Current version of D&D - is it good?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**pretre**

ZombieJoe wrote:To your point, yes there are other RPG's that what you said, but I do not play them all and do not have an informed opinion on the matter.

And I rest my case.

**ZombieJoe**

Haha! You've played them all then? Well congrats to you sir.

**pretre**

ZombieJoe wrote:Haha! You've played them all then? Well congrats to you sir.

Thanks! I appreciate your heartfelt congratulations.

More of the point was that those other systems did these things far before MMOs and that you were conceding that point. Either way, I appreciate you being big enough to admit when you are out of your depth.

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:Haha! You've played them all then? Well congrats to you sir.

Thanks! I appreciate your heartfelt congratulations.

More of the point was that those other systems did these things far before MMOs and that you were conceding that point. Either way, I appreciate you being big enough to admit when you are out of your depth.

First, let's set the record straight, I am NOT a fish.
2nd....
What does it matter WHAT the other game system did or did not do? When I said 4th plays like an MMO, you pointed out that other systems did it too... that doesn't dispute that 4th plays like an mmo.

You sir are far from the pulse now. Get a handle on your arguments please and then come on back. I've enjoyed playing with you so far.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
WAIT! New approach. Please, enlighten me, why does it matter what other systems have done?

**streamdragon**

The point wasn't that those games play like an mmo (because they don't), but that the system you purport to be "MMO like', is in fact, not "MMO like", or even "Video Game" like. It's a standard through multiple other RPGs that have never been accused of being MMOs.

**pretre**

ZombieJoe wrote:What does it matter WHAT the other game system did or did not do? When I said 4th plays like an MMO, you pointed out that other systems did it too... that doesn't dispute that 4th plays like an mmo.

Because those other game systems did it far before MMOs did it. 4th Ed is copying earlier versions of D&D and other game systems, a tried and true tradition in RPGs. It just happens that MMOs also copied D&D and other game systems.

D&D 4E doesn't play like an MMO. MMOs play like D&D.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:WAIT! New approach. Please, enlighten me, why does it matter what other systems have done?

See streamdragon's reply. D&D isn't MMO like; it is RPG like. RPGs have been doing the things that MMOs do for 20-30 years. Hence, D&D 4E isn't copying MMOs, it is copying an established continuity of RPGs.

DND 4E plays like an RPG. It just so happens that so do MMOs.

**ZombieJoe**

Except that it does. Or, more so than it ever did.

**pretre**

ZombieJoe wrote:Except that it does. Or, more so than it ever did.

Name one thing that D&D 4E does that MMOs do that did not exist prior to MMOs in D&D or other RPGs..

One thing.

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:Except that it does. Or, more so than it ever did.

Name one thing that D&D 4E does that MMOs do that did not exist prior to MMOs in D&D or other RPGs..

One thing.

Name one thing that is meaningless to try and prove a moot point, go on, I dare you!

It’s not about that one thing that makes it what it is. It’s that, of all the ways 4E COULD have been built, it instead borrowed a lot of predominantly MMO qualities. Making it, appear, to play a lot like an MMO. It's the subtleties of the game that are eluding you my son.

**pretre**

The point you are missing is that those are not MMO qualities, those are RPG qualities.

Are you saying that everything MMOs do irrevocably become MMO qualities because they did them?

That doesn't leave a lot as RPG qualities.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm guessing it is chronologically impossible for me to be your son.

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:The point you are missing is that those are not MMO qualities, those are RPG qualities.

Are you saying that everything MMOs do irrevocably become MMO qualities because they did them?

That doesn't leave a lot as RPG qualities.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'm guessing it is chronologically impossible for me to be your son.

Not if you only include the ones that collectively made an MMO what it is.

**pretre**

ZombieJoe wrote:Not if you only include the ones that collectively made an MMO what it is.

Be a little less vague. What collectively makes an MMO what is is?

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:Not if you only include the ones that collectively made an MMO what it is.

Be a little less vague. What collectively makes an MMO what is is?

I think maybe you should go back and reread the posts. Or start a new one. Cuase this is way off topic now.
You just need to think a little harder on the topic. Next time you play WOW. reallllly look it. Closesly, get down on that baby and just put your nose in it. Take a wiff o' that stuff and maybe then you'll get it.

**pretre**

Stop being so condescending and avoiding the question.

Okay, let me address your original points and show you that they are the same as previous editions.

