Switch Theme:

Current version of D&D - is it good?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Chicago

Quite the argument we've got going on over here. Who knew nerds could be so passionate?


My thoughts on the matter:

Yes, 4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs. By "MMOs", I specifically mean WoW. To say they haven't is just ignoring the obvious.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking elements from something else. The first MMOs were all ripped from D&D. Over the years, they've come up with some good ideas that would work well in pen+paper, and sometimes the pen+paper games came up with things that worked well in computer games. This ends up benefiting both genres.

4E has become much more combat focused than previous editions (not to the combat-only level of WoW, but closer). True, this all comes down to the playgroup, but when the rulebook is almost entirely devoted to combat abilities, that's the feeling that comes across.

4E has also blended the line between different classes. Now, every class attacks with a weapon that has stats (like WoW), and every class has abilities that they can use constantly in combat (like WoW). Spellcasters were dumbed down significantly, and can't do any of the cool things they could before (like WoW).

4E formalized the different roles you can take in combat (like WoW). They directly gave aggro management abilities to out, and formalized how each role works in combat. Sure, the groundwork existed long before, but this made it up-front and formal.

And, finally, leveling feels completely different in 4E than it did in 3E. In 3rd (or 3.5), when you leveled, you got slightly better at combat, got some more HP, sometimes gained a feat that was typically passive, and gained a ton of things that weren't combat related. In 4E, when you level, you get to break out the book and look through a list of special skills that you can pick from. This feels much more like WoW.



I really don't understand the rage at this suggestion. 4th clearly got some inspiration from WoW. That doesn't make it bad, and that doesn't make it good. If you like the way that plays, great, go have fun. If you don't, also great, go play 3rd, or whatever edition you prefer.

6000pts

DS:80S++G++M-B-I+Pw40k98-D++A++/areWD-R+T(D)DM+

What do Humans know of our pain? We have sung songs of lament since before your ancestors crawled on their bellies from the sea.

Join the fight against the zombie horde! 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

Grakmar wrote:Yes, 4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs. By "MMOs", I specifically mean WoW. To say they haven't is just ignoring the obvious.

Or misattributing something to an MMO that came from somewhere else.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with taking elements from something else. The first MMOs were all ripped from D&D. Over the years, they've come up with some good ideas that would work well in pen+paper, and sometimes the pen+paper games came up with things that worked well in computer games. This ends up benefiting both genres.

And most, if not all, of those things came from P&P first.

4E has become much more combat focused than previous editions (not to the combat-only level of WoW, but closer). True, this all comes down to the playgroup, but when the rulebook is almost entirely devoted to combat abilities, that's the feeling that comes across.

Umm, this misunderstands both 4E and WoW. All versions of D&D are combat focused. Combat rules have always overwhelmed non-combat rules. 4E just made those combat rules more streamlined. WOW on the other hand is not 'combat-only', in fact WOW had quest XP, non-combat skills, crafting, etc so on.

4E has also blended the line between different classes. Now, every class attacks with a weapon that has stats (like WoW), and every class has abilities that they can use constantly in combat (like WoW). Spellcasters were dumbed down significantly, and can't do any of the cool things they could before (like WoW).

This is just kind of crazy. So what you're saying is that every class having a focus item is a WOW specific thing (Wizards and wands, Clerics and Holy Symbols, Warlocks and Rods, etc so on)? That's been going back quite a bit and has been in D&D for a long time. As well, every class having abilities they can us constantly in combat is definitely not new to WOW, many systems have this. As for Spellcasters, they can do some of the cool things that they used to (Utlilities) but the love has been spread out so it isn't 'Play a Wizard, Cleric, Druid or Second Fiddle, your choice.'


4E formalized the different roles you can take in combat (like WoW). They directly gave aggro management abilities to out, and formalized how each role works in combat. Sure, the groundwork existed long before, but this made it up-front and formal.

This is the one thing that I will give you. They used similar role language to MMOs. These roles have always existed in D&D, but now they actually used the language. It is important to note that WOW itself didn't use this language until much later than 4E came out and it was a community thing that defined DPS/Tank/Mez/etc and not a system thing. As well, I would argue that my parties have had a skill-monkey, a meat shield, a healbot and a blaster for years before MMOs were a twinkle in some guy's eye. Just because we call them Defender, etc so on doesn't mean that we're copying MMOs.

And, finally, leveling feels completely different in 4E than it did in 3E. In 3rd (or 3.5), when you leveled, you got slightly better at combat, got some more HP, sometimes gained a feat that was typically passive, and gained a ton of things that weren't combat related. In 4E, when you level, you get to break out the book and look through a list of special skills that you can pick from. This feels much more like WoW.

