Whats Wrong with Ganking CRPG Stuff???

[Glyfair]

I suspect the current designers feel that they can steal back some of the thunder from the WoW-market by aping many of the same processes, especially those that drive play. But why should somebody choose D&D over the CRPG that does this automatically, anyway?r

And I think this is part of the issue here. Some take this POV and stretch it to "D&D can't take anything from a CRPG, because a CRPG will always do it better."

I agree with the POV that if something works in D&D, then it doesn't matter where it comes from. D&D shouldn't become a MMORPG on the tabletop. That would be a step backwards. I don't really believe more the a handful of people really think that's what they are trying to do.

Things like this are will work there way into D&D. As long as players and designers play both, there will be those who see things that work in one medium and consider how it will work in the other medium. Unlike what a few may believe (and try to convince others to believe) some things will translate very well. Others won't. A large group will be in the middle with some loving the translation and some disliking it. On the internet there seems to be large numbers of people who need to consider those who take the opposition position as "wrong" (and it tends to be the negative more than the positive, for various reasons).

On the other hand, I think there is a crowd who is actively looking for things like this to point out to "bash" 4E. Why else make such a big deal about such things as "quest cards" which are specifically described as something suggested to try in 4E (rather than being a "hardwired" part of the game).

 

[Rechan]

I guess there is a slippery slope argument you can use here (if we're quantifying combat, why not mechanize motivations as well), but I think the addition of assigned motivations on cards is a line I wouldn't want to cross.

You seem to assume that basically all the cards are created four days before the game and that the Dm just hands them out and that means "Hey, now you only have one option to get this fat xp, and if you don't do it NO XP FOR YOU".

As I said in another thread, giving xp for killing monsters is just railroading PCs to kill monsters to get XP. PCs wont' avoid monsters because they have to defeat them. So instead of going AROUND the haunted wood, they go THROUGH it so they can defeat things and get xps.

The better option is just to write down the quest card after the PCs pick up the quest in the first place. Because the quest card is just a memory device so that when you're in the 3rd level of the dungeon, three sessions from when you pick up the quest, and you turn to your friend and say "Why the hell are we in this demon infested rat hole in the first place?" And he can whip out his quest card instead of shrugging his shoulders and saying "I don't know."

For people who play once or twice a month, it's real easy to go "What are we doing again?" Having a tangible thing tht says "oh, this is our mission" is easy.

But the DM doesn't have to hand them the card first. They could talk to the Baron and decide "No, we're not going to do that." They could meet someone along the way that offers them a different in-game reward for the item that the Baron wants - so they get a card for that guy, and they just decide "Do we give it to the Baron, or do we give it to this guy? What do you guys think?"

 

[Henry]

And to counterpoint:

As a whole, #1...is a statement that does not apply to rules, just presentation and DMing style. It can't be logically used as the basis for arguing against the inclusion of a rule.

Indeed, it has less to do with rules, and more to do with perceptions. The original question was about taking ideas from CRPGs, not just rules. The more you take from CRPGs, the more possibility that you begin to restrict what makes tabletop fun in the first place -- the social component and the "collaborative chaos."

Your second argument is simply illogical. So long as there is a DM to interpret events and rules, and there is freedom to create houserules, then tabletop RPGs will always maintain a less closed and finite set of rules than a videogame (though because of flexible rules, the possibility of modding, and simple player agreements to do things a certain way, I don't think videogames are so closed and finite as this argument assumes). Also, boardgames like chess and the wargames that D&D evolved from are far more closed and finite than videogames are, yet there is not such a backlash against their influence on the game here in these forums.

One cannot take the "anti-CRPG" backlash in a vaccuum -- it often goes hand-in-hand with the debates on "DM as final authority" versus "taking the DM out of the equation." When people get in arguments about rules minutiae because everything is so spelled out, and then people see a peek behind the curtain where Aggro rules were, at the least, briefly, tested for D&D 4e to give guidelines on who a monster should be upset with, it causes that same dread that the designers are listening more to the people who want to reduce DM involvement as much as possible than they are to the people who want DMs to have more involvement with the rules decisions at the game table. (As an aside, no matter how many mods and rules changes to a computer game, without at least one real-time GM handling rules problems and player decisions, it will always be finite.) And while boardgames and wargames were more finite than RPGs, it's what RPGs grew OUT of, not into. In my opinion, it would be a regression, not an advance, to make Tabletop RPGs too much like computer RPGs.

I'm personally all for seeing designers grab a neat idea from a computer game - maybe it's a monetary system, or maybe it's a cool power that would make a great feat or spell. But I can definitely see that if D&D ever started talking about "monster spawning points," or "aggro rules," or "how to handle monster trains," I'd say it needs to put on the brakes and stop the insanity. As it is, even the per-encounter resources shift, though fun too, makes me a bit leery, as it changes a very important assumption in-game about pacing and strategy that's been around since 1974.

 

[Rechan]

One cannot take the "anti-CRPG" backlash in a vaccuum -- it often goes hand-in-hand with the debates on "DM as final authority" versus "taking the DM out of the equation." When people get in arguments about rules minutiae because everything is so spelled out, and then people see a peek behind the curtain where Aggro rules were, at the least, briefly, tested for D&D 4e to give guidelines on who a monster should be upset with, it causes that same dread that the designers are listening more to the people who want to reduce DM involvement as much as possible than they are to the people who want DMs to have more involvement with the rules decisions at the game table.

