The Impasse

[xechnao]

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 will give it a try.

The specific example is the gaming (gamist?) challenge they have put as the basis of 4e.

In MMO games are about two distinct things. An arcade part (which is the technical skill of hand-eye coordination) and tactical part (which is the knowledge of the secrets of the game and their mastery: being able to remeber them). You have to be successful in both but usually there is some space to compensate for non optimum performance in one if you perform perfectly in the other and still achieve an optimum overall result.

In tabletop rpgs there is no way for the arcade part to be transplanted -unless we start tossing darts to a target instead of throwing dice- but certainly there is a way to transplant the tactical part. And this is what 4e did. It made its way in transplanting the tactical design of MMOs. And lets assume for the sake of the discussion that it did a fine job, so fine that we could call what 4e achieved in this aspect a work of art.

Even in 3e there were tactics to master. Now lets assume for the sake of this discussion that they did not reach the artistic status of 4e's design on this matter. But 3e was not build with only this in mind. It was rather build with the possibility of giving the tools for running a world or setting through the various possibilities that one may have. So in 3e there was a possibility to toss out the deep tactical choices and buy more ways or possibilities of interaction with the setting-world and still be able to achieve optimum results but from a different approach -one of breadth. The problem with 3e now is that it lacked a basis to guide you on tracking how these things work together* -and it was solely left on the dungeon master. I agree that this is not enough. In practice it is extremely weak for the tremendously heavy logistics of 3e -and generally of D&D. This begs another question: why D&D builds so heavy logistics. Well this is a commercial thing and a design thing: it helps add content and drive sales. Would it be better a different approach? IMO yes, but this is a different matter entirely.

*as for example in MMO the arcade mode works together with the tactics mode

Now lets take a step back and return to 4e. As I said above what 4e did is create a perfect structure of tactics regarding depth. BUT one should have to pay notice in this endeavour to not choke space for another quality to supplement it with- this quality should most preferably be the one tabletop rpgs have: the options of the verbal input we can have. Of course this is something neither 3e has built upon. I am not talking about making voices here -that should be something arcade (karaoke anyone?). I am talking about expressing choices that we can understand how they reflect personal or social relationships. Because the medium is personal and social on tabletop rpgs. To build a mechanic structure that can respect and run this well it must not be chocked by (incompatibility with) another mechanism that needs to be respected -one such as the balance structure of 4e's tactics.

 

[DandD]

I will give it a try.

The specific example is the gaming (gamist?) challenge they have put as the basis of 4e.

In MMO games are about two distinct things. An arcade part (which is the technical skill of hand-eye coordination) and tactical part (which is the knowledge of the secrets of the game and their mastery: being able to remeber them). You have to be successful in both but usually there is some space to compensate for non optimum performance in one if you perform perfectly in the other and still achieve an optimum overall result.

In tabletop rpgs there is no way for the arcade part to be transplanted -unless we start tossing darts to a target instead of throwing dice- but certainly there is a way to transplant the tactical part. And this is what 4e did. It made its way in transplanting the tactical design of MMOs. And lets assume for the sake of the discussion that it did a fine job, so fine that we could call what 4e achieved in this aspect a work of art.

Even in 3e there were tactics to master. Now lets assume for the sake of this discussion that they did not reach the artistic status of 4e's design on this matter. But 3e was not build with only this in mind. It was rather build with the possibility of giving the tools for running a world or setting through the various possibilities that one may have. So in 3e there was a possibility to toss out the deep tactical choices and buy more ways or possibilities of interaction with the setting-world and still be able to achieve optimum results but from a different approach -one of breadth. The problem with 3e now is that it lacked a basis to guide you on tracking how these things work together* -and it was solely left on the dungeon master. I agree that this is not enough. In practice it is extremely weak for the tremendously heavy logistics of 3e -and generally of D&D. This begs another question: why D&D builds so heavy logistics. Well this is a commercial thing and a design thing: it helps add content and drive sales. Would it be better a different approach? IMO yes, but this is a different matter entirely.

