Learning from the mistakes of others

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I haven't played PC-RPGs. Well' date=' unless you count Rogue and nethack. Not my thing. I'm vaguely aware of the terminology from hearing people talk about it, but it's not natural language to me.[/quote']

 

Which got me to notice the list you (and Kdansky originally) gave:

 

"Flanking, Banding, Trample, Regeneration, and all of these"

 

Flanking has been military terminology since we decided to start using tactics. Trample is what happens when a horse or elephant runs over you (or a crowd of music fans). Regeneration is regrowth of body parts (and other things - there are other definitions) and has been around for a long time (from Old English and Latin, IIRC). Banding - other than striping of an object or a creature, or tagging it with an identifying marker, I'm not sure of this - unless it means that people or creatures form bands?

 

It's all the other jargon that has sprung up and become popular. The only one I really remember and can't stand is the "aggro" bit. That, and whatever the term is that the kids use to mean "stay in one spot".

 

Hell, to be fair, the Keep module has frigging "spawn points" in one part. The skeletons almost killed the party, and would have if I didn't stop it early. Luckily my players didn't waste their time trying to destroy them (as they might have done in Gauntlet) - the things had too many points to be destroyed by a 1st-3rd level character.

 

I'm just waiting until the get rid of "raise dead" or "resurrection" and simply call it "respawn".

[BNakagawa]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Which got me to notice the list you (and Kdansky originally) gave:

 

"Flanking, Banding, Trample, Regeneration, and all of these"

 

Flanking has been military terminology since we decided to start using tactics. Trample is what happens when a horse or elephant runs over you (or a crowd of music fans). Regeneration is regrowth of body parts (and other things - there are other definitions) and has been around for a long time (from Old English and Latin, IIRC). Banding - other than striping of an object or a creature, or tagging it with an identifying marker, I'm not sure of this - unless it means that people or creatures form bands?

 

It's all the other jargon that has sprung up and become popular. The only one I really remember and can't stand is the "aggro" bit. That, and whatever the term is that the kids use to mean "stay in one spot".

 

Hell, to be fair, the Keep module has frigging "spawn points" in one part. The skeletons almost killed the party, and would have if I didn't stop it early. Luckily my players didn't waste their time trying to destroy them (as they might have done in Gauntlet) - the things had too many points to be destroyed by a 1st-3rd level character.

 

I'm just waiting until the get rid of "raise dead" or "resurrection" and simply call it "respawn".

 

Cut the kid some slack. He isn't old enough to remember what the pre-CCG game industry was like.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Of course I can't speak for everyone but I got the impression of "MMORPG like" from reading the books. I saw them very shortly after they were released and picked up the distinct vibe from reading them. I don't think the game "sucks" it's simply not something I'm interested in.

 

I was able to come to a conclusion that DnD4 incorporated many elements that made it IMO a "tabletop MMO". I reached that conclusion (and that phrase) ON MY OWN, after reading details about several of the new mechanics. And I feel that it's not a game system I would like -- just like I don't like Marvel Superheroes or DC Superheroes systems.

 

Dismissing everyone who doesn't share your opinion as misguided' date=' ill informed or worse, willfully ignorant while their own opinion is purely objective and absolute is pretty insulting and pretty knee jerk in and of itself.[/quote']

 

I agree.

[Kdansky]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Which got me to notice the list you (and Kdansky originally) gave:

 

"Flanking, Banding, Trample, Regeneration, and all of these"

 

Flanking has been military terminology since we decided to start using tactics. Trample is what happens when a horse or elephant runs over you (or a crowd of music fans). Regeneration is regrowth of body parts (and other things - there are other definitions) and has been around for a long time (from Old English and Latin, IIRC). Banding - other than striping of an object or a creature, or tagging it with an identifying marker, I'm not sure of this - unless it means that people or creatures form bands?

