Learning from the mistakes of others

[Sean Waters]

So, I got a copy of the 4th edition PHB for DnD.

 

Wow.

 

Bold.

 

The damn thing reads like a video game. I mean I'm all for change and evolution but this is not recognisably DnD. It does not seem like a bad game, but it isn't the game that first attracted me to role playing, and all the other editions were an evlution. This is more of an extra terrestrial invasion. I have no idea how popular the new edition is. It is glossy and new, so it probably sold well to teh existing fan base.

 

I want to encourage bold thinking in 6th ed HERO and I want there to be some risks taken (everything is a risk anyway), and I expect there to be some things that I don't like (it would almost remove my raison d'etre if not), but I hope and pray we don't go quite this far down new and 'interesting' routes.

 

I'm not trying to diss DnD, perish the thought. I am hoping, however, we do not folllow this extreme example. HERO is extremely robust. There is a lot I would change, but far, far more that I wouldn't.

 

Not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I felt I needed to comment. I'd appreciate your views.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I agree with you. I looked it over at my friendly neighborhood game store, and your assessment is spot-on. Bold artwork. Sweeping changes. Reads like a videogame.

 

Not recognizable as D&D. Barely a RPG anymore. I assessed it as a tabletop MMO. Pretty cool if that's your thing. But it's not D&D.

 

And like you, I would hate to see HEROs 6th go the same route.

[CTaylor]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Yeah, the initial impressions are definitely proved true, I have a copy of the core books and have toyed around with them. It's MMOG on paper, that's what they've done with D&D. It's an interesting market decision but in my opinion a very wrong one.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I dont think this kind of direction is likely with HERO.

 

D&D is a game. It keeps the mechanics pretty much hidden from both players and GMs. In 3rd edition it looked like the mechanics were going to be made pretty explicit and the variety storm of D20 games that came from the release of the licensing documents showed that many other people found that getting their hands on the D&D levers was a desirable thing.

 

4th edition has put all of that away again. It has decided it doesn't like showing the mechanics and put it all behind custom built character classes which it will release more of each and every year.

 

HERO is a game where all the levers are already out there. The most radical thing that can be done is to replace certain levers with new ones. You might like that or you might not but it is not the same kind of deal that you have with the new edition of D&D.

 

Doc

[Doc Samson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'm not sure if these are lucid thoughts (pre-coffee typing is dangerous) but...

 

It seems to me the struggle to increase a fanbase always alienates at least some of the original fans.

 

If we are nerds (I use the term with love, I AM a nerd) and DnD becomes mainstream, does that mean we are no longer cool enough to play?

 

When watching the Incredible Hulk movie at at the midnight premier, I noticed that the entire audience was high school and college meatheads and fratboys. I love that comic movies have gone mainstream, but is it wrong that I feel a bit resentful that these were the same types of folks that tried to bully me for being a comic fan when I was a kid?

 

Is anyone going for coffee?

[nexus]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Look on the bright side, we didn't just beat them... we ABSORBED them. :-D

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

"We have met the enemy and he has become us."

 

 

Ugh. I think I need some coffee too.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

"We have met the enemy and he has become us."

 

 

Ugh. I think I need some coffee too.

 

Have any of that pound of Starbucks I gave you?

[Kdansky]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I am still wholly against the "DnD is now a videogame"-rumor. Frankly, I call male-cow-dung on that! If you think it is a videogame, then cough up some solid evidence, or else Miles Edgeworth will have a word with you.

 

I have read PHP and DMG (which is the better book and a *really* good ressource into Pen&Paper (yes, PEN AND PAPER!), especially for beginners).

 

What they did compared to 3.5: They abstracted! Like Hero does. For example it says somewhere that you don't have to use the default magic-SFX, you are free to chose your own. But everything else is classic: A Spell list, a Magic Item list, class descriptions, combat rules and so on.

 

The only thing that reminded me of a MMORPG: Terminology. And that is a good thing. Everyone and their mom has played a PC-RPG by now. Everyone knows these words. Why not explain it to them in a language they speak? Also, having a solid name for every effect is not a videogame thing. In fact, MTG probably came up with that (Flanking, Banding, Trample, Regeneration, and all of these).

