| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| coach |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 15:20:47
PH2: Power Warden Cards?!?
Paragon Dragonborn Warlord Artillery?!?
Angelic Avenger Soldier?!?
okay, now who stole the non-tweener version of my game and how do I get it back?
seriously I always though DnD tried to cater to the ages of 18-25
has this age demographic shifted to where now WotC seeks out the 12-17 year old demographic ??
OR
has the current 18-25 year old demographic been so embedded with MMOG, FPS, XBOX, etc while growing up that they actually prefer this 'new' game ??
i am seriously asking this question as i guess i fall under the 'out-of-touch' 36-49 aged demographic
oh and it IS a 'new' game, it absolutely is so far away from Gygax, Arneson, Greenwood, etc that I don't recognize it
((the fact that whoever took my game stole 'my FR' with it I won't comment on as 'my FR' is something we all can agree on has a different definition for each member here)) |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Arivia |
Posted - 21 Aug 2009 : 11:23:29
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
NONE of these changes have anything to do with an MMO.
I believe WotC knows full well that terms in the new 4E game are similar to what you'll find in WoW.
While it's true those terms are used in a metagame context (and frankly during play, i.e. one players saying to another, "Dude, you're playing a controller. Hang back or you're going to mess up our battle line, not to mention get pulped by that Zombie Hulk."), it doesn't follow that some of those terms were not inspired or otherwise borrowed from MMOs.
D&D has informed MMOs, Final Fantasy and all sorts of other games.
This is just an example of things turning full circle, with those games now informing D&D.
The thing is that saying there's a resemblance to any MMO and actually stating influence on 4e's design are two different things.
The two places I see this criticism against are monster classifications (which I've already dispensed with above) and party roles.
The thing to remember is that historically D&D's stuck out from a design standpoint for its strong class protection. Up until 3e, classes were very distinct and the major quality of a character's identity. It was only in 3e, due to the proliferance of options and the flexible multiclassing system that this was in any way subverted. Additionally with this, there was an archetypal quartet (fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric) that all D&D content assumed you had and built itself around.
Eventually in the last half of 3e, especially once the Player's Handbook II went to print, people really realized that this was an issue - that while the classes themselves had been deconstructed, the game still expected you to have those four and backhanded you in really odd ways when you didn't have specifically the classic four. (Despite it being the most powerful, I don't remember very many play groups in 3e that didn't grumble over who had to play the divine caster and take various penalties for not being a straight cleric.)
This is what 4e's fixed with the role system. By decoupling power sources (no mandatory distribution, although you can customize for them) and providing a guideline for a balanced party (one of each role, and the standard math includes one extra of any role), despite 4e's stronger class protection players aren't penalized for using ideas and supplementary concepts. A party with a shaman, warden, druid, and barbarian is just as viable as the classic four. Additionally, if the players step outside of that they know exactly what they're missing, as opposed to 3e which consisted of personal design with little focus on overall party utility.
I think that bit of design is solving something that was a problem in D&D itself, not otherwise. Now, while you could argue that the terminology is taken from MMOs, that has nothing to do with the design and play of D&D itself. (As an aside, I really don't see any commonalities between anything in 4e's terminology and say, Priestess Delrissa, Illidari Council or the Faction Champions in WoW.) |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 21 Aug 2009 : 10:55:44
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
NONE of these changes have anything to do with an MMO.
I believe WotC knows full well that terms in the new 4E game are similar to what you'll find in WoW.
While it's true those terms are used in a metagame context (and frankly during play, i.e. one players saying to another, "Dude, you're playing a controller. Hang back or you're going to mess up our battle line, not to mention get pulped by that Zombie Hulk."), it doesn't follow that some of those terms were not inspired or otherwise borrowed from MMOs.
D&D has informed MMOs, Final Fantasy and all sorts of other games.
This is just an example of things turning full circle, with those games now informing D&D.
The interesting point is the next one; will the same circle continue or will another one start. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 21 Aug 2009 : 06:50:49
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
NONE of these changes have anything to do with an MMO.
I believe WotC knows full well that terms in the new 4E game are similar to what you'll find in WoW.
While it's true those terms are used in a metagame context (and frankly during play, i.e. one players saying to another, "Dude, you're playing a controller. Hang back or you're going to mess up our battle line, not to mention get pulped by that Zombie Hulk."), it doesn't follow that some of those terms were not inspired or otherwise borrowed from MMOs.
D&D has informed MMOs, Final Fantasy and all sorts of other games.
