The Truth About 4th Edition.

[Ourph]

Because of the OGL, 3.5 had Paizo there to create Pathfinder. If 5e is dramatically different, then 4e fans...don't.

Yeah, because it would be absolutely impossible for someone to recreate the mechanical aspects of an out-of-print edition using the OGL as a starting point... *cough* OSRIC/Labyrinth Lord/Swords & Wizardry/BFRPG *cough*.

 

[pawsplay]

blah blah blah there is no way 4e could have turned out in a way that satisfied pawsplay blah blah blah we are under the mistaken impression 4e is less challenging to newcomers blah blah blah

Not a bad interview, but I don't feel revelated.

 

[SKyOdin]

I think there is a very different facet to the whole complexity issue that is rarely addressed. Lets look at this quote from the article:

People today, the young kids today, are coming into exposure from D&D after having playing games that have very similar themes, often have very similar mechanics ... they understand the concepts of the game. So in some ways they are much more advanced as potential game players. But in other ways, they are also coming from a background that is short attention span, perhaps, less likely interested in reading the rules of the game before playing.

And I'm not just talking about younger players now, but anybody. I know when I jump into a new console game, for instance, the last thing I want to do is read the book. I want to start playing. And that's a relatively new development in game playing and game learning. And we've been working to adapt to that, the changing expectations of the new gamer.

Most people seem to take this as a statement that "young gamers have short attention spans and aren't capable of learning something complicated". But I think that there is something more to it.

I am one of those people who jumps into a new console game after only skimming the manual. But I don't skip the manual and dive into a console game because I have a short attention span. If I had a short attention span, I wouldn't be committing myself to playing 60-100 hour long console RPGs (generally my preferred genre) in the first place. I am perfectly capable of sitting down and absorbing 2-5 hours of complex gameplay and elaborate story at a time. The reason I skip manuals is that I generally don't need to learn the information in them. Within a videogame genre, most games function very similarly. For example, once you have learned how to play Dragon Quest III and Final Fantasy VI, you pretty much know how to play 80% of the console RPGs from the 90s. Alternatively, anyone who has played Halo: Combat Evolved would be able to pick up and play most FPSs since in five minutes or less. Since the basics are so similar between games, it is very easy to gain an intuitive grasp of new games.

I think what Andy Collins was getting at was that the designers of 4E wanted to tap into what potential new players of D&D are already familiar with. They also wanted a game that would work intuitively, that didn't require to be read in depth in order for the reader to get a good grasp on the system. I for one will freely admit that I haven't read about 40% of the PHB, and even less of the DMG and MM. Yet, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the rules of 4E, and I would feel fairly comfortable even DMing it with my rules knowledge.

Hmm, I admit that this post has wandered around a little, but I think I am on to something...

 

[pawsplay]

SkyOdin, i think you are talking about what I would instrumentation. Modern people expect functionality and information at their fingertips. Nonetheless, it's something Basic D&D had, but AD&D didn't, 4e has, but Fantasy Craft doesn't. Eventually, you learn by doing. But the presentation can affect a newcomer's experiences. 3e is about in the middle, I would say... plenty to get you started, but the deeper structures require a more advanced understanding.

 

[SKyOdin]

Do you think that no one plays games in which all the players remain engaged, even during other player's turns?
Or do you believe these people and games exist out there?

Do you personally become disengaged when it is not the time for your personal action?

Well, when playing 3E I have played with people who tended to start reading through random D&D books when it wasn't their turn, or started bragging about how awesome their characters were during slow points in the game. I for one will admit that I occasionally became bored and distracted during long lull periods between my turns. While I never left the room (except to quickly grab snacks), I did occasionally have to ask people to get me back up to speed because my mind wandered off.

On the other hand, I have completely sworn off massive 6 or so player Magic, the Gathering games simply because waiting your turn is excruciatingly boring.

So, I think that there is nothing wrong with trying to make D&D more engaging when it is not your turn. I think that there are plenty of avenues to explore in order to do so in terms of rules and mechanics as well.

 

[ggroy]

The reason I skip manuals is that I generally don't need to learn the information in them. Within a videogame genre, most games function very similarly. For example, once you have learned how to play Dragon Quest III and Final Fantasy VI, you pretty much know how to play 80% of the console RPGs from the 90s. Alternatively, anyone who has played Halo: Combat Evolved would be able to pick up and play most FPSs since in five minutes or less. Since the basics are so similar between games, it is very easy to gain an intuitive grasp of new games.