Just to throw that out there - some DMs actually may prefer this.

I say this because, DMing can be a real pain. And making decisions as to whether a PC get away with X or not can be real irritating.

And ultimately, there won't be "NPCs have to react this way" rules, making it all pre-scripted. The DM will always have some control of the world. The final mitigator of the rules? Eh.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There's nothing at all wrong with doing so.

I can see no good reason why fiction books, comics, movies, TV shows, board games, card games, miniature games, wargames, computer games, console games, MMOs, roleplaying games and any kind of hybrid can't - or shouldn't - benefit from the concepts and/or design features and/or aesthetics of any of the others.

Plus anything I missed, of course.

Not to mention, there is a hell of a lot of crossover already. So, I guess it's a workable theory.

 

[The Green Adam]

I think the stigma comes from something pretty basic. We're damn proud and protective of our game. Originally, many computer games were based on D&D, and that felt kind of cool. Now, we're embarrassed and insecure that D&D is borrowing design aspects of video games. We're no longer the innovator. The balance of popularity has changed, and it's galling.

For me, anyways.

This is a big part of it. For me its also conceptual...why base an unlimited potential on a limited one? To put it another way, I've never liked online MMORGs as much as Table-Top RPGs because, having experienced both, I am aware of the limited nature of computer games. You can only reach X Level, you can only be Class Y if you are Race Z and so forth. There are only so many missions and so many abilities to choose and the like. Instead of a WoW-like Talent Tree, I'd rather see an M&M-like system for designing and building any talent or power you can dream up.

I'm not saying there aren't some really cool ideas in video and computer games but the more I read about 4E the more it seems like die mechanics applied to a computer game then a traditional RPG inspired by or influenced by computer games.

Just IMHO

 

[KingCrab]

The better option is just to write down the quest card after the PCs pick up the quest in the first place. Because the quest card is just a memory device so that when you're in the 3rd level of the dungeon, three sessions from when you pick up the quest, and you turn to your friend and say "Why the hell are we in this demon infested rat hole in the first place?" And he can whip out his quest card instead of shrugging his shoulders and saying "I don't know."

I can appreciate cards as memory devices for spells, conditions, feats, and many other things. I can't appreciate them for motivation unless every player writes down their own individual motivation on their own personal card. Every player might have a different reason for why they went into the demon infested rat hole. Every player might have a different goal in the demon infested rat hole. For the DM to give out a card and say, "this here is your quest", it's just not a good idea. It doesn't encourage the kind of gaming I'm interested in. This sort of thing is necessary in CRPG's it isn't needed here and doesn't add to the RPG gaming experience.

 

[Li Shenron]

There's a difference tho between stealing cool ideas and steering the whole game to work more like a CRPG. The first is never bad, the second if taken too far might make gamers question why they should play a RPG that tries to be like a CRPG and not play the CRPG instead, which does itself better.

 

[Rechan]

I can appreciate cards as memory devices for spells, conditions, feats, and many other things. I can't appreciate them for motivation unless every player writes down their own individual motivation on their own personal card. Every player might have a different reason for why they went into the demon infested rat hole. Every player might have a different goal in the demon infested rat hole. For the DM to give out a card and say, "this here is your quest", it's just not a good idea. It doesn't encourage the kind of gaming I'm interested in. This sort of thing is necessary in CRPG's it isn't needed here and doesn't add to the RPG gaming experience.

How did you miss this?

Quests can be major or minor, they can involve the whole group or just a single character's personal goals, and they have levels just like encounters do.

The idea of quest rewards is nothing new to D&D. Second Edition, in particular, promoted the idea of giving story rewards of experience points when players completed adventures. The quest rules in 4th Edition are directly descended from that idea, integrated into the economy of rewards in the game. They're a rules wrapper around the story of the game, a way to keep players mindful of the purposes behind all their adventuring.

When the players have cards or some other visual representation of their quests, it's easy for them to remember what they're supposed to be doing -- and to sort out goals that might be contradictory. That's a really interesting ramification of the quest system: It's okay to give the players quests they don't complete, quests that conflict with each other, or quests that conflict with the characters' alignments and values.

So let's see, we have:

Individual personal quests along with party quests.

Story awards and xp for quests pre-existed in D&D.

Your quests can conflict among party members, alignment, etc.

So please explain to me what your problem is. Is it the fact that PCs get xp for meeting goals? Is it the fact that these goals are written down on cards? Is it the fact that this is merely a suggestion in the 4e DMG? that might help out some DMs? Do you use all the suggestions and advice in the DMG?

As expressed in the Quests thread, many people wished they had thought of this sooner; obviously it's adding something for their game. So what is it about "you might want to write down when you get a potential story award opportunity" offends you?

 

[howandwhy99]

What's wrong with stealing ideas from CRPGs?

Nothing. We should be stealing rule ideas from everywhere. LARPs. SCA. Wherever.

The key 2 points to remember however:

1. A tabletop Ref cannot do everything a computer can do.
2. A computer cannot do everything a tabletop Ref can do.

As systems are generally designed to be run, it's best to design form by following viable function.