 

Of course these words were chosen for a reason. But MTG is the first thing I remember which heavily used names for something you could also write out, therefore I used it as an example. For example the old difference of "Destroy" vs "Bury". Bury meant you could not regenerate, but you could against Destroy. WoW (the best MMO example) does it too, excessively even (Stun, Daze, Root, Fear, Terror, DoT, Armor Penetration, etc). And there comes D4, with it's "shift 4 squares" and so on. That is something that reminds people of MMOs. It's also very different from DnD, especially first and second edition. The descriptions in D4 are also more "Rules-Lawyering". If you read a couple hundred MTG cards, you will realize that they always use the same formulaeic sentences, and so does WoW.

 

There was a game industry before CCGs? How did they make money back then?

 

Now if you want to see me sprout hate, talk about D3.5. I have not even played it and I cannot stand it's messed-up-ness.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I rather liked 3.5...

[Maur]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I enjoyed playing 3.x, but got tired of it after a while (like I do with almost all games). Level based games work for a few genres (like High Fantasy), but the turnoff for me was the long times with an unchanged character. With SR, GURPS, HERO, etc... I can see a character slowly changing over time rather than stair-stepping up in power.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

My next game looks like it's going to be a military game. Originally I was going to use Spycraft/Stargate rules, but I've gotten my players to agree to try using HEROS...

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Of course these words were chosen for a reason. But MTG is the first thing I remember which heavily used names for something you could also write out, therefore I used it as an example. For example the old difference of "Destroy" vs "Bury". Bury meant you could not regenerate, but you could against Destroy. WoW (the best MMO example) does it too, excessively even (Stun, Daze, Root, Fear, Terror, DoT, Armor Penetration, etc). And there comes D4, with it's "shift 4 squares" and so on. That is something that reminds people of MMOs. It's also very different from DnD, especially first and second edition. The descriptions in D4 are also more "Rules-Lawyering". If you read a couple hundred MTG cards, you will realize that they always use the same formulaeic sentences, and so does WoW.

 

There was a game industry before CCGs? How did they make money back then?

 

Now if you want to see me sprout hate, talk about D3.5. I have not even played it and I cannot stand it's messed-up-ness.

 

My point was that they used terms that had their roots (mostly) in the original wargaming that spawned the hobby. I've never played any card game other than the normal (poker, gin, etc), so any connection to that is lost on me, and I'd bet on a lot of the older players. Now, the hoped-for new players hooked on other WOTC products that they want to drag into the 4e buying frenzy...they may recognize the terms and their use in that context.

 

As for the formulaic way they describe things, that's part of every game that uses jargon. We like things to be organized and easily read, and that's going to be a tendency in any writing. The original boxed set was all over the place, and over time it evolved into what we see today. But, I do agree that they took the majority of "color" (to use a not-so-great term) and basically gives "just the stats, ma'am." It works for some people, not for others. In Hero, I don't mind just the stats, but a bit of color or description is useful. In D&D, which has a tradition of such color built into the system itself...the lack of it is jarring and sterile. That, and the artwork ranges from so-so to just plain hideous, and the whole presentation puts me off. The older books were fun to read, this...like reading a textbook in a subject you don't like, but have to take. Not pleasant.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I was originally a D&D4 skeptic. I found a copy of the rules and read through them looking for things to hate.

 

What I ended up coming away with was a sort of admiration for the game. It was surprisingly well-designed. It was definitely a throwback to its old-school tactical wargame roots, but it did that so well that I was, frankly, impressed.

 

I had grown to dislike 3.x because it tried to be too many things to too many people, and was on the verge of collapsing under its own weight. But the new 4.0 system is elegant, clean. It knows what it wants to be -- a tactical simulation -- and makes no apologies. I don't know how it will turn out 3 years from now after they've published a million supplements, but right now it's a lean, mean, fighting-monsters-and-taking-their-stuff machine.

