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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4595905" data-attributes="member: 22424">I don't have an issue with D&D copying things from videogames, MMORPGs, or even Magic if those things make for a better game. However, there are key differences between the media, and what works well for one may not work well for another. Perhaps more importantly, if D&D were to attempt to compete with videogames by trying to emulate the strengths of videogames, it would be an effort doomed to failure. If D&D really were to become "WoW in tabletop format", it would die out pretty quick.The strengths of D&D, as I see them, are the ability of a naturally intelligent (as opposed to artificially intelligent) DM to improvise - to improvise encounters on the fly, to allow the PCs to "go anywhere", to handle all the crazy things that players come up with, to improvise NPC interactions and tactics, and so forth. That's the one thing that a human DM can do that an AI simply cannot, at least for now.So, where the designers of D&D place rules in place to limit creativity and options, they do the game a major disservice. And I believe that there have been some steps in this direction.It began with "Player's Option: Combat and Tactics", I believe, which focussed a lot more on specific combat locations and movement than had been the case certainly since I started gaming (though perhaps less than AD&D 1, or Chainmail). It then continued with 3e, and the 'tactical mini-game' that was combat. 3.5e then took things further with the reliance on minis. And 4e has taken it further still, to the point where I simply would not attempt to run 4e without minis. (Doing so in 3.5e wasn't ever very satisfying, either, but it did at least feel possible.)The aspec to this is the use of 'powers' to limit options. In 3e, the intent was that characters could disarm, trip, or sunder whether they had the appropriate feat or not. The reality, though, was that the existence of these feats (or perhaps just their implementation) meant that characters who didn't have these feats wouldn't attempt those actions. And, since there was 'a rule for everything', options were constrained into purely those things that the rules said you could do. The intent may have been otherwise, but 3e was a lot less freeform in actual play than was 2nd Edition, despite having much better support for combat manoeuvers. And, in 4e, things seem to have taken a distinct step further in this direction. Sure, applying page 42 should allow you to come up with and implement all sorts of crazy actions... but the reality is that a great many characters spam the same five actions over and over again.The real reason this is a problem (for me) is that the way I play videogames (including videogame versions of D&D) is distinctly different from the way I play D&D, and is a notably less enjoyable experience. Bluntly, I'm not playing a character for the sake of playing that character, I'm moving around a playing piece for the purpose of winning the game. I min-max like crazy, I pay scant attention to anything that isn't combat, and I don't give a moment's thought to anything bad that happens to my character - a few seconds to reload a saved game, and I'm back in action.And that's not what I want from D&D. If that is what it offers me, then I'll play the videogame instead. It has better graphics, requires much less effort, and costs less too (since I need a PC anyway).</blockquote>

Verification