The Impasse

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You are mixing two different things. The combat and non combat. IMO there should be a connection among the two but neither MMOs nor 4e (which focuses solely on combat)

This time I understand what you are saying, just note that you are wrong. 4e does not focus solely on combat. (And neither does WoW, as far as I know. There are also crafting elements in the game - while this can affect combat, for many players it doesn't.)
It is hard to discuss with people if you already disagree on fundamental aspects, and it tends to create "mini-discussions" that are not the actual topic both sides are interested in.

But that aside - what kind of connection between combat and non-combat do you want? What are you envisioning? (Yes, that means I am still not getting what you really talk about. If anyone else is, please feel free to post your understanding and xechnao can say if you got it right.)

 

[DandD]

You are mixing two different things. The combat and non combat.

No, I'm definitely not, but you are, because you try to build a connection where there isn't, and shouldn't either, especially in D&D, which has always been about combat, and treats non-combat secondary, no matter what edition.

Roleplaying stuff outside should never be the same as rolling battles, where you come up with special maneuvers and fierce attacks to defeat an enemy. You only roll stuff in the non-combat section if you don't want to play it out all the time and simplify it with a die roll, which stops the whole thing right at the moment where the result is told. It's only a necessary evil because there is nothing better, and there won't be any good alternatives to it. Systems that do try to emulate non-combat interaction sequences with combat rules only make the non-combat interaction sequences non-important too, as everything is then reduced to some kind of hit points and special maneuvers, which are only viable once and then at the gaming table (else, you might as well go and play computer and console games like Ace Attorney, which can do that stuff far superior to a human, and have graphics to oogle at). OBJECTION!

 

[Fenes]

Roleplaying stuff outside should never be the same as rolling battles, where you come up with special maneuvers and fierce attacks to defeat an enemy. You only roll stuff in the non-combat section if you don't want to play it out all the time and simplify it with a die roll, which stops the whole thing right at the moment where the result is told. It's only a necessary evil because there is nothing better, and there won't be any good alternatives to it. Systems that do try to emulate non-combat interaction sequences with combat rules only make the non-combat interaction sequences non-important too, as everything is then reduced to some kind of hit points and special maneuvers, which are only viable once and then at the gaming table (else, you might as well go and play computer and console games like Ace Attorney, which can do that stuff far superior to a human, and have graphics to oogle at). OBJECTION!

That brings up the question if combat should be handled with just dice rolls.

 

[xechnao]

This time I understand what you are saying, just note that you are wrong. 4e does not focus solely on combat. (And neither does WoW, as far as I know. There are also crafting elements in the game - while this can affect combat, for many players it doesn't.)
It is hard to discuss with people if you already disagree on fundamental aspects, and it tends to create "mini-discussions" that are not the actual topic both sides are interested in.

But that aside - what kind of connection between combat and non-combat do you want? What are you envisioning? (Yes, that means I am still not getting what you really talk about. If anyone else is, please feel free to post your understanding and xechnao can say if you got it right.)

Let me first make clear that the problems I was noting in our previous discussion, regarding 4e's limitations due to the implementation of MMO combat is not the same problem with the problematic of this discussion. It might be connected but it is not the same thing.

Having said that I will try to clarify by what I meant with the connection of combat and no combat or lack thereof.
It is a matter of expanding the battlefield: does confrontation really starts and ends at a local point or is it something that can be extended to a bigger web or net of sorts? By the power one has to move on the web he can defend himself. Someones may be able to reach a higher speed towards a given direction and so due to their superior momentum win others in this direction. But someones may have a bigger flexibility at changing directions. And since we are dealing with a web here conflict can happen from various directions.
The D20 system is not build with this in mind. It is rather build on the idea of local confrontations (regarding victory or defeat) and utilizes a number of different localities -and the choice of specializing for them- to make the game interesting. Those who choose to specialize in more than one but cannot reach the levels of a more focused specialization end up to be subpar in practice (they will face more defeats than their counterparts-without intervention of the DM to try to build by himself a web of sorts to balance things out).
In fact the measure of time in the D20 system uses a standard of absolute values rather than relative ones. Everything is balanced againt a standard of rounds and the economy of actions and the balance of the economy of actions is build around this standard to help with the managment of the model of different localities I was talking about.

