|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 3:49PM
#1
|
|
|
Down with edition X! Edition X is too much like (insert popular computer game here).
This has been the rallying cry for many players since the announcement of 3e. The edition and game may have changed but the argument remains the same.
Now, I do not feel that 4e really has anything more in common with a game like WoW than 1e, it still interests me how pervasive this argument is. The real question I always ask myself when someone uses this argument is "why is that a bad thing?"
WoW has managed to capture a much larger player base than D&D ever could. WoW has classes that are balanced while still maintaining a unique feel and play style for each. WoW is fun. WoW gives you a wide variety of options. WoW is set in an imaginary fantasy world where the players go from everyday adventures to great heroes saving the world from destruction.
Why are such concepts anathema to so many in the community. WoW has certainly evolved in the 7 years it has been around and has become a more enjoyable game for it. Instead of fearing MMOs D&D should learn from them.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 3:51PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Well, if 5e truly is a 3.x retroclone, then it would be Diablo 3, would it not? /duck 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 3:51PM
#3
|
|
|
I disagree that we should take more from them -- and I'm an MMO Junkie.
But the very last thing I'd want to see is certain specs looked down upon because they aren't considered viable in endgame.
...erm...yannow what, nevermind.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 3:58PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Bah! MMOs.
D&D should learn from 90s-early 00s era fighting games on how to do balance while making everyone feel different.
Especially the wackier ones and the earlier crossovers.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 4:00PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I've said it elsewhere, but:
Ignoring all of the development and experiementation in computer gaming - or any "game" genre - is pure folly. Obviously you don't have exactly the same specific goals, but that doesn't mean you can't take from, and learn from, the various products. In many cases the "problems" they attempt to solve with new mechanics or rules or designs are "problems" that are either univeral to gaming in general, or universal to that particular sub-genre (like "rpg").
For instance, dealing with mechanics for limited-use abilities. While you won't see a lot of innovation or experimentation regarding Vancian mechanics in videogames (because the entire concept was almost entirely discarded many, many years ago now), you can easily look around to see lots and lots and lots and lots of different ways to handle "limited-use abilities" in other ways.
Heck, just within Diablo 3, how many ability-usage subsystems do they have? One for every class?
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 4:09PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2003
|
The MMO thing is ridiculous. 4E was much more like a CCG than an MMO. In my humble opinion, anyhow.
I don't see anything MMO-like in Next at all. But people will take the vaguest similarities and act like it is some sort of plague.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 4:31PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
I've said it elsewhere, but:
Ignoring all of the development and experiementation in computer gaming - or any "game" genre - is pure folly. Obviously you don't have exactly the same specific goals, but that doesn't mean you can't take from, and learn from, the various products. In many cases the "problems" they attempt to solve with new mechanics or rules or designs are "problems" that are either univeral to gaming in general, or universal to that particular sub-genre (like "rpg").
For instance, dealing with mechanics for limited-use abilities. While you won't see a lot of innovation or experimentation regarding Vancian mechanics in videogames (because the entire concept was almost entirely discarded many, many years ago now), you can easily look around to see lots and lots and lots and lots of different ways to handle "limited-use abilities" in other ways.
Heck, just within Diablo 3, how many ability-usage subsystems do they have? One for every class?
Yes, a vancian casting system is not the greatest system to use in computer game. That is a true statement. It's not a good system for the same reason 4e's basic structure is difficult to port over to a MMO. The sheer volume of powers would overwhelm the average player and possibly have an adverse effect on the hardware. It also represents alot of wasted data. A player getting only one power out of x powers tends to be looked down in MMO because resources are too precious in a MMO.
In addition, there's a big difference between a MMO audience and tabletop audience. Stuff has to be tailored to the audience. If a RPG were to take every element from a MMO, why would anyone play a RPG? You get the same experience from a MMO; which easier to access for the most part (no calling players to schedule a time to get together after all).
The MMO / RPG argument is just a ploy to equate to somewhat similar models that have fundamental differences. It's just a method to gain support against something that someone (or a group of someones) doesn't like. In this regard, it's like call any politician a fascist or a socialist. It's probably not true, but it makes the anti-whatever politician feel like they are right.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 4:35PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Down with edition X! Edition X is too much like (insert popular computer game here).
The real question I always ask myself when someone uses this argument is "why is that a bad thing?"
It's Popular, Now It Sucks.
Because it's fashionable to show one's superiority to the unwashed masses by badmouthing things that are popular. And, by extension, one can therefore slander other things one dislikes by comparing them to popular things, therefore demonstrating their obvious inferiority.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 4:49PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
It might have just been a timing thing, since 4E came out right after WoW announced that they were codifying the class roles from "shamans aren't the greatest tank" into "we outright forbid any shaman from trying to be the tank", so I know it was at least at the front of my attention at the time.
Any video game is constructed of rules, the same way a tabletop game is, but video games are under much greater restrictions since they're limited to what the computer can understand and they don't have a living DM there to make sure things run smoothly. As such, the issue wasn't that 4E was incorporating features of WoW, so much as they were incorporating unnecessary features.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 21, 2012 - 5:12PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
What at essence is great about a ttrpg is exactly what separates it from a video game. MMO or not. I have no issue with playing and enjoying those games. But if an rpg fills the same space and no other then it is a poor substitute. Live action, auto resolving combat, is far better then manually rolling dice.
I believe when they say a game is like an MMO or video game (no difference for purposes of the argument), they are saying it has very structured limited options. You choose your actions from a menu without open ended DM adjudication.
I don't think 4e was that bad though. But if you want to insert the true meaning to those statements thats what they are getting at. I do think 4e was too structured. It removed most spells and powers that required DM adjudication. Each power because very crystal clear about what it could do exactly without wiggle room. Thats good for some people but others feel like - why not just play an MMO. Why put up with the downsides of ttrpg's if you don't get the advantages?
Note: I hope this reveals an opinion and is not offensive. It is not intended as such.
|
|
|
