Café de Nuit

Jester of the FoS wrote:Oh, and big whoop that D&D is borrowing from Video Games. . . . Would you really not want them to use a brilliant, amazing concept and apply it to the game because it originated in a video game?

Actually, to a point, yes. Just as books are different from movies, video games are different from pen-and-pencil RPGs. The role-playing and story limitations of video games require them to make up for it with power-ups and treasure items. Using video games as a model is at least partially responsible for the upward 'power spiral' we've already seen from 2nd to 3e.

I don't want an RPG whose baseline rules emulate the combat of Final Fantasy, a chop-socky kung fu film, or an episode of your average anime show. That may be a good option for some games. But it shouldn't be the standard.

Just because something might be a good idea for a video game doesn't mean it's a good idea for a pen-and-paper RPG.

Mangrum wrote:

LordGodefroi wrote:Because "spells for fighters" (i.e. stances and maneuvers) was mentioned as being mainstreamed into the rules, I just had a look at Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords today and hated it.

I have no love for ToB:Bo9S either, but it's important to note that the system there isn't representative of 4E. The designers have described that book as, to paraphrase, "a peek at the directions 4E was going at that particular time." The 4E team admitted that they hadn't quite worked out the game balance of those new rules yet.

Absolutely they'd have to work out the game balance on that because if it was used as-is, it'd change the game to a point where folks wouldn't be able to run first-edition style games with the new rules set. (It took a little tinkering but at least it could be done in 3e.)

elliott20 wrote:a lot of the balance issues comes from our perception as to what is considered "balanced" and what is considered "playable".

hell, I'm pretty sure when we see the word balance, we all have different definitions in mind which probably results in different implementation.

Yes! It all depends on the game you want to run. For folks who want to run a low(er)-magic game, a system that emulates anime-style combat and Final Fantasy spell-slinging isn't going to please. Those that like that kind of high-fantasy will probably love a ToB:Bo9S style game.

And that's the point. The baseline core rules shouldn't favor either style of play but instead be able to accommodate both kinds.

Yes, fighters should be playable at all levels and be interesting to play at all levels. I don't think theToB:Bo9S solution is going to suit all types of play.

LordGodefroi wrote:Yes! It all depends on the game you want to run. For folks who want to run a low(er)-magic game, a system that emulates anime-style combat and Final Fantasy spell-slinging isn't going to please. Those that like that kind of high-fantasy will probably love a ToB:Bo9S style game.

I notice you quoted everyone else's opinions on Bo9S except mine. Did you intentionally ignore my post?

Bo9S isn't all high fantasy! With the three blatant offenders (Fire! Shadow! Divine Power!) that are already marked as supernatural abilities, most of it is the kind of stuff a fighter should be doing anyway, just with game mechanics behind them. You don't honestly imagine fighters using the exact same overhead swing of the sword every attack action, do you? I dunno about your imagination, but in real life, people vary their attacks. Sometimes it's an overhead swing with your weight behind it, maybe a thrust at some badly defended point, or a weak, but quick, flurry of strikes. Bo9S just takes this and gives it a mechanical representation.

Spiteful Crow wrote:I notice you quoted everyone else's opinions on Bo9S except mine. Did you intentionally ignore my post?

Intentionally single you out for a major ignore-fest ? No. But just because you post doesn't mean you'll necessarily get a response.

Spiteful Crow wrote:I dunno about your imagination, but in real life, people vary their attacks.

Since when were RPGs ever about real life ? Perhaps we should consider maneuverability of armor types; weapon type vs. armor type; minimum space for weapon usage; and bring back weapon speed factors from 1st edition. Since when did those ever add anything to the game ? Discussing "realism" in an RPG is like discussing the "flavor" of a hamburger in a painting.

As for my perusal of ToB:Bo9S: I read enough of it to know I don't like it as it stands. Specifically, in my opinion, fighters shouldn't get any kind of supernatural effects due to their combat abilities NOR should they be able to do kung-fu movie style stunts as part of the core rules system.