This is just an example of things turning full circle, with those games now informing D&D. |
| coach |
Posted - 20 Aug 2009 : 21:37:10
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Moradin
quote:
Originally posted by coach
quote:
And, only to add to the point, THAC0, Armor Class, rogue, Class Kit (or Prestige Class) never was roleplaying, too. Only terms to describe things.
right but did any of those break immersion into the roleplaying due to seeming "out of context" like soldier, artillery etc
those words bring me back to my wargame tabletop defeat Kaiser mindset
As Arivia had point, these terms are to use "out of the game", they are wrappers terms to define and point out types of monsters (in the case of the soldier and artillery that you just point).
So, using the terminology, the 4E DM have more scope to tailor his encounters using the "villain types" of the different types and create something interesting with the rules at hand.
Or, speaking more "to the point": they are not terms to be used "in game", in roleplay momments - except in situations that this terms can be used.  They are "rule terms", like THAC0, Prestige Class, etc.
Even if, in momments out of roleplay, the use of these terms "break your immersion" in the game, well, the only reason that I can think that describe this is... your personal experience.
As you said, this terms remember you of the wargames. So, thereīs nothing that anyone can do to change this mindset, because you have played your wargames, and have experience in this.
I never play any wargame in the last 18 years, and I donīt play MMO. So, the terms can do nothing to my mindset. 
But, I donīt live in a demiplane in the Ethereal, so I have the knowledge that they are "used",or refered in these games, but I donīt see any point, any point negative, that break my fun playing D&D only because of terminology.
But, again, this is with me. 
Each one has his own way to see things.
That makes sense CoM, starting to "see" better now
still just can't shake the 'feel' but as you said it is because of my experiences with wargaming that uses those terms |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 19 Aug 2009 : 12:36:34
quote:
Originally posted by coach
quote:
And, only to add to the point, THAC0, Armor Class, rogue, Class Kit (or Prestige Class) never was roleplaying, too. Only terms to describe things.
right but did any of those break immersion into the roleplaying due to seeming "out of context" like soldier, artillery etc
those words bring me back to my wargame tabletop defeat Kaiser mindset
As Arivia had point, these terms are to use "out of the game", they are wrappers terms to define and point out types of monsters (in the case of the soldier and artillery that you just point).
So, using the terminology, the 4E DM have more scope to tailor his encounters using the "villain types" of the different types and create something interesting with the rules at hand.
Or, speaking more "to the point": they are not terms to be used "in game", in roleplay momments - except in situations that this terms can be used. They are "rule terms", like THAC0, Prestige Class, etc.
Even if, in momments out of roleplay, the use of these terms "break your immersion" in the game, well, the only reason that I can think that describe this is... your personal experience.
As you said, this terms remember you of the wargames. So, thereīs nothing that anyone can do to change this mindset, because you have played your wargames, and have experience in this.
I never play any wargame in the last 18 years, and I donīt play MMO. So, the terms can do nothing to my mindset.
But, I donīt live in a demiplane in the Ethereal, so I have the knowledge that they are "used",or refered in these games, but I donīt see any point, any point negative, that break my fun playing D&D only because of terminology.
But, again, this is with me.
Each one has his own way to see things. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 19 Aug 2009 : 11:27:13
quote:
Originally posted by coach
my point is i guess, it seems more Wargame/FPS vernacular these days
Artillery
Power
Soldier
Avenger
Warlord
where did this come from is my point?
I wonder what Freud would have said?
Artillery, Power, Soldier, Avenger, Warlord, Nocturnal Emission, Oedipus Complex. |
| Quale |
Posted - 19 Aug 2009 : 10:35:45
quote:
Originally posted by Christopher_Rowe
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Think that the new terms are silly and for nerds. Primarily it's aimed for hack and slash players, and younger players generally prefer that style. I liked it when I first started playing, nearly a decade ago.
The "it" being hack and slash style, I guess? I've never liked it, myself, even when I started D&D as an eighth grader back in the early eighties, and my experience of 4E hasn't suggested to me that it supports or doesn't support any particular style of play any more than previous editions.
That said, I'll own up to being occasionally silly, and frequently nerdy.
Cheers,
Christopher
I've seen many people post that you don't need rules for roleplaying. Sure, but you need fluff for the npcs and monsters you interact with. Comparing 2e and 4e MM, from 2e MM's ecologies you can come up with a variety of ways on how to roleplay an encounter. 4e monster book is written like a television set instruction manual. How are 4e beginner player ever know there is anything else beside combat, with those pitiful lore DC sidebars? For most of them every battle is likely to turn the same and boring. I want that every MM is like Pathfinder's Classic Monsters Revisited.
