What on earth does "video-gamey" mean?

[med stud]

By contrast, bards are gone (Yeah, to return, if you wanna pay more for them), because they aren't as strong a combat class.

I missed this in my previous post.

I'm glad that the bard wasn't included in the core. Not because I don't like bards but because the 3e one sucked so hard. I loved 2e bards (I didn't play 1e), everytime I read the class description I felt like playing a bard. So, when 3e was released I flipped to the bard and it was such a disappointment.

I much rather have a bard with a context that is well thought out than another bard like the 3e one. In that case, I gladly wait for WotC to come up with something good.

 

[Tsyr]

I'd argue the "wholecloth" thing. I see the similarity in concept (having the PC limit the options available to the NPC) but other than the general overarching concept I just don't see the connection to the name 'aggro'.

I have played FFXI in the past but not WoW, so maybe my concept of aggro is lacking... but I always thought that the concept of aggro is that the monster attacks the one who is causing the most damage (in FFXI there is a control if a White Wizard is healing too much as well - or at least there used to be - it has been a while).

In 4e there are "attack me or else" abilities. This doesn't stop the DM from choosing "or else" for its action. So while I see where the connection with aggro is coming from (monster control) I just don't see it as the group working together and saying "the monster WILL do X". The critter always has other choices.

Yeah, I know, I said they aren't the same mechanically, it just annoys me none the less.

 

[med stud]

I repeat: It feels artificial. Just like it does in MMOs.

Goblin: "Durrrrr, this fighter guy here isn't really a threat to me, but that wizard over there is killing us all... But for some reason I JUST GOTTA KEEP HITTIN THIS GUY!"

Now, I know, 4E isn't quite like that, while MMOs are. But it still feels artificial to me. Sorry. I wouldn't pull that on my players, I'm not going to have my players pulling it on me.

Heh, it's funny, my immersion gets shot when monsters are just running past an armed, well trained guy to get to the wizard. IRL, you die from a sword to the back. In D&D, you most often don't, therefore there ought to be some other motivation not to run past people. If that motivation is marking or the fighter-ability, it's fine with me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't see it, really. Taking a look at 3E, for example, which I think represents kind of the pinnacle of DnD at this point, fighters had options - power attack, weapon finesse, etc - as to how they wanted to handle their combat, but it was still a different mechanic from wizards.

Now, it's like an MMO. The only difference between a melee and a caster character is that one wears a dress. They both play the same basic way. Or, to quote a friend of mine when we were trying out 4E, "I play fighters because I don't want to be casting spells. Why am I casting spells, Tsyr?"

The problem of the different mechanics is not the options they give you, but the balance. Spellcasting and melee combat are basically two different subsystems, and they are not well-balanced against each other.

So, throw away the two different sub-systems and find a way to integrate what they achieve to do.

Now, powers are comparable. They are still very different. A power that lets you move 10 ft and then make a melee attack, and a power that lets you shoot a bolt of force at 100 ft range is very different.

The mechanical structure is similar, but the individual parameters are very different.

The complaint that the structure is the same is similar to saying that skills like Move Silently should work totally different from a skill like Knowledge (Arcana) and requires a different mechanical subsystem. (In a way, this was done in earlier D&D editions, with the mix f percentile rogue skills and non-weapon profiencies.)
Maybe you think that's how it should be, in that case I can only disagree.

 

[Twowolves]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously - video games are a HUGE and diverse collection. How is calling something "video-gamey" supposed to mean anything? You might as well just be calling it "thingy" for all the specificity it entails.
-blarg

It means "like a video game", or if you prefer, "has many elements that are also found in popular video games, which notoriously can handle complex math and if-then type discreet decisions, and is famously combat oriented at the expense of any true freedom or interaction beyond which mook to smite".

Or perhaps the dozens of examples already provided in the hundreds of posts in this forum alone weren't enough for you?

 

[Tsyr]

I missed this in my previous post.