 

 

For HERO: Yes, they changed an immense amount of things. It truly is a New Edition, not just a resell of the same product with a new cover and layout (like 5th?). But then, 3.5 was horribly broken, because it carried all the DnD 1+2 brokenness with it. Hell, I'm currently playing (didn't get a say) a 2.5 game. Rules wise, I could puke every session. I also don't want 6th to go quite as far, because that is not necessary in the case of HERO. But I want some really solid changes, which should not re-invent the wheel. To give examples: Figureds have to go. That doesn't even invalidate old character sheets, it just mis-prices them. Of course, primary characteristics have to be recosted (eg CON). Then I would like to resolve the Stun Lotto and "STR adds"-issues. And get rid of ECs. Then clean up some things (like Summon, read through the adders and you know what I mean) But that's about it. D4 went waaaay farther than that, basically rewriting the system from ground up.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Have any of that pound of Starbucks I gave you?

 

It was crunchy.

 

Wait. I was supposed to brew it?

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I am still wholly against the "DnD is now a videogame"-rumor. Frankly, I call male-cow-dung on that! If you think it is a videogame, then cough up some solid evidence, or else Miles Edgeworth will have a word with you.

 

Admittedly, I have not read the books (and have absolutely no interest in doing so), but from people's descriptions of the game, it doesn't seem so far-fetched to me.

 

The characters are divided into classes that fulfill specific roles in combat: Striker, Defender, Controller, etc. The use of terms like exploits and slots are not only present but used in the same context as the MMO equivalents. The ability to "respec" Skills as characters go up in levels smells suspiciously MMO-like to me.

 

I could go on, but that would just be regurgitating the contents of the number of extensive threads on the subject that have already been posted.

 

You're welcome to your opinion, as I, and obviously a number of others, are entitled to ours. So kindly keep your accusations of male bovine excretions to yourself, thank you very much.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I am still wholly against the "DnD is now a videogame"-rumor. Frankly' date=' I call male-cow-dung on that! If you think it is a videogame, then cough up some solid evidence, or else Miles Edgeworth will have a word with you.[/quote']

 

You seem to like it, fair enough and good for you. You are entitlded to your opinion.

 

I also am entitled to my opinion, and to me 4E reads like the guidebook to a videogame. Thus my comment that it feels like a 'tabletop MMO.'

 

Worse than that, actually. It doesn't come with the nifty graphics and sound, and all the adventures pre-made for you online. But at least you don't need a monthly subsrciption to play.

 

Oh, wait, you have to buy the rest of the books to get all the core classes and races; yes, you do need to 'pay to play.'

[Chris-M]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I am still wholly against the "DnD is now a videogame"-rumor. Frankly' date=' I call male-cow-dung on that! If you think it is a videogame, then cough up some solid evidence, [/quote']

 

No idea what would constitute "solid evidence" if the actual rules and gameplay experience aren't enough for you (although I did hear a rumor that Gary Gygax's last words were: "Rosebud...! Also, 4e is totally a tabletop MMO!"). For what it's worth (or not), I am a professional digital game designer who did QA on eight MMORPGs (seven published), level design on one, and combat design on another, and holy cow, 4e is pretty obviously a tabletop MMO. I say that not as evidence that 4e is bad, or that playing like an MMORPG at the gaming table is a bad thing (opinions will naturally vary on that point), but it is what it is, IMHO (and I am playing in two different 4e campaigns now to the tune of a dozen or so sessions at this point -- and having a generally great time, although I'd still rather be playing HERO).

 

Class "roles" (Defender, Controller, Striker, etc.), healing surges, incredibly narrow character customization options, push-button powers with very artificially structured use-instance limitations, the specific application of prestige classes, the way the rules emphasize (and the encounters in the official modules are designed to reinforce) WoW-style party ability interactions...just off the top of my head. You certainly are free to see things differently, but that looks like a whole lot of waddling and sounds like a whole lot of quacking to me, so I'll call it a duck and move on.

 

Anyway, back to Sean's point, I certainly agree that I don't want to see HERO do anything as drastic as this in 6th ed, and I can't really see Steve going anywhere near this far, to be honest.

[Cancer]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

My take on it is that D&D4 is an "entry drug" to tabletop FTF gaming aimed at the now much larger population doing MMOGs and trying to tap that largely new market. So there's a purpose to couching character roles the way they do: for the comfort of the target population. While such an approach has its limits, it is not an Intrinsically Bad Thing.