Umm. In 4E, you get slightly better at combat, get some more HP, sometimes gain a feat and still gain things that are not combat related. In addition, you may gain a utility, daily or encounter. This is roughly equivalent to a Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Druid, etc so on in 3.5/3/2/1 having to choose new spells when levelling, except everyone gets to do it. This system was also present in 3.5 when they released Tome of Battle and present for a number of classes previously. Again, this is not MMO specific.

I really don't understand the rage at this suggestion. 4th clearly got some inspiration from WoW. That doesn't make it bad, and that doesn't make it good. If you like the way that plays, great, go have fun. If you don't, also great, go play 3rd, or whatever edition you prefer.

You mistake a discussion for rage. The problem is that WOW did not start these things, it took them from D&D and other RPGs. Saying that 4E is WOW derivative is disingenous and misinformed because WOW is derivative of D&D for those things you are bringing up (save one that I kind of give you).

It is like you are saying that Alien vs Hunter is a ripoff of Tyranids. Noooo, it is a ripoff of Alien vs Predator. Tyranids are derivative of Alien. There is no commutative property of derivation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 20:33:13


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Chicago

pretre wrote:snip

Yeah, most of those elements existed in P+P first. But, MMOs put their own tweaks on them (like formal healer/tank/dps combat, or magic being easily replenished without memorizing or needing components, or giving martial classes "spells").

4E saw those tweaks, thought they were good, and brought them over. It did bring a lot of balance back to D&D and it made the game much more accessible to new players.

4E is by no means a "WoW-clone" like you see the internet claim sometimes. But, there is certainly some crossover.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 20:50:15


6000pts

DS:80S++G++M-B-I+Pw40k98-D++A++/areWD-R+T(D)DM+

What do Humans know of our pain? We have sung songs of lament since before your ancestors crawled on their bellies from the sea.

Join the fight against the zombie horde! 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

Grakmar wrote:Yeah, most of those elements existed in P+P first. But, MMOs put their own tweaks on them (like formal healer/tank/dps combat, or magic being easily replenished without memorizing or needing components, or giving martial classes "spells").

4E saw those tweaks, thought they were good, and brought them over. It did bring a lot of balance back to D&D and it made the game much more accessible to new players.

4E is by no means a "WoW-clone" like you see the internet claim sometimes. But, there is certainly some crossover.


Sure there is crossover, because WOW didn't make those things up, it borrowed and stole them from other systems, video games, etc. Martial Classes had spells in 3.5 and earlier in D&D itself, forget about other P&P. The only thing that is new to MMOs is formal roles and even that was somewhat established in early D&D with the separation of classes (1st ed had Fighter/Ranger/Paladin, etc. The roles were separated pretty distinctly).

I just don't buy the '4E is P&P WOW lolz' argument or even the more reasonable '4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs' argument. If we accept the same level of proof for this claim on other things, then we can say that practically every fantasy book/movie/show/videogame all borrowed from WoW if they came out after it did and that's just not reasonable.


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Chicago

pretre wrote:If we accept the same level of proof for this claim on other things, then we can say that practically every fantasy book/movie/show/videogame all borrowed from WoW if they came out after it did and that's just not reasonable.

Why isn't that reasonable? (This is an honest question, I'm not trying to mock or anything like that.)

WoW is by far the most successful MMO ever. It's got millions and millions of players, and it's crossed the line into mainstream culture. I image every author/game designer/programmer is at least familiar with WoW even if they haven't played it. Surely they've all seen something they liked/wanted to improve upon.

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to say that everything fantasy related in the last 60 years has been influenced by LotR. Why not WoW?

6000pts

DS:80S++G++M-B-I+Pw40k98-D++A++/areWD-R+T(D)DM+

What do Humans know of our pain? We have sung songs of lament since before your ancestors crawled on their bellies from the sea.

Join the fight against the zombie horde! 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

Grakmar wrote:Why isn't that reasonable? (This is an honest question, I'm not trying to mock or anything like that.)


Because you are ignoring the things that came before WOW that actually created those things. You might say that WOW is the most successful game of its kind but it didn't create them.

Yes, you can say that most RPGs are influenced by LOTR and you could even say that modern RPGs are influenced by the MMO movement, but that is not what people say. They instead say '4E borrowed from WoW' and then can't back it up with specifics that are actually exclusive to WOW.

Let's say that you started a new game system, you called it Jarl of the Torcs. It has short men with beards, noble androgynous men in the woods with point ears and other noble men who are hearty and good at war, and was largely centered on the battle between the forces of good and the forces of an evil, immortal power who controlled all the evil races from his tower stronghold, etc so on.
If I said that your system borrowed from D&D or was a D&D rip off, would that be accurate? Or would it be more accurate to say it was derivative of LOTR?
Does it share derivations with D&D? Absolutely. Is it derivative of D&D? Not really, it is derivative of LOTR.