*as for example in MMO the arcade mode works together with the tactics mode

Now lets take a step back and return to 4e. As I said above what 4e did is create a perfect structure of tactics regarding depth. BUT one should have to pay notice in this endeavour to not choke space for another quality to supplement it with- this quality should most preferably be the one tabletop rpgs have: the options of the verbal input we can have. Of course this is something neither 3e has built upon. I am not talking about making voices here -that should be something arcade (karaoke anyone?). I am talking about expressing choices that we can understand how they reflect personal or social relationships. Because the medium is personal and social on tabletop rpgs. To build a mechanic structure that can respect and run this well it must not be chocked by (incompatibility with) another mechanism that needs to be respected -one such as the balance structure of 4e's tactics.

Can anybody translate or specify what xechnao just wrote?

What's the beef in his message? More 3rd party supplements? More combat rules? More character creation options? A more detailed system for PC-to-NPC-relationship?

 

[Shazman]

Heh. This is highly amusing. Jack99 answered every one of your problems, point by point, citing examples where needed and you're dismissing him as "blind". You've made a very solid and convincing case for the existence of "blind h4ters". Priceless.

He point by point stated his opinions on the matter, which are no more valid than my own. He even reiterated the insulting quote in Races and Classes and tried to say, "Oh it was just an exaggeration." That is some serious blind defending. How in the world does he know it's an exaggeration? Did he personally ask the desingers? Even if it was an exaggeration, they should have been smart enough to leave it out of the book.

I also pointed out how the intent for deception was obivious when they stated that they weren't working on a new edition that required the use of miniatures. 4E pretty much demands the use of miniatures, and do you really think they didn't know that most people would take their soundbite to mean that they were'nt working on 4E. Of course they did. If you don't think that they absolutely intended to deceive people about the status of 4th edition, then I think that is being pretty naive. The least they could have done was show a tiny bit of integrity and respect for their customers and just stated that they wouldn't answer that question.

 

[DandD]

4E pretty much demands the use of miniatures

So does third edition, right? I mean, there are all illustrations of combat from above perspective, and how your character has to move in 5-feet wide squares around, and how movement in combat works, what combat spells like fireballs can affect, and other stuff...

Yet, strangely enough, people easily play 3rd edition without miniatures, and these same people can also play 4th edition without the need of little tin-men and -monsters.

 

[Scribble]

Yet, strangely enough, people easily play 3rd edition without miniatures, and these same people can also play 4th edition without the need of little tin-men and -monsters.

Man I honestly can't play any game anymore without minis. Even games I never used minis for when I was a kid...

Old Man Scribble's brain just ain't what it used to be 14 years ago I guess.

 

[Obryn]

I also pointed out how the intent for deception was obivious when they stated that they weren't working on a new edition that required the use of miniatures. 4E pretty much demands the use of miniatures, and do you really think they didn't know that most people would take their soundbite to mean that they were'nt working on 4E. Of course they did. If you don't think that they absolutely intended to deceive people about the status of 4th edition, then I think that is being pretty naive. The least they could have done was show a tiny bit of integrity and respect for their customers and just stated that they wouldn't answer that question.

Of course the designers were being sly about the new edition. Much like in the world of technology, tipping your hand early can completely kill business. I don't blame Apple when they don't tell me about the new iPod before it's ready, and I don't blame WotC when they keep their cards to their vest until <1 year before release.

What's more, I would find it hard to believe that a single 3pp would have wanted WotC to announce the development of 4e all the way back in 2005 or what-have-you. Really, there is an entire (small, but actual) industry for publishing D&D-compatible products - and that industry was still doing decently well back in 2005.

So here's what a 3-year early announcement would have gotten us and WotC:

* More time for their competitors to put out a competing Pathfinderesque product
* Less development and playtest time for the new edition of D&D
* 3pp's hemhorraging money as the entire d20 market starts to tank many years early
* Fewer sales and less revenue for WotC on its d20 books, leading to less income, leading to even less development and playtest time

Even as a customer, I'd be less than thrilled about these. I also don't live in a rose-tinted world where every corporate decision is thought to be public knowledge...