The idea of "stances and maneuvers" has merit but that merit would be squandered if it turned D&D into a pen-and-paper video game.

I think The Giamarga said it best:

The Giamarga wrote:The problem is that almost every body gets very obvious sometimes anime-like magical powers too easy. . . .

I guess it's official. "4E is a video game!" is the true heir to "3E is a CCG!"

(I think we've also definitely entered the phase where fans of the old edition start freaking out at the intrusion of the unknown and take to angrily swatting at phantasmal "problems" that exist solely within the dark confines of their own minds.)

LordGodefroi wrote:

Jester of the FoS wrote:Oh, and big whoop that D&D is borrowing from Video Games. . . . Would you really not want them to use a brilliant, amazing concept and apply it to the game because it originated in a video game?

Actually, to a point, yes. Just as books are different from movies, video games are different from pen-and-pencil RPGs. Using video games as a model is at least partially responsible for the upward 'power spiral' we've already seen from 2nd to 3e.

I don't want an RPG whose baseline rules emulate the combat of Final Fantasy, a chop-socky kung fu film, or an episode of your average anime show. That may be a good option for some games. But it shouldn't be the standard.

Just because something might be a good idea for a video game doesn't mean it's a good idea for a pen-and-paper RPG.

2E didn't have a power spiral?
Well, some PCs and monsters definitely got tougher and the addition of epic made high level more dramatic I would say 2E had a much higher bar of power.

In 3E there's balance. All PCs should have X as much gold worth of equipment and if they have more challenges will be easier. 2E just had god-items of priceless value where you had no idea of the game-altering power or comparative *oomf*. And while they amped up some classes for 3E they toned down others.

LordGodefroi wrote:The role-playing and story limitations of video games require them to make up for it with power-ups and treasure items.

Story limitations? I've seen video games with stories I would have killed to write and more dramatic that some movies or books.

And this whole argument is rather flawed as you're condensing an entire genre (video games) to something that has a negative impact. Lumping Baldur's Gate in with Final Fantasy, Warcraft and BioShock. All very, very different creatures. And each and every Final Fantasy has a very, very different combat system with the early games not being that much different that D&D (they even had Vancian magic). To say there's nothing we can learn from 12 games that tried something new each time is just biased.

I suggest we keep the discussion to those things confirmed from the "4e FACT" thread, otherwise indeed things will quickly go wild.

Joël

Mangrum wrote:I guess it's official. "4E is a video game!" is the true heir to "3E is a CCG!"

(I think we've also definitely entered the phase where fans of the old edition start freaking out at the intrusion of the unknown and take to angrily swatting at phantasmal "problems" that exist solely within the dark confines of their own minds.)

My comments have been restricted to the Book of Nine Swords and my opinion of what its effect would be if implemented as a baseline for a new core rules set. Since BoS was mentioned at the 4e announcement as an example of the direction the new rules set was taking, I am not being unreasonably speculative. And, in any case, all I've done is offer my opinion on what I personally would or wouldn't like to see.

And as for swatting at phantasmal "problems" that exist solely within the dark confines of their own minds: If you're going to insult me, do it directly via private message.

LordGodefroi wrote:

Mangrum wrote:I guess it's official. "4E is a video game!" is the true heir to "3E is a CCG!"

(I think we've also definitely entered the phase where fans of the old edition start freaking out at the intrusion of the unknown and take to angrily swatting at phantasmal "problems" that exist solely within the dark confines of their own minds.)

My comments have been restricted to the Book of Nine Swords and my opinion of what its effect would be if implemented as a baseline for a new core rules set. Since BoS was mentioned at the 4e announcement as an example of the direction the new rules set was taking, I am not being unreasonably speculative. And, in any case, all I've done is offer my opinion on what I personally would or wouldn't like to see.

And as for swatting at phantasmal "problems" that exist solely within the dark confines of their own minds: If you're going to insult me, do it directly via private message.

I don't think John was speaking about you, more the hysteria of everyone, everywhere, in general.

Me? I'm remaining ambivelent. If there's something I've learnt it's even the most obscure rules system can make a great game if the story's there.