The same is true of 4E and MMOs. Sure, they contain many of the same elements. Just as 3E and MMOs have many of the same elements and 2E and MMOs have many of the same elements and White Wolf and MMOs have many of the same elements and LOTR and MMOs have many of the same elements, ad nauseum. But it is incorrect to say that 4E is derivative or borrowed from MMOs when it is really borrowing from its own past.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/06 21:16:46


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Grakmar wrote: In 3rd (or 3.5), when you leveled, you got slightly better at combat, got some more HP, sometimes gained a feat that was typically passive, and gained a ton of things that weren't combat related. In 4E, when you level, you get to break out the book and look through a list of special skills that you can pick from. This feels much more like WoW.

Pretre has covered most of this, but I wanted to single this out for the sheer amount of rose colored glasses going on.

First off, in WoW, when you level you get abilities at set levels, and occassionally get a talent point every couple levels. This is a far cry from someone "[breaking] out the book and [looking] through a list of special skills" to pick from.

What does sound like that? Hm... who gets to "break out the book and look through a list of special skills" to pick from? Oh, that's right, every caster class in almost every version of D&D. This is not a WoW thing, this is a D&D thing.

Also, you clearly don't remember leveling in 3.0/3.5 the way I do. Let's take a fighter, he levels up from 1 to 2. What does he get? BAB - combat. HP - combat. Save increases - combat. A feat - usually combat (he is a fighter after all) but doesn't have to be, okay, so we hit one thing not combat related (possibly) and 2+int mod skill points. Cause fighters are known for those rocking int mods... Even then, many skills have direct combat applications, or at least combat-encounter applications: listen, spot for surprise rolls, move silently/hide (which you don't generally do if there's no an antagonist around). This is a far cry from the "ton of things that weren't combat related" that you mention. Hell, the one thing exclusive to fighters in Weapon Specialization which gives a bonus in combat.

Even classes that actually get abilities (unlike fighters) generally hinge on combat abilities. This is for a reason, as D&D itself hinges largely as a system on combat. (From the SRD, as I don't have my 3.5 books with me at work)

Barbarians - Illiteracy (yay!), Fast movement, Rage, uncanny dodge/improved uncanny dodge, trap sense, DR, Greater Rage, Indomitable Will, Tireless Rage, Might rage

Bards - Spells* (for what they're worth...), Songs (many of which are combat applicable), Bardic Knowledge

Cleric - Spells*, Domains Powers*, Turn Undead

Druid - Spells*, Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Woodland Stride (non-combat...sort of), Animal Companion*, Trackless Step (non-combat... sort of), Resist Nature's Lure, Wild Shape, Venom Immunity, A Thousand Faces, Timeless Body

Monk - Stunning Attack, Evasion, Deflect Arrows, Still mind, slow fall, Pureness of Body, Wholeness of Body, Leap of the Clouds, Improved Evasion, Ki Strike, Diamond Body, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self

Paladin - Spells*, Detect Evil, Divine Grace, Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Aura of Courage, Smite Evil, Remove Disease, Turn Undead, Special Mount

Ranger - Spells*, Favored Enemy, Track, Wild Empathy, Combat Style, Endurance, Woodland Stride (non-combat, sort of...), Swift Tracker, Evasion, Animal Companion*, Camouflage (non-combat, sort of), Hide in Plain Sight (non-combat, sort of)

Rogue - Trapfinding, Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Rogue Special Abilities (5/6 of which are solely combat, with the last one being applicable to combat also)

Sorcerer - Spells*, Familiar*

Wizard - Spells*, Familiar*, Scribe Scroll, Bonus feats



I bolded the abilities that are largely non-combat. Some can obviously be used in combat (like a monk's Leap of the Clouds ability, or a paladin's Special Mount), and some like Woodland Stride are generally really only useful in combat though they can be used outside of it just as effectively. I also stopped bother to list increases to existing abilities, like a Ranger's Improved Combat Style or the increase in Rogue's Sneak Attack.

As for Spells, Animal Companions and Familiars these are varied enough that it's easy to go one way or another. I'd argue that they all see far more use inside of combat than out, but as that will vary more from group to group I just felt the need to separate them. They are, in no way shape or form, purely non-combat class features.


So beyond skill points, no class gets a "ton of non-combat things". Skill points for some classes (lookin at you fighter) are generally so low that they're prescribed by the choice of prestige class (lookin at you Weaponmaster and your Craft(Calligraphy) requirement). Feats can go either way, though I'd argue that there are far more combat related feats than non-combat related feats.

So really, not a whole lot changed in terms of non-combat abilities per level. 4e has plenty of non-combat utility powers, including skill utility powers, available to all characters.


