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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4303138" data-attributes="member: 32536">That definition seems a bit archaic, especially now that arcades are going extinct. I mostly see the term "videogame" apply to console games for systems like the Nintendo Wii or Playstation, "arcade game" for games you find in arcades, and "computer game" for games played on personal computers. Of course, there is a lot of overlap since games are ported between these systems all of the time, but certainly you can't say that my definition is an unreasonable one...I tried to cover fighting games like Street Fighter when I said mentioned that "it is not true, at least for games that can easily be compared to D&D". Fighting games can no more be easily compared mechanically to D&D than real-world combat  and martial arts can. Comparing a fighting game to D&D is a lot more like comparing D&D to a Hong Kong action movie than it is comparing D&D to Final Fantasy. They are incredibly different beasts.In games that do have any kind of close resemblance to D&D mechanically, then at-will effects are absurdly rare, or have hidden costs. You rarely get anything for free, and certainly not at first level like you do in 4E.Actually, that isn't even true for fighting games, and that should be apparent for anyone familiar with them. Using Ryu's Hadoken has a cost, even though you can use it all day if you want. It is not inherently better than a normal jab. This cost takes the form of added broadcasting of your next attack, long lead-in animation, idle frames, and increased vulnerability to counter-attack before you return to neutral position, in addition to the difficulty of inputting the button combination itself. Another comparison is with Soul Calibur's Unblockable attacks. Every character in Soul Calibur has an attack that can completely negate the foe's defense and dish out a tremendous amount of damage, and these moves can be used whenever you input the button combination. These are "at-will" by your definition, but unlike 4E D&D "at-will" moves they are not free. If you use nothing but Unblockable attacks you will lose a match of Soul Calibur, guaranteed (actually, with one amusing example you will do so even if the enemy doesn't attack you, but that is just a tangent. I love Yoshimitsu <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).If you want, you could probably describe quick moves like jab combos and fast kicks as at-will moves in 4E terms, but slow, strong attacks and attacks that leave an opening, or attacks that require a rare situation to even work, would be per-encounter or per-day abilities. Of course, this kind of definition is only about as applicable as any comparison to real world martial arts moves, since fighting games and D&D are so different... The "take your turn for this round" abstraction makes any direct comparison pretty much impossible.It is a way of analyzing it. If you want to talk about anything concrete regarding the two, it is the only way. If you take computations into account, you can directly compare equations and processes. Since D&D rules are nothing more than a collection of equations and processes with a bit of flavor sprinkled on top, it is important to make some examination within that context.That is what I said. Force the opponent to make a will save (attack vs. will defense now) or suffer the Marked condition. I don't see what you were trying to correct...I claim differently. Even one more roll doubles the amount of time requires to process the results. Humans are not computers, we require a certain amount of time to process calculate even simple comparisons (is 15 high than the AC?), and even if you roll the dice at the same time, the calculations are different and need to be done separately. For humans, there is a huge difference between needing to make a calculation and not needing to, unlike with computers.Did I ever dispute that? Of course D&D require a group of friends to win. It always has, and it always will so long as it remains a tabletop RPG.My problem was that you are citing this as 1) a change from 3E to 4E, and 2) influenced by videogames, which itself is predicated on the assumption that 3) videogames (as a medium) require friends in order to win.Issue 1 is false, because nothing has changed in this regard from 3E to 4E. 3E assumed a default party of a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard just as much as 4E assumes a Defender, Striker, Leader, and Controller. Encounters, treasure, CR, et cetera were all based on those assumptions in 3E, just as they are in 4E. The only difference is that 4E makes this assumption more flexible and explicit. For all purposes related to this particular discussion nothing has changed.Much more importantly, issue 3 is false, and that is what I was trying to imply last time. The vast majority of videogames don't "require friends to win". The only games where that is even 75% true are MMORPGs, but you specifically discounted those when you clarified that you meant "arcade games" by the term "videogames". Almost every arcade game ever made, and certainly most made in recent years, are either designed to be played alone or played competitively against another player. The only exceptions I can think of are the "beat 'em up" games like Final Fight or the old TMNT arcade games, but those are designed to work just as well for a single player as a group of players, and they certainly don't involve anything resembling 4E's Roles...If, by some chance, you were referring to needing a group of "characters", rather than group of "friends", then your argument still falters somewhat. Even in games that normally require giant teams of characters people still try to do "solo runs", and often succeed. Look these up on youtube if you are curious.Vague use of the term "red herring" aside... I was just trying to make the point that your ideas of "needing a team of set roles to win" that