 

To me the most interesting part of D&D4 is not in the PHB. It's instead in the MM and GMM, with its coherent kit of monsters and recipes for concocting opponents appropriate for the PC level quickly out of standard parts. If it really works (and I have yet to play enough to see if it does), that's a very interesting innovation. Yes, it obviously can lead to stereotyped encounters. But for a novice GM, that's an incredibly useful tool.

[The Monster]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Yep - it's a major rules change. Yep - it looks different than D&D ever has before, different format, different look.

 

The people who say "it's not D&D!" are, as far as I can see, making claims based on taste rather than fact (or, generally, objective evidence). As far as I'm concerned, it's got all the basics that have been the earmerks of D&D since I first played it back in the '70's: magic, d20 hit rolls, levels, etc., as well as the official D&D logo. It's not the same D&D I played then, it's been revised extensively three times now.

 

It's definitely informed and influenced by MMOs, but that's not necessarily a bad thing (I know, I know, heresy! Heat up the tar! Pluck some chickens!). Frankly, the biggest influence I discern from MMOs is two fold: one, everybody gets special schticks that define what they can do at any particular time - even the good ol' fighter is almost never reduced to "I swing my sword." For color and flavor, there's nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell; given that you don't have an extensive maneuver list like Hero, pre-defined 'powers' taking their place is a little more fun than no special abilities *and* no maneuver list to choose from. The downside of the use of pre-defined powers is the procedure of expending powers per encounter or per day: the really cool powers are limited in use, which (to quote my son) kind of puts every character into the same boat as the wizard in earlier editions: if your one-shot big whack'em fails, you don't get to try that one again until tomorrow. In actual play, however, the 'at-will' powers (the ones you can use every round, all day) are useful enough that you really don't end up like the old 1st-level wizard with your one or two magic missiles and then hide the rest of the day.

 

The second big MMO influence (really more CCG than MMO, but those who decry one often decry the other, so I kind of lump them) I see is format. The powers are defined in big blocks of text, with various colored labels, 'keywords,' and such, rather than lines of descriptive text. 3.x spells had some of this anyway, but 4e goes whole hog, to the point where actual cards listing one's available powers are encouraged (and various fanbuilt forms are available) - and actually useful in play. Frankly, this is a difference in presentation more than it is in actual substance (though it does dovetail with the limited-use structure of powers). A major thrust of the design seems to have been to make the game accessible and useable to a generation of gamers who are used to having manipulatives (i.e., cards as well as minis and dice), and using cards and exception-based rules in regular play.

 

Is all this a bad thing? It's an open question - but I think it is useful to tease out just how much the objections are based around presentation as opposed to substance. There's a lot of both to deal with, to be sure - but I think it's easy to look through the book, see the MMO/CCG influence, and drop it thinking it's just a tabletop version of those. I really don't think it is, no more (and no less) than WoW is an online version of tabletop D&D.

[JmOz]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Hero has already gone the road of a major change that backfired on them, so hopefuly Steve will take the example of what happened with Fuzion and not make to big of changes

[Maur]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The ability to "respec" Skills as characters go up in levels smells suspiciously MMO-like to me.

 

Your HERO GM doesn't let you change out powers and such as you gain XP and alter the direction of your character?

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Your HERO GM doesn't let you change out powers and such as you gain XP and alter the direction of your character?

 

When I started, we had several "radiation accidents" that changed our superheroes slightly, but for a heroic fantasy game I'd be very suspicious of characters who wanted to make major changes without good reason (and it would have to be good). If they want to get something that changes the direction of the character, that's well and good. But redoing the character? No.

 

[Edit - by this I mean having the player trade in his points so that he loses something but gains something new. Add = Good. Swap Points = Bad - except where the player and I both agree that something is unbalancing or useless - I'm not a monster...)

 

What he is talking about (I don't know if you have/read the books) is that characters are limited to 2 at-will powers, 4 encounter, 4 daily, and 7 utility (at most), and as you go up in level, you get the option to swap powers out for one of your level or lower. That isn't too bad (except as a power limiter and idiotic "I forgot how to do that"), and the powers generally do the same thing. A later power basically does the same thing as a lower-level one, but may do more damage, or it shifts the enemy 3 squares instead of 1, or what have you.

