Learning from the mistakes of others

[Sean Waters]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

D4 is a level based game. They always tend to funnel players and characters in a way that Hero doesn't. If you've been playing a ranger in D4 for a while and you decide you want to learn magic instead the opportunities tio head off int hat direction are scant even though it may be logical that the character whould want to. D3 was better at this but still discouraged most multiclassing.

 

Hero doesn't prevent you doing anything. It may not be the most 'efficient' way for the character to go, but you can do, and, in practice, teh punishment is likely to be minimal unless the game is set up to discourage this sort of thing - in which case you knew what you were getting into.

 

OK, that is more of a criticism of level based games, but D4 takes that to a whole new level, and so is a paragon, perhaps even an epic example of a game that limits your role playing choices.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I think what he's trying to say it that 4E encourages tactical playing' date=' not roleplaying. The idea that a character might make a suboptimal choice [i']because it's in character[/i] 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

 

I`ve seen a lot of players who refuse to make sub-optimal choices, in combat or out, regardless of how in character they may be. I`ve also seen a lot of GM`s whose NPC`s similarly never make a suboptimal choice, and are quite eager to slaughter any PC who makes such a choice.

 

This does not foster role playing. It fosters tactical play. This is true whatever game system you play in.

 

D4 is a level based game. They always tend to funnel players and characters in a way that Hero doesn't. If you've been playing a ranger in D4 for a while and you decide you want to learn magic instead the opportunities tio head off int hat direction are scant even though it may be logical that the character whould want to. D3 was better at this but still discouraged most multiclassing.

 

Hero doesn't prevent you doing anything. It may not be the most 'efficient' way for the character to go, but you can do, and, in practice, teh punishment is likely to be minimal unless the game is set up to discourage this sort of thing - in which case you knew what you were getting into.

 

OK, that is more of a criticism of level based games, but D4 takes that to a whole new level, and so is a paragon, perhaps even an epic example of a game that limits your role playing choices.

 

I don`t think this limits your role playing choices. It limits your character construction options. But I see role playing as much more related to the personality of your character than to his abilities.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

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.

 

Sigh. Here we go again.

 

I'm not saying I'm being prevented from roleplaying. But being able to roleplay while playing a game does not make it a roleplaying game.

 

If we used that definition, pretty much any game out there would be a RPG. Talisman? Done it. Car Wars? Been there. Chess? You bet. Heck, I've seen kids roleplay a game of War. Y'know? War? The card game where you match cards and the high number wins?

 

To make a game a RPG it needs to provide an infrastructure that encourages and supports roleplaying. And, I'm sorry to say, from what I've seen and heard of 4e, it just doesn't give me any warm fuzzies that way.

 

It sounds like a smashing tactical combat game and I wish WoTC all the luck in making a successful venture of it.

 

It just is not a RPG to me. That doesn't make it a bad game. It's just not my cup of tea. And I certainly don't see it as the next evolution of what RPGs should be like.

 

Have I sufficiently explained my position?

[Vulcan]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I`ve seen a lot of players who refuse to make sub-optimal choices, in combat or out, regardless of how in character they may be. I`ve also seen a lot of GM`s whose NPC`s similarly never make a suboptimal choice, and are quite eager to slaughter any PC who makes such a choice.

 

This does not foster role playing. It fosters tactical play. This is true whatever game system you play in.

 

Having seen similar players in action, I conceed that point. I've been fortunate enough to not play under such a GM, so I can't argue your other point either, other than to say that such a GM isn't running a roleplaying game, but a rollplaying game. And that's fine if that's what the players want to play. I prefer to balance tactics and character. I find it more interesting that way.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

D4 is a level based game. They always tend to funnel players and characters in a way that Hero doesn't. If you've been playing a ranger in D4 for a while and you decide you want to learn magic instead the opportunities tio head off int hat direction are scant even though it may be logical that the character whould want to. D3 was better at this but still discouraged most multiclassing.

 

Hero doesn't prevent you doing anything. It may not be the most 'efficient' way for the character to go, but you can do, and, in practice, teh punishment is likely to be minimal unless the game is set up to discourage this sort of thing - in which case you knew what you were getting into.

 

OK, that is more of a criticism of level based games, but D4 takes that to a whole new level, and so is a paragon, perhaps even an epic example of a game that limits your role playing choices.

 

I've never seen any problem in 3x that discourages multiclassing. From the Munchkin level dipping to my own players doing it to greater depth, there wasn't any problem with it. Of course, if about all you were concerned about is damage, then according to the boards if you multiclassed you made a useless character. But I've never personally seen it.

 

With 4e, you take a slight penalty in your own class, spend some feats, but gain just about the same ability from your single multiclass. Since you lose abilities and gain higher ones, all you do is lose (pulling it out of my tail) a 15th level power from your class and gain a 15th level power from your other one. Story wise, how you explain going from being able to light a candle to suddenly tossing fireballs that fry mountains...well, that's on you. Instead of working for higher power (at a cost), you really pay very little for full power.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'm not saying I'm being prevented from roleplaying. But being able to roleplay while playing a game does not make it a roleplaying game.

