Scott Rouse blog - Rogue ability

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

The question is, what kind of choice do I enjoy more when playing a game? Do I prefer to pretend being a swashbuckler and describing my attacks as daring moves and attacks missing me due to my superior reflexes, or do I prefer expressing this character by game mechanics? What should a game support?

D&D isn't just role-playing, and it is not just some random type of game, it is a Role Playing Game. Therefore, the rules of the game should relate to the role you play. If you see your character as a tank, you should probably have the ability to make mechanical choices that can express this feature of your character. If you see your character as a swashbuckler, you should probably have the ability to make choices that can express this feature.
And, more difficult, if you see your character as a Diplomat, you should probably have the ability to make mechanical choices that can express this feature of your character.
The ability to express your character in game terms comes at the cost of you usually _having_ to use these game terms to express a character.

When expressing your character in game terms, you will also hope that you get to use your character in the game. If a major time of the game is devoted to combat, this requires the game to ensure that all characters can take part in combat, and all are equally interesting in this combat. So Swashbuckler, Tank, Diplomat, all need abilities that are devoted to that part of the game that is the most time-consuming.

What computer games usually get right is ensuring that every character can participate in combat. That's what RPG designers learn from these games. And they try to rip out the things that, in these computer games, achieve these results, and incorporate them inside your game.

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.

The encounter is a building block for any type of adventure or campaign. An adventure consists of a serious of encounters (not all of them combats, maybe even very little of them, and probably every campaign consists of a series of adventures).

The question is, how should your building block look like? Should it be a brick, from which you can place any number together to build your adventure. Or should it more be like the various Tetris shapes, so you have to use specific combinations to build one? Should it be a puzzle, with many different shapes?
The 4th edition approach seems to be that its based on bricks (but maybe more like several sizes of bricks, but all of them rectangular that you can easily fit them together to build your adventure or campaign). This might sound boring (but remember, it's only an analogy), but it (ideally) should give you ultimate flexiblity to build your adventure or campaign.
In 3rd edition, the building blocks were a bit less fitting. For example, you couldn't fit more than 4 average sized blocks (EL = PL encounters) to build a day of your adventure or campaign.

Now, how much importance you (or your group) sets on the XP gaining aspect of encounters, and how much of the story-advancing aspect of an encounter depends entirely on you (or your group).

 

[jasin]

Someone's gonna post this to the "things WotC employees have said that insulted me" thread on the Paizo board. I'm just saying.

Leaving out the reference to Paizo (I don't perceive them as the holdout of 4E/WotC-haters they're sometimes portrayed as), this is exactly what I thought.

Considering how extremely touchy people can be in these threads, I was pretty surprised to see something like this from Scott.

Not that I disapprove, mind you! In fact, Scott, I really liked your post, because it's something someone might write on a web board rather than bland company propaganda droned out by a corporate zombie.

Unless... that is precisely your plan? Maybe Hasbro mandates that you folks be sarcastic in precisely measured amounts to fool us into believing you're not the Living Constucts you must surely be!

Are those Hasbro's black helicopters I'm hearing?

 

[Nifft]

My group never had a problem with AoOs.

Cheers, -- N

 

[jasin]

First of all, I apologize to Scott for being an ass. I also apologize for misremembering -- it is Dave Noonan that is always going on about WoW in his blogs, not Scott. In other words, when I said "please stop" I meant it in an extended context, not just an immediate one for the post.

Secondly, thanks for clarifying.

That's actually pretty big of you. Honestly, without sarcasm.

 

[Tewligan]

My rogue was about to be put through a hobo meat grinder and made into dinner as at one point

"An' we'll GETCHA next time, too! It'll be Rouse stew fer dinner, mark my words! Hee hee hee!"

 

[JVisgaitis]

Third, on the actual issue of MMORPG-speak and WoW-isms...

I can't wait to see how crazy everyone goes when Bioware announces that they are working on a 4e MMO for Forgotten Realms.

 

[The Little Raven]

The question is: Will there be more maneuvers that anyone can perform, or will more of them become feats and talents? Or will feats and talents improve your ability to perform a maneuver, or give you the ability to combine maneuvers?

It looks like feats will be broken down into more general things, though I'm sure there will still be feats for specific classes/roles/races still. Combat maneuvers look like they will try to build in some niche protection as well, so that maneuvers will help a fighter be a defender even if his feat selection takes him completely a different way.

And which of these solutions is actually better, from a game design view?

I think have a pool of "generalized" abilities, ala feats, and another pool of "specific" abilities, ala combat maneuvers, is the best. That way, you can keep in role (combat maneuvers), while still diversifying yourself (feats).

 

[The Little Raven]

Leaving out the reference to Paizo (I don't perceive them as the holdout of 4E/WotC-haters they're sometimes portrayed as), this is exactly what I thought.

Paizo? Nah.

Some of their most vocal fans? Definitely.

 

[The Little Raven]

<SNIP MASSIVE POST>

I agree 100%.

 

[WayneLigon]

"An' we'll GETCHA next time, too! It'll be Rouse stew fer dinner, mark my words! Hee hee hee!"

That would be Rodents Of Unusual SizE?