WoW and 4e - where's the beef?

[Spatula]

Step #1) Please try to put yourself in the position of someone who is not a video game fan, and has maybe heard of WoW and two or three others that are advertised on TV. People like me do not know of the multitude of diverse games out there, so let's please try to communicate on a common level.

In the same respect, when taking about RPGs, let's talk about D&D only. I'm sure that there are another "multitude of diverse games out there", but let's keep it simple.



Thank you, you have just agreed with me!

More and more people are playing video games than ever before, and in the RPG world they are being defined as what is fun.

So as table top RPGs are designed to be closer to the new generally accepted definition as marketable fun, they are getting closer to what video games are.

I have no problem with Hasbro/WotC redesigning a game to be as popular as possible by selling what will be seen as fun to the most people possible.

But can you also see how non-video game players who prefer the old definition of fun object to video games driving the direction of the game?

That's not what TwinBahamut was saying at all. He said the common conception of "fun" was evolving with time. You somehow took that and bent it into meaning that video games are driving that evolution, a statement that I don't think can be supported. Especially by someone who self-describes as knowing absolutely nothing about video games.

If anything, CRPGs (at least American ones, which are distinct from Japanese CRPGs) are driven by the evolutions in tabletop games, probably because a lot of the people making those games are usually huge tabletop gamers.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

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.

I'm with you on those examples. In my game I changed those things (we ignore the dragonborn and tiefling stuff and the elves just aged, but much slower).

I guess what I'm saying is that there is bound to be fluff you hate and fluff you like. There are also, at least in my games, rules I like (most of them) and rules I hate (which if I am DM I usually ban, unless the player really wants it and it wouldn't ruin others fun).


To me, I guess saying "I'm glad there's no fluff, so I can make my own, just how I like it." is tantamount to saying "I'm glad there's no rules, so I can make my own, just how I like it."

Imagine a "crunchless book" rpg released with a "make your own rules" along, perhaps with a few guidelines in the Game Master's Guide for how to make the kind of rules you like.

Maybe that's even a good idea. Maybe it isn't. But to me, the fluff and crunch are married, and both are necessary for a complete game. Any given rule or fluff point can be changed, but to not include them you are sacrificing something major.

That's my standpoint anyway, and perhaps a bit more of a window on how I just don't get why it's better to have "no fluff' instead of "fluff I can change".

 

[Spatula]

One thing I have noticed that is similar between 4E and WOW is people trying to shove the "best build" down everyone's throat. If you have class XXX then you need item YYY and starting stats of ZZ and so on. Stuff like that really drives away the fluff of the game, in addition to being directly insulting to everyone who asks for advice on making a character, especially people who have some interest in roleplaying the character.

You never visited the CharOp boards in the 3e days, I take it. "Best build" is a concept that goes hand-in-hand with a multitude of build options. There was a lot of the same attitude in the 3e days, and probably in the Skills & Powers era as well (although it wouldn't have been as visible, if it existed, since internet access wasn't as common as it is now). It certainly exists even in older D&D, it's just a lot simpler because of the lack of character customization options. Frex, "best 1e paladin build": get a holy avenger, magic (field) plate armor, a girdle of storm giant strength, and something that lets you fly.

 

[tylerthehobo]

In response to the responses to my post earlier about how the defined roles damage the ability for players to actually role play characters:



I think by making the characters fit into niches in the party explicitly (leader, controller, etc.), it damages the ability for a player to roleplay their role. (Can't tell you how many times a new player at a table in the shop where I run games has said "I'd like to be X," and some other player holds forth about how we've already got too many controller types, etc., when it was just a kid wanting to play at being Gandalf or something...) Party balance (we can't all be clerics...) is one thing, but by over strategizing party structure, we're removing the chance that maybe that Wizard wouldn't be a controller type - maybe they'd be the tank with the fireballs, or an elderly sage who avoids combat and is studying runes during the fray, trying to find the way through the dungeon. Defining ones own character is what makes the game fun for many. Walking into a formula - one more formulaic than 3.5e's splat books or 2e's Kits - is going to hurt the play of the game as a roleplaying game. Those variant kits and splat books, mocked as they may have been by some in the hobby, actually opened more doors for variations on classes, rather than trying to shoe horn all players of a particular class into a singular, specific role.

Defined roles in a MMORPG are one thing, where for solving computer-driven scenarios you need X spellcasters, Y healers, and Z warriors to defeat an opponent, but I'm of an older school of pen-and-paper RPG players where in a good RPG, there's a large map (or better, a sandbox) with a series of encounters, wandering monsters, and lots of scenarios to roleplay, rather than a booklet of 5-7 hyper-defined single room maps with combat scenarios that require X spellcasters, Y healers and Z warriors to defeat the opponent.

Let alone the fact that, to take one example, a spellcaster now is even more so a walking magic missle, rather than perhaps an interesting figure schooled in arcane lore who creates spells, mixes potions with untold results, and an actual interesting background, rather than a series of powers that I can shuffle like playing cards and play to defeat an opponent.

This is just my take, watching how it's affected the games I run. Will I still continue to play 4E? Yes, because it's what others are playing, but I feel we're drifting away from traditional role playing the more we attempt to mimic what is succeeding in other markets (video games).

You know how you build a better bicycle? You don't imitate a car.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Amen!