 

It's not everyone's cuppa, to be sure. If you're looking for a system that supports detailed world-building mechanics or high-drama angst, steer clear of it! But that's OK, because I've got other games to satisfy those needs. 4.0 will never replace Hero as my game of choice, but I can see it satisfying that "sometimes I just want to kill greenskins and steal their shinies" itch. And every once in a while, the devious little tactician that lives in my head wants to come out and play too -- and this game is perfect for him.

 

Oh, and put me down as another one of those "Yeah, this definitely feels like a MMORPG" people. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Crossbow]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I will leave the D&D for second, let me address the first point.

 

While I am not the rules guru for Champions, I do like the system, and I think it works relatively well. I would be opposed to to seeing a major change in the rules, and I don't think I am alone, if nothing else the failure of the Fuzion system clearly illustrates that. Tweak it, file off the sharp pointy bits, give us more source material, all good things. Doing a D&D 4E thing, not so good.

 

On that note, D&D 4E is not old time D&D. It is an attempt to merge the systems of the D&D MMO and paper games to make it possible for people to crossover between the markets seemlessly, and to make it feasible for a pen and paper game to be played in a virtual enviroment with support. These are interesting ideas. They are ideas geared towards pleasing the people who are going to be playing and putting down their money, thus allowing D&D to continue to exist.

 

I have played 4E, I know a GM who is a 4E fanatic and while I am not the convert that he is, I can appriciate the changes and user friendly aspects of it. I still know that it is not D&D.

 

A final point. Champions and HERO don't have to be D&D, and don't have to do the things that D&D does. Champions and Hero don't represent the hobby of RPGs to the world at large, like it or not, D&D has to. The 'modernization' of D&D get bodies in the door. Solid games, with hopefully will include HERO 6E, are the things that keep the bodies happy once they get in.

 

*tossing 2 CP*

 

Crossbow

[Istaran]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I was originally a D&D4 skeptic. I found a copy of the rules and read through them looking for things to hate.

 

What I ended up coming away with was a sort of admiration for the game. It was surprisingly well-designed. It was definitely a throwback to its old-school tactical wargame roots, but it did that so well that I was, frankly, impressed.

 

I had grown to dislike 3.x because it tried to be too many things to too many people, and was on the verge of collapsing under its own weight. But the new 4.0 system is elegant, clean. It knows what it wants to be -- a tactical simulation -- and makes no apologies. I don't know how it will turn out 3 years from now after they've published a million supplements, but right now it's a lean, mean, fighting-monsters-and-taking-their-stuff machine.

 

It's not everyone's cuppa, to be sure. If you're looking for a system that supports detailed world-building mechanics or high-drama angst, steer clear of it! But that's OK, because I've got other games to satisfy those needs. 4.0 will never replace Hero as my game of choice, but I can see it satisfying that "sometimes I just want to kill greenskins and steal their shinies" itch. And every once in a while, the devious little tactician that lives in my head wants to come out and play too -- and this game is perfect for him.

 

Oh, and put me down as another one of those "Yeah, this definitely feels like a MMORPG" people. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I'm on the new side for RPGs. I did a lot of freeform stuff in junior high, but I only started D&D with 3.5 about 4 years ago (about the same time I first tried WoW, randomly enough) and I've played Hero for a much shorter time (and a small bit of GURPS).

 

I love 4e, and absolutely agree with you that it's a beautifully done tactical wargame. I've been playing the new Living Forgotten Realms RPGA campaign, and see it as being more or less exactly Living Greyhawk's equal (for better and for worse) when it comes to roleplaying. (More than anything, this is evidence that rules get in the way of roleplaying more than they help it per se.)

 

I find myself rankled by the 4e feels like an MMORPG position. Mainly because I'd be playing a lot more MMORPGs if they had anything remotely comparable to the fun tactical feel of 4e. For that matter, I haven't managed to get the tactical feel of 4e out of HERO. That's why I usually play both every weekend; 4e for the tactical fun, HERO because my GM is a talented world-builder who has created a deep and engaging roleplaying environment and plot. And I do like being able to build whatever I want, but when it comes time to play with what I've built.. the difference is quite noticeable.

