The Impasse

[Thasmodious]

(P.S. - from what I've seen, party roles weren't lifted from MMOs, teamwork and tactics weren't lifted from MMOs, a five player party size wasn't lifted from MMOs, monsters of disproportionate power weren't lifted from MMOs, and powers weren't lifted from MMOs. So, then, what was? Discuss.)

Roles have been around since always. MMOs got the term 'tank' from us tabletop players. It's a natural term for a heavy armor clad killing machine. Party roles have been with us always as well.

D&D began as an extension of tactical minis games. Teamwork has always been one of the defining attributes. Buffs and debuffs existed long before the first MMO, as did "sheeping", offtanking, focus fire. MMOs codified the terminology but the concepts came from an analysis of how we've been playing fantasy since the beginning.

4-6 has always been the default party size, the design assumption falling somewhere in that range. As editions have evolved, they've gotten more specific. 3e was the first edition that "showed it's work" in regards to the math, so they explained a baseline party size. 4e did the same. So did MMOs as the restraints of programming required limits. With no DM to adjust things, a cap is necessary so content isn't simply zerged.

Monsters of disproportinate power are the reason why you bring 4 friends with you. It was always thus.

Powers were not lifted from MMOs, they are the same suites of powers the classes have always had. What was "lifted" from MMOs, particularly WoW, was the framework for class powers. Balance has long been a stated, but unachieved goal of D&D design. MMOs require a strong balance among the classes, it is essential to MMO design. The way many achieve this, again particularly WoW, is with a rigid framework in which class powers are "plugged" into. They can easily be balanced by role and power level as just a function of math. Damage expressions fit a range, are modified based on the mathematical worth of other effects of the power, and are easily adjusted by role.

This is what the 4e designers "lifted" from MMOs, the basic framework to inform class balance. It's not nearly as rigid as it is in MMO design, it doesn't need to be, but it serves as the means to achieve some real class balance in the game. There is a second benefit as well, one which MMOs enjoy. When something is inevitably found to be out of whack, it is an easy fix, you change the power, the damage expression, the secondary effect, whatever and its done. Little adjustments can easily be made as needed. This results in an increase in errata in a pen and paper system, perhaps, but it's a valuable check and balance. The system can respond when player's inevitably break it, as they always do.

Compare this to 3e where the designers at first denied the gulf between casters and melee classes and were then unable to really address it because the system had already been built and could not be easily tweaked. How could you easily change something so fundamental? It was only towards the end of the editions cycle that they really made meaningful progress with Tome of Battle, which, of course, went a long way to informing the design of 4e and was also "lifted" from MMOs in the conception of its mechanics.

Lastly, you can't be too hard on 4e players for being defensive about the MMO thing, it's been an absurd "accusation" thrown about by ignorant "haters" since before the game even came out. Not as an informed analysis, but in a "4e sux becuz itz a mmo now dude" manner.

 

[RefinedBean]

I would tend to say that 4E "blind supporters" like to pretend that no influence came from WoW (or other MMOs) or computer games. People who have a more realistic viewpoint say "Where the inspiration came from doesn't matter. What matters is what the devs *did* with the inspiration", as you mentioned above.

Exactly. There's plenty of influences on 4E that should be praised and discussed, rather than swept under the rug. Tactical miniatures games and MMOs come to mind.

For some reason, these two topics just aren't really discussed in a positive light here on ENworld in regards to 4E, and it's a shame.

 

[Fenes]

Exactly. There's plenty of influences on 4E that should be praised and discussed, rather than swept under the rug. Tactical miniatures games and MMOs come to mind.

For some reason, these two topics just aren't really discussed in a positive light here on ENworld in regards to 4E, and it's a shame.

I do not cite them as positive influences since I dislike the typical MMOG experience and don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.

 

[RefinedBean]

I do not cite them as positive influences since I dislike the typical MMOG experience and don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.

Which is fine. I happen to be in the funny position of not playing all that many MMOG or miniatures games (excluding 4E), but 4E's embrace of these influences has made me quite happy.

I just wish they were discussed more, civilly. What miniatures games influenced 4E the most? Now that roles are concrete, are there any MMOs that have found a "role" that's not in 4E?

Maybe I should start a few threads, but honestly, I think they'd just devolve into madness.

 

[xechnao]

Which is fine. I happen to be in the funny position of not playing all that many MMOG or miniatures games (excluding 4E), but 4E's embrace of these influences has made me quite happy.

I just wish they were discussed more, civilly. What miniatures games influenced 4E the most? Now that roles are concrete, are there any MMOs that have found a "role" that's not in 4E?

Maybe I should start a few threads, but honestly, I think they'd just devolve into madness.

In video game rpgs and MMOs there are mechanics to distinct roles based on the grind. You may have strikers be more effective as a role versus weaker/normal guys by doing massive damage in a second and dispatching them right away.
And you might have strikers that do not unleash so much damage at first impact but the overall damage in the long run, when grinding versus enemies with more hit points surpasses that one of the previous type of strikers. To see where the difference of damage output stands you will have to see the function of time.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Powers were not lifted from MMOs, they are the same suites of powers the classes have always had. What was "lifted" from MMOs, particularly WoW, was the framework for class powers.

I like this guy. He knows his stuff.

