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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 4300159" data-attributes="member: 23619">Regarding the OP, I think this "video-gamey" feel has to do with kind of "press a button to make it happen" kind of thing, where in previous editions such things were not possible.1) Fighter "marking" his foes. Its an automatic effect, no save, that incurs a penalty or draws an immediate interrupt and there's nothing the target can do to avoid or negate it.    Solution: To make it less video-gamey, keep it as a free action but make it an attack against the target's Will or something. If the attack succeeds, then the target is sufficiently occupied that the target suffers the effects of the Mark. (Apply same especially to Paladin marking which also inflicts damage).This is kind of a "point and shoot" or "press a button" thing that definitely feels video-gamey along with things like Cleave which auto hit their target regardless of the target's AC. Just about anything that affected anything else in previous editions had to make either an attack roll or allowed a saving throw and that should be the way it is for 4e.2) Any At will powers. The ultimate "video-gamey" effect. Point: Unlimited/inexhaustible resources eliminate challenges or reduce them to the point where they are not fun.    Solution: Make at wills something that characters have to earn (reach a certain level, take certain feats, etc.), not something that gets handed to them. In ALL previous incarnations of D&D, at will abilities, even sucky ones were not acquired without significant investment. 3) Needing friends to win. This is like X-Men, Simpsons, Gauntlet, and especially the D&D video games, where you HAD to have friends to win unless you just pumped a butt-load of quarters into it--and even then, victory wasn't guaranteed. In any other incarnation of D&D, you always had the option of solo play. Admittedly, 3E was less solo friendly, but it could still be done and 1e and 2e solo games were very viable, adventures were even made for them. This game is designed around having to have companions. Its not that I'm itching for solo play instead of gaming with friends, but its another option that was taken away from players and DMs with this edition. You can't even play this game solo without serious tweaking.Even in MMORPGs, you still need a group (more or less). Solo play is possible, but advancing is considerably slower and many quests, tasks are just flat impossible without a group. Tied in with HAVING to have companions, 4e forces you into a "role" based on your class much like MMORPGs do. Technically, you're not "forced" to, but if you don't play your role, you're booted from the group or end up messing up the game for others.4) Everyone is equal. This hits on that line from Incredibles--If everyone is special, no one is. Everyone gets to do basically the same stuff (X number of at will, encounter, daily powers), just slightly different mechanics and different fluff. How is this like video games? Its like that 4 player X-Men (or really any other) game; yeah, you could play Cyclops, Colossus, Wolverine or Nightcrawler, but you had X number of moves and a special you could do every so often--they looked different, but they had basically the same effect.In all previous editions, classes and races were different. I don't think there were really any problems until 3.0 and then 3.5 when "balance" became an issue/goal. Yeah, humans sucked when it came to racial abilities, but their benefit was that they didn't have any drawbacks. And when it came to classes, yeah, wizards were uber powerful at higher levels, but it was surviving those critical low levels that "balanced" it out. Each class and race had its high points and low and "balance" was never an issue in 1e or 2e because the emphasis was on roleplaying. Players could play solo or in a group. There were no assigned roles. Anyone could do whatever they wanted (that their characters could do) in a given fight. Sometimes the ranger and wizard would hang back and rain death on enemies, at other times they'd be right there with the fighter. Yeah, the cleric was responsible for healing, but they were right there hanging with the fighter or the wizard doing what needed to be done. In our games, no one ever really ran out of things to do to the point where they needed an at will ability and no one needed a role to fill to tell them what they should be doing during a fight. It was a roleplaying game. It wasn't until Attacks of Opportunity reared its ugly head as an "optional" rule in 2e--and later became an official rule in 3e that D&D started becoming video-gamey. When you "had" to have a grid map with miniatures, when you "had" to keep track of where you moved and whether you could move a certain way or what would happen if you tried, that's when it became video-gamey. Was it fun? Sure, in a way, not so much because of the game itself but for the time I was spending with friends. But the game had definitely changed at that point. No longer was it in my mind's eye how combat was unfolding. Now it was right there on the table! Now I had to count out exact 5' squares and now I couldn't move diagonally without it "costing" more. Now, I had to learn more rules (and my players or DM did too) and that made it less of a game and yet more of a game.</blockquote>

Verification