 

I would just like to start out by saying I'm pretty much agreed with you on the basics...

 

To make a game a RPG it needs to provide an infrastructure that encourages and supports roleplaying. And' date=' I'm sorry to say, from what I've seen and heard of 4e, it just doesn't give me any warm fuzzies that way.[/quote']

 

I'm not so sure I would be as absolute. There is a spectrum here and niches for all kinds of rpg available. D4 like its predecessors provides you with the opportunity to produce a character (it is an individual) which is designed to be inserted into a make believe environment and interact with other player characters and non player characters (run by the GM).

 

I guess, to me, that allows it to sneak into the threshold I reserve for roleplay games.

 

It sounds like a smashing tactical combat game and I wish WoTC all the luck in making a successful venture of it.

 

I have played it once and I think it is an excellent tactical combat game. It comes into its own when you get to combat but it supports the roleplay aspects that take you from combat to combat.

 

It just is not a RPG to me. That doesn't make it a bad game. It's just not my cup of tea. And I certainly don't see it as the next evolution of what RPGs should be like.

 

Evolution is always a dangerous word. Evolution supports success. If D&D manages to hold onto a market where other games chase an aging population and survives when 'true' roleplaying games fall by the wayside as their players die off then D&D is the evolutionary next stage.

 

What I think is that it is a potential evolutionary step. The roleplayer coming into the game looks at it and makes decisions early on about the long term broad development of the character and then roleplays that development.

 

It is a different approach, the development options are limited but those limitations are chosen early on. Does development limitation oppose roleplay? I'd say no but it is a different contract between the game and the player as to what might be accomplished later on.

 

There are games I would rule out of being an RPG despite the way the players might use them. D&D 4th edition is not one of them, though it is a very different approach. And it does focus on the gamist focus rather than simulation or narrativist foci.

 

Have I sufficiently explained my position?

 

Definitely for me.

 

 

Doc

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'm not so sure I would be as absolute. There is a spectrum here and niches for all kinds of rpg available. D4 like its predecessors provides you with the opportunity to produce a character (it is an individual) which is designed to be inserted into a make believe environment and interact with other player characters and non player characters (run by the GM).

 

I guess, to me, that allows it to sneak into the threshold I reserve for roleplay games.

 

That description would, on the surface, seem to support MMOS like Levelquest and World of Warcrack as well as some old Play By Snail-Mail games pre-Internet.

 

Evolution is always a dangerous word. Evolution supports success. If D&D manages to hold onto a market where other games chase an aging population and survives when 'true' roleplaying games fall by the wayside as their players die off then D&D is the evolutionary next stage.

 

Or... It could suffer the same fate as the Dodo bird. But who knows? It could survive despite appearing (to me) like a duckbill platypus.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

That description would' date=' on the surface, seem to support MMOS like Levelquest and World of Warcrack as well as some old Play By Snail-Mail games pre-Internet.[/quote']

 

Hmm. I may need a bit of development on that to take in the interaction level up slightly - face to face stuff gets interaction just coz your in the same room - the WoW is getting there - I might even allow it in due to the level of player interaction - the world is a bit less interactive but the movement is definitely there for me to allow it into my catholic definition of rpg.

 

 

 

Or... It could suffer the same fate as the Dodo bird. But who knows? It could survive despite appearing (to me) like a duckbill platypus.

 

Always the problem when something changes - will it be more or less fit for the current environment and will it survive long enough to engender new progeny. Difficult to predict.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I've never seen any problem in 3x that discourages multiclassing. From the Munchkin level dipping to my own players doing it to greater depth, there wasn't any problem with it. Of course, if about all you were concerned about is damage, then according to the boards if you multiclassed you made a useless character. But I've never personally seen it.

 

With 4e, you take a slight penalty in your own class, spend some feats, but gain just about the same ability from your single multiclass. Since you lose abilities and gain higher ones, all you do is lose (pulling it out of my tail) a 15th level power from your class and gain a 15th level power from your other one. Story wise, how you explain going from being able to light a candle to suddenly tossing fireballs that fry mountains...well, that's on you. Instead of working for higher power (at a cost), you really pay very little for full power.

 

D3 encouraged some types of multiclassing: it made sense to pick up at 1st level some rogue or barbarian. The classes that really suffered with multiclass though were the magic users - being a level or two behind with spellcasting hurt bad. D4 has cut down ont he multiclassing options even more. Sure you can pick up abilities from other classes if you want to but the choice is not exactly free and easy, and the power swap feats simply do not make any sense from anything but a 'game based' perspective.

 

I'm not suggesting that you can't role play inside those strictures, and I'm not suggesting that abilities=personality as Hugh mentioned BUT personality is all about choices and mechanics that constrain your choices constraint he way you can play the character.

