D&D 4E 4E is too video-gamey

[Andur]

Just an innocent question, what prevents you as the DM from swapping powers?

Gnoll Strangler for example, you could have 4 of them as seperate BBEG encounters. Each one has a different "style" though. Lil power "swap" or "reflavoring" and then you have the one that evokes its powers by doing a "double leap" first, another who has adopted his power to a ranged attack, yet another who "shadow walks" to get into position, and the last one could be your standard MM write-up.

To put in in broader terms, you could easily change the "type" to Soldier, Brute, Lurker, Artillery, etc. as you want/need. Then you can make distinguishing "styles" for each one.

The MM doesn't make encounters memorable, the DM does.

 

[med stud]

I think that there is a fear that because video games are so linear, that copying an idea from them into an open-ended type of game (like PnP D&D or any PnP RPG), might make that more linear as well. Which is not true of course...

I often wonder, if video games came before PnP RPGs, and then someone came up with an idea to adapt a fantasy video game into this new thing called a Pen and Paper roleplaying game, would we have the same arguements?

I understand that fear but I don't believe in it. The main reason why CRPGs are linear is because of scripting; an AI is always limited and with some practice you can exploit the AI of any game in about 30 minutes of playing it.

This is not a weakness inherent in the "rules" of the CRPG, though. NWN is heavily based on 3e rules, yet it doesn't play like 3e PnP. The strength of PnP games will always be that a DM is much more intelligent and adaptable than an AI.

If you (general "you") apply this to the gnoll stranglers, most DMs wouldn't use them in similiar set ups three times. You would know when creating the scenario that it would be repetitive and boring. OTOH, this goes for most computer game creators as well, so I don't know in which medium that would be a problem.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that there is a fear that because video games are so linear, that copying an idea from them into an open-ended type of game (like PnP D&D or any PnP RPG), might make that more linear as well. Which is not true of course...

I think it would be better to say that it isn't necessarily true.

But I also think it would be better to admit that peoples fear about D&D copying from computer games (rather than the other way around) is that cRPGs have always been fundamentally more limited in scope, emmersiveness, and freedom of play than PnP RPGs. It isn't just the one aspect of linearity in a cRPG that worries people.

Many of the mechanics of cRPGs have to do with the limitations of being a game that isn't run on imagination. Imagination is far more powerful than any computer code and will be until we have strong AI capable of imagination, just as animation was far more powerful in what it could portray than live action until cgi came along and could do animation that looked like live action (and even then, its not clear that animation isn't still more flexible). A cRPG can't run on imagination and the actions of the participants are limited by what the programmers can put into the game. As a result, cRPGs have evolved game play expectations and mechanics designed to deal with those limitations.

The fear is that by importing the game play expectation and mechanics from cRPGs, you will also be implicitly importing the limitations that created those mechanics.

I personally think that indeed you will be importing those limitations, and that unless players and DMs are careful to remember that their game runs on imagination and not just rules, you'll end up with games that play alot like turn based tactical cRPGs rather than traditional RPGs.

And the irony of that is that the people who created cRPGs were doing there best to import the experience of playing a pnp RPG.

I often wonder, if video games came before PnP RPGs, and then someone came up with an idea to adapt a fantasy video game into this new thing called a Pen and Paper roleplaying game, would we have the same arguements?

Probably. Because porting something from a narrow canvas of a computer to the broad canvas of the human imagination is inherently limiting. The process of innovation in computers resembles making the game more like a PnP game (terrain deformation, living worlds, etc.). But that adaptation is always winnowing down the limitless possibilities of imagination to what you can make possible in a computer. I've been involved in processes where this went wrong, and really smart people didn't realize how badly a PnP mechanic would adapt to a computer environment. The process of adapting a computer mechanic to a PnP game is trying to take something that was designed to be rigid and limiting and trying to figure out how to make it broadly applicable. I should not be surprised if it is possible for this process to go badly wrong as well.

 

[Wiman]

I personally think that indeed you will be importing those limitations, and that unless players and DMs are careful to remember that their game runs on imagination and not just rules, you'll end up with games that play alot like turn based tactical cRPGs rather than traditional RPGs.

Spot on, Spot on and Cheers.