4e did nothing to decrease the amount of roleplaying options. Did they increase the amount of combat stuff? Sure, they give non-caster classes a share of the book analogous to the caster classes. Did they take away any system or rules that allowed for role-play? Not in the slightest; as I've said at least twice now they added systems for both non-combat encounters, and for story competion bonuses. If your group suddenly turned more combat focused when they switched to 4e, that's not really the edition's fault. I've found that most times when a group tries a new system things tend to gravitate towards combat, because that is usually what's most explicitly spelled out in the rule book. The amount of roleplaying, and the number of ways a player makes the character their own have almost nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with the players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/07 12:46:32


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




pretre wrote:
Grakmar wrote:Yeah, most of those elements existed in P+P first. But, MMOs put their own tweaks on them (like formal healer/tank/dps combat, or magic being easily replenished without memorizing or needing components, or giving martial classes "spells").

4E saw those tweaks, thought they were good, and brought them over. It did bring a lot of balance back to D&D and it made the game much more accessible to new players.

4E is by no means a "WoW-clone" like you see the internet claim sometimes. But, there is certainly some crossover.


Sure there is crossover, because WOW didn't make those things up, it borrowed and stole them from other systems, video games, etc. Martial Classes had spells in 3.5 and earlier in D&D itself, forget about other P&P. The only thing that is new to MMOs is formal roles and even that was somewhat established in early D&D with the separation of classes (1st ed had Fighter/Ranger/Paladin, etc. The roles were separated pretty distinctly).

I just don't buy the '4E is P&P WOW lolz' argument or even the more reasonable '4E has borrowed some elements from MMOs' argument. If we accept the same level of proof for this claim on other things, then we can say that practically every fantasy book/movie/show/videogame all borrowed from WoW if they came out after it did and that's just not reasonable.



Alright I'm back in this game after a small repreave.

So far, you've made a lot of statements based on your perspective, but where is the proof, what supporting evidence do you have to your claim that WOW is completely unoriginal. Cause that is kind of the statement here. You keep saying WOW didn't do it first, fine that means that its both unoriginal and should have historical evidence. Where is it?
   
Made in us
Servoarm Flailing Magos







ZombieJoe wrote:
So far, you've made a lot of statements based on your perspective, but where is the proof, what supporting evidence do you have to your claim that WOW is completely unoriginal. Cause that is kind of the statement here. You keep saying WOW didn't do it first, fine that means that its both unoriginal and should have historical evidence. Where is it?


When did he claim that? He was primarily refuting your claims that 4e was inspired by MMOs by pointing out that many of the stated MMO elements were taken from tabletop RPGs

Working on someting you'll either love or hate. Hopefully to be revealed by November.
Play the games that make you happy. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Balance wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:
So far, you've made a lot of statements based on your perspective, but where is the proof, what supporting evidence do you have to your claim that WOW is completely unoriginal. Cause that is kind of the statement here. You keep saying WOW didn't do it first, fine that means that its both unoriginal and should have historical evidence. Where is it?


When did he claim that? He was primarily refuting your claims that 4e was inspired by MMOs by pointing out that many of the stated MMO elements were taken from tabletop RPGs


Read everthing he has written. He's made this claim many times. Maybe not directly but in his own words he has stated it.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

We have provided numerous instances of WOW not having invented these things. You just have chosen not to accept them. Here's one where I took your original contentions of how 4E copied WoW and showed you how they existed in D&D back to basic edition:

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?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amusingly enough, the two that had the least similarities to your contention of 4E copying MMOs were 4E and WoW. lol

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/07 17:10:33


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




pretre wrote:We have provided numerous instances of WOW not having invented these things. You just have chosen not to accept them. Here's one where I took your original contentions of how 4E copied WoW and showed you how they existed in D&D back to basic edition:

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?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amusingly enough, the two that had the least similarities to your contention of 4E copying MMOs were 4E and WoW. lol



Regurgitating the same tripe you've used before is not giving supporting evidence. Where is your factual, documentable proof? I don't buy your subjective replies, drop some bibs, dorp some sauce. Come on man, bring the facts down!
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

What part of that is subjective?

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal had all of those things you listed.
3E had all of those thing you listed.

Those are facts. They met more of your criteria for why you thought 4E copied MMO than either 4E or WOW, in fact.

What about that is not fact?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/07 17:15:43


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




pretre wrote:What part of that is subjective?

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal had all of those things you listed.
3E had all of those thing you listed.

Those are facts. They met more of your criteria for why you thought 4E copied MMO than either 4E or WOW, in fact.

What about that is not fact?