 

Finally what I'm certainly not suggesting is that you can't have fun with D4. Of course you can. You could probably happily play the game for 10 years and role play to your heart's content. When you look back, however, you will always have been walking between the tram lines.

 

Every RPG has system restrictions on what you can do, and competent players and GMs will get around them to enhance the experience and allow role playing, but the bottom, line is that the tram lines in Hero are set so far apart that you can barely see them. In D4 there is no encouragement, for example, to tave any negative aspect to your character, or to do anything other than acquire more power and ability. Even the alignment system has been simplified to the point of, well, pointlessness so your choices as to character basically fall into a tiny range.

 

I'm not saying D4 is not a good game, or even that ti is not a RPG any more - you can role play in almost any game environment if you want to, but no one can argue that it is set up to encourage role playing in the fullest and richest sense of the words.

 

Hero is.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I'm not saying I'm being prevented from roleplaying. But being able to roleplay while playing a game does not make it a roleplaying game.

 

If we used that definition, pretty much any game out there would be a RPG. Talisman? Done it. Car Wars? Been there. Chess? You bet. Heck, I've seen kids roleplay a game of War. Y'know? War? The card game where you match cards and the high number wins?

 

To make a game a RPG it needs to provide an infrastructure that encourages and supports roleplaying. And, I'm sorry to say, from what I've seen and heard of 4e, it just doesn't give me any warm fuzzies that way.

 

It sounds like a smashing tactical combat game and I wish WoTC all the luck in making a successful venture of it.

 

It just is not a RPG to me. That doesn't make it a bad game. It's just not my cup of tea. And I certainly don't see it as the next evolution of what RPGs should be like.

 

Have I sufficiently explained my position?

 

D3 encouraged some types of multiclassing: it made sense to pick up at 1st level some rogue or barbarian. The classes that really suffered with multiclass though were the magic users - being a level or two behind with spellcasting hurt bad. D4 has cut down ont he multiclassing options even more. Sure you can pick up abilities from other classes if you want to but the choice is not exactly free and easy, and the power swap feats simply do not make any sense from anything but a 'game based' perspective.

 

I'm not suggesting that you can't role play inside those strictures, and I'm not suggesting that abilities=personality as Hugh mentioned BUT personality is all about choices and mechanics that constrain your choices constraint he way you can play the character.

 

Finally what I'm certainly not suggesting is that you can't have fun with D4. Of course you can. You could probably happily play the game for 10 years and role play to your heart's content. When you look back, however, you will always have been walking between the tram lines.

 

Every RPG has system restrictions on what you can do, and competent players and GMs will get around them to enhance the experience and allow role playing, but the bottom, line is that the tram lines in Hero are set so far apart that you can barely see them. In D4 there is no encouragement, for example, to tave any negative aspect to your character, or to do anything other than acquire more power and ability. Even the alignment system has been simplified to the point of, well, pointlessness so your choices as to character basically fall into a tiny range.

 

I'm not saying D4 is not a good game, or even that ti is not a RPG any more - you can role play in almost any game environment if you want to, but no one can argue that it is set up to encourage role playing in the fullest and richest sense of the words.

 

Hero is.

 

I think one issue in this discussion is that, while we all refer to "role playing", we all have different definitions of what that means, and we don't explain them. As such, I think we approach this from different viewpoints.

 

To me, role playing falls well outside mechanics. It is playing your character's personality, not playing the tactical options. Whether you are interacting with other characters, deciding where to go next or selecting combat options, all involve tactical options. If your character, any character, always selects the best modifier for interrogating a prisoner ("torch to the groin, BA"), this is a "tactical options" decision. If your character is opposed to torture, he would not take that option, and actively prevent his colleagues doing so. He has a Rivalry with Captain Flame? Then a role player will not accept assistance from Capt Flame, even when this is the best tactical option. When your characters are asked to slip illegally into another country to "extradite" a villain, and one of the PC's refuses to do so because such an action violates his principals of justice, law and order, knowing that refusal will have serious negative repercussions, that's role playing.

 

Some areas that others seem to consider "role playing":

 

- choice of character abilities (D&D constrains these, and I undersrstand 4e even more so). In my view, you could play six Fighters with identical stats and abilities in every way and still role play. Each would have his own world view, personality and outloook. Or you can play six very different characters, each of whom always looks at the most desirable tactical option, goes along with the group consensus blindly, and have as much personality as cardboard cutouts. I like having an array of abilities to choose from, but I don't like it when those abilities, rather than the characters' personalities, dominate the game.

 

- mechanics for interaction in ways other than combat. I can turn such interactions into pure roll playing now that I have the mechanics. Select the approach that provides the most positive modifiers and roll your Diplomacy, Persuasion, whatever skill. Make the right roll and succeed. Never mind that your character supposedly has great contempt for Dwarves - buy that Dwarven merchant a drink and chat him up, because that gets you the positive modifiers. You can hide that contempt because it's the best tactical option.

