The Videogame comparison

[GlaziusF]

But in this example what you are saying is that this wizard who openly avoids combat and is a tactical genius has somehow accidentally moved next to the warrior and didn't realize it.

Your honor, I would like to cite the majority opinion in the seminal Aladdin v. Jafar, to wit: "Yes he has."

 

[AndrewRogue]

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.

Just gonna avoid this one as I'm not actually sure what I think about it.

Healing "just happening" is very videogameish.

Cinematic/Narrative. Unless the injury is particularly noteworthy, the healing process tends to get glossed over.

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

Cinematic/Narrative. Its in the same vein as guns with infinite seeming bullets, etc. People have a standard, reliable attack method.

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

Cinematic/Narrative. People don't spam their special moves repeatedly.

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

Give me some samples and I'll address them directly, but almost everything in 4th can be dealt with by actually sitting down with the rules for a minute, thinking about the power and making it flavor so it either works with the character or the scene.

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.

Cinematic/Narrative. BBEG and villains usually tend to be significantly different/special. This is especially true with monster types.

"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.

Cinematic/Narrative. Heroes get the epic treasures that they can use to destroy evil. They don't get "oh, another +1 mace." They get the legendary blade to slay the archivillain, or piles of gems and ancient treasures that they sell to the friendly broken and get the secret bow from his backroom.

I actually want to say that the opposite is INFINITELY more video gamey. You know how many times I've run Kara and not gotten the drops I need?

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

Exact rule?

To try and condense my point...

4th Edition takes a step back, examines its roots and makes a game that's specialized in emulating cinematic sword and sorcery style fantasy. The entire system, frankly, is built around the tropes that make up the genre. The rules are designed to reflect the sort of action you'd expect out of a S&S flick, a new comic, a chapter of manga or a pulp fantasy novel.

*shrugs*

Go back and take a look at all the things listed above. Almost every one of them can be addressed and made logical if you were to consider the game world not as a "real world" but the stage for a fantasy story. If you want, I can go back through and help you deal with the individual issues, but... yeah. I'm not finding the system that much more video gamey than a previous system.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

Really, there are mechanics for carts going 1 mph and killing people? In which book?

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 can see things that I could not accurately fire a weapon at. My sight goes further than the range of accurate attacks with projectiles. Just as the six second round doesn't literally mean I can make one attack every six seconds, regular like clockwork, the range doesn't mean I cannot fire a weapon further, but that shots beyond the range are ineffective and therefore do not need to be modeled by combat mechanics.

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

So, ranges are videogamey because of the fact that the basic rules don't assume you're a legendary archer with a god-given bow that can fire at targets a half mile away?

Wouldn't that be represented by having an epic character with feats and abilities that extend range out to legendary proportions armed with a high-level bow that also extends range?

 

[Danceofmasks]

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.

Huh?
I'm complaining about players that are clueless about what stats actually do (read: fail at charop), and yet presumes to do all the talking and/or otherwise doing stuff their stats say they can't do.

Somehow I think we're saying the same thing.
The two things, stats and character portrayal, have to reflect each other.

 

[Kordeth]

Really, there are mechanics for carts going 1 mph and killing people? In which book?

The vehicle rules are in Adventurer's Vault, but I don't have that book handy to verify if that's correct or not.

Of course, depending on the size and weight of the cart, it might not matter much how fast it's going--getting run over by a semi truck going one mile an hour will kill you just as dead as being run over by one going 60.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Huh?
I'm complaining about players that are clueless about what stats actually do (read: fail at charop), and yet presumes to do all the talking and/or otherwise doing stuff their stats say they can't do.

Somehow I think we're saying the same thing.
The two things, stats and character portrayal, have to reflect each other.

My apologies, it seems I did misunderstand you.

I don't think I agree 100%, but I do agree with the underlying sentiment.

IMO, stats and character portrayal should generally reflect each other, within reason.


What mislead me was your earlier opinion that 4E is "a bastard cross between a board game and a card game". In light of that, I interpreted your later post as a complaint that 4E is too restrictive, hence my rebuttal.

My opinion is that, outside of combat (which isn't really the richest RP environment in any game that I am aware of), 4E isn't any more a board or card game than any other RPG. Additionally, since 4E's combat system is probably the most enjoyable combat system I've ever seen in an RPG, I don't mind that "bastardization" at all.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Wouldn't it be the player's job to narrate the use of her/his PC's power?

And again, a big issue for me remains the fact that it moves someone without any regard to their stats.

Pretend the power includes the following text: each roll you make against the defence of your foes is treated as a natural 20.

That is, part of what the power involves is that the PC has got very lucky. (A bit like the Halfling second-chance power, only moreso.)

 

[pemerton]

My opinion is that, outside of combat (which isn't really the richest RP environment in any game that I am aware of), 4E isn't anymore a board or card game than any other RPG.

I'd go further than that - I think 4e's power system, which links the different powers of a PC to his/her role, stat, etc, probably creates a tighter connection between what a PC does in combat, and the thematic orientation of that PC in the game overall, than many other RPGs (including earlier editions of D&D - though it's perhaps not quite as far in that direction as HeroWars or The Riddle of Steel).

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

DM or player. Someone comes up with a story for it. And a different story each time makes for a more interesting experience than "I hit him with my sword... for 9 points" over and over, doesn't it?

One of my favourite GMs was running a game earlier this year. Someone said to him "Is there maybe a rope or something I could swing on?"

He replied "I can't think of any possible reason why there wouldn't be."

That game regularly has people clapping in the middle of a combat, because everything is vibrant and cinematic.

If I'm playing a Fighter with Come and Get It, am I going to use the rug trick? You betcha. But not every time.

And again, a big issue for me remains the fact that it moves someone without any regard to their stats.

What's wrong with that? There are powers that deal damage to someone without any regard to their stats. There are powers that move someone automatically, and there are powers that move someone on a successful attack roll.

Why should the in-game narrative differentiate between "He moved because I used a power that imposes a slide", and "He moved because I used a power that imposes a slide on a hit, and I hit"?

If someone is incredibly strong but weak-willed? Describe the slide as inciting him to rash action. If someone's stubborn but clumsy? Describe the slide as knocking him off-balance. If someone's agile but overconfident? Describe the slide as a feint that has him leaping to take advantage of an opening that isn't there.

Match the flavour to the circumstances, so that the in-game narrative makes sense.

-Hyp.

 

[Kordeth]

The vehicle rules are in Adventurer's Vault, but I don't have that book handy to verify if that's correct or not.

Of course, depending on the size and weight of the cart, it might not matter much how fast it's going--getting run over by a semi truck going one mile an hour will kill you just as dead as being run over by one going 60.

Checked AV, and yeah, the vehicle rules are pretty wonky. If a vehicle crashes, whatever it crashed into and the vehicle both take 1d10 damage per square the vehicle moved in its previous turn. Since 1 mph works out to about 2 squares per round, a 1 mph crash inflicts 2d10 damage. That's hardly enough to kill even a low-hp 1st level PC with max damage. It'll take out a minion, but what won't?

In order to have a decent chance of killing a 1st-level PC with average (we'll say 23) hp, you'd need a 4d10 damage crash, which of course is four squares of movement or about 2 mph. So yeah, that's pretty screwy--but frankly, I don't see it as "videogamey," unless "videogamey" now means "anything that doesn't quite jibe with physics." It seems more like an abstraction to keep players from needing absurdly huge battle maps to run vehicle combat or to introduce the wonkiness of "character-scale squares" and "vehicle-scale squares."