Scott Rouse blog - Rogue ability

[WhatGravitas]

If this is directed at me then there is no WoWism in my post (I canceled my WoW account in May 2006) so what I meant was:

For the record: It was aimed at reynard, but reading his account below, the situation was clarified. Nevertheless, thank you for being here and that patient.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Baby Samurai]

There's nothing wrong with D&D learning from what is and isn't successful in the MMO model and applying that to D&D in some way, shape or form. The PnP community bashes MMOs for obvious faults, but often ignores where their strengths lie and how these strengths can improve the table top experience.

Exactly, all forms of media affect one another now – comic books made into films, RPGs made into computer games, computer games made into films, books made into RPGs, films made into comic books, and on and on.

 

[Reynard]

I think the problem many PnP gamers have (and I think this because it is the problem I have) with MMOs is that they can't provide the, in simplest terms, sense of impact that playing at the table can...

I am not an anti-video game person. I enjoy them a lot, actually, and I have played both WoW and CoH in the past. The problem isn't that MMOs and the like aren't fun, it is that they are not at all like RPGs and bringing their influence into table top gaming promises, in my view, to make the game less fun for everyone involved, much for the reasons you cite -- mostly the issues regarding combat balance. making sure every character class is equally viable in all situations, considering combat balance as the only kind worth working toward, hardwiring distinct combat roles into every character and creature, and removing elements from the game that pose the risk of having a player "lose" his turn are all lessons "learned" from MMOs. And every one of them detracts from the table-top play experience as it has been for 30 years. You can't reduce uncertainty and risk without also reducing tension; you can't ensure parity without increasing blandness; you can't enforce tactical roles without restricting choice. What's more is that building the game around encounters reduces the value of adventures which reduces the value of the campaign. Constant, incremental levelling is not necessary to engage the players and keep them coming back in a table top RPG like it is in an MMO, and in fact puts a focus on levelling and those incremental advances where it should be on play and the ongoing game.

In any case, I will, for WayneLigon's benefit, go dig up all the blog posts and other official WotC comments that have specifically stated how MMO style gameplay is an intended model (they've been saying such things for a while now), when I get the chance. For now, i think that just plain denying the fact is being deliberately contrarian, but until then we'll call it a difference of remembering.

 

[hong]

the table-top play experience as it has been for 30 years.

You still say this like it's a positive thing.

You can't reduce uncertainty and risk without also reducing tension; you can't ensure parity without increasing blandness; you can't enforce tactical roles without restricting choice.

Enforcing tactical roles... like only wizards being able to cast fireball?

 

[hong]

If you're a rogue and the prospect of a beatdown frightens you, stay out of melee. Same goes for wizards. Combat is the forte of the Fighter class (including Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, etc.).

Who are you, trying to enforce tactical roles? Don't you know that's a restriction of choice? Do you have no concern for THIRTY YEARS OF THE TABLETOP ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCE???

 

[Felon]

I was then able to use a cool attack that...

I'd like to take up a collection to get the folks at WotC a few thesauruses for the office. I would then entreat them to find words other than "cool" to describe 4e features. That word has a cloying effect.

 

[Felon]

Who are you, trying to enforce tactical roles? Don't you know that's a restriction of choice? Do you have no concern for THIRTY YEARS OF THE TABLETOP ROLEPLAYING EXPERIENCE???

Straw-manning just a tiny bit there maybe?

 

[Felon]

If you're a rogue and the prospect of a beatdown frightens you, stay out of melee. Same goes for wizards. Combat is the forte of the Fighter class (including Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, etc.).

It seems that 4D&D is being built on the premise of tactical combat being hardwired into the game especially the balance of class utility to a degree even greater than that of 3e. This is not good, in my opinion.

I gotta say, it sucked playing a thief all those years in 1 & 2e when combat just amounted to taking a pizza break while my character hid under a table because combat wasn't supposed to be interesting for me.

 

[med stud]

My only experience with 1st edition D&D is the Curse of the Azure Bonds CRPG. I played PnP RPGs at the same time but not D&D. My impressions was that it had fun combats if you played all characters at the same time. This was due to the following:

First of all, thieves were worthless in combat. Due to the fact, though, that multiclassing was imbalanced you never had to have a pure thief, you could always multiclass it with a fighter. You had to be a dwarf, though, because of the level limits for demihumans. Being a computer game, you couldn't houserule the limits away (who would want to play a half elf? Max level 4-6 in all classes except thief, the class that sucked).
This meant that playing a pure thief in a combat heavy dungeon must have been extremely dull. When I read about people here talking about guarding the back door or whatever, I can't imagine why you would want to do that.

Second, fighters were very durable and the work horse of combats. They could fight all opponents, even the ones with Magic Resistance. The problem was that all their attack options were... attack, more or less. They were good for mopping up opponents that were too weak for the magic user to blow his spells on. This made sure that the fighter always had something to do but unless you cheated the strength up to 18/xx the damage output was frustatingly low, taking an eternity to kill of a pack of weak enemies. The ranger and paladin were essentially the same. The solution here was, again, to multiclass, this time with elves. They were a bit shorter on HP and THAC0 but those extra fire balls sped up a lot of encounters. With the help of mirror image and stone skin they became flat out better than pure fighters at doing what fighters are supposed to do.

Clerics were batteries of healing and hold person. They were integral, anyone in the group could die in a given location but if the cleric died you had to leave. There was no chance to play that game without a cleric. The problem was that the cleric had abyssmal damage output and when you could prepare other spells than healing the spells (except for hold person) often were very boring.

Wizards were the heavy artillery but only used in very dangerous combats. You couldn't waste attack spells on 75% of the encounters so the wizard generally just hung back in a corner. After I while I didn't even bother to use them for attacking with slings since the damage output was too low to be worth the time.

---

To make a long story short, I can just imagine how dull the fights must have been from a tactical POV if you played just one of those characters if you didn't multiclass. I played another PnP RPG at the time and I wouldn't consider in a million years to switch over to ADD 1st or second edition, since with the RPG I played my group could have the same stories and intrigues while at the same time not having to play a character whose purpose in combats was to "guard the back" or to be a healing battery hardly capable of mopping up ogres at lvl 7.

I don't think I'm the only one like that; I think many players can be won over from RPGs where everyone contributes to combats all the time (like Runequest). To win these people over a very good start is to make everyone being able to do something in all combats. I think D&D 3e did a very good job with this, winning me and my group over. It seems like 4e is about to do the same while at the same time being more stream lined.

---

Hmm, that was long and maybe strayed from the topic but I just wanted to add the POV from someone who got converted to D&D because I found 3e to be a fun game, not because of great wheels or a 30 year old legacy. It also explains why at least I like abilities like the one described.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'd like to take up a collection to get the folks at WotC a few thesauruses for the office. I would then entreat them to find words other than "cool" to describe 4e features. That word has a cloying effect.

For goodness sake, let's cut the snarkiness about what people are writing on their blogs. I'm picking this example just because it is the most recent, but I'm seeing an awful lot of it around lately.

Thanks