D&D 4E Another possible influence on 4e - CCGs

[JiffyPopTart]

Powers don't use vague flowery language to describe what they do. They have CLEAR and precise language that tells you exactly what they do and they use the same language from one to the other so as long as you understand how powers are structured, they can throw as many of them at you as they want and you can always understand what they're supposed to do at a glance. Maybe they add a new keyword from time to time (Invigorating for exemple) but that's it.

100% how I would describe it. Any "flavor" to a power in 4e was distinctly moved to a different section of the layout than the rules portion and italicized to indicate it wasn't a rule...exactly like a MtG card. Throughout the different editions a player might ask how spells/powers interacted with the environment in cornercutting ways and usually referring to the entire text was how a GM would give a fair answer. In 4e there wasn't anything to "interpret". Just look at the differences in Fireball through the versions and how much (or little) there is about effects of the Fireball other than HP damage to players and objects.

 

[jasper]

One of my dms does occasional call 4E "the CCG version of D&D"

 

[Tallifer]

The clear and precise terminology makes it MUCH easier for me and my players to quickly understand the magic and combat. Far quicker to read as well. It also gives immense freedom as far as fluff.

The only drawback is that the RAW are so clear that a min-maxer can exploit a loophole with impunity in organized play where the dungeon master has less freedom to houserule away nonsense and shenanigans. Fortunately, WotC felt far freer in the days of 4E to write errata to fix most of the egregious abuse.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh.

Reading the thread thus far has opened my eyes - I never truly realized how much Magic had influenced subtleties of 4e design and layout until @Sabathius42 pointed it out above.

Where I really first noticed the M:tG influence, however, was in 3e's introductions of formalized keywords, hard-and-fast conditions, rule-for-everything philosophy, and official errata - all very Magic-like; and only to be expected when the company that made its fortune on Magic tried its hand at designing D&D.

I'm not sure that in either edition the M:tG influences did any good for the game. Too formal, too hidebound, and above all too dry.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Interestingly I just now noticed that a 4e Fireball cannot affect a pool of gasoline or barrel of gunpowder as it only targets creatures in the area.

As a GM I would houserule that in a second....but I also remember arguing in the 4e days that you can "trip" an ooze by applying the rules for trip and calling it whatever you want (destablizie the ooze) so maybe my table just stuck with exactly what was spelled out in the power card? It's been too long to remember...and I don't recall the wizard ever casting fireball at all.

 

[Garthanos]

Interestingly I just now noticed that a 4e Fireball cannot affect a pool of gasoline or barrel of gunpowder as it only targets creatures in the area.

Interesting I don't see either of those in the equipment lists.... they might well say highly inflammable on them and fire attacks worked even in adjacent squares causes them to ignite or explode.

Environmental Powers as described in the DMGs ensue....

With that context in mind you arent really "house ruling" you are using the tools provided to create interesting environmental features for characters to interact with.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think they spelled out the Magic influence from the very beginning. The exception based style of rules were the stated main takeaway. Huh I think I remember reading it in the PHB.

Yes. And for 3E as well, MtG was cited as a specific inspiration. I don't think there's any doubt at all that CCGs influenced 4E's design, people have explained well in this thread. Everything post-WotC has that going on. I honestly feel like some RPGs could use more CCG influence when it comes to clarity.

@Sabathius42 - That's true but it's also true for 3E (and 5E, as not everything that can't be tripped is immune to prone, which would make it immune to trip), where they failed to make an exception from the trip rules for some creature that obviously couldn't be tripped That's where I bumped into it first.

There's a good bit on it here: Tripping Oozes in D&D (3e versus 4e versus 5e)

Both clarified in FAQs, rather than the rules - 3.5E said "just don't allow it", 4E said "see if you can make something up that works". Either works. 4E is definitely more of a CCG-ish approach, though again the DM is there so he can go "Ehhhhh yeah that's not working to work...". I know I had to a few times! What I generally did in 4E (which was different to 3.XE when I DM'd), was give the player a chance to try to come up with a plausible explanation for how this was happening. A couple of times they just outright said "Yeah, I don't see any way, let's not apply that condition!" or the like, and many other times they came up with fantastic and fun explanations!

I also never saw a PC cast Fireball in 4E. But I did see them set SO MUCH on fire oh my god. Half the adventures ended with something on fire, in large part due to the stunt rules.

 

[atanakar]

When I read 4e powers and spells I don't see MTG cards. Instead I see the same level of details that the Warmachines wargame (2003) brought to the table top world (as opposed to the less precise and flavourful Games Workshop style.)

 

[Hussar]

I still am convinced that the marching orders for 4E were to convert people who were happy to pretend to be an elf online into people who would be happy to pretend to be an elf at a table.
That said, I never for a second felt that 4E really felt like an MMO at all. But it did feel like "a TTRPG aimed at MMO fans".
And, really, with all the comments that were flung around at the time about how they would expand the fanbase it isn't hard to imagine where they thought those fans would come from. And things like "easy to DM", "easy to learn", "consistent siloing of powers", etc speak the language of bridging this connection.

But the design team themselves were still all TTRPG players at heart and they did make an RPG.

But I do believe their hands were tied a bit.
It never occurred to me to consider MTG, but I guess WotC's own elf-containing product which was also more popular than D&D seems a reasonable add on.

Almost.

4e was D&D aimed at Organized Play fans. Which, since Organized Play and MMO's share a lot of the same issues and approaches to problem solving meansw that it's more a case of parallel evolution rather than one influencing the other.

Things like clarity of rules, specificity, all that stuff, comes from the RPGA, not card games, not MMO's. Because CCG's are also meant to be played with strangers, again, it's a case of parallel evolution.

 

[MwaO]

I think one of the really big influences which is hard to overlook once you see it is soccer or non-American football. Defenders, strikers, marking, how soccer players have 'roles', how some midfielders set up strikers and some other midfielders make it difficult to get plays working, etc...