The Impasse

[The Highway Man]

I think there's some blame on all sides as far as WotC's behavior is concerned.

Some people will deliberately search for any possible occasion to bash them, and others will hunt down all threads criticizing them to counter everything they can.

In both cases, there is a blatant lack of fairness. Not that there is any expectation regarding the objectivity of people posting on the usenet. I think that everyone should chill, realize that nobody will change anyone else's mind, and just go from there.

Personally, I've had it with WotC. Sure, I could see myself playing 4e and having fun, but everything that has to do with WotC nowadays just confirms me in the stance that I will not give them any of my business.

I've got my mind made up. I'm an adult able to make decisions on my own, just like all of you are. My decision does not stop you from making your own, different mind. That's perfectly fine with me. Is it with you?

 

[Shazman]

I think there's some blame on all sides as far as WotC's behavior is concerned.

Some people will deliberately search for any possible occasion to bash them, and others will hunt down all threads criticizing them to counter everything they can.

In both cases, there is a blatant lack of fairness. Not that there is any expectation regarding the objectivity of people posting on the usenet. I think that everyone should chill, realize that nobody will change anyone else's mind, and just go from there.

Personally, I've had it with WotC. Sure, I could see myself playing 4e and having fun, but everything that has to do with WotC nowadays just confirms me in the stance that I will not give them any of my business.

I've got my mind made up. I'm an adult able to make decisions on my own, just like all of you are. My decision does not stop you from making your own, different mind. That's perfectly fine with me. Is it with you?

I pretty much feel the same way. For some reason, some part of me would like for some of the "blind followers" of WotC to at least admit some of the failings of WotC and 4E. I guess it's an exercise in futility, but sometimes I'm just in the mood for a lively discussion/arguement. I could see my self having fun playing 4E with a group of friends, but I could say the same for chess or any number of games. Of course, I really don't like chess enough to drive a decent distance to a friend's house and spend a good chunck of my free time playing it. I'll do it for a "true "edition of D&D because I love D&D, but 4th edition isn't fun enough and isn't D&D enough for me to be worth the time and expense.

 

[Thasmodious]

Where pen and paper can shine is with creative things you cannot do in an MMOG. Throwing a cloak over the enemies eyes. Dropping a chandelier on enemies. Making a wall crumble, hack down a door and use it as a battering ram. Using and changing the enviroment, the entire battlefield.

In my opinion, the game should have moved away from all the detailed and limited powers, instead concentrating on the "stunts" aspect, capitalizing on the enormous flexibility and options a human DM has, instead of a computer in an MMOG.

When you say things like this I really have to question if you've ever played 4e, DMed it or even read the books, because this statement shows a lack of knowledge of the 4e system. 4e has better mechanical support for creative stunts than any prior edition. The mechanics require one table and can cover just about any single action a player wishes to take. The table on pg. 42 of the DMG allows the DM to quickly and accurately assign a DC and determine an appropriate damage expression for the stunt or action. The way it works is by utilizing the framework already put into place with powers, skills, and opposed checks. It is simple and elegant and covers practically anything without having to have a whole series of individual subsystems to cover a bunch of different things.

There hasn't been any support for roleplaying (other than some token "RP server" tag) in most of the big MMOGs.

A game system doesn't force you to roleplay, that has always been up to and come from the players involved. Some of the best roleplaying I've experienced in my long gaming life has been on an RP server in WoW. And it was a dedicated group of roleplayers who created that environment. If a group wants to roleplay, they do so.

4e has better mechanical support, by far, for roleplay elements than 3e did. Craft/profession was not some awe-inspiring roleplaying mechanic. It was a poorly realized attempt at making everything about a character, PC or NPC, have to have a number or you couldn't do it. It was limiting roleplaying, not supporting it. With that gone, 4e has the same "RP" skills that 3e had in bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy, but they add a system in which to apply those and all skills in a complex, mechanically supported framework that allows noncombat scenes to really be played out and not just come down to a single die roll.

4e's approach was to make noncombat encounters really meaninful. Skill challenges allow you to take your time with them, give many options and paths to victory or defeat, set goals and consequences and not hinge everything on a single die roll. Skill challenges also give xp, so they are more completely integrated with the whole system and engaging in them has the same potential rewards as a combat encounter.

Xechnao puts himself in the same boat as you when he ignores all this and goes about 4e being a boardgame or being solely combat focused. These positions are simply not supported by even a cursory examination of the books and certainly don't bear out in actual gameplay, which leads me to question the degree of actual experience either of you have with the game.

 

[Thasmodious]

If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe. But since 4e had the choice to build on different elements (as a tabletop game), elements that were not used in this inter-influencing evolution I think I can say that 4e "implemented MMO combat" -as its choice that is. If it had made a different choice any MMO elements that would appear they would appear in a more revolutionary way. IMO.

By this rationale, 4e also implemented "MMO characters", since 4e utilizes attributes, levels, hit points, armor class, defenses, and other stats. 4e also implemented "MMO magic" since it has spells, "MMO magic items" since it has magic items that grant bonuses to those "MMO stats", "MMO Monsters" since MMOs have orcs and trolls and goblins, "MMO xp system" since MMOs use xp as a leveling mechanic.

In other words, I find your logic highly flawed.

 

[catsclaw227]

I pretty much feel the same way. For some reason, some part of me would like for some of the "blind followers" of WotC to at least admit some of the failings of WotC and 4E.

There have been MANY threads where people who like/love 4e have noted things about it that rubbed them wrong, but instead of pounding on WOTC, they decided to make a houserule and share it. More productive, less anger and unnecessary bashing. And I believe there are much fewer "blind followers" by your definition than you think there are.