 

- rewards for playing in character. Hero has them - disadvantages and "good role playing" xp bonuses. A good role player will start with his character's personality and use them to build disad's he was going to play anyway. Many of their characters will end up with more disad's than they need to max out their points, whether in some categories or overall. They will keep them, and play them, all. That's who their character is. They would have those same disad's even if they got no points for them. Providing rewards for negative implications to the character can be turned into just another tactical exercise. "Is it better for my character to play that Psych lim and get rewarded there and hurt for its application, or avoid the lim (and its adverse consequences) with the cost of losing that reward?" "My half ogre character has no arms and refuses to use weapons. The Building Points were just too sweet to pass up." Personality mechanics can do the same - "Let's see if I can make my Ego roll and bypass my character's personal beliefs - they are inconvenient at this time."

 

I'm not saying any of the above are BAD things in and of themselves. However, they do not create a role playing environment. They will facilitate some players' role playing and motivate others to game the system rather than role play. About the best any game system can do is set aside a few pages to talk about taking your character beyond his numbers and die rolls, turning the character from a game piece into a living, breathing character. The reader will either get it or discard it.

 

You can lead a gamer to character personality, but you can't make him role play.

[incrdbil]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

4E gave me the 'cheap marketing grab for MMO players" feel. Is a buisness decision.

 

As for my feel on it: I've only played one MMO. City of Heroes. Supposedly a good MMO, in one of my favorite genres of all time. Found a group of savvy players who were into roleplaying, with shared interests..and good people to tal to. Great group.

 

And after less than a year, I was burned out and bored, and even the good company couldnt keep me interested in continuin.

 

I think of the truly bad RPG's I've played in where a great group made up for it all..and relaize the MMO element made the difference. The boring, limited options, the barriers to roleplay and character immersion..and I simply can't see wasting time or money in a game that thinks copying those play elements is a good idea.

 

 

It's amazing..WoTc did do somethign I thought impossible-they came up with a new system that in comparison makes d20 look like a great RPG system.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I think of the truly bad RPG's I've played in where a great group made up for it all..and relaize the MMO element made the difference. The boring' date=' limited options, the barriers to roleplay and character immersion..and I simply can't see wasting time or money in a game that thinks copying those play elements is a good idea.[/quote']

 

I think the interactivity of a GM is the one place that face to face has current advantage over MMOs. The personalised response of the background and context.

 

To me WotC have looked at what was good about MMOs and tried to bring those to a tabletop game. It will have its niche and, for me, will not be the game of choice. It will be fun for certain games that we want to play though. It has its strengths and attractions and, as you might expect, it is extremely well presented.

 

 

Doc

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

4E gave me the 'cheap marketing grab for MMO players" feel. Is a business decision.

 

...

 

It's amazing..WoTc did do something I thought impossible-they came up with a new system that in comparison makes d20 look like a great RPG system.

 

I could be wrong, but I would place blame for the change at the feet of Hasbro, not WotC. After all, Hasbro is the top of that "food chain" -- any significant changes to a product line of a subsidiary you can bet they had a hand in at least approving, if not instigating.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

A little background to help explain my perspective (or to skip because I'm in an unusually verbose mood): I started playing D&D in elementary school with groups that took parties of characters on true storybook type adventures. The good ol' oh-my-god-I-just-dipped-my-hand-in-the-wrong-pile-of-treasure, what-is-that-silly-little-fairy-trying-to-get-me-to-do, he-did-WHAT-in-the-middle-of-the-night-break-out-the-silverware-and-try-to-make-arrowheads type adventures. Yes there was adventure, yes there were mechanics, and yes there was a whole heck of a lot of roleplaying. And somehow they all went together in a way that I've sadly seen failing over time.

 

Maybe it is more about the general roleplaying culture out there. About 8 years ago I think, I was trying to encourage my old gaming groups to keep playing, and for the most part they were losing interest in the old around-the-table adventure style games and looking for new players to join, no matter the cost. So they wound up in gaming shops, with tons of new players (I suspect mostly CCG players since that's who hung out in the shops) clustered around them arguing about rules and character loyalties and who was winning, or some odd crap like that. It no longer seemed to be about a group of adventurers out to do crazy crap together, but about who had the bigger sword, most flashy magical item, who could do the most without even a spellbook, who won when the now-inevitable party conflict hit, or whatever. I lost touch a bit, playing here and there in the "back alley" (my living room) when I could scrape together a gaming group willing to do a little Hero or World of Darkness or even an old-fashioned game of D&D.