 

You can also retrain - swap skills out. Not too big a deal (except the +5 trained bonus) as the skills are simple and few in number, and the challenges are supposed to match your level (ie picking a lock is relatively the same for all levels, the numbers go up but so does your bonus). I've heard there is errata for this, but I haven't wasted my time to look for it.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

Given the nature of Hero and 4e, I can't see Hero going anywhere near that, although it can give the tools to make a game like that (I've converted a few abilities because I was bored). I can't see (from what I've read) that 6e will go that far and alienate their fanbase.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Yep - it's a major rules change. Yep - it looks different than D&D ever has before, different format, different look.

 

The people who say "it's not D&D!" are, as far as I can see, making claims based on taste rather than fact (or, generally, objective evidence). As far as I'm concerned, it's got all the basics that have been the earmerks of D&D since I first played it back in the '70's: magic, d20 hit rolls, levels, etc., as well as the official D&D logo. It's not the same D&D I played then, it's been revised extensively three times now.

 

...

 

Okay, so you got me. It is a matter of taste. That's why I've been staying off the 4E threads that seem to endorse the new edition. This one is titled "Learning from the mistake of others" and I choose to comiserate with other people who also don't like the new edition. And I try to leave the people who do like it alone.

 

So please, allow us old fogies to dislike the new changes.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Hero has already gone the road of a major change that backfired on them' date=' so hopefuly Steve will take the example of what happened with Fuzion and not make to big of changes[/quote']I think video-game-as-RPG is exactly the direction Hero intends to take with 6E; close integration with Champions Online seems almost inevitable. This is the path "role playing" is taking as a whole; as computers replace GMs and online strangers replace friends sitting around a table.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I want nothing to do with this kind of gaming.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I think video-game-as-RPG is exactly the direction Hero intends to take with 6E; close integration with Champions Online seems almost inevitable. This is the path "role playing" is taking as a whole; as computers replace GMs and online strangers replace friends sitting around a table.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I want nothing to do with this kind of gaming.

 

I hope not. I've read the disclaimers and hope it's true.

[The Monster]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

...

 

Okay, so you got me. It is a matter of taste. That's why I've been staying off the 4E threads that seem to endorse the new edition. This one is titled "Learning from the mistake of others" and I choose to comiserate with other people who also don't like the new edition. And I try to leave the people who do like it alone.

 

So please, allow us old fogies to dislike the new changes.

 

Speaking as another 'old fogey' (RPGing since 1975), feel free to share and commiserate. I can certainly understand why some people wouldn't like it. I've just seen too much flaming and hating (in both directions) on the WotC boards, and wanted to put in my observations, and hopefully keep the blanket condemnations and unacknowledged personal taste from running rampant.

 

Frankly, I was not hopeful that D&D4 would be much good; personally, I'm (so far) very interested in trying it out in actual long-term play. It took some convincing to get me from there to where I am now.

 

To be honest, I'm not very confident about Hero 6 at this point. Steve L's done such fine work so far - that's the anchor I cling to. I very much have a wait-and-see attitude about it (just as I did/do with D&D4).

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I hope you're participating in the 6E discussion? That's our best hope for keeping 6E HEROs from turning into the tabletop version of the video game...

[The Monster]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I hope you're participating in the 6E discussion? That's our best hope for keeping 6E HEROs from turning into the tabletop version of the video game...

I started to early on, but the thread I started got a rather negative reaction and then Steve shut it down. So I don't know that I feel particularly sanguine about participating further.

Isuppose I ought to at least check things out again...

[Kdansky]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

The Monster states quite perfectly what I feel too. I am pretty sure that someone somewhere on the internet came up with "D4 is liek MMOPRG!" and from then on, everyone copied it. I have even seen people write that in the D4 thread in the fantasy hero forums. And they admitted they didn't even bother to read through the books. DnD is so important to the geeks that fans and haters stop thinking and just defend/attack the system because.

 

MMORPG: You cannot say "it's like an MMORPG", then follow up with "I don't have evidence" and reason "That's your oppinion!". Logic does not work that way. That has nothing to do with oppinion. Now before you flame me: Of course "This feels MMORPG-ish" is based on oppinion. But all the quotes I see name things that are present in MMORPGs, but actually have been present in DnD (or other P&P) for a looong time. Like the "once a day" powers. If you look at the 3.0 rules, it's full of them. Or HERO: Charges/Healing. And "At will" powers: Aren't those like nearly all hero powers? I mean sure, we have END costs, but that is a complex mechanic which is not absolutely necessary (and the END rules explicitly state that you can do away with it if you want to).

