Two suggestions: 1). If you want people to rally around your cause, please say more than "it's like a video game". After all, wizardy 1 was released in 1981 with fighter wizard cleric rogue and so every version of d&d with the core four since then has been like a video game.
This premise is false. Having classes named the same as D&D does not make a video game like D&D. There's this little thing called ROLEPLAYING that is required for something to be a ROLEPLAYING game. Video games don't have that.
Two suggestions: 1). If you want people to rally around your cause, please say more than "it's like a video game". After all, wizardy 1 was released in 1981 with fighter wizard cleric rogue and so every version of d&d with the core four since then has been like a video game.
This premise is false. Having classes named the same as D&D does not make a video game like D&D. There's this little thing called ROLEPLAYING that is required for something to be a ROLEPLAYING game. Video games don't have that.
Max, your argument, though cogent, implies that since D&D has roleplaying, and no videogame has roleplay, then no video game is like D&D. Which is only 1 step away from saying "D&D is not like any video game". Which means, by your argument, whether raise dead is impossible, costs 1 CON, or is free is completely irrelevant to making D&D "more videogamey", since non of those affect roleplaying, only how people access their roles.
Similarly, whether the Fighter casts spells out of his wand, since that just affects the role he's playing, not whether he roleplays.
I'm not saying your argument isn't a breath of fresh air, but I don't see how you can reconcile your argument that videogames aren't roleplaying with any video game being like D&D.
But, honestly, your argument feels a bit too black and white for me. I get that you're defining an RPG by the infinite sandbox feeling -- that it isn't a RPG unless you can randomly attempt to scale Mt Everest or kick over a sandcastle. I hear your argument, I believe, but I don't think it's 100% agreed upon here. I mean, many games are immersive, and so have you playing a role, and I'd argue that the best of those involve roleplaying. Maybe not infinite sandbox roleplaying, but roleplaying.
I'm tempted to believe that the number of people arguing that WoW and 4e are the same means that people often disagree with your strict definition.
Max, your argument, though cogent, implies that since D&D has roleplaying, and no videogame has roleplay, then no video game is like D&D. Which is only 1 step away from saying "D&D is not like any video game". Which means, by your argument, whether raise dead is impossible, costs 1 CON, or is free is completely irrelevant to making D&D "more videogamey", since non of those affect roleplaying, only how people access their roles.
True. However, infinite lives puts the game on easy street and a huge number of people lose interest in games that hold little challenge. That alone is reason enough to to make raise dead extremely easy to come by as a base rule.
Similarly, whether the Fighter casts spells out of his wand, since that just affects the role he's playing, not whether he roleplays.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say there. That sentence is not written very well. Mind re-stating it?
I'm not saying your argument isn't a breath of fresh air, but I don't see how you can reconcile your argument that videogames aren't roleplaying with any video game being like D&D.
Obviously there will be elements that are included in both types of games. The critical difference between the two is actual roleplaying. That one element is an incredibly large portion of D&D. Even with all other elements being the same, the lack of roleplaying in a video game will make that game play far differently than D&D does.
But, honestly, your argument feels a bit too black and white for me. I get that you're defining an RPG by the infinite sandbox feeling -- that it isn't a RPG unless you can randomly attempt to scale Mt Everest or kick over a sandcastle.
Nah. Deciding to go over to the Black Forest instead of to the Dark Woods is not roleplaying. Stepping into a role and acting it out is roleplaying.
I hear your argument, I believe, but I don't think it's 100% agreed upon here. I mean, many games are immersive, and so have you playing a role, and I'd argue that the best of those involve roleplaying. Maybe not infinite sandbox roleplaying, but roleplaying.
You're not really, though. You're simply picking from among the limited choices presented to you.
I'm tempted to believe that the number of people arguing that WoW and 4e are the same means that people often disagree with your strict definition.
Heh. I rather think that most people doing that are simply trying to slam 4e, rather than actually believing what they are saying.
You can do that RP in online video games as well as you can in PnP. The only difference is the vast number of people that inhabit the online world with you don't play that way so you sort of stick out.
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions. D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.
World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME. D&D is an RPG. They are very, very different types of games.
World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and Dungeons and Dragons is a TTRPG. Both are RPGs.
No. Video games are misclassified as RPGs. They are not RPGs since all you do is run around playing a video game with other people. Unless you are on a roleplaying specific server (and the vast majority of people on those don't roleplay, either), there is no roleplaying involved.
I heavily disagree. I believe that every game that is a RPG shares what it makes to be an RPG. So eletronical and MMO RPGs and table-top RPGs, I believe that everyone of them is RPGs. That and the most -if not all- limitations of the eletronical/MMO RPGs exist basically because of the technology.
I do not have played Vancian extensively but I know lots of magic systems that don't have at-will magic and they do it fine. I think that the LoF needs to get nerfed. But I think that the entire Cleric class needs a rework for balance purposes, especially the Arcanist deity. The more I think about the Cleric class, the more I think that it needs a rework. They have many spells and good Hit dice and armor and weapons and Expertise. They have too many uses of Channel Divinity, without talking about broken things like some Channel Divinity options, the Arcanist deity and Battlefield Concentration. Right now, I think that Clerics should be nerfed. And Wizards now are underpowered, so they need a buff. Also I suggested a module/dial that removes at-will magic and still maintains balance. Some people would like that. Right now I think that every damage dealer cantrip should be nerfed. Their big thing is not the at-wills, they shouldn't rely on them too much. The at-will cantrips should not overshadow their others spells. Personally, if I would make the magic system of D&D, I would make classic Vancian the standard for most classes (including Wizard and Cleric) and then the expected modules. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB their concept should be playable. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB as a own class, then it's a strong candidate to appear as a own class. I personally don't like folding classes into another ones. Basically when two or more classes are similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold then into one class, or Differentiate them. Of Course, this have very much to do with preferences. I would prefer a game with lots of flavorful and unique classes than few bland classes with no identity. There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
I don't think that Essentials was a smart move, but, in my opinion, one thing that Essentials and post-Essentials 4e do good are character concepts. I don't like the idea of folding classes into another class in the first place. Yes, I don't like the idea of folding the Warlord into the Fighter. Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different.
I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes.
First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless.
Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters.
Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters?
Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management.
Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun.
Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system.
Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
The term "RPG" has expanded beyond its original meaning. Yes, it means a game that involves roleplaying, but it's also become the term for the genre that includes numerical progression through character stats and equipment.
"Contains RPG elements" is what they say when a game like Mass Effect includes its talent point system.