You still have not proven anything. All you have done is SAY that everyone else is wrong. What's worth is that you are either unwilling or incapable of admitting that the argument is atleast valid. Your stance that 4E is competely unlike WOW is foolish. Simple order or precedence, WOW came before 4E, WOW is insanely popular, therefore, ergo, inconclusion, its highly probably that 4E barrowed elements from WOW. You should be able to atleast admit that 4E plays like an MMO, feels like an MMO. Doesn't even have to mean you think that it got the ideas from WOW. It just means that you recognise that some similarities exist, enough so that some of us don't play 4E because of it. That and some of us feel that 4E lacks a good balance of rules supporting RP and combat.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






pretre wrote:What part of that is subjective?

Basic/Expert/Master/Immortal had all of those things you listed.
3E had all of those thing you listed.

Those are facts. They met more of your criteria for why you thought 4E copied MMO than either 4E or WOW, in fact.

What about that is not fact?


The part that disagrees with his thesis. If he ignores all facts, he can continue to be right.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

You are completely ignoring everything we type, aren't you?

I have proved that there is Prior Art. 4E plays like D&D. It just happens that WoW copied D&D in making many of its features.

Of course there are similarities between WoW and 4E, because there are similarities between WoW and almost every Fantasy RPG. You know why? Because WoW borrowed heavily from most of them.

If the reason you don't play 4E is because of the similarities to MMOs, then you also shouldn't play any fantasy RPG, as they all have the same similarities.

4E has more rules than previous editions supporting non-combat interactions. It is the first system with an xp system for non-combat encounters.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:The part that disagrees with his thesis. If he ignores all facts, he can continue to be right.

No joke. Someone's about to join some others in the Boo!box (aka, ignore list). I don't mind debating with people. I do mind having to repeat myself because they ignore everything I type.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/07 17:24:31


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




pretre wrote:You are completely ignoring everything we type, aren't you?

I have proved that there is Prior Art. 4E plays like D&D. It just happens that WoW copied D&D in making many of its features.

Of course there are similarities between WoW and 4E, because there are similarities between WoW and almost every Fantasy RPG. You know why? Because WoW borrowed heavily from most of them.

If the reason you don't play 4E is because of the similarities to MMOs, then you also shouldn't play any fantasy RPG, as they all have the same similarities.

4E has more rules than previous editions supporting non-combat interactions. It is the first system with an xp system for non-combat encounters.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:The part that disagrees with his thesis. If he ignores all facts, he can continue to be right.

No joke. Someone's about to join some others in the Boo!box (aka, ignore list). I don't mind debating with people. I do mind having to repeat myself because they ignore everything I type.

Look out!

If you think that: MMO VS. 4E > 4E VS. Elder Scrolls then your nuts. Pathfinder doesn't play like an MMO. You wanna try and ecompass all the things that make an RPG what it is and include that in the argument. You're trying to say things like, "well WOW has magic/mana equivelant, then Diablo and WOW are the same cause Diable has Mana. That is not what we are saying. The structure of the game, the way it plays, the balance of mechanics, those are what make WOW something unique. If you cannot see the differences there, then you must see all RPG's, pen & paper, or digital alike. Yes, you have very throughly made the the point that all fantasy games have some measure of similarties, that is because they all are apart of the genere. They all magic, armor, weapons, horses, HP, magica...ect ect. If they all have that, then why are they all exactly the same? Because we have other things that make the game different, like its looks, its mechanics, the way the game balances, the type of story if follows. This are what we can call, "fine tune details". They make the game what it is. They are what make all things different. You ever wondered how it is that stories can have strucures that are repeatable and themes that are repeatable and yet some how the books are different? It's the fine detail. Look at the millions of Vampire Stories to come out of the wood work in the last few years. They are very formulaic but, yet many of them are still unique in many ways. That is because of 'fine tuned details'.

In reguards to 4E and WOW, there are fine tuned details that they both share.

And you're the one not listening man. I don't recall anyone saying that they don't play the game cause its WOW like. Most people I know don't like the new mechanics. I don't for sure. And you cannot keep tossing about that ONE! thing 4E added to role play. Ok, woo, you can get XP in non-combat situations, something most 3.5 DM's mastered a while ago. But, they took away so much more. I've already listed a bunch of things to that point and don't feel like repeating mahself.

You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die. This is pretty far removed from the OP.

To the OP, whom we have forgotten, 4E is not for everyone. You'd have to play it to know if you like it or not. I think you've got a lot of good points you can pull form both sides and form your own expectations. Give it a shot though, its different and you may like it.

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

ZombieJoe wrote: The structure of the game, the way it plays, the balance of mechanics, those are what make WOW something unique. If you cannot see the differences there, then you must see all RPG's, pen & paper, or digital alike.

Specifics please. What balance of mechanics or structure of the game make it like WOW? So far every example you have provided, we have shown prior art for.

And you're the one not listening man. I don't recall anyone saying that they don't play the game cause its WOW like.