I'm glad that the bard wasn't included in the core. Not because I don't like bards but because the 3e one sucked so hard. I loved 2e bards (I didn't play 1e), everytime I read the class description I felt like playing a bard. So, when 3e was released I flipped to the bard and it was such a disappointment.

I much rather have a bard with a context that is well thought out than another bard like the 3e one. In that case, I gladly wait for WotC to come up with something good.

Considering I have both a gnome illusionist and a dwarven bard in my game, you can understand how the loss of less combat-focused classes and abilities (not to mention gnomes) hinders my acceptance of 4E.

 

[TimeOut]

Goblin: "Durrrrr, this fighter guy here isn't really a threat to me, but that wizard over there is killing us all... But for some reason I JUST GOTTA KEEP HITTIN THIS GUY!"

Now, I know, 4E isn't quite like that, while MMOs are. But it still feels artificial to me.

If the wizard is really the greater perceived threat to the goblin, then he should attack the goblin. The point of successful aggro control is to let the fighter appear the greater threat.

Edit: or in reactive control scenarios, to successfully stop the target from attacking the greater threat, so that it must focus on another.

This will always be somewhat abstract, but I am fine with gameplay elements that feel like gameplay elements. They do not tell me how I should represent them in character.

I have played FFXI in the past but not WoW, so maybe my concept of aggro is lacking.. *snip*

The concept in WoW is basically the same: Damage produces threat (which can be modified, for example by "tank" classes), and healing produces threat. The monster attacks the target with the most threat, depending on a different threshold (110% threat in melee range, 130% on long range to switch targets).

 

[Tsyr]

Heh, it's funny, my immersion gets shot when monsters are just running past an armed, well trained guy to get to the wizard. IRL, you die from a sword to the back. In D&D, you most often don't, therefore there ought to be some other motivation not to run past people. If that motivation is marking or the fighter-ability, it's fine with me.

But its not an either or situation.

Both my players and my NPCs handle things on a "relevant threat" basis. If the fighters are a serious threat, they're going to deal with them first. But if theres a wizard thats about to blow everyone up, they're going to deal with that.

The "No, really, attack me!" abilities... meh.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I repeat: It feels artificial. Just like it does in MMOs.

Goblin: "Durrrrr, this fighter guy here isn't really a threat to me, but that wizard over there is killing us all... But for some reason I JUST GOTTA KEEP HITTIN THIS GUY!"

Now, I know, 4E isn't quite like that, while MMOs are. But it still feels artificial to me. Sorry. I wouldn't pull that on my players, I'm not going to have my players pulling it on me.

Yes, intelligent monsters will likely recognize that the guy blowing up pieces of the landscape is the larger threat and will want to take that person out first. I fully agree. Now for something that is not quite the tanget it seems...

You ever have the situation where you're walking down a hallway and someone is coming from the other direction and the two of you are walking in the same part (same wall of down the very center); to get out of the other person's way you step to one side and they happen to step in the same direction - then you step to the other side and they do the same thing at the time... and so on... and so forth...

Why can't my character do that on purpose to the goblin but have a sword included in the exchange? Why can't my character say 'you aren't getting through me THAT easily' to the orc and make my point with the blade of an axe?

In earlier editions the fact that my fighter could only offer token resistance to critters moving past him, and that is what felt artificial to me.

 

[hazel monday]

It. Feels. Like. A. Videogame.


If you know what all those words mean individually, you shouldn't have a hard time understanding them when they're put together to form a sentence.

I see a lot teeth gnashing, and no shortage of insults directed at people who see similarities between 4.0 and videogames. I don't understand why the fact that some people see these similarities is so threatening to so many people at ENworld. I'm not going to bother guessing why.

But, it's a legitimate opinion. Everyone I know in real life shares this opinion, from my gaming group to the schlubs at my FLGS. 4.0 feels more like a videogame than D&D to us. Belittling our opinions certainly isn't going to change them.