Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4681184" data-attributes="member: 63272">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.</blockquote>

Verification