SkyOdin, i think you are talking about what I would instrumentation. Modern people expect functionality and information at their fingertips. Nonetheless, it's something Basic D&D had, but AD&D didn't, 4e has, but Fantasy Craft doesn't. Eventually, you learn by doing. But the presentation can affect a newcomer's experiences. 3e is about in the middle, I would say... plenty to get you started, but the deeper structures require a more advanced understanding.

The same can be said about other activities.

For example, some musicians can transcribe a lot of music from just listening to a cd and replicating it on a particular instrument such as a piano, guitar, etc ... A seasoned guitarist usually can spot what a guitar part sounds like, and how it maps to notes on the guitar frets. A seasoned pianist can do the same thing for a piano piece, and how it maps to keys on the piano.

 

[Layander]

I doubt you can find (m)any 4e fanboys claiming that they (Wotc) haven't taken any inspiration from WoW. What we do say is that 4e doesn't feel nor play like a videogame (in this case WoW), which is not quite the same. A great example is WoW taunt, which is often linked to the defender's ability to mark. When in reality, it works the complete opposite way. Taunt (in WoW and other MMO's) forces the monster to target and attack the tank, whereas mark punishes the monster for not doing it. More or less same result (stickyness and a monster which attacks the tank/defender) but vastly different feel and execution, as in 4e, the monster (or rather the DM) still has a choice.

I had to post here, To me this is actually exactly the same, when you use hate spells in most online games it makes the creature more likely to attack the player using the hate spells but not makes him unable to attack anyone else, if the mages still put out to much damage the enemy will target the mage regardless of how many times the warrior presses taunt. 4e mimics that system as much as possible for a table top system incentive to attack the taunter but not an impossiblility. I am not judging if this is good or bad but it is certainly the case this taunt system feels identical to video games.
Another thing is most games I play make paladins AOE tanks and warriors single target tanks, and in 4E I get that same impression as paladins in divine power were given so many aoe taunts but warriors are mostly still stuck to one.
4E should just call WoW and make a WoW 4e setting, I think most people playing 4E do want to see that actually.

~ Please don't make generalised assumptions about people on the other side of the fence. Thanks: Admin~

 

[SKyOdin]

I had to post here, To me this is actually exactly the same, when you use hate spells in most online games it makes the creature more likely to attack the player using the hate spells but not makes him unable to attack anyone else, if the mages still put out to much damage the enemy will target the mage regardless of how many times the warrior presses taunt. 4e mimics that system as much as possible for a table top system incentive to attack the taunter but not an impossiblility. I am not judging if this is good or bad but it is certainly the case this taunt system feels identical to video games.

Not really. There is a pretty big difference. In MMOs, the taunt ability is completely binary: if taunt works, then the enemies start attacking the tank, if it fails, the enemies keep attacking the mage as before.

Marking is noticably different because the Defender gains an advantage even if the marked enemy doesn't choose to attack the Defender. If a goblin ignores the Fighter that just marked him, he not only has to put up with a -2 to hit, but risks being killed by the Fighter's Opportunity Attack (presuming the goblin tries to get away). There are even times when the Defender wants the enemy to attack another target, as is the case with Paladins doing free damage with their mark.

Even if you ignore the drastic flavor difference, I think that it is fair to say that 4E marking is considerably more sophisticated and advanced than MMO taunting.

4E should just call WoW and make a WoW 4e setting, I think most people playing 4E do want to see that actually.

Not me. The Warcraft setting has been butchered enough as it is by Warcraft 3, WoW, and the various Warcraft Roleplaying game books. There isn't anything left of the original setting that hasn't been retconned and warped at least twice. No wonder the people at Blizzard are intending on using a brand new IP for their next MMO.

 

[Dandu]

4E should just call WoW and make a WoW 4e setting, I think most people playing 4E do want to see that actually.

I call BS, old man.

4e is not WoW. They're only similar if you have only a passing understanding of both games gleaned from heated edition wars on internet forums.

Incidentally, there is a feat in 3.5 that forces monsters to attack you. It's called Goad.

I guess 3.5 is like WoW. Perhaps all the innkeepers in Eberron should start hanging yellow exclamation marks over their heads.

 

[ppaladin123]

4E should just call WoW and make a WoW 4e setting, I think most people playing 4E do want to see that actually.

There actually is a WoW setting...using the 3.5e rule set.