The Impasse

[DandD]

If alignment was some kind of implementation to solve this problem it was not a good one IMO. But this does not mean that it can't be done a good one somehow. Beyond alignment various rpgs have taken their shots towards this direction.

Which various rpgs? Computer and console rpgs, where the chicks you try to woon are computer-controlled characters, and the purpose for doing so is to gain some item, special power, or accomplishment points for the end credits?

Not helpful, and just a form of grind that I don't want to see at the game-table. Especially if you have to grind love...

Also, this entire debate is going off-topic.

 

[xechnao]

Which various rpgs? Computer and console rpgs, where the chicks you try to woon are computer-controlled characters, and the purpose for doing so is to gain some item, special power, or accomplishment points for the end credits?

Not helpful, and just a form of grind that I don't want to see at the game-table. Especially if you have to grind love...

Also, this entire debate is going off-topic.

Well I own "riddle of steel" which has its spiritual attributes mechanic if you are aware of it. Another one I have is Cadwallon, where the whole system is based upon this -although it ends up needlessly complicated and painful in implementation. I have read reviews of various rpgs that do have mechanic controls for guiding possibilities towards this end. One example "burning empires". But there are many. Note these are tabletop rpgs, not video games. But as you said I we have been going off-topic in this thread.

 

[glass]

One of the things that I've been interested in is why some people seem to "blindly" agree with WotC actions even when those actions, if performed by another company, would gather huge customer uprising.

I haven't noticed that they do.

How many times have you been on the forums of a MMORPG and seen people threatening class action lawsuits because some class got nerfed or a notoriety system was put into place for player killers?

Never. Been in MMORPG forums, I mean.


glass.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

See, that's a big part of the problem right there - you telling me what's easy and what's not, as if you knew my taste. And this is what is it about: Personal preferences. And, honestly, you should not presume to know what's easy for me and what's hard.

You may be right. I am looking at it from a very technical perspective. Fluff is for me something you can change way too easy, especially with D&D that always had several settings where the fluff wasn't entirely consistent. If you want Tieflings with greatly differing looks, do it. It's nothing that is ingrained in the game mechanics.

But you do not need to bother with any of it. If whatever your playing is fun and you do not encounter problems (and problems that 4E is supposed to fix and not add to ), do not bother.

 

[Rel]

You take questions as hostility? 0.o

All I did was ask why you bother arguing a point that has been made ad nauseam on these boards for almost a year now. If you consider that hostile, then that's really a problem on your part, not mine.

I'll tell you why I took them as hostile.

I, just recently in this thread, posted about how it's nice when people, if they feel they must be critical, will take the time to elucidate the reasons for their dislike. This rather than a flat, "4e Sucks" or "3e was horrid" is much more productive to discussion.

Now if you don't care to read any discussion wherein people have differences of opinion about edition preference then I can understand (and even agree) with that desire. But don't you dare go around telling people that they needn't bother posting reasons for their preferences when done in a respectful manner.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In my POV your examples do not answer the medium problematic. Tabletop versus online. Of course communication and calculations are involved in both mediums but because the mediums are different they work in a different way. In tabletop rpgs the factor of direct human communication is a mechanic of the game - in-game. In MMOs this is not the case. So if you build for tabletops you have to expand on this mechanic. OTOH in MMOs you have to build feedback challenges by a pcomputer program. Then you compete and/or value performance of people on these challenges. This is very different than human communication experiences which is something inherent to the way we value reality.

Having said that, you see that guilds in MMO serve a vastly different purpose than your parallelism of inserting guilds in the storytelling or narrative instance of tabletop rpgs. Regarding roles: you assume that in tabletop D&D they are a principle. I can accept this. But I cant accept that in tabletop they have to remain stable as a principle. As a guideline, perhaps yes, this is true. But each player each moment serves a different, his own purpose or role. These roles or purposes are not permanently stable. So they are more casual we could say. OTOH in MMOs roles are mechanicaly stable because things are limited by the fact of the artifical program. Now, instead of caring to limit things I would try to build and expand on the actual strengths of the tabletop medium to make players happy, to enhance their enjoyment and "fun" with the tabletop game. I would alter the way combat works in my D&D regarding character creation and the actual combat mechanics to suit the tabletop's strengths -I would rather build it like a dynamic programm that can reprogram itself with each player's input -rather than building a system that has to conform things the other way around.But this is just a thought. Regarding monsters and threats I would try to expand this more dynamically. Rather than focusing on one kind of goal (fight monsters) I would introduce mechanics for how permanent strategic goals are formed or modeled (love relationships, honor-duty, revenge, stuff like that) aside from casual action. You are talking about other media but isnt't it what I describe here more akeen to the storytelling we find in them?

Anyway, I hope even if you do not agree that I managed to explain myself in a way that you can see my POV.

Unfortunately you did absolutely not.

 

[jensun]

Which various rpgs? Computer and console rpgs, where the chicks you try to woon are computer-controlled characters, and the purpose for doing so is to gain some item, special power, or accomplishment points for the end credits?

Pendragon is probably the oldest example of a game including social and relationship mechanics but there are plenty more out there.

oWoD had them as did Exalted although they were made much more explicit in Exalted 2e.

They are common in a lot of indie games, see for example Spirit of the Century, Burning Wheel/Empires and various others.

Edit: I missed one of the key ones, Heroquest/Wars where the majority of the game is influenced by your relationship with your family, community or God.

 

[xechnao]

Unfortunately you did absolutely not.

Will you help -elaborate- a bit more? By the mode of your answer I can't tell if this is just a dismissive motion or if there is something I could indeed try to explain better. Or is it so bad that nothing makes any sense? Which could very probably be the case.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Will you help -elaborate- a bit more? By the mode of your answer I can't tell if this is just a dismissive motion or if there is something I could indeed try to explain better. Or is it so bad that nothing makes any sense? Which could very probably be the case.

It is more the latter. You stay way too abstract so that I have no idea what you are talking about. (And it's unfortunately not the first time I noticed that on this forum). The only understandable thing was the "non-combat" mechanical abilities for characters. I get that, and to some extent I like that.

But the rest was not understandable.

Give me a specific example where you think the WotC picked a MMO/Video Game mechanic and transplanted it to an RPG without considering the unique aspects of RPGs. I don't talk about mechanics they could have implemented in addition. (Unless that was what you were talking about all the time, and I just didn't get it the first time!)

 

[Shazman]

You can disagree with someone or something or a vague decision without making it bad or evil.

Do I think the MM4e is a bad deal compared to the 3.5 ones? Sure. That doesn't make it bad or evil. There's tons of people who disagree with me, and they're the target audience, not I. If anything WotC is giving it's consumers exactly what it wants. That's not bad or evil. Quite the opposite; that's exactly what a "good" company should be doing.

Oh, and CEOs aren't all the Green Goblin. Nor do they have some bizarre divine mandate to do whatever they want with the company. Once again, they have a responsibility to the shareholders and consumers, and to the board of directors.

Really. No matter how bad they mess up, they get at least several million dollars a year for the rest of their life. They can destroy their company, and rip off thousands for personal gain, and the worst that will happen is that they sit at home and collect more money in one month than most Americans will see in a lifetime. That's not exactly much accountability. They can shirk their responsiblity completely and still live high on the hog.