Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5976825" data-attributes="member: 95493">I suppose I am one of those "disaffected pathfinder players"... but I never disliked 4e because it was "babby's first paper MMO". I have a list of reasons I'll give you if you like but it being my first paper-MMO has nothing to do with it. That isn't even what Mearls is saying. I think what he is saying is that trying to take any specific game and model DnD after it is a bad idea, regardless what that game is. DnD should be its own game and should model after itself FIRST and then take inspiration from other games as needed. When it tries to be something is isn't then it is going to hit bumps.Also what kind of rhetoric? Also, he isn't trying to sell you 4e anymore. At the time of the article, from what I can tell, he is trying to sell everyone/anyone on 5e not 4e. Admitting a flaw (perceived or real) of 4e doesn't really do anything to anyone either way, people who like 4e are still going to like it and people who dislike it are still going to dislike it. What it does do is tell people who disliked 4e what he saw as an issue, not necessarily the issue, and saying that they are not going to repeat it with 5e.I don't see any problems with DnD borrowing (or outright stealing) from video games. The problem is that MMOs are in general a poor example on the RPG sliding scale of games. MMOs are usually very light on the story and very high on the crunch. Saying that 4e tried to get into the MMO sphere becomes a problem when it does so by adopting MMO-isms and making them its own.I, and I don't think I'm alone here, think that Skyrim is an EXCELLENT example of what RPGs WotC should be looking at for inspiration. Good video games and certainly good RPGs should always be inspiration, MMOs aren't good RPGs. It is debatable if they are even good games. They are prosperous and highly money making games but good is probably far off for a lot in the industry.A good comparison would be saying that DnD should borrow from film. But not all movies are made equal. In this example, it is like saying that they look to action movies as their primary example. Action movies are debatable as to their goodness, and they certainly aren't universally loved. I enjoy them but not everyone else does. A good mystery, scifi or rom-com are going to interest others. Some of these will be obtainable for the action-movie-DnD but a lot of other styles aren't. The same thing goes when Mearls said that early talks pointed to MMOs.The terms like this really do nothing for me. That is a personal thing, but I don't see why we need a unique term for every base class. If we were just going to have 4 base classes then I could understand unique terms like spheres or domains but we are almost certainly going to end up with a lot more, just in the PHB alone. Once again, that's just a personal thing.Only time will see. I've heard this more than once though so it will be interesting to see how it turns out.MMOs are kind of inferior in a lot of ways when discussing RPGs as a whole. See above for why I said that. AT BEST if 4e was MMO-like then it only caters to one specific segment of the population, and for that making a MMO-like DnD is a bad thing.See above, but I want to say I don't think taking ideas from video games are bad. I don't even think taking ideas from MMOs are bad, in and of themselves. I think it is bad any time DnD tries to make a MMO-like game, or a JRPG-like game, or any videogametype-like game. It becomes poor to try and make DnD into any kind of game that isn't DnD. Which Mearl's comments reflect. DnD excels at being itself. It can take ideas from a number of sources, and needs to in order to stay fresh and diverse. It does it poorly when it tries ti emulate those other types of games.Who were you replying to or quoting? I do happen to agree with the last couple of sentences.</blockquote>

Verification