Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8519776" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I don't think either of these things is true.Do I think the contemporary game design zeitgeist had a hand in how D&D 3e and 4e turned out? Absolutely. Everything inherits what's popular at the time. But I think it's a significant leap to go from acknowledging that to arguing that it was intentional or that it was strategically motivated to appeal to a presumed adjacent market.For 3e, one of the complaints they wanted to address was that most AD&D nonweapon proficiencies didn't really do anything, and also that weapon proficiencies were relatively boring as well because you'd always take the same ones over and over (longsword, longbow, shortsword, dagger). Also, they wanted more ways to customize PCs. But you don't want PCs taking the most powerful abilities at level 1. Gatekeeping abilities by level is already in the game (spell levels), so gatekeeping feats by level works, too. Except another research finding was that players don't like arbitrary requirements like level limits. So, you make feats unlockable after you've done something else like take another feat as a prerequisite. You don't have to even think about video games to arrive at the idea of feat trees.The real problem is that the game people always point to for 3e D&D's video game influence is Diablo II -- the first game I remember with an ability tree -- and that just doesn't time out correctly. Diablo II released June 29, 2000, and the 3.0 PHB released less than two months later on August 10, 2000. There's simply no way for Diablo II to have had any sort of influence on the design or development of 3e D&D. The PHB would already have gone to the print by the time Diablo II shipped and anyone on the 3e design team sat down to play it. I also remember people complaining that 3e was "too much like Baldur's Gate," which really doesn't make any sense because Baldur's Gate uses AD&D rules.It's much more likely that the player base that didn't like it just grabbed for any complaint they could, and "It's too much like Diablo" sounds like a legitimate complaint even if it doesn't have any teeth behind it. I remember complaints about 3e that 1st level PCs were too powerful, and both dealt too much damage and had too much hp (which ignores that NPCs had the same changes). Or that cantrips gave out too much magic, which also turned out to not be relevant. Or that mutli-classing didn't make sense or wasn't fair because you could be a Wizard and cast spells in armor (i.e., arcane spell failure was too low). Virtually all these complaints were from people who never played it and didn't want other people to, either. Then there were complaints that the game was too much like Magic: The Gathering because it actually had, you know, an overall design to the system.For 4e, I really feel the same way. Like, 4e's design started out as a revised version of the D&D miniatures game. The Miniatures Handbook came out in 2003. When you play that game independent of D&D, everything uses cards. There are cards for units and sometimes for items and abilities. Of course the second version of their miniatures game should do the same. The whole game was built around only lasting as long as one combat. And then in 2005 they decided they needed D&D 4e. And their beta v2 miniatures combat game was a ton of fun, with deep combat, and it wouldn't be too much to turn it into a TTRPG. To turn it back into a TTRPG. And replace the RPG whose combat system was holding it back. It was everything that the WotC message boards were saying the players wanted. This time, sure, the developers would have played WoW. But they'd also have had access to EverQuest and MUDs, which is where virtually all of WoW's mechanics came from.Are you kidding? I remember people complaining that 2e was "dumbed down" or "too video-gamey" and they blamed the gold box games. I distinctly remember people saying THAC0 was too much like the computer games and that it belonged there.TTRPG players have always been disparaging of video games because they're not quite as flexible as TTRPGs. Whenever they don't like a new edition, they always blame whatever is popular that they don't like that they think is influencing the game. For the past 40 years, that's been video games!You wait. They'll do it with 6e, too! "Argh it's too much like Elder Scrolls 6! This is just like Final Fantasy 7 Remake Part 4! Oh, it's just Diablo 5!"</blockquote>

Verification