Really? Emphasis mine.
ZombieJoe wrote:You should be able to atleast admit that 4E plays like an MMO, feels like an MMO. Doesn't even have to mean you think that it got the ideas from WOW. It just means that you recognise that some similarities exist, enough so that some of us don't play 4E because of it.


Most people I know don't like the new mechanics. I don't for sure.

Appeal to the Commons.

And you cannot keep tossing about that ONE! thing 4E added to role play. Ok, woo, you can get XP in non-combat situations, something most 3.5 DM's mastered a while ago. But, they took away so much more. I've already listed a bunch of things to that point and don't feel like repeating mahself.

List something that we haven't addressed with Prior Art that they took away.

You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die. This is pretty far removed from the OP.

I am simply addressing your arguments. Provide additional examples and I will address those as well.

To the OP, whom we have forgotten, 4E is not for everyone. You'd have to play it to know if you like it or not. I think you've got a lot of good points you can pull form both sides and form your own expectations. Give it a shot though, its different and you may like it.

I can completely agree with this quote.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






ZombieJoe wrote:
You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die.


When your argument is essentially 1+1 = 3 and we show that 1+1 = 2, we don't really need to create new arguments. To any reasonable person it is pretty clear that you have no leg to stand on in regards to your accusation against 4E. No one cares that you don't like 4E, but the reasoning behind it, or more likely the superficial reasons behind it, are pretty weak. No amount of argument or information would sway you, as you are not being reasonable, and it is a fools errand to try and use reasonable arguments with an unreasonable person.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




You and your appeals to commons like its suppose to mean something. Look, you've been given ample evidence, there is nothing more I can do for you at this point.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

ZombieJoe wrote:You and your appeals to commons like its suppose to mean something. Look, you've been given ample evidence, there is nothing more I can do for you at this point.


It does mean something. Appeal to the Commons is a poor logical/rhetorical device. Saying 'Everyone I know agrees with me' has no real value since they aren't here. Look, I can do it to. 'Everyone I know loves 4E and think it has nothing to do with MMOs.' See? How does that advance the discussion? Want a hint? It doesn't.

Everything you have given has been shown to have Prior Art and exist in D&D previous to WoW. If you can't come up with anything new, no one will mind if you bow out.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Ahtman wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:
You're keeping this debate alive by refusing to reconsider your position and bring fresh arguments. If you got none, the lets let this one die.


When your argument is essentially 1+1 = 3 and we show that 1+1 = 2, we don't really need to create new arguments. To any reasonable person it is pretty clear that you have no leg to stand on in regards to your accusation against 4E. No one cares that you don't like 4E, but the reasoning behind it, or more likely the superficial reasons behind it, are pretty weak. No amount of argument or information would sway you, as you are not being reasonable, and it is a fools errand to try and use reasonable arguments with an unreasonable person.


If only this was a straight mathmatical argument. I understand you guys think you are right and will refuse to see it any other way. This is to be expected. The evidence is there for anyone willing or able to see it. All you can do is attack my arguments with childish insults and that's fine. So far, I've been asked to give empyrical proof of my claims and I have. In response some of you guys have given none in return to counter my point or bolster you own. You simply clamp your hands tighter to your ears and scream nonsense at me. Unless someone has got real proof to back up their completely unfactual ( and I mean unfactual cause this is not a debate of facts but a debate of opinions that some people here some incapable of knowing the difference) I'm done with this repetitive section fo the debate. Unless something new is brought to the table.
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

Sigh. Link to a post where you provided any 'empyrical proof (sic)'.

We have again and again shown Prior Art and countered your arguments with facts, you just have ignored them.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Trolling, metatrolling, and flame wars aside, the issues are as follows:

4e is a significantly simplified (I shy away from the phrase 'dumbed down' on principle) installment in the D&D series that plays very differently from older editions; it tends to be far more balanced and far less flexible than older editions. 4e is easier to understand, but the rules don't cover half of what they did in 3.5 and in Pathfinder; it's better for casual settings or for people who prefer a more kick-in-the-door kill-monsters-get-loot style of gameplay; which, yes, resembles MMOs.

3.5 and Pathfinder tend to be more expansive, versatile, and complex than 4e, you need to know more and read more rules, but there isn't a bar to what you can do with a character/the system in the same way there is in 4e. It's better for more hardcore gamers, DMs who don't mind spending two hours prepping for every hour of play time, and people who want to be able to screw around with the rules on their own.

In short, both systems have merits, it's down to a matter of personal preference which you use. I tend to prefer 3.5/Pathfinder because I run rules-light story-based games and it's easier to ignore inconvenient clauses in the rules in 3.5/Pathfinder than it is in 4e, but it's entirely up to the consensus of the group which game they choose to play.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




pretre wrote:
ZombieJoe wrote:You and your appeals to commons like its suppose to mean something. Look, you've been given ample evidence, there is nothing more I can do for you at this point.


