A bit tired of people knocking videogames...

[The Shaman]

It's still a multiplayer game, even if it's just you and the DM.

Yes, which is why I play with referees who enjoy the same things I do in a game, and don't play with those who don't.

Would you like to elaborate?

One of the whole points of running a 'sandbox' type setting is to offer as much freedom as practicable to the players and their characters, so the idea that exercising that freedom is "damaging to the game" is codswallop.

Clearly, as someone who doesn't play video games, you are amply qualified to judge their merits and capabilities compared to things you do play.

Was what I wrote about the capability of a computer game not matching the capacity for adaptation of a human being not true? And must I play computer games to know this?

Once more, would you like to elaborate?

In Dannager-world, the responses of players going off the reservation is to force them back on, yell at them erm, or tolerate them.

Any room in there for gamers who enjoy this sort of thing, who actually seek out players who want to be in the driver's seat rather than connecting plot points to satisfy the 'storyteller?'

Snark aside, they're exactly the same. If a DM decides that rounding up slaves is not something he envisions focusing his time and the time of your fellow players on, it won't happen. Similarly, if a DM decides that you running a vegetable stand is not something he thinks is appropriate for your game, it won't receive acknowledgment or support either.

I used the vegetable stand example precisely to get you to try and say they're two different things. You have your own preconception of where a D&D game should go. You have your own boundaries. Those boundaries are not "things that are possible in a fantasy world". Instead, those boundaries are "things that I think might be interesting". Apparently, according to your boundaries, rounding up slaves is something to focus on, and a vegetable stand is not.

They are different things because rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy moves the lives and careers of the adventurer and the history of the setting forward and sitting on his arse in a turnip patch doesn't.

I mean, you defend your standpoint that rounding up slaves is something that you expect to be allowed in any D&D game you play in, then back away from defending the idea that running a vegetable stand should be allowed, while at the same time trying to tell me that allowing total flexibility is a desirable thing in a tabletop game?

I never said it shouldn't be allowed; I said it's not the same thing.

If a player wants to retire his adventurer to grow turnips, or make shoes, or tend a pond of water lilies in the prince's garden, then the player has the freedom to do so; if I'm the one behind the screen, I'm going to focus the majority of my attention on the non-retired adventurers who are actively doing stuff, of course, so it's not going to make for much of a game-night for the guy running the root farmer or cobbler or groundskeeper, unless he finds some way to make his character's retirement more interesting than what the other adventurers are doing, such as sitting around waiting for the plot to arrive.

While I have a certain level of admiration for your desire to disrupt play experiences for the sake of demonstrating your own creativity and old-school cred, I had sort of hoped that we were well past the outdated (and fundamentally lacking) notion that adventures that follow a path are somehow inferior to the style of game you prefer.

Judging from the young gamers I met this weekend at an event organized through Dragonsfoot, your notion of "outdated (and fundamentally lacking)" reflects a limited view of the hobby.

 

[Dannager]

If you think the argument falls to shambles because it isn't exactly like WoW, I guess you need exact comparisons rather than the obvious examples of defining roles that 4E did and moving to powers that were set up with "cooldowns".

These are silly complaints. Those roles already existed before 4e, they just weren't labeled. And adding "Encounter" to the list doesn't change the fact that "Daily" was already a cooldown.

Not to mention the new aggro mechanic for defenders. That is straight out of a video game.

Actually, the 4e marking mechanic is pretty much nothing like how aggro is handled in video games.

In video games, aggro is typically determined by a threat table, with each participant in the combat having a personal level of threat generated by their actions - healing, damage, special abilities, etc. Players have precise control over threat in video games, so much so that managing threat is one of the basic skills required for participation in group play.

In D&D, there's no precise control. Marking provides a mechanical incentive for enemies to operate according to the defender's preferences, but they don't have to. The DM can choose to ignore the mark and attack whoever he feels like. There is no threat table beyond whatever the DM wants to attack next (which, coincidentally, is how it's always worked).

So, I mean, I'm gonna chalk this one up in the "criticisms of WoW that actually don't have anything to do with WoW or really any other video game at all" column.

Are you really that unfamiliar with MMORPG mechanics you can't see that defenders were all given a "threat" mechanic?

lawl

And the fact that powers work regardless of creature type is straight up video-gamey.

Yes, just like in games like WoW!

Oh, wait. Creature type matters in WoW. And most other video games.

If I tell a group that I'll drop a sap on those skeleton warriors, I'll probably be laughed at (and maybe group-kicked).

That column is getting pretty crowded.

 

[Aus_Snow]

False. There is no Crowd Control character in WoW. Nor are Leaders "healers" by default.

Had to look up the first one - turns out all the classes have some kind of "CC", so yeah, no CC class, per se.

As for Leaders - note: I've not played a MMORPG, or 4e for that matter - wouldn't they more, um... "Buffers"? Apologies if my terminology is way off, but yeah.

 

[The Shaman]

Let's not beat around the bush - 4e is what we're mostly talking about here.

I really couldn't say; until a couple of weeks ago, I'd never so much as opened a 4e book, and even now the only section I've read is the one on skill challenges.

