Why I'm done with 4e

[fuzzlewump]

Examples? What you consider a WoW influence on D&D may have actually started out as a D&D influence on WoW!

I think the notion that every class, including classes with no spells, in the game should have interesting options in combat (in the form of at-will, encounter, daily) was an influence from WoW and Diablo.

Which is great, in my opinion.

 

[tyrlaan]

Eh, 4e is like WoW. 4e is not like WoW. Whatever.

For those not taking it into consideration, WoW is somewhat of a success. Extending this notion leads to the logic that mayhaps Blizzard has done a handful of things right to find such success. The root of WoW is RPG. The root of D&D is RPG. Why wouldn't WotC look to WoW for inspiration?

Now, if there are specific aspects of WoW that someone feels were used as inspiration for specific aspects of 4e that are a detriment to the game, that's a topic worthy of discussion (I think). But throwing out the general statement that 4e "steals" from WoW isn't a sensical reason to have issue with 4e. Unless of course you think D&D's been "crap" since it made the "egregious error" of "lifting" ideas from Tolkein.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think what bothers a lot of people about 4e is that the relative weights of the GNS points is significantly different. Gamism still receives a lot of weight, and narrativism has probably received a boost, but simulationism is a much lower priority than it was previously.

Eh, not much lower, because D&D never paid much attention to simulation/whateveryouwanttocallit in the first place. 3e kinda tried to add simulation to the game, but it most often breaks down in the presence of even idle thoughts. So 3e maybe had a 4-out-of-10 simulation rating, then 4e said 'screw this pretense,' and dropped it down to maybe 2-out-of-10.*

I wish 4e were more simulationist/whatever, but it would have to become much more sim than any edition has ever been, or likely ever will be, to make a difference for me.

*These statistics are based entirely on TS's opinion, and should not be construed as facts.

 

[pawsplay]

This definition of "simulation" is the same in which 4e's encounter powers simulate cinematic combat. That is, they simulate a genre - not physics.

As long as you're able to ask "What am I simulating?" anything can be simulationist. IME, when gamers are talking about simulation, they're generally talking about world-simulation, not cinematic simulation or pulp simulation.

-O

You're equivocating. I am not talking about genre simulation, I am talking about simulating physics within a genre. You said "world-simulation" but you didn't say what world. Simulation does not have to be realistical at all; if it were, anything with dragons and magic would already be on its way out the door.

 

[Obryn]

You're equivocating. I am not talking about genre simulation, I am talking about simulating physics within a genre. You said "world-simulation" but you didn't say what world. Simulation does not have to be realistical at all; if it were, anything with dragons and magic would already be on its way out the door.

I agree that you can simulate things that aren't reality. But if you make "simulationism" conditional, and allow its use for simulation of a genre, almost any game mechanic suddenly becomes simulationist.

Let's take your discussion of Hit Points...

Conan, like most action heroes, can withstand a lot of combat. High hit points simulate Conan getting hacked at by brigands and walking away with only flesh wounds and bruises.

OK - for what it's worth, I agree. That's exactly what hit points mean.

Now, let's talk Minions, everyone's favorite, using your same argument.

"The orc rabble, like most mooks in action movies, can't last long in combat. 1 HP simulates the orc getting put out of a fight as soon as a hero does anything to them."

All of a sudden, minions are simulationist. I love minions, but I don't know that I'm comfortable with that categorization.

Now, we can move on to solos - the 4e creatures with 4x HPs.

"A Red Dragon, like most big, epic fantasy monsters, has a lot more staying power than your average hero, being able to take on whole armies. High HPs simulate the dragon's staying power, and ability to face down hordes of enemies and perhaps surviving."

Or, my example of encounter powers...

"Action heroes usually have a few signature moves that they can do in a fight, but which they don't use over and over again - even if it's clearly the most effective thing they could do. Encounter (and Daily) powers simulate the genre by giving characters these signature moves, without allowing them to do them repeatedly."


Once you broaden the term "simulationist" enough, everything is potentially simulationist. I think that the common usage among gamers, though, carries an implication that game rules should be expressions of in-world physics - and not expressions of genre conventions. Which is why, IMO, hit points should never be considered simulationist at all.

-O

 

[tyrlaan]

I agree with O on this. If I were to categorize the 1hp minion, hit points, and encounter/daily powers according to GNS, I'd go with Narrativist.

Now I'm not convinced that was WotC's conscious intent when building those mechanics, so they probably (almost certainly) have gamist roots, but they "make sense" in a game world (to me) by seeing them under a Narrativist-colored lens.

 

[LostSoul]

I agree with O on this. If I were to categorize the 1hp minion, hit points, and encounter/daily powers according to GNS, I'd go with Narrativist.

[Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​

 

[Obryn]

[Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​

We're D&D players. It's enough that we're spelling the terms correctly.

-O

 

[Garthanos]

[Narrativism] requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.​

Narrativist game features would be any feature which aides that process. Minions demonstrate the fragility of the everyman. I consider that a problematic feature of human existence. (I use minions as allies)

 

[Ourph]

I don't think that minions (just like most other game elements) can necssarily be filed in a single GNS category. As Garthanos points out, they can be used as tools in a Narrative episode. They could also be considered Simulationist tools (i.e. we're simulating the S&S or wire-fu genre, where heroes cleave through roomsful of enemies). But minions also have plenty of gamist elements. A 20th level minion with huge attack and damage numbers but only a single hit point is definitely a Gamist construct. The rules are prioritizing the creation of an opponent who represents a certain type of challenge. The rule that minions take no damage on a miss is also (IMO) a Gamist consideration.