Why Changes were made in 4e

[AllisterH]

It's funny. If changing how ghost sound works is such a major change that a CRPG wouldn't be 4e, how can the cumulative (and far more substantive) changes of 4e (and 3e) still be D&D?

Seems to me that this is a "have it both ways" kind of argument. Either these are major changes (and therefore the CRPG isn't 4e, but claims that 4e is D&D from the same folks become suspect) or these are trite changes (and there are not problems in accepting that the changes in the CRPG discussion are very minor changes, and that 4e is far more ammenable to CRPG play than previous editions are).

One way or the other!




RC

Nice try but you're both ignoring the actual thread.

1. The original assertion was that the changes made to 4e were to make it palatable to a real time MMORPG a.k.a WoW-lite. I think I proved quite conclusively that 4e is perhaps the worst set of rules to adapt to realtime.

D&D across all versions has always been better served in a turn based game and while possible to make ANY version of D&D into a real time game, a tactical turn based/grid based RPG is definitely easier to code and IMO, the only way to do a good job for 4e.

2. The OTHER argument is that the same power structure makes it easy to code. Again, this is quite wrong as the wizard and sorceror in previous editions didn't actually NEED changing. Their spells did but it was quite possible to have a wizard in cRPG that has the exact same spells/abilities as your tabletop version. The 4e version of a D&D wizard is going to have to modify the actual class itself SINCE the class abilities are too free ranging (they would probably be coded to have a specific effect just like how polymorph in most cRPGs only allows for specific changes).

This of couse ignores that the martial classes in 4e have way more class features (a.k.a their powers) than before....

Quite frankly, the idea that 4e was designed for computer RPGs is just plain weird since WOTC went in pretty much the opposite direction from where it should be (the more simulationist a RPG is, the EASIER it is to code)

 

[Betote]

Quite frankly, the idea that 4e was designed for computer RPGs is just plain weird since WOTC went in pretty much the opposite direction from where it should be (the more simulationist a RPG is, the EASIER it is to code)

I think it's more true that 4e was designed from computer RPGs (among other sources). And that was a good decision: only fools refuse taking advantage of something that works.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

1. The original assertion was that the changes made to 4e were to make it palatable to a real time MMORPG a.k.a WoW-lite. I think I proved quite conclusively that 4e is perhaps the worst set of rules to adapt to realtime.

I don't think you proved that at all.

2. The OTHER argument is that the same power structure makes it easy to code. Again, this is quite wrong as the wizard and sorceror in previous editions didn't actually NEED changing. Their spells did but it was quite possible to have a wizard in cRPG that has the exact same spells/abilities as your tabletop version. The 4e version of a D&D wizard is going to have to modify the actual class itself SINCE the class abilities are too free ranging (they would probably be coded to have a specific effect just like how polymorph in most cRPGs only allows for specific changes).

Yeah, but spells basically ARE class features for Wizards in 3e. They don't get any other abilities. Wizards are instead defined by what their spells do in 3e.

I don't know any Wizard in 4e who defines themselves by their ability to use Cantrip in 4e. Even if it is a class feature, it isn't one that gets used often. They are instead fire wizards or illusion wizards or close burst wizards or something.

Whereas, I'd say a good majority of 3e spells can't be translated correctly into a computer game at all. Some can. A lot more can be approximated. But there are at least 30% of them that wouldn't be translatable at all. Things like all the illusion spells, all the charm spells, all the polymorph spells, and virtually all spells that require you to make a decision on anything other than target upon casting make poor spells for a computer game. Especially a real time one.

In 4e, the number of powers that you'd have difficulty translating to a computer game is probably closer to 5%. The power system IS much easier to code into a game.

Quite frankly, the idea that 4e was designed for computer RPGs is just plain weird since WOTC went in pretty much the opposite direction from where it should be (the more simulationist a RPG is, the EASIER it is to code)

You don't understand these terms at all, do you? Simulation means simulating exactly how an object works. If you have a dagger, it should be able to be thrown, used as a melee weapon, used as an improvised lock pick, used to pry open crates, able to cut food, can fit into your boot, etc. It's nearly impossible to code because of the millions of different interactions you can have between objects, spells, feats, class features, and so on. It's also what makes it difficult to balance.

That's the idea of simulation. Which is the philosophy of 3e. 4e philosophy is to allow the rules to define the game. It says that dagger is a thrown weapon that is a light blade with a +3 proficiency bonus that does 1d4 damage. If a power is usable with light blades, it works. You add the bonuses together in the standard way and the power functions as usual.

