Why Changes were made in 4e

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar, I wrote a better reply than you're getting, but EN World ate it.

(1) Don't assume that a D&D MMORG is a bad thing. Or that making a game that is easier to translate is necessarily a bad thing.

(2) Whether or not every edition has been turned into a CRPG has nothing to do with whether or not it is easier with one edition or another.

(3) Keep in mind that we've already had a designer answering questions on EN World who said that the virtual tabletop (i.e., computer format) was kept in mind during development (although he also said that it wasn't necessarily the most important consideration), so people who think that some portions of 4e are as they are because of coding considerations may well be correct.

(4) Again, whether this is good or bad (if it is even correct) is a whole 'nother question. As I said above, some forms of MMORG might make me give 4e another try.



RC

 

[billd91]

(4) Again, whether this is good or bad (if it is even correct) is a whole 'nother question. As I said above, some forms of MMORG might make me give 4e another try.

Or even stand-alone CRPG, particularly if turn-based or even pseudo-turn based like the Baldur's Gates kind of were. While I'm no big fan of 4e on the tabletop, I'd definitely check out a computer game based on it... provided it ran on my Mac or Xbox 360.

 

[Celebrim]

Similarly, the problem occurs with interrupt powers. You can code it in both real time and turn based but in real time, you lose the ability to actually choose what interrupt power to use and whether or not you even WANT to use it since you only get 1 immediate reaction per round.

An interrupt power is defined in the turn based game as something you can do on the opponent's turn. Guess what? When you go real time, there aren't turns or rounds (per se), and there certainly isn't anything like 'the opponent's turn'. Different abilities would translate to different sorts of refresh cycles and that's it.

As for the control issue, I think you vastly underestimate the twitchiness of your average gamer, but there are several options for setting up a control system, for exampe allowing you to either preselected the next interrupt you intended to use, or you had some window after the interrupt was 'readied' where you could select which to use. Will you have the exact level of control in a real time game that you had in a turn based game? No, of course not, that's ridiculous. Real time speeds things up immensely. When I was involved in converting Btech and Star Fleet Battles to real time, as a player with a background in the turn based board games, one of my early frustrations was the lack of control I felt relative to what I was used to, even when the game played at a relatively slow rate as far as the twitch gamers where concerned.

Would it be an exact port of the turn based game? No, of course not, but I don't foresee any of the problems converting it that cropped up in converting say SFB.

For example, when you complain that pushing a character loses its major advantage, what you are really saying that pushing a character loses its major advantage in a turn based game. In a real time game, what pushing does is give you time to refresh your attacks by putting distance between you and the attacker. It serves to break up 'mobs' so that you are effectively getting hit less often per second. At one level, it's practically a 'stun'. In a real time game, you can push and then run away - you don't just sit there waiting for your 'turn' to come back. So while the purpose and balance may change some, the idea of battlefield control is still useful.

The only big problem I foresee is the big problem that every internet based real time tactical combat game has - lag. Dealing with lag is always the hard part of designing a game of that sort. That's why most internet games with large numbers of players are generally tactically simple.

Perhaps that explains better why 4e as a real time MMoRPG would be a laughable failure. The best computer combat RPG analogue to 4e is Disgaea IMO. Turn based AND Grid-based

I think that says alot more about your biases than it does about the ability to port 4e to a real time game.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I wrote a better reply than you're getting, but EN World ate it.

(1) Don't assume that a D&D MMORG is a bad thing. Or that making a game that is easier to translate is necessarily a bad thing.

(2) Whether or not every edition has been turned into a CRPG has nothing to do with whether or not it is easier with one edition or another.

True, but, there is little to no proof that 4e is any easier or more difficult than any other edition to be turned into a CRPG, other than random people making pretty unsubstantiated claims.

(3) Keep in mind that we've already had a designer answering questions on EN World who said that the virtual tabletop (i.e., computer format) was kept in mind during development (although he also said that it wasn't necessarily the most important consideration), so people who think that some portions of 4e are as they are because of coding considerations may well be correct.

(4) Again, whether this is good or bad (if it is even correct) is a whole 'nother question. As I said above, some forms of MMORG might make me give 4e another try.



RC

As someone who has pretty extensive experience playing on virtual tabletops, I can state pretty emphatically that VTT and CRPG have pretty much nothing to do with each other. A VTT, other than perhaps automating some of the rules (such as adding up die rolls or telling if you hit or not) is no different than sitting around a real table.

A CRPG is a whole 'nother beastie. A game could run perfectly smoothly on a VTT and still be a right bastard to code into a CRPG.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

I don't code, and wouldn't know what is easier to code or not. All I have done is examine the assertion that it was "proved" that 4e would be the hardest version of D&D to code.....because I do know something about standards of evidence.


RC

 

[thedungeondelver]

You're half right there. Baldur's Gate 2 used AD&D 2e rules, but added in elements reminiscent of 3e (Sorcerer, Barbarian, Half-Orc).

man what

 

[Campbell]

man what

I realize that Barbarians and Half-Orcs have a long and storied history in AD&D, but they were included in BG2 largely because of their inclusion in 3e which was in development at the time. They also were far more like their 3e incarnations conceptually than their 1e versions if memory serves correctly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, I just logged on, and saw a banner ad for D&D Online, unlimited free play. I guess this proves that WotC wasn't contemplating something like this. Wonder what edition they decided to code?



EDIT: Clicked on it. "The best combat of any MMO". Again, if 4e combat is so bloody hard to code, and so bloody hard to work in an MMO, colour me confused. Sorry, but Celebrim wins this one, AFAICT!


RC

 

[Stoat]

Is D&D Online using 4E now? It was using a kinda-sorta 3.X mechanic before.

 

[mudbunny]

Is D&D Online using 4E now? It was using a kinda-sorta 3.X mechanic before.

Still using a kinda-sorta 3.X mechanic.