 

Then I walked into the local gaming shop one day and discovered a whole new level of horror. The players had gone beyond even the semi-roleplaying, d***-waving contests and were now actually dueling each other! With the D&D (3.x) system, not even something expected like Warhammer. They'd turned the whole darn thing into a player-vs.-player combat arena, complete with rules about what you could do (mechanically, no roleplaying involved) to your character with experience and money between fights, and a schedule of when each character could participate in a challenge and a chart of character ranking in the challenges. Yes, in a few of the challenges they had "NPCs" run by one player against a PC or two. I guess they had to pad the encounters to manipulate the gain of experience and money and such. Huh. Interesting, no? But, after all, there is a well-defined guideline for what you should have at each level of play and such, and it's so damn easy to put together an encounter for a character or group that, well, why put any effort into it at all when you can just run combat after combat after combat...and why compare characters indirectly like all the new players seemed to want to when you can just face them off against each other? I was so sick I almost puked.

 

My impression is that the D&D/WoTC line of gaming systems have grown right along with that kind of cultural change in gaming. Instead of taking a huge pool of potential and trying to introduce it to some good ol' roleplaying, I'm sorry but they took the p**sy way out and transformed the roleplaying into something those new and potential players could understand from the CCGs and MMOGs and such that they had already been using to beat the crap out of each other. And Lo and Behold! There was a tremendous BOOM in the gaming industry. Walk into a gaming store almost any time it was open and you'd be bound to see at least a small group involved in something resembling a roleplaying game (note "resembling"). Suddenly "roleplaying games" appealed to a whole new crowd, and there was such a huge new source of revenue that who could resist? And for us older players who found it difficult to rally interest and were afraid roleplaying might be going the way of the dodo? Who could resist? But what about the quality of this new gaming? Does the quantity and certainty truly substitute for what we used to have?

 

That's harsh, I guess. And reading this, (some of) you might realize that you are one of those, "new players," I'm talking about. If so, you're welcome to simply dismiss me as an old-minded idiot, but really all I'm saying is: There's another world out there. It is a world of imagination and long-lasting enjoyment. It may not produce much instant gratification, but if you put a little time and energy into it, you'll never be sorry. You might have to go searching for this world, because it's not likely to come looking for you. If you accept this quest, you might find an old soldier, or an eccentric wizard, or a b***ard of an elf willing to join you. They may not have many optimized feats (or whatever new-fangled things 4e has introduced)--in fact, they may not have any at all--but they will sure as hell be there for you in a pinch, and they're almost certain to inspire a little laughter, a little admiration, and even a little awe, in their antics.

 

So, yeah, put me firmly in the "MMO influence on roleplaying is a BAD thing," camp. Maybe my own local experience doesn't apply generally, but that is the disgruntled shade of glasses with which I see things, and now you know (if you bothered to read my silly little novelette here that is).

 

Okay. Now you can safely turn off your ignore filter again. I think I'm done for the evening.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

So they wound up in gaming shops' date=' with tons of new players (I suspect mostly CCG players since that's who hung out in the shops) clustered around them arguing about rules and character loyalties and who was [i']winning[/i], or some odd crap like that. It no longer seemed to be about a group of adventurers out to do crazy crap together, but about who had the bigger sword, most flashy magical item, who could do the most without even a spellbook, who won when the now-inevitable party conflict hit, or whatever. I lost touch a bit, playing here and there in the "back alley" (my living room) when I could scrape together a gaming group willing to do a little Hero or World of Darkness or even an old-fashioned game of D&D.

 

Sounds to me like that local area was overrun by Stupid Evils and Chaotic Everywheres.

 

Then I walked into the local gaming shop one day and discovered a whole new level of horror. The players had gone beyond even the semi-roleplaying' date=' d***-waving contests and were now actually [i']dueling[/i] each other! With the D&D (3.x) system, not even something expected like Warhammer. They'd turned the whole darn thing into a player-vs.-player combat arena, complete with rules about what you could do (mechanically, no roleplaying involved) to your character with experience and money between fights, and a schedule of when each character could participate in a challenge and a chart of character ranking in the challenges. Yes, in a few of the challenges they had "NPCs" run by one player against a PC or two. I guess they had to pad the encounters to manipulate the gain of experience and money and such. Huh. Interesting, no? But, after all, there is a well-defined guideline for what you should have at each level of play and such, and it's so damn easy to put together an encounter for a character or group that, well, why put any effort into it at all when you can just run combat after combat after combat...and why compare characters indirectly like all the new players seemed to want to when you can just face them off against each other? I was so sick I almost puked.

 

200 Quatloos on the newcomers!

 

My impression is that the D&D/WoTC line of gaming systems have grown right along with that kind of cultural change in gaming. Instead of taking a huge pool of potential and trying to introduce it to some good ol' roleplaying, I'm sorry but they took the p**sy way out and transformed the roleplaying into something those new and potential players could understand from the CCGs and MMOGs and such that they had already been using to beat the crap out of each other.

 

...

 

So, yeah, put me firmly in the "MMO influence on roleplaying is a BAD thing," camp. Maybe my own local experience doesn't apply generally, but that is the disgruntled shade of glasses with which I see things, and now you know (if you bothered to read my silly little novelette here that is).