 

(I also love that after playing 4e for a couple months, 3.5 for 4 years, and HERO for over a year.. 4e is the one I need to spend the least time consulting rule books. Tell me that isn't an accomplishment on their part?)

[Warp9]

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.

Well this "online stranger" thinks that change can be good---if it is the right change.

 

I'm with you on the specifics, but disagree with the more general sentiment.

 

There is a lot of stuff that I really don't like about modern computer games. However, much of what I dislike relates to design choices rather than the necessity of the medium.

 

I don't mind having a computer handle the game mechanics, as long as there is something more intelligent dealing with NPC's psychology (like a human GM running the NPCs) . And a group of online strangers is just fine with me.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I don't know how it will turn out 3 years from now after they've published a million supplements' date=' but right now it's a lean, mean, fighting-monsters-and-taking-their-stuff machine.[/quote']

 

If I want to do that I can break out Munchkin.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

On that note' date=' D&D 4E is not old time D&D. It is an attempt to merge the systems of the D&D MMO and paper games to make it possible for people to crossover between the markets seemlessly, and to make it feasible for a pen and paper game to be played in a virtual enviroment with support. These are interesting ideas. They are ideas geared towards pleasing the people who are going to be playing and putting down their money, thus allowing D&D to continue to exist.[/quote']

 

From what I read, it appears that many people (on the forums) are interested (maybe were interested is better) in the DDI and their virtual tabletop. I'm not, and could care less whether they have something online that I have to pay more money for each month (what does that sound like ?) Of course, since that is currently in a kind of limbo and so far is a flop, it sounds like they were reaching beyond their grasp on that one, but we'll see.

 

That said, there's everybody else across the states (and the world, I assume) who may not have access to a computer (I know quite a few, since I teach with computers currently), and may have no desire for such capability. If there is this big focus online, what does that do to those without?

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

(I also love that after playing 4e for a couple months' date=' 3.5 for 4 years, and HERO for over a year.. 4e is the one I need to spend the least time consulting rule books. Tell me that isn't an accomplishment on their part?)[/quote']

 

I'm the opposite. I've played Hero since the early 80's and don't need to crack a book very often (maybe for a maneuver that's rarely used). We've had 5 sessions so far and I (and my players) have to pass the books around the whole night trying to figure something out. For me, the books are incredibly hard to try to find information. I don't know - it took several sessions to figure out that casting a spell still causes an attack of opportunity (sorry, it's Opportunity Attack now), since I looked everywhere that casting was mentioned, until I found it by chance in that combat maneuvers section. For some reason, I thought that that would be in the description of the powers. I guess when they meant streamlined, they meant streamlined.

 

(I believe that the reason it never struck me is that there is no mention of spells per se, it's all "ranged power" or "area attack power" and what have you. Forgot the new system where everyone has magic. Although, this system might work for Dragonball Z games )

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

If I want to do that I can break out Munchkin.

 

[Crypt]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

After reading the PHB of DD4 i tought it was a very bad rpg system, one of the worst ever made.

..... but actually after playing it 8 days i think this is one of the most enjoyable game ever !

 

It's a lot more fun than any previous version of D&D.

 

But there are 3 prerequisites :

- you must like tactical combat.

- you must like knowing the mechanisms of your character.

- you must have a coooooool state of mind. Repeat after me :"COOL"

 

We played it as we played twenty years ago, like when we were teenagers, 8 or 9 hours each day without any pause, without any tiredness, having fun in living adventures, crawling dungeons, collecting xp and improving our PCs.

 

 

Not recognizable as D&D. Barely a RPG anymore.

 

You should see it as the most old-school RPG ever made. Actually D&D4 IS a rpg. It's as i remember my first games were, but with better rules.

 

I assessed it as a tabletop MMO. Pretty cool if that's your thing.

 

I hate MMO. They are so boring and limited.

So i'm quite sure D&D4 is not a tabletop MMO or i would hate it.

 

But it's not D&D.