...and going back many pages...

If people state their reasons one knows. If someone says "PCs fail a lot, and that's good!" and then later says "PCs succeed a lot, and that's good!" when the rules changed, then that's a blind defender.

If someone says "PCs failing a lot is no big deal" and later "The new system is better because PCs do not fail a lot anymore", then that's a blind defender.

Usually we know people's motivations, since they answer the arguments of the critics in order to defend the rules.

So if I thought 3.0 was the cat's pajamas, and then later loved 3.5's changes, and even later yet enjoyed 4e, that clearly makes me a blind defender because I like different things at different points in time for potentially different reasons.

Got it. From here on out, I will never admit I was wrong, change my thinking about anything, or issue a statement that I like something in fear that my tastes will change later. My tastes and preferences are officially frozen in time as of now.

-O

 

[xechnao]

So if I thought 3.0 was the cat's pajamas, and then later loved 3.5's changes, and even later yet enjoyed 4e, that clearly makes me a blind defender because I like different things at different points in time for potentially different reasons.

Got it. From here on out, I will never admit I was wrong, change my thinking about anything, or issue a statement that I like something in fear that my tastes will change later. My tastes and preferences are officially frozen in time as of now.

-O

You will have to realize your tastes on principles -independently of editions or what have you. Of course these tastes may change for various reasons. But these reasons have to do with principles. Based on the perceived principles of your tastes you may be convicted as follower or blind defender -
So remember, even when you are wrong what really matters is why, for what reasons you are wrong - on what principle you are wrong.

 

[Obryn]

You will have to realize your tastes on principles -independently of editions or what have you. Of course these tastes may change for various reasons. But these reasons have to do with principles. Based on the perceived principles of your tastes you may be convicted as follower or blind defender -
So remember, even when you are wrong what really matters is why, for what reasons you are wrong - on what principle you are wrong.

No, actually, I really don't.

You're still treating peoples' tastes as things that are somehow incompatible with one another - that is, if I like one thing I cannot also enjoy another thing. Or, that liking something means I'm somehow overlooking its flaws. Or, that discussion of something's strengths necessarily entails a denial of its weaknesses.

Heck, I know that I can even enjoy two things which are exactly opposite one another. Say, a 4e game with the older skill challenge mechanics vs. one with the new ones vs. one which uses Stalker0's system. Each work in a certain way and it's possible that each has strengths and flaws.

Just because I can find things to both like and dislike about any given game/behavior/rule/system doesn't make me a blind anything.

And, as a side note, just because some folks are desperate to stick people into categories which begin with the adjective "blind" (thereby denying any potential rationality or the action of preference in their decisions) doesn't mean that the categorizing itself was done with any degree of rationality or objectivity.

-O

 

[Fenes]

So if I thought 3.0 was the cat's pajamas, and then later loved 3.5's changes, and even later yet enjoyed 4e, that clearly makes me a blind defender because I like different things at different points in time for potentially different reasons.

Got it. From here on out, I will never admit I was wrong, change my thinking about anything, or issue a statement that I like something in fear that my tastes will change later. My tastes and preferences are officially frozen in time as of now.

-O

No, plese read what I posted. If you defend something with one reason, and then make a 180 turn around just because WotC did, then you're a blind defender.

If say today you say "system mastery is bad, so WotC is right, I know that", and tomorrow WotC changes their view and you say "System mastery is good, so WotC is right" then you're a blind defender.

Chaning your opinion is most desired. Changing your opinion in sync with WotC makes you a blind defender.

 

[avin]

One thing ripped from MMORPGS? Fighters now have abilities *similar* to World of Warcraft tanks abilities to hold aggro from mobs.

I don't recall that on any P&P RPGS (assuming, of course, I didn'ty play all of them).

Changing 4E structure for a recommended 5 man group comes right from Wow.

Guys, if you wanna defend 4E, that's fine, it's a very fun game, I DM and defend it myself... but using chosen words to avoid MMORPGs comparison is blind, and you know that... hehehe...