you claim is a "videogamey" influence on D&D just as equally applies to being a "sport" influence on D&D. You don't go into a game of basketball without people who can shoot, people who can pass, and people who can defend. This is a much closer parallel to D&D's Roles than almost anything you will see in videogames, and is certainly closer than anything you will see in arcade games in particular. It just doesn't work well as a "videogamey" influence when there are clearer alternative sources of the supposed influence. I mean, they even explained the Leader role using the basketball point guard as an analogy on the D&D website!As for the "switch" to single player games... You never specified "multiplayer videogame influence", and even now you use Street fighter and Mortal Kombat as examples. So long as the discussion is wide open enough to refer to a variety of games, then "switching" to talking about single player games is not hard at all. This is why the blanket term "videogamey" is so deeply flawed. It lets people squirrel around with defintions and leads to contradictory interpretations and miscommunication. If you have a particular game in mind, then name it. You do realize that your example is a bit biased, right? You are comparing two characters who are recolors of each other. Those two were designed to be mirror images of each other, and both play pretty differently than other characters in that series.Let me use a contradictory example, though not from Mortal Kombat since it has been a decade since I played one of those games (I am sometimes surprised it is still around, really).Look at the characters Chipp Zanuff and Baiken from the Guilty Gear series (same genre as Mortal Kombat). Chipp Zanuff is a fast, weak, close-range guy who can't do a lot of damage, and specializes in using hit-and-run attacks with quick attack combos (particularly his Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Blade combos) and teleportation moves. Baiken is a slow, mid-range character who specializes in interrupting the enemy and counter-attacking. More than half of her special moves can only be executed while defending from an enemy attack, including her best Overdrive attack. They don't play anything alike, and you can be very skilled with one and completely suck at the other (I am fairly good with Chipp, but I can't even pull off Baiken's counters...). There is nothing about them that really is directly comparable, since they don't even have the same raw number of moves.The entire point of that movie is that "being super" was about heroism and how a person lives their life with what they have been given. The villain who made that statement completely failed to be "super" even with all of his gadgets and technological powers. Rewatch the movie and wait for when the villain tries to act like a hero in front of a crowd, and watch how flawed his idea of 'super" was.Besides, if you got Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Aristotle, Beethoven, Julius Ceasar, and a professional athlete of your choice into the same room at the same time, no one would think that being in the same room somehow would diminish their awesomeness. It would just make the gathering more awesome. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> There is a lot of stuff thrown together here, too much to really pull apart easily, though I think there is a "two characters using the exact same powers will be similar!" in there...None of this is even relevant to the "is 4E videogamey" discussion, and is instead just a complaint about the change from 3E to 4E, so I won't get into it.Earlier you said "I don't think there were really any problems until 3.0 and then 3.5 when "balance" became an issue/goal". Since you said this in the middle of a discussion about the videogame influence on D&D, my assumption that you were saying videogames were the cause of this change is perfectly reasonable.If you don't want people to make incorrect assumptions about what you are claiming, then write more clearly and don't go wildly off-topic without explicitly saying that you are no longer talking about videogames....Go ahead. If you want to negate my point, then bring out one of these quotes that will do so. Until then, my point stands.No, my opinions don't "disprove" your assertions, but it means you haven't "proven" them yourself. Since the basic idea of a debate is that you are trying change people's opinions, you can't just ignore opinions other than your own if you want to continue the debate.Please point to where this mechanic exists in Final Fantasy games (or at least the first ten), or the Dragon Quest games, or any other non-tactical videogame RPG, for that matter. It doesn't.Or, moving beyond videogame RPGs, please point to any specific mechanic in any videogame that closely resembles an Attack of Opportunity. Note that it have to more closely resemble the Attack of Opportunity mechanic than the "Attacks of Opportunity" that occur in real world combat for me to accept it as a true "videogame influence" upon D&D. So, for example, action games like Devil May Cry and fighting games like Soul Calibur don't qualify.This argument applies equally well to saying it makes D&D more like a tabletop wargame. In addition, I remind you again that a lot of videogames don't make tactical movement all that important. Even in a lot of action games, the only important factor is your rough relative position to the enemy. Ultimately, they only really care whether you are dodging and shooting back or not; they care about twitch movement rather than tactical movement. In first person shooters, for example, it is incredibly easy to lose your bearings and forget where you are standing in the room while fighting, and an FPS that punishes you for getting lost like that is one that is flawed. Stupid Metroid Prime hiding the phazon pits while you are looking up at enemies above you...Then would you please clarify what you really meant?</blockquote>

Verification