 

It's better.

 

 

Believe me, i'm 34, i play and played "serious" games with smart and/or heavy mechanisms like HERO, Hârnmaster, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, and the like since the middle of the 80's* ... but despite that i think D&D4 is a very fun gaming experience. You can be an adult and experienced gamer and still enjoy this one.

 

 

* but started with lightest ones, of course.

 

 

 

 

PS: but the commercial policy of WotC sucks.

[tesuji]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

my thoughts on dnd 4e...

 

is it more like a mmorpg? yes absolutely and they would have bee idiots to not learn from he massive amount of data being collected on gamers and play from mmorpg... they now hae concrete evidence not just playtest reports from millions not hundreds of players on things like class preferences and balance etc.

 

why not take those elements into account?

 

notions like "roles" and the finesses they garner on them from the millions onlinerpg are useful for their product, so why not incorporate them directly?

 

my analysis of 4e is that it does indeed draw a lot in design and approach from the mmorpg and that has made it a quite good game, so far.

 

the biggest area of improvement to me is the reduction in overhead - especially for gm - as things have been streamlined. its really quick to throw together a "10th level encounter" including loot and adversaries which means as gm i dont have to spend an hour on story, five hours on stats and tables, and can reverse the two. the timekeeping for bookkeeping in 3e was terrible and grew worse towards the end.

 

so i wont disagree with the "mmorpg flavor" to 4e at all - and i think it helped the product.

 

however the same wont apply to hero 6 but could very well be adapted to smaller modules nuggets with in hero itself.

 

heck the uspdb series and some other things like equipment guides might be leaning that way anyway.

 

or lets put it another way - if the hero champions mmorpg ever takes off and gains thousands and thousands of rabid players for a year, i would be money the next line of hero products would likewise derive a lot in design style and flavor from the info gained from that massive database.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

After reading the PHB of DD4 i tought it was a very bad rpg system, one of the worst ever made.

..... but actually after playing it 8 days i think this is one of the most enjoyable game ever !

 

It's a lot more fun than any previous version of D&D.

 

As a DM, I disagree - it's far less fun for me, and it's been so-so with my group. There are issues of "balance" between monsters and players so far. Two-hit near kills from monsters, even with player HP jacked up, from level-appropriate encounters is not fun for the players. They've (the characters) actually rested more than in the last games we played in 3.5 (mainly because they could heal better in 3.5, and had no real powers that had to be recharged). Irony.

 

But there are 3 prerequisites :

- you must like tactical combat.

- you must like knowing the mechanisms of your character.

- you must have a coooooool state of mind. Repeat after me :"COOL"

 

If I get colors like that, I could get arrested and lose my job - I've seen the commercials.

We played it as we played twenty years ago, like when we were teenagers, 8 or 9 hours each day without any pause, without any tiredness, having fun in living adventures, crawling dungeons, collecting xp and improving our PCs.

 

You should see it as the most old-school RPG ever made. Actually D&D4 IS a rpg. It's as i remember my first games were, but with better rules.

 

It's an English-language thing, but it's not "you should see it", but "you could see it". I got into RPGs from board wargames and an interest in real tactical miniature wargames, and from that standpoint, I agree with your assessment - it's very much like Chainmail (in spirit, that is) (Damn, now I want to dig out my copy and play a bit with miniatures and rulers.)

 

I hate MMO. They are so boring and limited.

So i'm quite sure D&D4 is not a tabletop MMO or i would hate it.

It uses similar language and similar themes, but since D&D and computer/MMO games have been closely tied together, I'm not surprised.

 

It's better.

So, you admit it's not D&D?

 

Believe me, i'm 34, i play and played "serious" games with smart and/or heavy mechanisms like HERO, Hârnmaster, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, and the like since the middle of the 80's* ... but despite that i think D&D4 is a very fun gaming experience. You can be an adult and experienced gamer and still enjoy this one.

 

* but started with lightest ones, of course.

