WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

[Doug McCrae]

Arguing in this fashion is jsut plain wrong.

No it isn't!!!

 

[Piratecat]

When people say 4e is more videogame-y than 3e I assume they mean Donkey Kong and I'm like "What the hell are you talking about? 3e has rules for apes (MM pg268) and 4e doesn't*!!!"

Yes it does.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--szrOHtR6U]YouTube - Monkey[/ame]

I am excellent at arguing on the internet.

So am I.

Okay, hijack is over.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There are certainly peopole around who try their hardest to make 4E into a computer game, but I don't think it really is, 4E still has far more roleplaying ptential than any online computer game ever will. However, I think 4E ahs less rolleplaying potential than older versions because it has taken a lot of the full out of the crunch.

Keep in mind that for some people (myself included) this lack of fluff is rather liberating. Instead of having to limit myself to WotC's fluff, I have free reign to make up lots of fluff on my own (assuming the DM allows it). I understand that that isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I certainly disagree that it implies less roleplay potential. Possibly less roleplay potential for some, but more for others.

(For example, I recently created a pseudo-pacifistic dwarven cleric of the Suns whose radiant attacks are "soothing beams of light from the heavens". Being a sort-of "shamanistic" priest, he follows the suns' example of not personally engaging in direct violence. He literally calms his enemies until they fall into the deep sleep of unconsciousness, without causing them wounds or pain. I can finally play a pacifist without worrying that my role play is dragging down the rest of the party.)

 

[Dice4Hire]

Keep in mind that for some people (myself included) this lack of fluff is rather liberating. Instead of having to limit myself to WotC's fluff, I have free reign to make up lots of fluff on my own (assuming the DM allows it). I understand that that isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I certainly disagree that it implies less roleplay potential. Possibly less roleplay potential for some, but more for others.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, but I was talking about the ruleset. In 4E, I would argue there is far less roleplaying potential in the ruleset.

Outside of the ruleset, I would tend to agree, and to see my ideas on this, see the "What I want from 3PP in 4E" (or such a name) thread.

My main problem with lack of fluff in the ruleset, is that new players might think that 4E is not supposed to have fluff. And if they assume so, then yes, 4E is really a lot like WOW. Looking at the points of light idea, there is no fluff there at all. Scazttered villages, or even larger places, but what, where, why, how, and so on? Nothing. Racial groups with no backstory, except a few hints.

I can also make fluff myself, and anjoy doing so. And I agree with Fanaelialae that it is attradctive to me, but I ahve been playing various versions of D&D for thirty years, so I am not what I am worried about, which is a new gamer, especially one moving over from video games to tabletop RPGs.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

(For example, I recently created a pseudo-pacifistic dwarven cleric of the Suns whose radiant attacks are "soothing beams of light from the heavens". Being a sort-of "shamanistic" priest, he follows the suns' example of not personally engaging in direct violence. He literally calms his enemies until they fall into the deep sleep of unconsciousness, without causing them wounds or pain. I can finally play a pacifist without worrying that my role play is dragging down the rest of the party.)

Well to be fair D&D cleric's are based off the militant holy orders of the crusades. So playing a pacifist was never really part of that class. I myself hate they way d&d has made them into everyman of the clergy which is something they really are not meant to be but rather the warriors of the church more then the preachers

 

[Aberzanzorax]

What I don't understand, and never have, is why fluff is bad.

Take the rays of calming light. (I hate myself for what I type next, and I intend no snark). Why couldn't you do that in 3e?

I mean, I do get that you "overlap" with certain other things (like there are actually spells that do calm people down specifically). But why couldn't you re-fluff in 3e just like here?

Radiant powers do damage. There is that basic standard in the game. You've essentially "gone against" existing fluff by saying that the damage isn't really damage. That's fine, and more power to you. But, it's really not much different than doing the same in 3e, I'd say.


I still have yet to hear/read an explanation of why having no fluff is better than having fluff...fluff you can change.