I mean, look at Skills and Powers in 2nd Ed. That was overly complex, stupidly written and badly formatted, but we use it in my group still and have a blast. Or a muli-system oWoD game, each and every system has a rule which will contridict a rule in another system, but that doesn't mean you can't have a great game.

I reckon everyone needs to relax, take a step back and wait and see with 4th Ed.

I frequent the WotC boards abit and Mr Mangrum is quite right in that there's this frenzy of detractors upset about any and all of the changes. For this old man who remembers the change from 2E to 3E (and how many people still decry 3E). Heck, some people refuse to budge from 1E.

Really, people tend to like the game(s) that first broke them into gaming and stick to it regardless of things changing around them.

And already 4E seems to be going for a very different "feel" than 3E. When they made 3E they created worlds and a "feel" where they tried imagine what life would be life if magic existed and how cultures and people would develop in worlds with multiple sentient races and regular spellcasting. The high-magic (yet curiously low level) world of Eberron and, to a lesser extent, Ptolus were the extensions of this.
Now they're going with something different. More abilities but likely fewer magic items. Villages as points of light in the darkness. PCs viewed somewhere between champions and madme. It could work very nicely with Ravenloft.

Bo9S... never read it. No interest. Seemed big though with possible good ideas. Fighters and melee types do need some *oomf* and options beyond which feats, with some all but being mandatory (power attack, I'm looking at you). But that big a change to the game requires some serious dedication to balance it with existing classes and really makes the already sup-par classes (fighter) seem even worse.

Everyone just seems so down on a game they've never even played...

I was happy in my 2nd edition bubble. I tried to read along with the Kargatane/Fraternity of Shadows as stats inescapably drifted into the foreign language of 3rd edition. Finally, I spent the time and money to understand those stats and the new game mechanics behind them. And then I am promptly informed by Wizards that I should do it all over again. And you are surprised that I am deeply, stubbornly unamused? And more to the point, should time and money be spent chasing after Wizard's constant 'upgrade' model à la Microsoft, or would it be better spent fleshing out and innovating in something more permanent and worthwhile like the themes and stories of Ravenloft itself?

cure wrote:I was happy in my 2nd edition bubble. I tried to read along with the Kargatane/Fraternity of Shadows as stats inescapably drifted into the foreign language of 3rd edition. Finally, I spent the time and money to understand those stats and the new game mechanics behind them. And then I am promptly informed by Wizards that I should do it all over again. And you are surprised that I am deeply, stubbornly unamused? And more to the point, should time and money be spent chasing after Wizard's constant 'upgrade' model à la Microsoft, or would it be better spent fleshing out and innovating in something more permanent and worthwhile like the themes and stories of Ravenloft itself?

I feel your pain.

I switched to 3rd ed. in 2003, buying the core rulebooks... then got bitten on the ass for it when they release frickin 3.5.

Then only recently I started buying 3.5 books, mostly on ebay where they're going for cheap. And guess what?

4DVENTURE!

I understand my experience is not the same as everybody's. But while under WotC's watch, I have literally bought into a gaming system more or less about a year or so before they made it obsolete. TWICE. Looking back it does seem like bad timing had a lot to do with it. (At least WotC is not doing the crap that Games Workshop started doing in the mid to late 1990s, which was shamelessly releasing a whole new set of rules each year or two.*)

But at the same time I'm reading everywhere how happy people are and how they're posting the message of "Oh this is really good! We'll get a new rules update"

Meanwhile I'm feeling like the guy who bought shares in Roskneft just before Putin's oligarchs seized its assets and imprisoned its owner.

I honestly think 3.5 is my last stop. I've fought the good fight, I've bought into the game system. I like some of the things they've done with it, but frankly this gravy train is all out of fuel.


------
*Yet.

Cure, I acknowledge that you were late to adopt 3E, but the cold hard fact is that there are people on this earth today, who can walk and talk and write their names in school, who had not yet been born when 3E was released. "Continual upgrades" between editions is something you conjured up from the dark recesses of your imagination.