Completely agree with this. I believe one of the possible disadvantages that 3.X edition and even 2nd edition brought in was a players and DMs reliance on the rules to play the game. (please note this is not true of most players and DMs but is of some) - Earlier editions had little in line of structure and were perhaps better at portraying creativity because every game back then was made of house rules...in fact I don't even remember refering to them as house rules they were simply the game to us. You had to come up with options to play the game and I think that 4e is coming back to this.

Before anyone says it I don't want to hear the "If I spend this much money, I want everything to work out for my game exactly the way I want it....." My problem with this arguement is there is alot of "I's" in it for a game designed for a mass audience. Subtle tweaks on any rules will may a "good" system (which in my opinion 4e is turning out to be) a great system for individual tastes....even if it takes us a couple hours of our time to custumize a few things we dislike the rewards are much more then a couple hours complaining on the boards to mostly deaf ears.

 

[MichaelK]

If I've missed your point (and I think I may have), can you elaborate a bit more about what you mean?

I'm sorry if that was unclear. I'm at work and it took me about 15 minutes to even write those few sentences I managed. Things are a little quieter now so I'll try to be clearer.

A videogame frequently involves a repetition of the strategy, with entertainment coming from exercising your reflexes. You'll fight plenty of mini-fights with identical opponents before a much more difficult boss-fight.

In a novel or movie, they will rarely face the same opponent twice and while they may occasionally trounce a nameless extra every now and then to show off their abilities, most of the fights are significant against equals or near-equals.

Usually both sides will constantly try different tactics, both to look cool and also to try to keep up with the changing patterns of the boss.

 

[Celebrim]

I believe one of the possible disadvantages that 3.X edition and even 2nd edition brought in was a players and DMs reliance on the rules to play the game. (please note this is not true of most players and DMs but is of some)...

Monte has said that he sometimes regrets creating this aspect of 3rd.

On the whole, I think the benefits of good clear widely applicable rules are greater than the drawbacks, but there are indeed drawbacks to systemization - especially when systemization encounters a personality prone to becoming hidebound.

On the other hand, I gaurantee that a year from now people in these forums are going to be bemoaning the consequences of low systemization and low simulationism when those 'enhancements' combine with different sorts of personalities. I think we are going to be seeing the return of some of the problems I associate more strongly with 1st edition than 3rd edition - rules arguments, metagame arguments, poorly thought out encounter design, DM PC's, etc.

 

[Wiman]

... I gaurantee that a year from now people in these forums are going to be bemoaning the consequences of low systemization and low simulationism when those 'enhancements' combine with different sorts of personalities. I think we are going to be seeing the return of some of the problems I associate more strongly with 1st edition than 3rd edition - rules arguments, metagame arguments, poorly thought out encounter design, DM PC's, etc.

The words "bemoan" and "forum" go hand in hand. The one thing I have to say concerning the arguements that will insue from these changes is that 4e is much more structured then 1e ever was. Rules arguments in my mind where much more often fought in 3.X then any other edition....as so many rules were in play....even if you were 100% certain of your arguement someone else wanted a book to be opened to prove your point or their's as the case may be. Books opening over rules disputes is a bad thing at my table, back in the day the rule didn't exist so it was more personality conflict then real rules lawyer combat.....rules made people play nice with each other and put the hate towards the system instead...I applaud structure for doing that and can see the same thing rearing it's ugly head if 4e was that "loose" a system but I don't think it is.

Poorly thought out encounters are a measure of an individual not a system in my mind, beginning DM's are obviously an exception but if an experienced DM makes your encounter too hard for the party it's usually because he/she is a cold SOB/DOB.......yes I'm talking to you Tim if you ever read this If the encounter is too easy it's not usually a problem as long as the individual can adjust for the next one to take into account the party's ability.

 

[jeffh]

Well, the disadvantage to that (and don't get me wrong, I see advantages AND disadvantages to both applications) is that movies and books are even MORE scripted. The writer pre-defines the actions for the characters.

That, and one is already specifically designed to be part of a game and the other isn't. With adapting a videogame encounter, much of the very different sort of thinking that requires (as compared to writing a novel or storyboarding a movie) has already been done for you.