 

"Fighter feels like Wizard": Yes. No. Yes. He can use abilities (spells), like a wizard. Ok, I give you that. Which is also very WoW-ish. Oh, and very Hero-ish too. And also very -ish. Gamers have long ago realized that the basic D1 fighter was hellaboring to play. D4-Developers have finally figured that out too, after all other systems gave the fighters more interesting powers. Now, is he a wizard? Sure, he uses the same mechanics. But a Hero wizard also uses the same mechanics as a hero fighter, doesn't he? I think to answer that question, you would have to play both characters and see how well they designed the powers themselves. Sure, if you give both of them the same power with a different name, that won't be nice, but if you do it differently (like in hero: slap some limitations on the spell, and some other limitations onto the Bull Rush attack).

 

Many other changes are very, very hero-like: You start off at a decent powerlevel, you can cast more than one Magic Missile per day at level one. Why? Because that is boooring. Also, that was very MMORPGish. First level, you suck. Go kill some rabbits. Second level? Well, there are some rats over there, but be careful. So there it's less like a MMORPG.

 

 

Swapping out skills: A great idea. Why did nobody else come up with that? It does:

- Give inexperienced players a chance to replace a skill which looked good on paper but was pointless in practice. More fun!

- Give munchkins something more to think about. More fun!

- Gives everyone the ability to "fix" a messed up character. More fun!

Disadvantage? Well, you might argue "why does my character forget x?". Well, two sides to this: Either I don't give a damn, because it's a problem in game, like a broken construct. Or it might just be the +1 damage becomes +2 damage. Only in the last case (+1 damage becomes +3 heal) it's a bit weird. And even then: You probably already got something which would qualify as an upgrade to what you replace.

 

And by the way: If a player comes to me and says: "Hey, look, my character is constructed like this but I totally don't have fun with it because of xyz.... Can we change that?" My answer will be: "Sure, go ahead!" Now of course, they should not do that for every encounter, but I'm not playing with sensible people. If you don't allow this, then you are preventing people from having fun. Or for the slow: You are a bad GM.

So for people who are not experienced enough to realize this, it's put into the rules. Why not. It does not hurt.

 

 

Rules: Striker, Tank, Whatever. These are there. Have you seen many references to them in the PHP? I don't think so. Because it's a GM-help. Instead of having to spend horrible amonuts of prep-time for battles (D3.5 is worse than Hero in that regard) because you need to write down 40 spells from three books and a selection of 800 spells, and then write down the class combinations and saves and items and whatdoIknow, you can look at the monster manual, and choose according to the roles. Takes me like 5 minutes to set up a "fair" encounter for any party. Even if I know my players have strong characters, I can just up the ante by 20%, or if they all have non-combat chars, -20%. I adore this idea. Once again, I only ask: Why didn't anyone else come up with this?! GM prep time is one of the big P&P problems. Anything that can help reduce it is a great idea. By the way, HERO is a big sinner in that regard. I hope we learn something from it, but then I'm not sure how to do this, since character write ups are just complex in this game. No way around that I'm afraid.

 

The only thing that really strikes me as videogameish: Presentation. Lots of colour, every ability with it's own box of text, you could even print them on small playing cards and so on. The strong naming of everything (Stunned, Dazed, Shove, Shift, etc etc) is also something like that. And you know what? It also helps the game. Because where you had to have 20 books ready in case someone wanted to use a power (I play my D2.5 mage with a PHP on my knees, because every spell is an exception to everything), now you can figure out what they do eeeaaasily. You know, like HERO. If it says "EB", then you will roll some D6. And if it says "Double Knockback", then you double Knockback. You don't have to look up the spell which states: "The afflicted target will also be knocked back twice as much as usual." somewhere in a long paragraph of text. D4 became a lot like HERO. They took the good stuff mostly. The bastards

 

So for 6th: Lets drop our crap (we have collected enough of it) and focus on our strengths. And don't be afraid of changes.

 

DnD definitely pulled off a good version (much better than 3.0/3.5). You may disagree with that, but at least give it a fair chance. I have seen exactly ONE post which stated: "I've played it and did not like it." and about a thousand of "I have not played it and only skimmed the book, but it totally sucks!"