The terms like ''Paragon Dragonborn Warlord Artillery'' are in no way a simplification of the game, nerdy type of players will have the patience to figure out what that means, but it won't attract the normal majority.
Don't care about MMOs, 20 years old, maybe when holodecks (sp?) show up. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 02:57:54
quote:
Originally posted by coach
right, so you readily point out that we have a shift from melee/ranged/owlbear to soldier/artillery/squad tactics and don't see wargame/FPS fingerprints all over that?
No, as they're use standards clarifications that have developed from D&D's play history. Dungeonscape (and to some degree, Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering) is the shim, if you're not sure as to its origin.
You could maybe make a case that 4e is similar to something like the X-Com series, but ToEE proved that a clear strict version of D&D's play has been like that for at least 8 years.
In case you're not familiar with 4e, I'll throw out this clarifier: soldier and artillery are used as clarifier terms inside the system, used to create meaning instead of rules, let alone story. No one inside 4e's narrative discourse goes around calling things soldiers and artillery unless it's appropriate from a different source of meaning. Those terms (and the classifications of striker/defender/leader/controller) are only used in a metagaming focus.
Finally, strategic touches upon D&D are nothing new, at least in its basic rules. It all came from Chainmail, morale rules until 2e, so forth and so on.
quote:
and ... I asked why WotC felt compelled to embed wargame/FPS vernacular into DnD and you replied The dictionary? ... color me confused
and lastly i never brought up WoW, i speak of the wargame MMOs that use these terms
I am contending that 4e's usage of those words is in no way tied to that vernacular, that it doesn't tap into that discourse at all and instead stems from common meaning. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I can see nothing in 4e itself that ties to "wargames", as you're terming them, or any sort of shooter.
You're right, conflating your points with WoW was my mistake. But if you'd like to continue down this path, please provide examples of "wargame MMOs" with the same terminology and how that terminology acts upon 4e. |
| coach |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 02:38:48
quote:
And, only to add to the point, THAC0, Armor Class, rogue, Class Kit (or Prestige Class) never was roleplaying, too. Only terms to describe things.
right but did any of those break immersion into the roleplaying due to seeming "out of context" like soldier, artillery etc
those words bring me back to my wargame tabletop defeat Kaiser mindset |
| coach |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 02:34:55
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by coach
my point is i guess, it seems more Wargame/FPS vernacular these days
Artillery
Power
Soldier
Avenger
Warlord
etc
etc
etc
where did this come from is my point?
certainly not DnD
Makes me want to find the power-up and win the game
The dictionary? 4e uses those words in an Oxford Standard way, not in a "we casually mugged WoW in a back alley" way. None of those words are in WoW at all, as an aside.
We've been over this before, but the classifications of artillery and soldier were introduced to help DMs plan combats. Considering 4e is more about squad tactics than an owlbear and a single room, it's quite helpful.
Avenger and warlord are used in generalist echoing senses like paladins and druids always have been in D&D.
NONE of these changes have anything to do with an MMO.
right, so you readily point out that we have a shift from melee/ranged/owlbear to soldier/artillery/squad tactics and don't see wargame/FPS fingerprints all over that?
and ... I asked why WotC felt compelled to embed wargame/FPS vernacular into DnD and you replied The dictionary? ... color me confused
and lastly i never brought up WoW, i speak of the wargame MMOs that use these terms |
| Arivia |
Posted - 15 Aug 2009 : 00:29:36
quote:
Originally posted by coach
my point is i guess, it seems more Wargame/FPS vernacular these days
Artillery
Power
Soldier
Avenger
Warlord
etc
etc
etc
where did this come from is my point?
certainly not DnD
Makes me want to find the power-up and win the game
The dictionary? 4e uses those words in an Oxford Standard way, not in a "we casually mugged WoW in a back alley" way. None of those words are in WoW at all, as an aside.
We've been over this before, but the classifications of artillery and soldier were introduced to help DMs plan combats. Considering 4e is more about squad tactics than an owlbear and a single room, it's quite helpful.
Avenger and warlord are used in generalist echoing senses like paladins and druids always have been in D&D.
NONE of these changes have anything to do with an MMO. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 14 Aug 2009 : 19:59:12
ItÂīs only the circular road.
The RPG sets the angular stone that started all the MMO games, and video-games are too much affected by RPG, and D&D.
Now, some of the terms more used in video-games and in MMO are appearing in good old D&D.
To me, this is not a problem. Only words that describe functions. In the day that a descritive word was more important that the fun of my game table, I quit D&D. Until now, this is not a problem.