It is so much easier to code into a computer game that it's nearly overwhelming. On the other hand, I don't believe the change was made TO make it easier to code into a computer game. These changes were instead made to make things easier to balance. As I mentioned before. The more interactions you need to worry about, the harder it is to balance.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I may be late to the "15 minute adventuring day" party, but here goes...

In my experience, the 15 minute adventuring day wasn't as much a cause as an effect. Once the campaign got to level 7 or so in 3.5E, combat slowed way down. Due to how long combat took, we'd be lucky to get in 2 fights in a single night. Most DMs didn't want to be bothered with tracking resources between game sessions, so basically either ruled or designed rests at the end of each gaming night. When you know you're only going to face one or two fights, there really isn't much reason not to go supernova and just blow everything, which is what people did.

 

[Reigan]

I wonder if facilitating online play (with pick-up groups as well as with an ongoing group) was driver for many of the changes in 4e rather than trying to create something that can be directly ported as a crpg or MMO. This overcomes the issues with interrupts etc. that would cause problems playing as a computer game in real time. It also explains why the grid is so important, it wasn't to sell miniatures.

One of the ways that rpgs like D&D are going to survive into the future is by playing to the advantages they have over MMOs like WoW, like a real life DM who can provide an infinite variety of plots and allow for characters to react "out of the box". If this can be transfered online you can overcome the big disadvantage TRPGs have in that it's much more difficult to get a group together around a table once a week or whatever.

If you are going to play online, perhaps with new people, the other players and especially the dm need to know quickly what characters are capable of. This leads to the sharply defined class roles and the reduced variance in character capability. You need to know the guy who says he has a fighter can do the defender role, in 3e a fighter can mean a whole host of things (I also think this is why 4e didn't end up like Saga).

This also leads directly to the similarities with WoW, the playability and clear cut effect of powers etc. are needed if you are going to play regularly with new people you don't know.

In the end the VTT never made it (yet), but if it does become reality and people do want to do the WoW style "looking for group thing", 4e will do that much better than 3e.

(Note: some of this if from an original post I made on rpgnet)

 

[Miphon]

You don't understand these terms at all, do you? Simulation means simulating exactly how an object works. If you have a dagger, it should be able to be thrown, used as a melee weapon, used as an improvised lock pick, used to pry open crates, able to cut food, can fit into your boot, etc. It's nearly impossible to code because of the millions of different interactions you can have between objects, spells, feats, class features, and so on. It's also what makes it difficult to balance.

That's the idea of simulation. Which is the philosophy of 3e. 4e philosophy is to allow the rules to define the game. It says that dagger is a thrown weapon that is a light blade with a +3 proficiency bonus that does 1d4 damage. If a power is usable with light blades, it works. You add the bonuses together in the standard way and the power functions as usual.

And 3.5 says a dagger is a simple light melee weapon that can be thrown and does piercing or slashing damage. Neither edition goes out of their way to define other "real world" uses for a dagger.

And in my opinion, 4E's philosophy is not to "allow the rules to define the game", but rather to let each and every group define the game that is most suited to their playstyle and is fun for them. Admittedly, most of this philosophy is evident in the DMG so a strict reading of the rules-heavy PHB may not do the best job of conveying this philosophy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. The original assertion was that the changes made to 4e were to make it palatable to a real time MMORPG a.k.a WoW-lite. I think I proved quite conclusively that 4e is perhaps the worst set of rules to adapt to realtime.

Not even remotely. You asserted that this is so, but you haven't shown anything AFAICT which actually supports that assertion.

My comment was related to the idea that the minor changes required to use 4e's ghost sound in a MMORG were somehow evidence of the same, when even a cursory glance would demonstrate that (1) the same problem would exist in any edition, and often it would be larger, (2) the same problem would exist for a greater number of spells in any other edition.

My comment was also related to the idea that the changes required to work 4e's ghost sound into a MMORG were so great that it wouldn't be 4e, but the changes in 4e itself are not so great that it is still D&D. What a great bloody sliding bar for standards!

The 4e version of a D&D wizard is going to have to modify the actual class itself SINCE the class abilities are too free ranging

Examples of specific problems that you see?

Quite frankly, the idea that 4e was designed for computer RPGs is just plain weird since WOTC went in pretty much the opposite direction from where it should be (the more simulationist a RPG is, the EASIER it is to code)

I don't know that I agree that "the more simulationist a RPG is, the EASIER it is to code" as I cannot think of any example of a CRPG that I would agree is "simulationist".