 

[FireLance]

In response to the responses to my post earlier about how the defined roles damage the ability for players to actually role play characters:

I think by making the characters fit into niches in the party explicitly (leader, controller, etc.), it damages the ability for a player to roleplay their role. (Can't tell you how many times a new player at a table in the shop where I run games has said "I'd like to be X," and some other player holds forth about how we've already got too many controller types, etc., when it was just a kid wanting to play at being Gandalf or something...) Party balance (we can't all be clerics...) is one thing, but by over strategizing party structure, we're removing the chance that maybe that Wizard wouldn't be a controller type - maybe they'd be the tank with the fireballs, or an elderly sage who avoids combat and is studying runes during the fray, trying to find the way through the dungeon. Defining ones own character is what makes the game fun for many. Walking into a formula - one more formulaic than 3.5e's splat books or 2e's Kits - is going to hurt the play of the game as a roleplaying game. Those variant kits and splat books, mocked as they may have been by some in the hobby, actually opened more doors for variations on classes, rather than trying to shoe horn all players of a particular class into a singular, specific role.

I'd like to respond to this on two levels. First, if someone who I know is new to D&D was to show up in my game and ask to play a "wizard", I wouldn't automatically assume that he wants to play an arcane controller. The term "wizard", when used by someone who is not very familiar with D&D, might actually cover a range of concepts which are mechanically expressed as the warlock class, the sorcerer class, the swordmage class, the artificer class, and possibly even the bard class in addition to the actual wizard class. I would ask him to go into more detail about how he envisions his character functioning in the game before advising him on which class he should select for his character.

Next, even if I end up with two wizards in a party, there is sufficient variation within the same class that one need not look or play like the other. There are also a number of ways for a player to define his character and make him distinct, even mechanically, beyond his choice of class: power choices, feats (multiclass feats in particular) and even hybrid characters (though still in playtest) are various ways to distinguish characters of the same class (or half class, for hybrids). And of course, there's always role-playing. I understand that it has been used, occasionally quite successfully, to make mechanically similar characters appear different in the past.

Let alone the fact that, to take one example, a spellcaster now is even more so a walking magic missle, rather than perhaps an interesting figure schooled in arcane lore who creates spells, mixes potions with untold results, and an actual interesting background, rather than a series of powers that I can shuffle like playing cards and play to defeat an opponent.

This is just my take, watching how it's affected the games I run. Will I still continue to play 4E? Yes, because it's what others are playing, but I feel we're drifting away from traditional role playing the more we attempt to mimic what is succeeding in other markets (video games).

Frankly, I think how the game plays is very dependent on the players and the DM. If they decide (consciously or otherwise) to ignore the role-playing element in D&D, then yes, you're going to end up with something that plays more like a skirmish game or a puzzle game. But it's not something that is unique or especially prevalent in 4e unless you believe, as I do, that the role-playing gets neglected because all the other aspects of the game have become so much more fun.

You know how you build a better bicycle? You don't imitate a car.

While true, it doesn't mean that bicycle makers don't have anything to learn from car makers, either. Perhaps if car makers find some way to improve how tyres are made, bicycle makers may be able to apply that to bicycles, too.

 

[Bumbles]

But to me, the fluff and crunch are married, and both are necessary for a complete game. Any given rule or fluff point can be changed, but to not include them you are sacrificing something major.

It's really not quite the same. There's no fluff. And there's no rules. There's also detailed rules and fluff for everything. But there's an acceptable amount of fluff, and there's an acceptable amount of rules. However, they may not be in the same places, or for the same reasons.

I'm fine with Elves as long-lived tree-huggers. But that whole crossing-over nonsense? Please no.

That's my standpoint anyway, and perhaps a bit more of a window on how I just don't get why it's better to have "no fluff' instead of "fluff I can change".

Maybe you're just getting fooled by what people are saying versus what people mean. I dunno, I'm not sure what people you were responding to were saying.

But for me, there's a difference between say, White Wolf RPGs, D&D, and GURPS. I'm good with where D&D is on the continuum, less pleased with WW and GURPS. If I had to make an analogy, it'd be like the difference between making pizza from total scratch, from components I selected, and buying a frozen one to cook. And no, I really don't want to deal with anybody quibbling over how that's not exactly correct, I'm trying to give a sense of the situation, not an exact parallel.

But I hope that explained it better.

 

[Ariosto]

Tylerthehobo, the design approach definitely stands out to me, but I'm not sure it "damages" role-playing capability. (I'm not sure it does not do so, either.)

I would say rather that it reflects a shift in emphasis. If the focal point is one shared with certain computer games, I reckon that's because the designers of both are targeting a similar demographic (which is not me, and maybe not you).

From the expectation of a succession of new games in the trademarked series (for all that D&D VIII is euphemistically called "Fourth Edition") to the "v.3.5" on the covers of the previous release, to the designers sometimes sounding as if they worked in Redmond instead of Renton and were replacing obsolete technology (which makes the obsolete "hardware" you and me, brother), there's a definite video-game vibe -- to people seeing it enough from outside.

Comparing 4E to WoW is probably like lumping together Star Trek and Star Wars.

 

[Mircoles]

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.

If you need a rule set to tell you how to Rp, then your in the wrong hobby.
There is as much potential for Rp in 4e as there ever was in any past edition. It basically comes down to the effort the Dm and players want to put into it.
Rules for Rp were never needed and anyone can figure out how to do it.
Especially since they likely did quite a lot of it as a child when they were playing pretend.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you need a rule set to tell you how to Rp, then your in the wrong hobby.
There is as much potential for Rp in 4e as there ever was in any past edition.

Despite my dislike of 4Ed, I have to agree with this- the game's limitations are mechanical, not imaginative.