 

[Bumbles]

Perhaps I was not clear enough, but I was talking about the ruleset. In 4E, I would argue there is far less roleplaying potential in the ruleset.

Ok, could you contrast that with examples of roleplaying potential in the ruleset of prior editions? Perhaps that would help make things more clear?

My main problem with lack of fluff in the ruleset, is that new players might think that 4E is not supposed to have fluff. And if they assume so, then yes, 4E is really a lot like WOW. Looking at the points of light idea, there is no fluff there at all. Scazttered villages, or even larger places, but what, where, why, how, and so on? Nothing. Racial groups with no backstory, except a few hints.

The Points of Light was intended to be generic, so DM's could come up with that backstory themselves. Therefore, I wonder why you call it shallow when it was intended to be shallow, and when I would say that any depth would be contradictory to its intended purpose.

Not to mention, I wonder if you noticed the empires of the Dragonborn and Tiefling. I find their inclusion to be distasteful myself, but they do exist.

 

[AllisterH]

I was just sticking to talking about D&D...

Your belief that I am agreeing with you is based on a false assumption on your part.

What I meant, but you failed to notice, was that D&D is not the only thing driven by these changing beliefs about what is fun and what makes a good game. If anything, the history of videogames reveals these changes more than a comparison of different editions of D&D would. To a certain extent, older videogames made in the 80's tend to more closely resemble certain assumptions and ideas seen in older versions of D&D, and both old videogames and old versions of D&D have similar ideas of what "fun" means. Meanwhile, newer videogames tend to have design principles and assumptions that more closely resemble the ideas of "fun" that are presented in 4E. I think you might find it helpful to keep in mind that videogame fandom has just as much of a "retro" movement as D&D fandom does. Both are evolving concurrently for the same reasons, it is not a matter of one simply taking ideas from the other.

If you want, I can be a bit more verbose about how the differences between early videogames and modern videogames closely parallel the differences between older versions of D&D and 4E.

.

Exactly.

Videogame designers and their fans seem more willing to say "ok, is this feature fun for the players? Nope? Then how can we change it so that it is fun"

Like I mentioned earlier, Halo:Combat Evolved BECAME one of the most successful entertainment franchises ever by chucking the accepted feature of previous First Person Shooters when they went with the regenerative shields.

And yeah, even the videogame movement has a retro movement Megaman 9 is the newest entry in a much loved videogame series that started in 1987. Capcom purposely designed this game to the aesthetics that the fans associate with older games. Capcom even marketed it as an old-school game

"Please have fun playing Mega Man 9, and when you inevitably ponder why this game is so freaking hard, please remember that Inafune-san has a decanter on his desk full of broken gamer spirits that keeps him perpetually youthful." — Press release for Mega Man 9

EDIT: The 4e PHB DOES ask the players to think about their character and their history. I'm not sure why people ignore this bit of roleplaying advice when they talk about the 4e PHB and whether or not it is conducive to roleplaying.

 

[Bumbles]

What I don't understand, and never have, is why fluff is bad.

For me, it depends on the Fluff. One of the most annoying pieces of Fluff for me is from the 2nd Edition PHB. Elves didn't die, but did the Tolkien thing. Is this bad? Not in any objective sense, but I just do not like it. Not at all.

I have similar feelings about the 4E Dragonborn and Tiefling with their mention of their ancient empires. And I honestly don't like how 3E had the Greyhawk Pantheon in it.

Chalk it up to pure personal preference to not see it in the core books though. I do not pretend it's consistent or reflective of anything except what irks me.

I do have no objection to the descriptions of characters to be found in the 4E PHB though. Those are ok.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I am not what I am worried about, which is a new gamer, especially one moving over from video games to tabletop RPGs.

Points of Light is supposed to make it easier for DMs to get started quickly, particularly beginners. The core rules of D&D should not be putting barriers in the way of new DMs. They shouldn't be suggesting a DM has to create a world before they can start running D&D.

If someone wants a bigger world then there's plenty of setting books and fantasy fiction available for inspiration.