I would also think that the "4e designed for MMORG" meme is compounded by the announcement that specific tools (electronic tabletop, for example) would exist that would include per force at least some of the coding required for the creation of a MMORG, by MMORG terminology in the rules (striker, etc.), and by the wording of the GSL, which strictly limits 3pp software production.

It is difficult to simultaneously accept that the online portion of the game will be a major part of the 4e experience, and yet that WotC would limit the online portion of the game by intentionally making the rules difficult to code.

If you wanted to actually prove that 4e would be the worst (rather than the best) version of D&D to turn into a MMORG, you would need to provide specific examples of difficulties, and explain (rather than merely assert) why these would be more difficult than similar portions of previous editions to code.

I don't have a stake in it either way. I don't know whether you are right or not. Honestly, I don't care if WotC wants to turn 4e into a MMORG -- I would be thinking along those lines, quite probably, if I was WotC because there is a lot of money there. In fact, I would create a "world" where individual DMs could plug in their "modules" and online players could play with whatever DMs are online, keeping continuity of character over a very wide sandbox. (Some of the TOS, unless now changed, made me think that WotC was going in that direction with the DI - specifically the term that the material a DM uploaded into the virtual tabletop would become forever usable by WotC without payment of royalties.)

It still wouldn't change the main game into a MMORG, it would certainly promote interest in the game, and it would be a lot of fun. It might even, eventually, allow people to professionally DM. I would be happy to see such a setup. It might even make me want to play 4e.

But I still know that the "proof" of your position is lacking.


RC

 

[AllisterH]

k, let me try again with an actual example.

Let's assume that 4e is designed to mimic a MMORPG. Now, there are 2 types of RPG - turnbased and real time. However, the most common and successful MMoRPG are all real time.

There _ARE_ turn based MMoRPG (Atlantica online is the best/most popular turn-based one and it's not grid based) but to my knowledge, it's not even original EQ level of popularity.

(Funny thing is that it got hailed as being "Innovative" for being turn based AND it gets rated highly because it is not a twitch game and requires thinking)

That said, given that 4e has almost always been compared to WoW and other popular MMoRPGs like Guild Wars, iit would be safe to assume that 4e should make a great real time system.

Now, let's take a simple power.

The Fighter's "Tide of Iron". The ability to push the target can be done in both real time and turn based. However, in real time, you LOSE the major benefit of the power, namely, the ability to SET UP an advantageous situation for the next character since unless the other character has a twitch finger, the pushed enemy will simply move back into the spot where it was pushed from (Remember, the other character has to choose the right power as well so how fast can you cycle through your options?)

Similarly, the problem occurs with interrupt powers. You can code it in both real time and turn based but in real time, you lose the ability to actually choose what interrupt power to use and whether or not you even WANT to use it since you only get 1 immediate reaction per round.

Perhaps that explains better why 4e as a real time MMoRPG would be a laughable failure. The best computer combat RPG analogue to 4e is Disgaea IMO. Turn based AND Grid-based

 

[Imban]

The Fighter's "Tide of Iron". The ability to push the target can be done in both real time and turn based. However, in real time, you LOSE the major benefit of the power, namely, the ability to SET UP an advantageous situation for the next character since unless the other character has a twitch finger, the pushed enemy will simply move back into the spot where it was pushed from (Remember, the other character has to choose the right power as well so how fast can you cycle through your options?)

This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Tide of Iron is at will, so an opportunity comes every few seconds.

But yeah, I generally can't think of a MMO where forced positioning is a big deal. Positioning is a big deal in Guild Wars, and luring people into AoE death is an easy way to ruin a low-end team utterly, but there's not really stuff in the vein of "knock your enemy exactly where you want them", mostly because people are usually free to start leaving where you positioned them immediately, instead of when their turn comes around.

On the other hand, powers would just be on hotkeys - I mean, you only have about 10 powers, 2/3 of which basically just replace your autoattacks. The control setup there wouldn't be much different from most MMORPGs, or Neverwinter Nights, for that matter.

EDIT: Of course, there are plenty of reasons that you wouldn't want to adapt 4e to an MMORPG directly, starting with the loot rules. If you can't see why they wouldn't really work in an MMORPG, go play basically any of them for more than a few hours.

 

[Hussar]

Good grief. Are we REALLY having this discussion?

For how many years did people tell us that 3e was all about turning D&D into an MMO or a CRPG. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of those who claimed that are posting in this very thread about 4e. Yet, we're still going around about this? Come on.

4e is probably about as difficult or as easy to port onto the computer as any other edition. Considering that EVERY EDITION has been brought onto the computer, claiming that one is easier than another or that it's designed that way is ridiculous.