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D had per day/encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D (80's) was copying MMOs.

3E had per day and encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So 3E (90's) was copying MMOs.

4E has per day and encounter powers.
It has mostly rule for combat and few, if any for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, feats and abilities for levelling.
It has tiers.
The art is very similar to wow art.
It has XP for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

So 4E (00's) was copying MMOs.

WOW has powers with cooldowns but not daily or encounters per se.
WOW has rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay. Players get no increases other than powers, skills and abilities for levelling.
It doesn't have tiers, but has expansion packs based on level. There are no prestige classes, or paragon paths, but rather different sub-classes basically for each class available at level 1.
The art is WOW art.
The XP is for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

Is this your contention?

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:Stop being so condescending and avoiding the question.

Okay, let me address your original points and show you that they are the same as previous editions.

ZombieJoe wrote:The reason I view 4.0 as an MMO-esk game is for the following.

1. The daily/encounter powers. This is very much like any MMO ability system, completely with cool downs and all. In 3.5, you didn't have many of these. Honestly, they were very far and few between.
2. They tried to increase the amount of "combat" stuff and decrease the roleplay. That is why you got those fancy "powers" in the first place, and they down played roleplaying. MMO's do not focus on roleplay at all...usually. So, in an MMO you only have powers and that is all you consider when you level up. This similarity exhists between 4.0 and, say, WOW.
3. The tear system is VERY MMO. The whole, idea of paragon paths and epic levels (which yes I know you can draw parallels between epic level and prestige classing in 3.5) felt more derivative of WOW then of 3.5. Plus the whole tear system as a whole was MMO based. In an MMO, you pick your powers and abilities based on the "PATH" or "TEARS" you choose, each comes with a set of choices. 3.5, this was not the case. You got the abilities outlined in your class profile. You could then pick from a very long list of magics and feats as needed. In that way, 3.5 gave you more options than 4.0.
4. Just look at the art! Take a 4.0 book and some WOW cover art and if you cannot see the similarities then you might just be choosing not to.
5. The whole bloodied and healing surges felt very MMO based. It added an entire new element to the game to reduce the need for parties and make the game more standalone. This is not automatically a bad thing, but there again it focused the game into a monstermashing system more than anything else. A big thing to come out of 4.0 was battle session. People getting together to just battle monsters and cave crawl. This was not nearly as prevalent in 3.5. If you play MMO's then you'd know that this is pretty much the nature of them.

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D had per day/encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D (80's) was copying MMOs.

3E had per day and encounter powers.
It had mostly rules for combat and few, if any, for roleplay.
It had tiers.
The art was very similar to WOW art.
It was focused on monster mashing with no XP for anything else. Some people got together just to battle monsters.

So 3E (90's) was copying MMOs.

4E has per day and encounter powers.
It has mostly rule for combat and few, if any for roleplay.
It has tiers.
The art is very similar to wow art.
It has XP for both combat and not combat. Some people get together just to battle monsters.

So 4E (00's) was copying MMOs.

Is this your contention?

See now you get it. I'm glad you are starting to see reason man.

**pretre**

So basically every version of D&D since the 80's is MMO-like, even though MMOs didn't start until the late 90's, early 00's?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:See now you get it. I'm glad you are starting to see reason man.

Seriously? You're saying that a game that was published in the 80's (Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D) was designed to be MMO-like when the MMO didn't come out until 20 years later?

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:So basically every version of D&D since the 80's is MMO-like, even though MMOs didn't start until the late 90's, early 00's?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:See now you get it. I'm glad you are starting to see reason man.

Seriously? You're saying that a game that was published in the 80's (Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal D&D) was designed to be MMO-like when the MMO didn't come out until 20 years later?

That's not really what I'm saying.

**Balance**

ZombieJoe wrote:
You sir are far from the pulse now. Get a handle on your arguments please and then come on back. I've enjoyed playing with you so far.

Would this be an admission of trolling?

Steamdragon and myself keep bringing up prior art for various 'MMO qualities' to illustrate that what you feel are MMO qualities were tabletop RPG qualities first.

**pretre**

It may not be what you are intending to say, but it is what you are actually saying. If 4E D&D is MMO like because of those features that you say it has in common with MMOs, then so are those earlier versions of D&D (3E, Basic).

**ZombieJoe**

Balance wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:
You sir are far from the pulse now. Get a handle on your arguments please and then come on back. I've enjoyed playing with you so far.

