The Truth About 4th Edition.

[JohnSnow]

SkyOdin, i think you are talking about what I would instrumentation. Modern people expect functionality and information at their fingertips. Nonetheless, it's something Basic D&D had, but AD&D didn't, 4e has, but Fantasy Craft doesn't. Eventually, you learn by doing. But the presentation can affect a newcomer's experiences. 3e is about in the middle, I would say... plenty to get you started, but the deeper structures require a more advanced understanding.

I'd agree with you completely pawsplay.

I (and Collins, Mearls, et. al.) tend to use the phrase "transparency" rather than "instrumentation," but the basic issue is the same. I'd say that 3e was well presented (better indexed at least) compared to, say AD&D, but it had a lot of hidden traps in it. The guys in charge of 4e seem very clear about trying to avoid those kinds of things.

Just by way of completeness, I think that most people would agree that whatever issues they had with 2e, it was still better presented than 1e. The 1e DMG may have had a lot of great things in it - but finding it all was a nightmare. Second Edition, IMO, mostly suffered from bad changes, not bad presentation.

 

[Layander]

Not really. There is a pretty big difference. In MMOs, the taunt ability is completely binary: if taunt works, then the enemies start attacking the tank, if it fails, the enemies keep attacking the mage as before.

Marking is noticably different because the Defender gains an advantage even if the marked enemy doesn't choose to attack the Defender. If a goblin ignores the Fighter that just marked him, he not only has to put up with a -2 to hit, but risks being killed by the Fighter's Opportunity Attack (presuming the goblin tries to get away). There are even times when the Defender wants the enemy to attack another target, as is the case with Paladins doing free damage with their mark.

Even if you ignore the drastic flavor difference, I think that it is fair to say that 4E marking is considerably more sophisticated and advanced than MMO taunting.
Not me. The Warcraft setting has been butchered enough as it is by Warcraft 3, WoW, and the various Warcraft Roleplaying game books. There isn't anything left of the original setting that hasn't been retconned and warped at least twice. No wonder the people at Blizzard are intending on using a brand new IP for their next MMO.

I am not sure you have played WoW if you beleive taunting works in that way, They have added a hate meter to show you how far up on the hate bar you are, the more you use taunt spells the faster your taunt meter goes up, as a paladin I do not even use taunts in the regular way, I have a 150% hate gain when using spells with a holy effect. Not a yes or no binary system, but a percentage system. EQ2 has also added a hate bar so you can see how far up you are, and each hate gain spell tells you a specific number that using that spell raises your hate by, 1500 plus 42 every 3 seconds for example, trust me tank classes are the class I play. If you need I will send you a screen shot of my paladins spell showing you it telling you it increases hate by a specific amount, it is not an either or situation.

 

[N0Man]

May I point out that what Andy said they learned from MMO's was NOT game mechanics, but the fact that people wanted to express individuality and have variety in different styles of characters. Most of the video game comparisons one sees seem to just be flamebait, however this is certainly a legitimate lesson to learn from video games.

Other *positive* things that I think they may have learned from a game like WoW is that it's good to be accessible to new players, new characters should feel somewhat heroic and not someone taken out by a housecat. ;-) I have had many characters die from the first blow dealt to them at level 1 in previous editions. Also, requiring cooperation and teamwork is something that is not just desirable in an MMO, but frequently an absolute requirement for many encounters. Teamwork is good.

I should also point out that he said they looked at games of all types (not just MMO's, not just RPGs) when making design decisions.

I'm with Andy in that at 35 years old, I just don't have the time and patience to learn an unintuitive and unnecessarily complex game like I did when I was a teenager. I want a game that is easy to pick up, not that it's dumbed down, but just that it's intuitive enough to be picked up easily and employs concepts that are familiar, and gives enough rules to resolve nearly everything I need to do without referencing a ton of tables and special rule exceptions.

I also strongly agree that more interactivity is a good thing. I very much remember people walking off and doing other things during 2E and 3E games between turns. Not every game, but it certainly happened, and more interactivity to keep folks from getting bored is a good thing. (I have one friend specifically who just doesn't have the attention span for long rounds and lots of inactivity between her turns).

 

[Jack99]

I had to post here, To me this is actually exactly the same, when you use hate spells in most online games it makes the creature more likely to attack the player using the hate spells but not makes him unable to attack anyone else, if the mages still put out to much damage the enemy will target the mage regardless of how many times the warrior presses taunt. 4e mimics that system as much as possible for a table top system incentive to attack the taunter but not an impossiblility. I am not judging if this is good or bad but it is certainly the case this taunt system feels identical to video games.
Another thing is most games I play make paladins AOE tanks and warriors single target tanks, and in 4E I get that same impression as paladins in divine power were given so many aoe taunts but warriors are mostly still stuck to one.
4E should just call WoW and make a WoW 4e setting, I think most people playing 4E do want to see that actually.