 

Welcome, Brother!

[Crypt]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

.now' date=' did you understand the FGU Chivalry & Sorcery magic rules? [/quote']

 

 

Lol, actually yes but it took a lot of time

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Lol' date=' actually yes but it took a lot of time[/quote']

 

I had it figured out, then I slept.

You've got to love those easy-to-learn systems...

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

A little background to help explain my perspective (or to skip because I'm in an unusually verbose mood): I started playing D&D in elementary school with groups that took parties of characters on true storybook type adventures. The good ol' oh-my-god-I-just-dipped-my-hand-in-the-wrong-pile-of-treasure' date=' what-is-that-silly-little-fairy-trying-to-get-me-to-do, he-did-WHAT-in-the-middle-of-the-night-break-out-the-silverware-and-try-to-make-arrowheads type adventures. Yes there was adventure, yes there were mechanics, and yes there was a whole heck of a lot of roleplaying. And somehow they all went [i']together[/i] in a way that I've sadly seen failing over time.

 

Maybe it is more about the general roleplaying culture out there. About 8 years ago I think, I was trying to encourage my old gaming groups to keep playing, and for the most part they were losing interest in the old around-the-table adventure style games and looking for new players to join, no matter the cost. So they wound up in gaming shops, with tons of new players (I suspect mostly CCG players since that's who hung out in the shops) clustered around them arguing about rules and character loyalties and who was winning, or some odd crap like that. It no longer seemed to be about a group of adventurers out to do crazy crap together, but about who had the bigger sword, most flashy magical item, who could do the most without even a spellbook, who won when the now-inevitable party conflict hit, or whatever. I lost touch a bit, playing here and there in the "back alley" (my living room) when I could scrape together a gaming group willing to do a little Hero or World of Darkness or even an old-fashioned game of D&D.

 

Then I walked into the local gaming shop one day and discovered a whole new level of horror. The players had gone beyond even the semi-roleplaying, d***-waving contests and were now actually dueling each other! With the D&D (3.x) system, not even something expected like Warhammer. They'd turned the whole darn thing into a player-vs.-player combat arena, complete with rules about what you could do (mechanically, no roleplaying involved) to your character with experience and money between fights, and a schedule of when each character could participate in a challenge and a chart of character ranking in the challenges. Yes, in a few of the challenges they had "NPCs" run by one player against a PC or two. I guess they had to pad the encounters to manipulate the gain of experience and money and such. Huh. Interesting, no? But, after all, there is a well-defined guideline for what you should have at each level of play and such, and it's so damn easy to put together an encounter for a character or group that, well, why put any effort into it at all when you can just run combat after combat after combat...and why compare characters indirectly like all the new players seemed to want to when you can just face them off against each other? I was so sick I almost puked.

 

My impression is that the D&D/WoTC line of gaming systems have grown right along with that kind of cultural change in gaming. Instead of taking a huge pool of potential and trying to introduce it to some good ol' roleplaying, I'm sorry but they took the p**sy way out and transformed the roleplaying into something those new and potential players could understand from the CCGs and MMOGs and such that they had already been using to beat the crap out of each other. And Lo and Behold! There was a tremendous BOOM in the gaming industry. Walk into a gaming store almost any time it was open and you'd be bound to see at least a small group involved in something resembling a roleplaying game (note "resembling"). Suddenly "roleplaying games" appealed to a whole new crowd, and there was such a huge new source of revenue that who could resist? And for us older players who found it difficult to rally interest and were afraid roleplaying might be going the way of the dodo? Who could resist? But what about the quality of this new gaming? Does the quantity and certainty truly substitute for what we used to have?

 

That's harsh, I guess. And reading this, (some of) you might realize that you are one of those, "new players," I'm talking about. If so, you're welcome to simply dismiss me as an old-minded idiot, but really all I'm saying is: There's another world out there. It is a world of imagination and long-lasting enjoyment. It may not produce much instant gratification, but if you put a little time and energy into it, you'll never be sorry. You might have to go searching for this world, because it's not likely to come looking for you. If you accept this quest, you might find an old soldier, or an eccentric wizard, or a b***ard of an elf willing to join you. They may not have many optimized feats (or whatever new-fangled things 4e has introduced)--in fact, they may not have any at all--but they will sure as hell be there for you in a pinch, and they're almost certain to inspire a little laughter, a little admiration, and even a little awe, in their antics.

 

So, yeah, put me firmly in the "MMO influence on roleplaying is a BAD thing," camp. Maybe my own local experience doesn't apply generally, but that is the disgruntled shade of glasses with which I see things, and now you know (if you bothered to read my silly little novelette here that is).

 

Okay. Now you can safely turn off your ignore filter again. I think I'm done for the evening.

 

 

Hear! Hear! Well spoken!

 

I'm quoting your whole post because it's worth reading a second time.