I'd also say that there's a second thing that 4e took from MMOs, and it's important, too, but not as important, and that's language. D&D always had disproportionally tough monsters and class roles, yes, but it wasn't until MMOs and 4e that we had language to describe these roles, and having a name for something always makes it easier to understand. MMOs have a rich, specialized vocabulary that developed organically, and a lot of those words can be every bit as useful to the rich, specialized vocabulary of D&D. 4e helps to bridge that gap.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do not cite them as positive influences since I dislike the typical MMOG experience and don't really like tactical miniatures in an RPG either.

I am not sure how to express this, but this attitude is problematic, because you seem to assume that just because there is an influence, it will change the entire experience to something like an MMO or tactical miniature game. But that doesn't follow.

Do you have a problem with hit points in D&D? Hit points can also be found in MMO and CRPGs (and probably tactical mini games, though I am not familiar with tem). But apparantly that didn't lead to you liking those games more, right? So why do you assume that the opposite is automatically true? A mechanic found in an MMO automatically makes the role-playing game experience worse?

The trick is lifting mechanics and concepts in a way that makes sense for the type of game you're working on.

Of course, you don't have to discuss these topics, but just going in with an attitude "it's always bad" won't contribute to it.

 

[Sammael]

However, two issues with the rich, specialized vocabulary are (1) it makes the game even more unfriendly for new users to learn (because it increases the already hefty D&D vocabulary) - this is alleviated somewhat by the fact that many new gamers are familiar with MMOs and, hence, already know the vocabulary; and (2) it encourages metagaming.

Interestingly enough, for years, computer RPGs were striving to get as close to the pen-and-paper experience as possible, since the pen-and-paper experience provides freedom which can never* be matched by a computer. Sure, the balance wasn't perfect, but the human factor (i.e. the DM) was always there to make judgment calls and adjust the rules as needed.

3.x made the first step in the opposite direction, trying to take away the need for DM's judgment calls and ad hoc rulings, and empowering the players through the myriad of rules, sub-rules, and sub-systems (some of which worked, and some which didn't work). 4E takes another step further, completely removing the DM from the picture when it comes to rulings which concern PC abilities (by making those abilities simple, clear, and without any need for interpretation) while, at the same time, claiming to return some power to the DM by means of world-building and preparation flexibility. This is not a direction I like; I want some ambiguity in the "powers," I want the "powers" to be able to do more than 2[W]+Int damage and push the target 1 square. By balancing the powers so carefully (and making them so easy to balance), the designers have removed a certain layer of creativity from the game. Sure, it's easy to say that "DMs should encourage player stunts," but, in my experience, with the advent of 4E "powers," many players are now focused on choosing the optimal power for every situation and are no longer interested in in-game logic, prefering to use metagame tactical reasoning. This is straight out of tactical miniature games and MMORPGs, and has never been as ingrained in the system as it is in 4E.

*in the foreseeable future

 

[xechnao]

Exactly. There's plenty of influences on 4E that should be praised and discussed, rather than swept under the rug. Tactical miniatures games and MMOs come to mind.

For some reason, these two topics just aren't really discussed in a positive light here on ENworld in regards to 4E, and it's a shame.

I have no problem with what you are talking about. What I have a problem with is when it happened to me to express my opinion on 4e by saying that it is not a roleplaying game but rather a board game -in the kinds of "descent" or "warhammer quest" or what have you- I felt by the reactions as I was committing heresy or something.
I have played those games with friends in the past extensively and they were fun. After some time I(we) got bored of them but till that moment we were having a blast.

I think that when people are open to a new method when they get exposed to it the experienced innovation draws interest and people are having fun to discover what it really is about there-what is the nature of the new method -what it may serve and what not, what it may do and what it may not do.
Board games and miniature games and video games are like that. I put 4e in this category too. And in this category, as a game to learn, if you are open to it -and this depends on its capacity to inspire which is rather an artistic merit- I think 4e is top notch. You can have a blast with it.

Having said that I distinguish it from a roleplaying game which in my opinion they are games about decisions on the intra-person relations factor. They need game mechanics or rules but of a more universal nature whith the function of guiding you to focus on this kind of interaction. So based on how I judge this -how I see the game works- I distinguish a game as a board game or roleplaying game.

The way 4e took influence from MMOs had the result to make the game less of a roleplaying game and more of a board game. And to this I believe it failed as I believe that the designers had not this in mind -did not see this that is. Of course I may very very well be wrong here and the designers really wanted this kind of result for D&D.

Anyway as you said the important thing is taste and preference. There are people who want the merits of 4e and there are people who want something more of a roleplaying game (and what I mean by this is explained above and its my opinion here so please do not see this as an attack towards you). Certainly both are to be respected. I do not know if things change, if the type of criticism seen here will be ever more constructive -this kind of thread is kind of hilarious as a poster above mentions but you never know.

 

[RefinedBean]

And you might have strikers that do not unleash so much damage at first impact but the overall damage in the long run, when grinding versus enemies with more hit points surpasses that one of the previous type of strikers. To see where the difference of damage output stands you will have to see the function of time.

See, there we go! A damage-over-time Striker. I could see a Monk build for that, where something like a Quivering Palm class feature does damage (or some other minor effect) over a series of rounds, with the length based on the PC's tier. Definitely a secondary Controller role in there, too.

I was wondering about a Debuffer, since I've seen that pretty prevalent in MMOs. Would it translate to enough of a difference in 4E to get its own role, or could you make "debuffing" versions of all the roles?

MMOs bring so much to the table, and definitely fit with 4E's focus on character balance and monster design.

This stuff can be discussed, analyzed, and applied to every game in existence, but when it comes to D&D, it's like its quietly regarded as taboo, or something to tout out in a negative manner.