It does mean something. Appeal to the Commons is a poor logical/rhetorical device. Saying 'Everyone I know agrees with me' has no real value since they aren't here. Look, I can do it to. 'Everyone I know loves 4E and think it has nothing to do with MMOs.' See? How does that advance the discussion? Want a hint? It doesn't.

Everything you have given has been shown to have Prior Art and exist in D&D previous to WoW. If you can't come up with anything new, no one will mind if you bow out.


Oh my poor brains. I know I said I wouldn't continue this but I have to...
Look man, at no point did I say, "hey everyone agrees with me so bite it." Which is what you seem to think. You wanted evidence when I said that 4E was not recieved well. So I did, I gave you a nice list of sites that contain the opinions of many people. But, you didn't like that. You responded by saying that the point was invalid. Which is just asinine. Blogs are a great place to gather info on what people feel about something. Blogs are usually made by people who are fans of something. A DND blog would contain...*GASP! D&D fans. If you read enough of them you'll find out what the general consensus is for a give topic. Do not forget that Blogs usually have comment sections too, where *GASP fans write what they think!! When you read this info you'll be able to draw certain conclusions from the similarties in thier content. In this way, I have found supporting evidence that *GASP fans are not generally happy with 4th ED. You can keep spouting your community college education in basic physiology, but that doesn't mean your doing anything except ignore the evidence given to you. I have agrigated the evidence for you from the internet at large that a number of poeple, a considerable number, did not receive 4E well. By doing this I asnwered your question about that particular point.
   
Made in us
Nimble Skeleton Charioteer





DeLand, FL

Yes, it is an MMO on TT. That's okay.

I've played all the editions, and so far 4.0 has been the easiest to run as a DM. The game in general is easier this edition, and I think that makes it a lot of fun. Is it as "quality" as other edition? Maybe, or not. But we've had higher quality fun with 4.0 than any other edition.

But seriously? Wait for 5e.

It's spelled "cavalry." NOT "calvary." 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

AnomanderRake wrote:Trolling, metatrolling, and flame wars aside, the issues are as follows:

Lol

4e is a significantly simplified (I shy away from the phrase 'dumbed down' on principle) installment in the D&D series that plays very differently from older editions; it tends to be far more balanced

I would say streamlined rather than simplified, but I agree with this thought in principle.

and far less flexible than older editions. 4e is easier to understand, but the rules don't cover half of what they did in 3.5 and in Pathfinder;

Okay, here's where we diverge. What can you do in 3E/3.5E that you can't do in 4E?

it's better for casual settings or for people who prefer a more kick-in-the-door kill-monsters-get-loot style of gameplay; which, yes, resembles MMOs

I think that you have to be very careful definining who a system appeals to. My group is neither casual or a 'kick in the door kill the monsters get loot' group, but we like 4E. All versions of D&D have had a lot of kick in the door, kill monsters, etc. Heck, Munchkin was created to satire and simplify the process.

3.5 and Pathfinder tend to be more expansive, versatile, and complex than 4e, you need to know more and read more rules,

Agreed. That was the attempt. They are definitely more complex and there are more rules that you must know and more books to get in these systems.
but there isn't a bar to what you can do with a character/the system in the same way there is in 4e.

What bar is there to play in 4E?
It's better for more hardcore gamers, DMs who don't mind spending two hours prepping for every hour of play time, and people who want to be able to screw around with the rules on their own.

Again with the assessment. Prep time was a pain in 3E/3.5, I'll give you that.

In short, both systems have merits, it's down to a matter of personal preference which you use.

Completely agree.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZombieJoe wrote:Look man, at no point did I say, "hey everyone agrees with me so bite it." Which is what you seem to think.

Except you did. You have consistently said 'Everyone I know X'. That is an appeal to the commons.

You wanted evidence when I said that 4E was not recieved well. So I did, I gave you a nice list of sites that contain the opinions of many people. But, you didn't like that. You responded by saying that the point was invalid. Which is just asinine.

No one is arguing that some people don't like 4E. That's what proof you provided, which we aren't disputing.

In this way, I have found supporting evidence that *GASP fans are not generally happy with 4th ED.

SOME fans are not happy with 4th ed. You have not surveyed all fans to be able to make a decision about what the majority are doing.

I have agrigated the evidence for you from the internet at large that a number of poeple, a considerable number, did not receive 4E well. By doing this I asnwered your question about that particular point.

You have gathered 20 or so blog posts. Good job. That isn't proof of anything other than 20 or so blog posts were written on the subject.

And as we said the first time, just because some blogs say it doesn't mean it is true. You provided evidence that some people on the internet did not receive 4E well. You know what? No one is disputing it. Some people don't like 4E. That doesn't have anything to do with whether 4E copied MMOs or not though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zygrot24 wrote:Yes, it is an MMO on TT. That's okay.