I very much doubt that. Despite having 100's days /played in MMO's, I for one have no wish for a WoW-setting. And I doubt I am alone.

There actually is a WoW setting...using the 3.5e rule set.

Irony is just a thing of beauty at times..

 

[Dandu]

Incidentally, WoW seems to be a decent game. Yahtzee has reluctantly admitted that it might be as good as MMORPGs will get.

 

[Layander]

Somehow it is taken from my post that I am either anti 4th edition or that I am pro 3.5, neither is the case. I am simply stating that taunting is similar, that is neither a good or bad statment, its simply how I feel. I play mmo's I use taunts in them, I have never thought, "I hate wow because I can taunt the enemy here" and I have never thought the same about 4e. I knew about the 3.5 WoW game but I never thought 3.5 pulled it off well, and if I am not mistaken the WoW 3.5 was actually made before WoW was. Some things were hard to compair when I looked at the setting book, for example you can play orcs and humans together in the WoW book but you can not play undead at all. Slightly off topic.
I am sorry if I somehow made you beleive that 4e being similar to WoW in any way is bad. If I wanted to say 4E was bad I would not simply say "Taunting is the same" This isnt a edition war, People can compair and contrast with out hate.
I am sorry if I sounded agrivated, I just do not like unneeded hate. Lets have differant ideas, and be happy that our ideas are differant, not assume we are total opposets.
Not everything is black and white, I can like things about something, dislike others and still not be a hater or fanboy.
I am sorry if saying warriors can taunt sounded like me hating on 4e but it was not.
If it were I would sound more like "I hate the way that warriors taunt in the game its so retarded!" which I do not.
I actually think some of the things they did with taunting were pretty creative, such as warriors pretty much pinning the enemy in one spot. It feels like the warrior is such a feirce fighter that if you try to turn to get away he will lay into your weakness.
Maybe from now on I should say one really good thing about each edition and one really bad thing about each edition so that people can not falsely accuse me of hating editions.

 

[Dandu]

Apologies. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people say "4e is like WoW" when they are quite dissimilar.

 

[Layander]

Sorry if I am "grumpy" dandu I just like a friendly informed debate. I am not going to sit there and make up facts I do not actually have first hand knowledge of, and some times it feels like other people make up their own facts on the spot just to be disagreeable.
I understand you hate when people say "4E is just like WoW" but you do have to admit the similarities, if you like the things that are similar is something altogether differant.
I like the way they did the taunt system for example its something taken from online gaming as it was created in those games decades before its use in 4E. But its something that may have been missing the whole time.
I do not like the idea of handing out quest cards with the quest description and rewards printed on it. To metagamy for me. Its an optional thing that I can easily take out not big deal.
I also do not like (and this is in no way exclusive to 4E mind you lots of this in 3.X) the idea that the basic "damage dealing class" should be a 3 foot tall theif using 2 needles. It hurts my suspension of disbeleif that the two daggers is always better than a big warrior with a big axe.
Does that mean its always wrong, no not at all just something that peeves me. Maybe this belongs in another forum but still.

The point I am trying to prove is, just because I say something is similar does not mean its a horrible idea. Nor does it mean that a video game aspect means that its only in 4E. (I tried to show that with the tiny rogue example which in 3.5 was alot worse than it is in 4E actually. 10d6+1d3 for backstabbing with a hair brush).

 

[N0Man]

To me, the Defender Mechanics seem less like MMO games, and more like 2D fighting games. In such a game, it's not about forcing an opponent to do something, but rather about baiting them and punishing them for it.

Defender mechanics also seem to allow for certain kind depth. How you choose to respect or ignore the marks helps reinforce a feel about how cautious, reckless, mindless, strategic, or wild your opponent is in a mechanical way.

In 3E games, most DMs I played with randomly chose who a monster attacks with a dice roll.

In 4E games, DMs tend to make choices based on character, tactics, opportunity and other factors and never roll dice for targets.

Of course, this isn't just because of defender powers, but I also think due to higher hit points starting out, but both are a factor.

Anyway, defender "taunts" don't feel like MMO mechanics to me at all.

 

[pemerton]

I believe there is nothing wrong with 4E being made to appeal to people with, according to quoted parts of interview, less refined palate

This is the sort of remark I don't understand.

It's widely agreed that 4e, unlike 3E, does not support simulationist play well, and requires the GM and players to cooperate in shaping a narrative that makes sense (in gameworld terms) of the outcomes that the mechanics (skill challenges, Come and Get It, marking, healing surges etc) are delivering.

This sort of RPGing may not be to everyone's taste. But I don't see how it can be described as "less refined". Indeed, the sort of games that this resembles (HeroQuest, The Dying Earth or (to take a more extreme example) My Life With Master) would normally be regarded as avant-garde rather than simplistic.