adjustment of perspective to explain within the context of the game world. Don't look at the mechanics in such a literal sense. Like I've said before loss of HP doesn't directly translate as loss of blood or life-force. Morale and stamina are involved. Not all healing represents a wound closing. Sometimes it's just getting your wind back. That's why they call it "Second Wind." And there are plenty of non-videogame works of fiction where characters are casting spells left and right. It just seems videogamey cuz that ability existed in videogames before it existed in D&D. But remember, magic existed in RPG's before videogames ever existed.

Monsters not following player rules is pretty videogameish where parties are 5 or 6 players so monsters tend to have 3-10x the HP of a player is one example. Monsters not healing much (compared to the party) is another.

monsters aren't people, why should they follow the same rules. Mostly I think the reason for this is to just increase playability. Mechanically, Monsters only exist while they're fighting PC's. they don't have to worry about the next encounter and are never suffering the ill effects of the last encounter. I guess it's kinda videogamey bt not in a bad way, imo

"Treasure Bundles", "get a wish list of magic items to give to the players" and the clear direction from the game that players are expected to win and get what they want to drop from the monsters and to reach maximum level is pretty standard videogameism as well.

Carts going 1mph that do enough damage easily kill people is a nice one too.

These I agree with. I alos hate the treasure bundle thing. And the wishlist takes alot of the fun out of it. My DM knows me. I haven't even looked at the magic items past like level 4. I told our DM to just surprise me. I like surprises.

It's clearest when they take something that comes about because of a limitation of computers that people just accept, but are VERY out of place in pen and paper, such as the range limit on weapons meaning you can often see a creature but not shoot at it.

I agree that anything that imposes a limitation on players choices has no place in pen&paper RPG's, and I for one refuse to be limited. I don't see that limitation in 4e. It all boils down to DM flexibilty..

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

There are actually short explanations regarding how a party lacking certain roles is affected, on pg 10 of the DMG (Covering the Character Roles). It isn't lengthy, but it does mention the weaknesses of, and what creature types are extra strong against, a party lacking a given role.


I don't think that 4E is any more videogamey than any other edition of D&D (or AD&D).

4E does have some mechanics that are reminiscent of videogames. I don't think that this is a bad thing though. Dragons' Bloodied Breath ability is an example of something that seems like it might have been WOW inspired, but lends an interesting new dynamic to combat, enhancing the game overall. Personally, I think it's silly to denounce a game for borrowing good elements from videogames. They're both games after all. While I wouldn't want my D&D game turning into a Devil May Cry hack n' slash (not that I don't love DMC, but it belongs as a videogame), that isn't what I see happening at all.

3.x had all sorts of videogamey elements. For starters, spamming abilities. With the Improved Disarm (or Improved Trip, or Improved Whatever) feat, you could attempt to disarm endlessly. Repeatedly attempting a specialized maneuver like that is an invitation to get yourself a beat-down in the real world. If your opponent knows what you're about to do, you're probably in a heap of trouble. While, admittedly, bringing the real world into these discussions is rarely beneficial (it's a heroic fantasy game after all), I mention this because many of those who object to 4E based on its videogameyness do so based on an objection that those video game mechanics aren't realistic.

AD&D (2nd ed) had them too. One example would be that a (foolish) DM could create a creature with scores of special powers and only 1 Hit Die. Such a creature, under that system, was worth ridiculous amounts of xp, regardless of whether it presented a realistic threat or not, to the point where lower level characters could gain a full level for slaying just one.

It was present in RC D&D too. In this edition, if you wanted to play a demihuman race, your race was your class! Dwarves were fighterish, halflings were roguish, and elves were fighter/ magic-user multiclass characters (in an edition where multiclassing didn't exist). Elven thieves (yup, they were called thieves back then) simply didn't exist, as though no elf could ever even consider a life of larceny.

There have been video games made of all of these editions (except 4E, which is too new). I know from personal experience (Baldur's Gate) that those video games were quite accurate to the D&D ruleset at least as far back as AD&D.

D&D is videogamey because pnp rpgs and video games are all games. Putting aside freeform rpgs like Amber, both types of games require similar rules to define their boundaries. While they undoubtedly have differing strengths and weaknesses, when we get right down to it they are all meant to bring hours of enjoyment to our lives. Some degree of migration of ideas between these mediums is not only to be expected, but can be seen as a natural evolution that benefits both.