The only analogy between 4e and crpgs that resonated with me was the idea of at-will powers being like hammering the arcade game fire (or jump or whatever) button. I have no idea how true that may be, but it did create a pretty distinct picture in my mind of what the poster was talking about.

I personally find 3.xe to be more like a ccg in the way that feats, class abilities, and so forth create a sort of Rochambeau effect in play, the, "You have fire resistance so I'll attack with a sound-based class ability," sort of thing. While this existed in every edition of D&D, 3.x turned the volume to eleven, in my experience.

Oh, and I never played 2e, either, so comparisons with that and video games tend to be lost on me as well.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Had to look up the first one - turns out all the classes have some kind of "CC", so yeah, no CC class, per se.

As for Leaders - note: I've not played a MMORPG, or 4e for that matter - wouldn't they more, um... "Buffers"? Apologies if my terminology is way off, but yeah.

Kinda.

Leaders do a variety of things, with some being better at some things then others.

In general, leaders excel at doing three things: Setting up other party members to be awesome, shoring up defenses, and healing.

The first is really varied. Bards have a ton of powers that move and shuffle allies around so the battllefield is always shifting to the best conditions for the team. Warlords shout and inspire allies to attack multiple times, and to encourage them to make use of their action points.

In general, leaders, well, lead, at least once you hit the battlefield. If the controller's job is to suppress control of the baddies and make things terrible for them, the leaders' job is to encourage control of the good guys and make things awesome for them. The inspiration is closer to pre-3e clerics and 3e bards then anything else, looking more at how spells like Bless and Aid and especially Defensive Harmony, or abilities like Inspire Courage, and how these things stack with the team as a whole.

The most important thing to remember with 4e is that it is 100% a team based game. The only really "selfish" character is the striker...but then, what do you expect from rogues and thieves and warlocks? ;p

 

[Dannager]

One of the whole points of running a 'sandbox' type setting is to offer as much freedom as practicable to the players and their characters, so the idea that exercising that freedom is "damaging to the game" is codswallop.

Ahhh, interesting that we see the "as practicable" qualifier in here.

Was what I wrote about the capability of a computer game not matching the capacity for adaptation of a human being not true?

You can no more control the limits of a computer game than you can control the limits of another person.

But yeah, it is relatively awesome that you're trying to justify comparing a tabletop game to a video game without really having any clue what you're comparing to.

In Dannager-world, the responses of players going off the reservation is to force them back on, yell at them erm, or tolerate them.

"Tolerate", in this case, simply means any response that allows the players to continue on their off-the-rails adventure. So I'm pretty sure that I just about covered all the bases there.

They are different things because rounding up slaves and sacking a duchy moves the lives and careers of the adventurer and the history of the setting forward and sitting on his arse in a turnip patch doesn't.I never said it shouldn't be allowed; I said it's not the same thing.

How is that distinction important to this argument?

If a player wants to retire his adventurer to grow turnips, or make shoes, or tend a pond of water lilies in the prince's garden, then the player has the freedom to do so; if I'm the one behind the screen, I'm going to focus the majority of my attention on the non-retired adventurers who are actively doing stuff, of course, so it's not going to make for much of a game-night for the guy running the root farmer or cobbler or groundskeeper, unless he finds some way to make his character's retirement more interesting than what the other adventurers are doing, such as sitting around waiting for the plot to arrive.

Right. You will not waste your time and the time of your other players focusing on the whims of a single player unless that single player is engaged in whatever you deem interesting and of value to the furtherance of an adventurer's career.

I'm not saying that's weird. That's what everyone does. My point is that this is an example of restricting flexibility towards a worthwhile end.

Judging from the young gamers I met this weekend at an event organized through Dragonsfoot, your notion of "outdated (and fundamentally lacking)" reflects a limited view of the hobby.

That the idea that your style of play is better than someone else's is lacking or outdated isn't predicated on its popularity amongst the younger crowd. It's based on the idea that this sort of unapologetic elitism is just kinda sad and probably not all that healthy for the hobby as a whole.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Every single "video game" comment makes me think of how 3e was "nothing more then Diablo as a tabletop game."

But then again, a lot of negative commentary towards 4e reminds me of the exact same commentary that was made towards 3e by 2e fans

 

[Dannager]

The most important thing to remember with 4e is that it is 100% a team based game. The only really "selfish" character is the striker...but then, what do you expect from rogues and thieves and warlocks? ;p

Even then, their contribution is indirectly beneficial to the party dynamic. Dealing damage to the enemy reduces its numbers, which in turn reduces the enemy's ability to deal damage, which in turn lessens the amount of damage the party as a whole has to absorb.

 

[billd91]

Had to look up the first one - turns out all the classes have some kind of "CC", so yeah, no CC class, per se.

As for Leaders - note: I've not played a MMORPG, or 4e for that matter - wouldn't they more, um... "Buffers"? Apologies if my terminology is way off, but yeah.

I don't know why everyone focuses just on WoW when comparing tabletop RPGs to video games. City of Heroes has controller characters.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't know why everyone focuses just on WoW when comparing tabletop RPGs to video games. City of Heroes has controller characters.

Um, neither do I (if that's so). You might take that up with someone who, you know, does do that.

I was merely responding to someone else, who might be "guilty" thereof.

IOW, not quite sure why you quoted my post, with that particular observation following it.