 

You are not alone in your pain and loss. I've been lucky to still find fellow gamers who find the story more entertaining than getting lewt and phat XP, but as the saying goes, there's damn few of us, and growing smaller every year.

[badger3k]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Maybe it is more about the general roleplaying culture out there. About 8 years ago I think, I was trying to encourage my old gaming groups to keep playing, and for the most part they were losing interest in the old around-the-table adventure style games and looking for new players to join, no matter the cost. So they wound up in gaming shops, with tons of new players (I suspect mostly CCG players since that's who hung out in the shops) clustered around them arguing about rules and character loyalties and who was winning, or some odd crap like that. It no longer seemed to be about a group of adventurers out to do crazy crap together, but about who had the bigger sword, most flashy magical item, who could do the most without even a spellbook, who won when the now-inevitable party conflict hit, or whatever. I lost touch a bit, playing here and there in the "back alley" (my living room) when I could scrape together a gaming group willing to do a little Hero or World of Darkness or even an old-fashioned game of D&D.

 

Then I walked into the local gaming shop one day and discovered a whole new level of horror. The players had gone beyond even the semi-roleplaying, d***-waving contests and were now actually dueling each other! With the D&D (3.x) system, not even something expected like Warhammer. They'd turned the whole darn thing into a player-vs.-player combat arena, complete with rules about what you could do (mechanically, no roleplaying involved) to your character with experience and money between fights, and a schedule of when each character could participate in a challenge and a chart of character ranking in the challenges. Yes, in a few of the challenges they had "NPCs" run by one player against a PC or two. I guess they had to pad the encounters to manipulate the gain of experience and money and such. Huh. Interesting, no? But, after all, there is a well-defined guideline for what you should have at each level of play and such, and it's so damn easy to put together an encounter for a character or group that, well, why put any effort into it at all when you can just run combat after combat after combat...and why compare characters indirectly like all the new players seemed to want to when you can just face them off against each other? I was so sick I almost puked.

 

One thing that I have noticed on the WOTC forums (other than the predominance of character optimization boards that were purposely put there so that people could "pimp their character" for the most possible power - and there are some idiotic builds there ) is the idea that a character is balanced if they are about the same as every other character. A character may excel in one area, but it can't be any more than any other character. This was usually argued through the player vs player mechanic, although there were the whole "cleric is the greatest, druid is the greatest, wizard is the greatest" threads as well (and the "fighters suck" threads). Most involved the same kind of cheese as the optimization boards.

 

I think that idea, that all characters have to do the same kind of damage (which is usually what it boiled down to, IMO) that lead to the changes in 4e. Every game needs some kind of balance so that everyone has fun. Despite (or because of) 30-odd years of gaming, I've never had any of the problems that people complained about. As in Hero, balance is a player/GM thing - even the best "balanced" game in the world can (and is going to be - I give it 6 months) abused. 4e takes the player v player idea, and the equal damage is balanced ideas and runs with it to the hilt, instead of giving options and letting the players make their own. It is easier for people to pick up - they don't have to do anything but plug in creatures. But it also takes away possibilities from the game. That's why I like Hero - we can set it up any way we like, and while it involves more work, I still follow the old adage that what you work for is better then what is given to you, since you earn it.

 

Granted, I won't turn down any millionaires giving away money....

 

For me, 4e is...bland. I have heard that the newer splat books will expand upon the basic game, with more feats, and I assume more classes and paragon paths (the new name for prestige classes, basically, although you have to take one or lose out on powers and abilities, so you better hope there is one you like). How the game will stay "balanced" when you go back to 600 classes....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

I think one issue in this discussion is that, while we all refer to "role playing", we all have different definitions of what that means, and we don't explain them. As such, I think we approach this from different viewpoints.

 

To me, role playing falls well outside mechanics. It is playing your character's personality, not playing the tactical options.

 

................................

 

You can lead a gamer to character personality, but you can't make him role play.

 

I agree with you; it doesn't matter what system, no matter how proscriptive, you can still role play, but what I would argue is that a highly proscriptive system limits the ways in which your character develops as a character, rather than as a personality and that limits the logical choices you have as tot eh role played reactions of the character.

 

I mean, if you play a 'fighter' in whatever system (and I almost always played fighters in DnD because I though they were the most interesting characters, having little or no behavioural or personality restrictions) who gets tired of all the killing and wants to go off and teach language skills to underprivileged kids, that's a role playing choice.

 

Some systems allow you to do that. Some don't. DnD doesn't because such a choice is meaningless in the context of the system's set up. You can't earn XP without hacking off heads.

 

Now DnD has always been a bit like that: you have to make almost all of your career choices when you first create a character. Hero works very differently.

 

Now the skills you learn and the abilities you develop to not make your personality. I pride myself on creating characters who have behavioural and linguistic patterns that are recognisable and reproduceable without, hopefully, becoming mere charactatures. Whether those I play with would have such a generous interpretation of my skills is another matter...