 

PS: but the commercial policy of WotC sucks.

 

A bit older than you, been there, done that...now, did you understand the FGU Chivalry & Sorcery magic rules?

[Maelstrom]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

There was a game industry before CCGs? How did they make money back then?

 

Now if you want to see me sprout hate, talk about D3.5. I have not even played it and I cannot stand it's messed-up-ness.

 

Love, mostly. And the books were cheaper. It was a better world. Steve Jackson made games you could buy for pocket money and play in an afternoon. Traveller books were, what, $10/supplement? Remember when Mercenaries and High Guard came out? That excitement?

 

CCG ruined the industry. And as far as 3.5, don't knock what you ain't tried.

 

But honestly, a good GM can use any system, or none at all.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Love, mostly. And the books were cheaper. It was a better world. Steve Jackson made games you could buy for pocket money and play in an afternoon. Traveller books were, what, $10/supplement? Remember when Mercenaries and High Guard came out? That excitement?

 

CCG ruined the industry. And as far as 3.5, don't knock what you ain't tried.

 

But honestly, a good GM can use any system, or none at all.

 

I still have a bunch of Metagaming's games - I was looking at WarpWar the other day, as well as Melee and Wizard. I just have to find my copy of Sticks & Stones. I've got to introduce my group to these games one night.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

my thoughts on dnd 4e...

 

is it more like a mmorpg? yes absolutely and they would have bee idiots to not learn from he massive amount of data being collected on gamers and play from mmorpg... they now have concrete evidence not just playtest reports from millions not hundreds of players on things like class preferences and balance etc.

 

why not take those elements into account?

 

notions like "roles" and the finesses they garner on them from the millions onlinerpg are useful for their product, so why not incorporate them directly?

 

I have discussed many of the points of the various MMO "roles" with friends who do play regularly. My conclusion: The various "roles" are pre-designed & hard-coded to eliminate the need for an intelligence to run the game (i.e., the GM). They are also designed with in inherent need for other roles -- and thus other players. The whole MMO... "game style" is designed to increase subscriptions and revenue, and eliminate ("channel" might be a better word) creativity.

 

Even the very little I've studied of D&D 4e tells me it is rife with the same kind of game style. D&D is as much a setting/genre as a game system. But IMO the new game style built into the system style cannot help but influence the way the setting works.

 

Or lets put it another way - if the hero champions mmorpg ever takes off and gains thousands and thousands of rabid players for a year' date=' i would be money the next line of hero products would likewise derive a lot in design style and flavor from the info gained from that massive database.[/quote']

 

If it does take off (which I hope despite my hesitance to play MMOs), then I would say keep 6e as universal and flexible as 5ER, if not more so. That way, it's the MMO that functions as the "gateway drug" to the greater Hero System that uses 6E. 6E should not be "dumbed down" to the level of an MMO -- even one like Champions Online.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

You should see it as the most old-school RPG ever made. Actually D&D4 IS a rpg. It's as i remember my first games were, but with better rules.

 

Heh. My immediate thought on reading that was, "Yup. And the Ford Model T is a car. Doesn't mean you could drive one around today, even less want to."

 

Hey, I'm glad you like 4e. I just don't consider it a true RPG, just a game in which roleplaying can be done.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Hey' date=' I'm glad you like 4e. I just don't consider it a true RPG, just a game in which roleplaying can be done. [/quote']

 

What specfically prevents you from role playing? The rules provide mechanics for resolving your actions. YOU choose those actions. It is the choices that are the real role playing.

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I think what he's trying to say it that 4E encourages tactical playing, not roleplaying. The idea that a character might make a suboptimal choice because it's in character is subtly discouraged in the 4E format.

 

To an extent that has been true for D&D in genral for all of it's incarnations. But 2E was better than 1E for it, and 3E better than 2E. 4E reverses the trend.

 

Of couse, all of this is simply my opinion. Other people will likely believe differently, and they may go and have fun playing 4E. I'll stick to having fun playing 3.x