Of course, I really don't like chess enough to drive a decent distance to a friend's house and spend a good chunck of my free time playing it. I'll do it for a "true "edition of D&D because I love D&D, but 4th edition isn't fun enough and isn't D&D enough for me to be worth the time and expense.

A "true" edition of D&D? Why would you make this kind of statement unless you were trying to start a flamewar or ruffle the feathers of someone who likes 4e?

There is no "true" edition. There are only different editions.

 

[Obryn]

I pretty much feel the same way. For some reason, some part of me would like for some of the "blind followers" of WotC to at least admit some of the failings of WotC and 4E. I guess it's an exercise in futility, but sometimes I'm just in the mood for a lively discussion/arguement. I could see my self having fun playing 4E with a group of friends, but I could say the same for chess or any number of games. Of course, I really don't like chess enough to drive a decent distance to a friend's house and spend a good chunck of my free time playing it. I'll do it for a "true "edition of D&D because I love D&D, but 4th edition isn't fun enough and isn't D&D enough for me to be worth the time and expense.

When someone calls someone else a "blind" anything, what they mean is that the other has not thought through their position. ("Knee-jerk" is closely-related.)

It's an effort to discredit a person's arguments by asserting that those arguments have no thought or reason behind them - or, more generally, that the person themselves is neither thoughtful nor reasonable, simply reacting rather than thinking.

More insidiously, by applying the "blind" label to another poster, you are in turn asserting that your own position is a well-reasoned and thoughtful one - possibly the only well-reasoned and thoughtful one.

It's anathema to productive discussion. Instead, it's a way to cut off any productive discussion by asserting the superiority of your own, implicitly non-blind position.

So, how about instead of slinging around the "blind" label, you ask for a poster's reasoning and then engage that reasoning - rather than assert that there's no reasoning there in the first place?

Let's look at this thread for an example. Would you say that I'm "blindly following" WotC?

Are you "blindly criticizing" WotC?

Would you assert that I think 4e/WotC have no flaws? What leads you to this conclusion?

-O

 

[xechnao]

By this rationale, 4e also implemented "MMO characters", since 4e utilizes attributes, levels, hit points, armor class, defenses, and other stats. 4e also implemented "MMO magic" since it has spells, "MMO magic items" since it has magic items that grant bonuses to those "MMO stats", "MMO Monsters" since MMOs have orcs and trolls and goblins, "MMO xp system" since MMOs use xp as a leveling mechanic.

In other words, I find your logic highly flawed.

The fact that you may not like the way I will answer these questions does not mean that my logic is flawed. The characters in 4e are mostly mechanically defined as their combat abilities (this includes magic, levels, stats whatever). Same about magic and the rest. By my logic 4e implemented MMO characters. This is not flawed logically since it agrees with what I defined that I mean with "implementation"

But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.

 

[catsclaw227]

But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.

If this is your definition, then there haven't been "non MMO" characters in any edition of D&D. Are you still talking about D&D here or now are you brainstorming about another non d20 based abstract RPG?

If you aren't talking about D&D, then we've strayed FAAAAAR off topic. The OP brought op "blindly following" WOTC and their decisions around 4e.

 

[Obryn]

But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.

So if I have a 4e character who has a list of contacts, a personality, the Diplomacy skill, and some long-term enemies, they're no longer an MMO character?

If I add on a new system that tracks these mechanically, is it no longer an MMO character?

-O

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The fact that you may not like the way I will answer these questions does not mean that my logic is flawed. The characters in 4e are mostly mechanically defined as their combat abilities (this includes magic, levels, stats whatever). Same about magic and the rest. By my logic 4e implemented MMO characters. This is not flawed logically since it agrees with what I defined that I mean with "implementation"

But I see your point. If these are MMO characters then what are the "non MMO" characters? Well characters that their mechanicas are (also?) about tracking and running things such as relationships: contacts, bonds, enemies in relation to everyone's respective positions. Mechanics for example that do not track how much strength one has but track who is stronger. This is just an example here to see that there can be "non MMO" characters.

So combine The Sims with World of Warcraft, and you have no longer an MMO? Or now suddenly every RPG (character) is an MMO (character)?

Neverwinter Nights 2 has a hint of that, too, depending on whether you go the "evil" route or the "good" route, meaning you were allied with different people and fought different people. Temple of Elemental Evil (the PC game) also allowed you to cooperate with some evil factions. Likewise, The Witcher allowed you track your relationship to NPCs (though the relationships that were tracked explicitely where your relationships with women. )
World of Warcraft has its big relationship - Alliance vs Hordes and its Guilds as a "relationship" mechanic.
Jagged Alliance 2 had a model for (static) relationships between Mercenaries - some Mercs worked well together, others hated each other.

So something in those game already tracked these "relationships". Maybe with a very crude way, and far from what you might want. But if you want to see a more or less "elegant" solution, The Sims already exists, add a combat system, and you're set.

But then, maybe MMOs shouldn't even need to bother tracking relationships mechanically and via rules. One of the most important features of MMOs is in there name: Massive Multiplayer Online game. There are still NPCs, but there are also tons of players running around and you have relationships with them, often by being in the same guild and/or cooperating to fight some monsters.

This mostly comes to my conclusion that it's just wrong to look at MMOs and look at stuff like hit points or roles and claim these are features of MMOs. They aren't. They are features found in many games. The thing that makes an MMO a MMO is the massive multiplayer part (maybe that's why it's in their name? ). Only mechanics that exist to facilitate the multiplayer component are really relevant for defining MMO feature.