So what a web has to do with non combat? It is about the specialization I was talking about. Non combat abilities are the less local ones in relation to the combat abilities which seem more local. This means that if one attacks you at a certain local point his attack trumps your diplomacy. This is the way the system is build. Of course in a web like system the distinction among combat and non combat would make no sense. So I was trying by using the standards of the 3e model to describe an effort towards the different web like model.

EDIT: To make it more clear: one in a web like model could manage his resources to gain some leverage from diplomacy to gain a better position in combat -if he has such a resource and wants to resort to that resource: to what resource one resorts has to do with his position on the web. And here is where the game takes place (it is a game where positioning matters so I would call it a game of strategic positioning )

 

[glass]

Let me first make clear that the problems I was noting in our previous discussion, regarding 4e's limitations due to the implementation of MMO combat is not the same problem with the problematic of this discussion. It might be connected but it is not the same thing.

4e has not 'implemented MMO combat', because such a thing is nonsensical on it's face!


glass.

 

[xechnao]

4e has not 'implemented MMO combat', because such a thing is nonsensical on it's face!


glass.

If your problem is about acknowledging who influenced who first I agree with whatever you want to believe. But since 4e had the choice to build on different elements (as a tabletop game), elements that were not used in this inter-influencing evolution I think I can say that 4e "implemented MMO combat" -as its choice that is. If it had made a different choice any MMO elements that would appear they would appear in a more revolutionary way. IMO.

 

[Obryn]

Let's get some prespective here. As I already pointed out, the statement was not made three years in advance but approximately 6 months prior to the official anouncement of 4E. Also, they continued to produce and sell 3.5 products for many months after the announcement of 4E. In fact,t he last I heard, 3.5 PHB's are still selling well, and Paizo's 3.5 sales really took off after the announcement of 4E. According to you, they should have never released any 3.5 products after the announcement of 4E, but they did and it seemed to work out well for them and 3rd party publishers.

Yes, they of course continued to sell 3.5 products past the announcement of 4e. Did you expect them to stop? Just - you know - cease all production of their existing product line and turn the revenue dial all the way down to zero?

How well do you think this would have worked if the waiting period was a few years rather than just a few months?

Again, I am not talking about sales turning to zero. I am talking about a shrinking market. Yes, Paizo is doing fairly well right now - but in a very real sense, they are the 3e market. How many other 3pp's are publishing non-PDF 3e D&D material? Paizo is the biggest fish in a now-smaller pond, and they have already eaten the competition.

As far as I can see, you're not looking at this situation rationally.

-O

 

[Dragonblade]

Let me first make clear that the problems I was noting in our previous discussion, regarding 4e's limitations due to the implementation of MMO combat is not the same problem with the problematic of this discussion.

There is no MMO combat in 4e, anymore than there is MMO combat in 3e.

 

[xechnao]

There is no MMO combat in 4e, anymore than there is MMO combat in 3e.

Yes, regarding the solid rules that there are in 3e and 4e I can not disagree with this. The fact that I agree with what you are saying here, I believe should have been clear in my posts so far. No need to repeat the same things.

 

[catsclaw227]

Where pen and paper can shine is with creative things you cannot do in an MMOG. Throwing a cloak over the enemies eyes. Dropping a chandelier on enemies. Making a wall crumble, hack down a door and use it as a battering ram. Using and changing the enviroment, the entire battlefield.

In my opinion, the game should have moved away from all the detailed and limited powers, instead concentrating on the "stunts" aspect, capitalizing on the enormous flexibility and options a human DM has, instead of a computer in an MMOG.

Instead we got the MMOG mechanics, without the graphics. If I just want to battle a dozen goblins yardtrash mobs with my powers, then kill goblin leaders for loot with my special moves before raiding the goblin king for items, I'd log on to an MMOG.

I think I understand some of where you come from, but in what other edition of D&D were there mechanics to allow for the creative things you mentioned above? I think that 4e was the first to actually have a set of usable rules for improvised stunts or maneuvers.

And, FWIW, many of the "great" adventures of the P&P era could be boiled down to: 1. fight mobs and avoid traps, 2. Kill the sub-leaders and get treasure, then 3. attack the "king" and plunder the lair.