Would this be an admission of trolling?

Steamdragon and myself keep bringing up prior art for various 'MMO qualities' to illustrate that what you feel are MMO qualities were tabletop RPG qualities first.

Please! Not at all! I'm very literal here. I have enjoyed this conversation with my fellow dakka's. I hate trolls, I come here to share an interest in gaming, not to aggrivate people and be aggrivated. This converstation may have gotten a little heated but I don't think anyone has gotten offeneded yet. I hope not!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:It may not be what you are intending to say, but it is what you are actually saying. If 4E D&D is MMO like because of those features that you say it has in common with MMOs, then so are those earlier versions of D&D (3E, Basic).

It's not though. I'm sorry, but you are so concerned with being right here that you are failing to see what I'm trying to say.

**pretre**

ZombieJoe wrote:
pretre wrote:It may not be what you are intending to say, but it is what you are actually saying. If 4E D&D is MMO like because of those features that you say it has in common with MMOs, then so are those earlier versions of D&D (3E, Basic).

It's not though. I'm sorry, but you are so concerned with being right here that you are failing to see what I'm trying to say.

Okay, so because of the things I listed, D&D 4E is designed like an MMO.

How, if Basic and 3E have those exact same type of features, are they not also designed like an MMO?

Explain it to me, since I am obviously 'so concerned with being right that I am failing to see what you are trying to say'.

**ZombieJoe**

*Sigh* Look I'm can see you're worked up. I can't play anymore this evening. I'll come back to you in three days and give you a solid, compelling, and illrefutable explanation. OK?

**pretre**

lol

You'll be back in three days time, eh?

**ZombieJoe**

pretre wrote:lol

You'll be back in three days time, eh?

Yes I will. I'm leaving work soon and I don't generally use the intertubes much on the weekend. So Monday I'll expalin it to you again. Besides, I need to explain this to my little nephew and have him translate it for you.

lol

**Necroshea**

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

+1

I've got a small hoard of 3.5 stuff, and I feel no urge what so ever to walk away from it. On top of that, 4e dumbed things down and as its been said, put more focus on combat and less on story, which was a nail in the coffin for me.

**streamdragon**

*sigh* It's almost like there's arguements against those things in this very thread, and yet...

**pretre**

streamdragon wrote:*sigh* It's almost like there's arguements against those things in this very thread, and yet...

Reading is for losers!

**Skriker**

ZombieJoe wrote:4th plays a lot like an MMO. I dont care for it as much as 3.5 cause it really stepped away from roleplaying and became more of a battle system and that's not really the only point of dnd. That being said, I'm pretty biased. I love 3.5, I have a feff-ton of books. Even if 5th ed is the best thing since slided toasties, I'll be hardpressed to walk away from my massive 3.5 collection.

The easy way around this is the keep playing it the same way. I was unhappy with 4th because the people I was playing with were focusing on the "complete X combat encounters a night" mentality and I hated that. Now I am running it myself and running it the way I run every RPG: heavy on the roleplaying and combat when it is important or necessary. Works just fine in that context, just without all of the old "But I wasn't even in the room!" issues that used to come up in combat in older versions.

Skriker

**pretre**

@Skriker: Exactly. You outline exactly the problem with all editions: the players. lol

Seriously though, the game is just a framework.

As a sidenote on X encounters per night, my group is off and on for combat vs RP, but we don't focus on encounters per night. We focus on encounters before extended rest.

This way, there's plenty of time to do everything in the game whether it is RP, combat or shooting the shizz. As a challenge, we like to see how long we can go before resting though.

**Skriker**

pretre wrote:@Skriker: Exactly. You outline exactly the problem with all editions: the players. lol

Seriously though, the game is just a framework.

As a sidenote on X encounters per night, my group is off and on for combat vs RP, but we don't focus on encounters per night. We focus on encounters before extended rest. This way, there's plenty of time to do everything in the game whether it is RP, combat or shooting the shizz. As a challenge, we like to see how long we can go before resting though.

The rules are now definitely *the rules*. There is no bumbling aspect of the rulebooks that tries to explain and push roleplaying in some esoteric way. Just because they don't tell you that you *have* to roleplay doesn't mean it has gone away. People look at how the game is run in convention tournies as for how the game should always be played, when tourney play has always been focused on fighting and finishing as fast as possible and not much by way of roleplaying.

Skriker