 

Such behavioural and lingusitic patters are almost independent of 'character class'. Jakka Vultrades, for instance, was always quite happy go lucky and accomodating, often quite and almost retiring, willing to work in the party structure but respectful of the mores and rites of other peoples and cultures. He liked pjilosophical discussions about the nature of good and evil. He was a lawful evil fighter theif (sorry; rogue) threshing machine in D3. The first time he opened up with his spiked chain and combat reflexes a whole wave of attacking troops turned into a fine red mist, and even the GM looked terrified. He never could understand how the Paladin could walk blood spattered from the remains of an orc village and still call himself 'good'.

 

No system prevents role playing. Hell, wargaming doesn't prevent role playing (that's how the hobby started) but some systems encourage it more than others. it is quite hard to play Hero and NOT role play - the 'disadvantages' section of your character sheet often sees to that - but you could easily walk through a whole D4 campaign and make nothing but tactical decisions, and no one would think twice about it.

 

That's not wrong - so long as people enjoy that, and keep role playing generally funded and healthy I'm cool. I don't have to play with them, or if I do, I'm good enough to have them doing funny voices and wearing hats before the week is out. Assuming I can get a hat big enough to fit on my head, that is.

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

...the idea that a character is balanced if they are about the same as every other character. A character may excel in one area, but it can't be any more than any other character. This was usually argued through the player vs player mechanic, although there were the whole "cleric is the greatest, druid is the greatest, wizard is the greatest" threads as well (and the "fighters suck" threads). Most involved the same kind of cheese as the optimization boards.

 

I think that idea, that all characters have to do the same kind of damage (which is usually what it boiled down to, IMO) that lead to the changes in 4e. Every game needs some kind of balance so that everyone has fun. Despite (or because of) 30-odd years of gaming, I've never had any of the problems that people complained about.....

 

EXACTLY! Why do all the characters have to be exactly balanced? Yes, I understand that way back in the day that first level wizards got one spell per day it wasn't very fun to "blow your load" and then sit around twiddling your thumbs the rest of the time, but there are clearly other solutions to that kind of problem. No one wants to take back stage all of the time, but if everyone is contributing here and there, and everyone gets story attention as well as combat time, I find it all works out in the end if you have a group of fun and reasonable players. I like to be out there on the front line dealing out the punishment as much as the next player, but some of the most fun I have had has also been with characters who stick their noses out every now and then and rock everyone's world with either mechanics, story, personality, or some combination of all of those.

 

Once you get around the story/attention thing, the only other reason I can think of to make all the PCs balanced is that the players are counting on fighting each other, and--far worse--seriously worried about the outcome! Party squabbles may happen here and there, but seriously, why do players' egos have to be so heavily involved? It's supposed to be a story! (Third person, not "FPS". Heh.)

[NestorDRod]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Oh, boy. Game balance.

 

Now there's a can of worms that's dangerous to open.

 

It's another of those topics that can easily become a "holy war," as this discussion of "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" has threatened to become at times.

 

Not sure if we want to go there...

[BNakagawa]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

Oh, boy. Game balance.

 

Now there's a can of worms that's dangerous to open.

 

It's another of those topics that can easily become a "holy war," as this discussion of "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" has threatened to become at times.

 

Not sure if we want to go there...

 

sure, why not? It's where MMORPG players live, after all. Check out some of the official WoW boards and tell me I'm wrong...

[Korvar]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

What irritates me about 4E (and I think this was a factor in 3.X) was that there was a specific emphasis on combat balance, with no possibility of balancing combat effectiveness with non-combat effectiveness. Rogues/Thieves in particular, have a slew of non-combat abilities - to the extent that dungeon-diving without one is pretty stupid - and yet they're also meant to be every bit the combat monster the fighter is.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Learning from the mistakes of others

 

It is a totally different model of play. MMOG (and CCG) players invest to different degrees (in different ways: time, effort, money, etc.) and want their system to reflect that. What experienced MMOG player wants to, "look like a newb" or--often--even associate with them? Also, they usually turn against each other eventually, because what else is there? Game providers can't hope to contribute as much imagination and interactive potential as their body of players, and we all know how fun a computer is to play against after you learn the system's ins and outs.

 

On the other hand, if you have a gaming group and a new player joins in, you want that player to be able to contribute to the game. You want your system to support and encourage that. One's a very competitive approach; the other (ideally, at least in my opinion) is cooperative. One is exclusive; the other is inclusive. If you're competing against someone, you certainly want it to be fair. If you are cooperating with someone, you simply want them to hold up their end of the stick to the best of their ability; "fairness" becomes less of an issue.

 

EDIT: Not to intentionally plug any particular product, but this is also the difference I see between online games and online environments (such as Second Life, and I believe a few others out there now too--actually I'd also include forums such as this one). Where the "players" (call them "users" now because they don't simply play something pre-setup) themselves generate most or all of the content, there is more potential for the cooperative model rather than everyone being channelled to some degree into the competitive one.