And, only to add to the point, THAC0, Armor Class, rogue, Class Kit (or Prestige Class) never was roleplaying, too. Only terms to describe things. |
| coach |
Posted - 14 Aug 2009 : 19:47:11
p.s. i am not saying MMO, XBOX, FPS is bad, heck i used to set the alarm at 4am to play a couple hours Ultima Online before work
but i dern sure well knew it WASN'T roleplaying
i AM saying that those genre's aren't RPG so why are those genre's now showing up in RPGs
demographic shift?
pure marketing ploy?
make money no matter what regardless? |
| coach |
Posted - 14 Aug 2009 : 19:41:58
my point is i guess, it seems more Wargame/FPS vernacular these days
Artillery
Power
Soldier
Avenger
Warlord
etc
etc
etc
where did this come from is my point?
certainly not DnD
Makes me want to find the power-up and win the game |
| Jakk |
Posted - 12 Aug 2009 : 03:46:41
I agree with Brimstone; I'm also 37, and choice is good! I'm slowly coming around on the third point (that 4.0 is still D&D). I also happen to agree (to a limited extent) with coach; the whole concept of character and monster "role" is lifted straight from MMORPGs, and has very little, if anything, to do with creature "type" (Undead, Construct, Giant, Dragon, etc). That being said, by the end of next year I expect to be playing a completely similar game incorporating elements of 3.5, Pathfinder, and yes, even 4E. There are little things that I like about 4E (most of which are being implemented in Pathfinder) and there are big things that I like about 4E (the demise of Vancian casting, in particular; I'm just hashing out how to make the at-will/limited-use system work without changing the spells as they are in 3.5/Pathfinder). There are two things my group has agreed unanimously on: (1) We don't like using opposed rolls for everything, as seems to be the trend in 4.0; and (2) With the exception of Laerakond, the Brave New Realms(TM) is not a world we want to set our campaigns in. We liked 3.x Eberron, and we liked 3.x Realms; we don't like the attempt to jam the two together into something 'cooler'. I'll confess to looking forward to Eberron 4.0 with some trepidation, but the world I really want to see released under the new rules is Cerilia (Birthright, from 2E). I still think that was the most original idea the makers of D&D have had since Gygax and Arneson's original conception of the RPG. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 22:19:41
Just call me Boy Bolo!
Thats what we would call people that could not qualify on the Rifle Ranges while I was in the Army. The Army has Soldiers, Artillery, and Forward Air Controllers.
This one guy at Ft. Campbell Ky. Spc. Morrise couldn't qualify to save his own life, so I dubbed him Hawkeye. Everybody in the Company called him that, even 1st Sergant.
Hey I am 37, 4E is D&D also, and yes I am even looking forward to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game also. I love having a choice! |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 22:04:35
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
You used the term APB, so clearly you're old and out of touch.
<snip>
Yeah! Anyone that watches NCIS knows it's BOLO now... |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 21:51:15
You used the term APB, so clearly you're old and out of touch.
But seriously, what does age have to do with anything? I'm turning 35 this year and play MMO's, own an Xbox, and love 4th-Edition! So what's your point? |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 20:49:23
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Think that the new terms are silly and for nerds. Primarily it's aimed for hack and slash players, and younger players generally prefer that style. I liked it when I first started playing, nearly a decade ago.
The "it" being hack and slash style, I guess? I've never liked it, myself, even when I started D&D as an eighth grader back in the early eighties, and my experience of 4E hasn't suggested to me that it supports or doesn't support any particular style of play any more than previous editions.
That said, I'll own up to being occasionally silly, and frequently nerdy.
Cheers,
Christopher |
| Quale |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 20:19:07
Think that the new terms are silly and for nerds. Primarily it's aimed for hack and slash players, and younger players generally prefer that style. I liked it when I first started playing, nearly a decade ago.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 19:08:10
Power Cards are nothing new. Just for the hell of it, I pulled out my Wizard Spell Cards set for 2e - released in 1992. They serve much the same purpose, and are really quite helpful as play aids.
I don't see what the problem is with the miniatures you've listed. FYI, Artillery and Soldier are game terms 4e uses to differentiate between monster roles - they simplify something 3e hid as connotations to types like Outsider and Undead.
|
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 11 Aug 2009 : 19:02:16
I'm 39. I think it's a great game. I played Basic, "1E," and Second Edition. Never played an online game (well, Kingdom of Loathing, but I don't think that's the kind of thing you're talking about).
As for the the all points bulletin, Dungeons & Dragons, for me, is thriving in the fourth edition. For you, it's probably still safe and whole, wherever you put it last. Enjoy the games you enjoy.
Cheers,
Christopher |
|
|