This statement is just silly. It is a Massively Multiplayer Online Game on Table Top. Really? How many players are in your gaming group? I'm guessing we can't say a 'Massive' number. Okay, assuming you didn't mean it literally, how is 4E an MMO or like an MMO?

I've played all the editions, and so far 4.0 has been the easiest to run as a DM. The game in general is easier this edition, and I think that makes it a lot of fun. Is it as "quality" as other edition? Maybe, or not. But we've had higher quality fun with 4.0 than any other edition.

I agree that it is easier to run and it is a lot of fun.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/07 18:21:29


Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






AnomanderRake wrote:Trolling, metatrolling, and flame wars aside, the issues are as follows:

(1)4e is a significantly simplified (I shy away from the phrase 'dumbed down' on principle) installment in the D&D series that plays very differently from older editions; it tends to be far more balanced and far less flexible than older editions.

(2) 4e is easier to understand, but the rules don't cover half of what they did in 3.5 and in Pathfinder; it's better for casual settings or for people who prefer a more kick-in-the-door kill-monsters-get-loot style of gameplay; which, yes, resembles MMOs.

(3)3.5 and Pathfinder tend to be more expansive, versatile, and complex than 4e, you need to know more and read more rules, but there isn't a bar to what you can do with a character/the system in the same way there is in 4e. It's better for more hardcore gamers, DMs who don't mind spending two hours prepping for every hour of play time, and people who want to be able to screw around with the rules on their own.

(4)In short, both systems have merits, it's down to a matter of personal preference which you use. I tend to prefer 3.5/Pathfinder because I run rules-light story-based games and it's easier to ignore inconvenient clauses in the rules in 3.5/Pathfinder than it is in 4e, but it's entirely up to the consensus of the group which game they choose to play.

Forgive me for numbering your points, but I thought it easier than splitting your quote over and over.

1: I'm unsure how you feel, specifically, 4e "plays very differently from older editions". I'm also unsure what you mean about "far less flexible than older editions", specifically. To "plays very differently", I would say this: I still roll 1d20 for skills or attacks, adding my modifiers trying to reach a target number. I still have a race and a class (which is admittedly different from 1e where "Elf", "Dwarf" and "Halflling" were classes! XD ), and a role within the group. If your contention is that non-casters suddenly have "powers", I could agree but for Tome of Battle and some of the 3.0/3.5 splats. I'm also one of the ones that feels that was a significant improvement in terms of "fun" for non-caster classes though, so if you love your Mike Mearl "fighter are for idiots, while wizards are for smart people" vancian system, then we'll have to agree to disagree here.

2. I will somewhat agree with your initial proposition: 4e has a slightly "lighter" rule set. Where I disagree is your conclusion. 4e has nothing more or less geared for a "kick in the door kill monsters get loot style of gameplay" than 3.0/3.5 Again, the inclusion of Skill Challenges and Questing as viable character advancement methods would actually lend itself to the being the exact opposite. 3.0/3.5 did NOT have systems for this sort of thing, and thus could easily be said to be geared more for a "kick in the door" type game; because there literally is NO other alternative for advancement in those systems.

3. I'm not sure what Bar you're referring to, so forgive me if I can't comment on that specifically. In terms of "complexity" that is purely subjective to the gaming group. I've seen brutally simple versions of everything from 1e to 4e (and really, with the sample adventure for 5e). As to "screw around with the rules on their own", if you're referring to House Rules, that is an idea that by its very nature transcends editions and even games; if i want to mess with the rules, I will mess with the rules and nothing short of an armed hit squad from the publisher will stop me.

4. How is it any easier to ignore one set of rules? Unless the book jumps up off your table and slaps the dice from your hands, ignoring rules in one edition is just as easy as it is in another edition: you simply pretend the rule isn't there! I'm designing a 1-30 campaign for 4e and have already decided on several changes to the system, some of them quite major. One example: players not replacing powers when they get into paragon, but instead adding to them so that all characters end up with a plethora of encounter powers instead of just 4. Look at that! I ignored a rule! I plan on having several "encounters" that are skill challenge encounters (even if the system needs a bit of tweaking [another house rule!]), some of which will effect the story in ways the characters don't and can't understand at the time (story!). Being able to come up with a story rich campaign is almost completely disconnected from the system; the books don't tell you what your game has to include, just HOW to include it.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






streamdragon wrote: Look at that! I ignored a rule!


You're a monster! A MONSTER!

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Haha it's true. Armed security team is en route from WotC at this very moment...

@AnomanderRake, I just want to make it clear my comments like that in my last paragraph should be taken light heartedly, and not at all as attacks. Tone and the internet, and all that stuff.
   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: