Sunshadow I do not know if you have ever worked with developers...if you have please can you send me the e-mail addresses for all of them you have worked with...if they were that open I could get 2-3 projects done in 2 weeks rather than 2-36 months...
I have never, ever created a functional specification without every I - dotted and every T-crossed. If I stated..."well this bit, well to be honest you can take these guidelines...but its up to the person at the time."...mainly I would get..."REALLY".
Even adding in fuzzy logic, its based on a set of variables (Not even wanting to talk about a new Stochastic model...never seen developers lose the plot on a new project until then.) that have to be defined to the "N'th"...going through (in UK and US, these days) any compliance committee or I imagine game company its what makes the games "rail road" with some easy "divergence"....any RPG rule system apart from the rules will not be coded easily...I just did a search on Baldur Gate, never having played this, and this is seen as the last and greatest 1P experience and on Netherwinter Nights (3E from reviews I have read)the DM experience is good. True it cannot take wishes but what codified system couls..."can create any 8th level or below or effect or do something completely different..to DM fiat." is what I remember wish doing in BECMI; let alone AD&D.
Can we please get away from the video game analogy - it is false, easily provable as such and quite limiting.
Good luck getting away from it. It's a dominant medium, and every system out right now is going to have to look it in the face at some point. If you find that limiting, I am sorry, because it's not going away. There is simply too much money there, and where there is money, there will always be speculation.
|
Good luck getting away from it. It's a dominant medium, and every system out right now is going to have to look it in the face at some point. If you find that limiting, I am sorry, because it's not going away. There is simply too much money there, and where there is money, there will always be speculation.
True. I think the general consensus against 4e = MMORPG fodder is that the argument that 4e was designed to be translated or appeal to or compete with a MMORPG (i.e. WoW specifically) is as follows:
Simplified rules systems/sub-systems and internal consistency. Therefore = MMORPG.
The fact that 4e has a robust internal logic of course means it would be easier to 'code' but the primary purpose was to make it easier to 'explain' to new players I would venture. Any well thought out and clear system is easier in this regards. 3e is a 'simplified' 2e, and 2e was a simplified 1e - in terms of internal logic of the interlocking sub-systems.
Taking to the extreme the other side of the argument the best RPG would be nigh incomprehensible with random unrelated systems and sub-systems because this would make the game almost impossible to translate to a computer program? In fact the best RPG would involve random number determination based on a multi-electron system, let's see the programmers handle that one!
S.
Programming the non PC mechanics would be both easier and harder. The lack of specific rules would cause a bit of work, but no more than the presence of several dozen specific ones. It would just mean programming a number of universal rules, defined methods of how to define difficulties based on object type, distance, etc., and make everything in the scene interactable. Specific overrides could be built into individual objects or characters as needed.
You just described the 3rd edition DMG, well most of it.
Step one is to decide what the heck the actual DCs are going to be for everything in the game.
Actually step one is to figure out what the look and feel is going to be for those numbers. Our programmers have two options for this - they can go with the look and feel of WotCs 4E or they can make up their own look and feel. If they go for the look and feel of WotCs 4e then they need to do what free lancers that want to submit work to DDI do - read everything WotC puts out to get a gut instinct on what is appropriate at about what level. SO there is there starting homework - read all of WotCs material so that they can make reasonably close estimates on what the numbers should be. Alternatively they can make up their own look and feel which is what I do in my homebrew (as does every other 4E DM).
Once they decide what the look and feel is going to be its on to step two - take page 42 and turn that into their version of 3rd editions DMG. Assign DCs for everything that will be interacted in the world.
That is not the end of their problems however - all those dozens of mechanics that they are about to save time by not having to write - yeah - actually they need to write them. 4Es DM fiat with guidelines system is a meta tool for creating more detailed mechanics. You still need the mechanics - 4E DMs create them on a case by case basis depending on their adventure while considering what the look and feel of their campaign is.
If I want there to be a swingy bridge on which the players fight then I create a hazard, series of skill checks or a skill challenge to encompass what that entails with my choices from the above list. I should also choose if I'll be using single skill checks or groups checks or some combination while designing this. In effect they need to actually build the mechanics before they can convert them into code. Its not a trivial task.
Admittedly its a powerful tool - once you understand the building blocks for this meta mechanic its reasonably easy for a DM to take the elements and build anything he can imagine with them...they are lego basically. A scene where the players flee am erupting volcano volcano, battle enemies on a rope bridge tossed by high winds or charge through a burning building. Though some of these would be more difficult to translate to a computer then others since many of them are fundamentally narrativist - no miniatures likely on the table for the scene where the players charge through the centre of a burning building though with a bit more work you could invent mechanics for that scene as well.
Its great that 4E went with simplified mechanics so that DMs could use them as building blocks to recreate anything we can dream up. However computers can't dream things up - some one has to do that for them. By the time every mechanic has been dreamed up and written down you actually have a huge document of numbers and mechanics that, in reality, looks pretty much like 3.5s DMG since this is basically what 3.5's DMG did - set the numbers and mechanics for the game out for the DM and this is what our programmer needs to input the system into a computer.
I'd love to see some one actually make this game true to 4Es mechanics but I'm likely to have to wait for a long time for that.
Sunshadow I do not know if you have ever worked with developers...if you have please can you send me the e-mail addresses for all of them you have worked with...if they were that open I could get 2-3 projects done in 2 weeks rather than 2-36 months...
He obviously has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to programming.
Can we please get away from the video game analogy - it is false, easily provable as such and quite limiting.
But it has these incendiary tendencies in this context, that's why some people won't stop using it. It just stirs up too much too easily.
We have living proof that 4E is not as easily implementable as some people here keep insisting - namely WotC's own efforts at the VT. If it were that easy, it would have been released in 2008 or 2009 instead of still being in beta now.
ToEE proved that it's actually possible to implement a D&D 3.5 CRPG true to the rules - unfortunately, this is still an open question for 4E. Maybe the new Neverwinter will manage, but we'll only know in a year or two...
The DDO MMO is not an implementation of D&D, only a system inspired by it, meaning it's trying to use familiar names where it can but actually works quite differently.
As a single player game or limited sessions like the VT, I agree that 4E does not have any significant advantages over it's predecessors, but as an 24/7 MMO, it would. The things that everyone claims makes it easier to change 4E on the fly as a DM would also apply to programmers, and thus costs and CPU usage over the long haul. Again, it does not have to have been a primary concern to still have been a factor at some level. I agree that using that statement to somehow condemn 4E is silly, but so is denying the validity of the base statement. There is too much money in MMOs for a company that has already skewed toward digital products to not at least consider MMOs as a future market.
|
|
There is too much money in MMOs for a company that has already skewed toward digital products to not at least consider MMOs as a future market.
Currently there is little room with Warcraft. Warhammer tried and failed as did DDO. I wouldn't think that the accountants at WotC would be open to discussion of the development of a 4e MMORPG in the current one-horse market. Blizzard, currently, simply has won.
Perhaps when Warcraft falls such an undertaking would make sense, until then it would be a waste of capital investment.
IMHO,
S.
There is too much money in MMOs for a company that has already skewed toward digital products to not at least consider MMOs as a future market.Currently there is little room with Warcraft. Warhammer tried and failed as did DDO. I wouldn't think that the accountants at WotC would be open to discussion of the development of a 4e MMORPG in the current one-horse market. Blizzard, currently, simply has won.
Perhaps when Warcraft falls such an undertaking would make sense, until then it would be a waste of capital investment.
IMHO,
S.
The big advantage 4E would have over DDO is everything is already balanced for the most part for that kind of environment. The daily powers would have to be tweaked somehow, but everything else is encounter based already. Also, with the classes more or less balanced against each other, solo play is less of a problem. That right there eliminates, or at least significantly reduces, the two biggest challenges in converting 3.5.
And having WoW being the only big name right now would not have stopped the discussion. Even at that time, people had to realize that WoW would eventually weaken, just as Everquest and it's counterparts did. I'm not saying they would have sought an MMO immediately, as I'm sure DDI would have gotten the priority of digital resources and effort, but as a future potential project, they would have been foolish to not at least consider it. Now, with WoW starting to fade and DDI more or less complete, they could actually consider the possibility. From what I've seen of the new Neverwinter, it sounds like it will be at least partially MMOish.
|
The big advantage 4E would have over DDO is everything is already balanced for the most part for that kind of environment. The daily powers would have to be tweaked somehow, but everything else is encounter based already. Also, with the classes more or less balanced against each other, solo play is less of a problem. That right there eliminates, or at least significantly reduces, the two biggest challenges in converting 3.5.
Come off it - that would have no bearing whatsoever on the success or failure of the game. It's about brand recognition - for MMOs, WoW is a mighty opponent. Also, MMOs are primarily an Asian market. D&D is primarily an English-speaking brand. It's probably not as great a synergy as you might think, anyway.
And having WoW being the only big name right now would not have stopped the discussion. Even at that time, people had to realize that WoW would eventually weaken, just as Everquest and it's counterparts did. I'm not saying they would have sought an MMO immediately, as I'm sure DDI would have gotten the priority of digital resources and effort, but as a future potential project, they would have been foolish to not at least consider it. Now, with WoW starting to fade and DDI more or less complete, they could actually consider the possibility. From what I've seen of the new Neverwinter, it sounds like it will be at least partially MMOish.
Maybe - but this is pure speculation on your part. Speculation intended to support your video game obsession with respect to 4e. Also, as I would imagine that DDI and your putative MMO would have very different programming requirements, and be farmed out to different organisation, they wouldn't really be dependencies upon one another. I'm seriously getting the impression you are making this up as you go along.
Look, you may be right that 4e is easier to "programme" into a video game format - though I frankly haven't really seen anything that convinces me on that (including your vague and general comments on the subject). Even if it was, I still don't consider it a motivation. They cleaned up a system that was needlessly complex (3e) to produce on that is much more streamlined and easy to grasp intuitively (4e). That seems to me to be a perfectly decent reason to make the changes in and of themselves. The video game thing just seems to be an attempt to put "respectable" intellectual traction on the "4e is just an MMO" whine that gets rolled out at these occasions - and I see your comments in the same vein. The tidying up of the system actually also makes it a very good table-top RPG, irrespective of what impact it may or may not have on any (so far, even after all this time, non-existent - which seems a bit curious given its supposed central place in the strategey) video game.
|
|
Sunshadow - take a look at the general discussion forums on the pathfinder rpg forum at some stage. What you'll find is an entire array of complaints about power disparity amongst classes, how vancian magic sucks and how so many spells are ridiculously powerful and game breaking, and the fact that the company itself doesn't really support things above level 15 because the rules make the game so swingy.
All of those things were complained about on wotc boards as well.
The real motivation behind the changes had nothing to do with computer games. It had to do with balancing those issues.
Classes are more balanced now but still have distinctive flavor and roles, far more so than "I cast and win" or " I swing and hit" you see in 3.x versions and pathfinder to some extent.
Vancian magic is gone, and the only way to pull that off is to redesign the system.
Spells that are world breaking and tactics like spy and fry are removed from the immediate combat environment since they have become rituals instead, which anyone can nuse with the feat choice ritual caster.
And the game plays the same through all levels without the need nor an epic level rule book nor a guide to high level play which the pathfinder developers have said are both likely necessary for their game.
The design process was an attempt to fix the game for the player base. The way it was marketed was done so in a way that made younger generations understand what was going on. They could just have easily dispensed with the card like layout of the powers and presented more like the pathfinder feats, spells and abilities are presented and you'd still have the same game thatb4th Ed currently is.
The design is not mmo, it is a fix for the many complaints folk had about 3.x
( please note I don't think the flaws discussed in the pathfinder forums are that big a deal, it's why I still play pathfinder and will defend it as well, I merely use them to make my point.)
Cheers
Hi sunshadow,
I don’t normally get involved in these types of discussion (don’t you love it when someone starts their post with I don’t normally post in these threads...but...), lurking is usually good enough for me. However, after reading your attempts for the past several pages to prove your point that the design philosophy of 4e, at least nominally, was to facilitate the translation of the 4e P&P RPG to a CRPG I gotta ask (sorry for being rude), what’s your point?
The point is it's a topic that won't go away just because people don't like it, and having the conversation now helps because it's not a topic restricted to 4E alone, but it's eventual replacement as well. How video games and table top games are going to interact with each other in the future is something that simply cannot be ignored, and with their digital focus, WotC has put themselves at the forefront of that conversation. 4E is different from it's predecessors, both in what it tries to do, how it goes about doing it, and the market it is operating in. Your opinion can differ from mine on the details, but that fact is having a conversation about 4E is fundamentally different from those of earlier editions, because the interaction with other types of media and markets is always going to be there in the background, and often quite visible because of their digital focus.
Whether it be boardgames or computer games, thinking of 4E as just a table top RPG risks missing the bigger changes going on in the industry, and while WotC's marketing is still a bit weak, their R&D department isn't. Paizo will have to deal with the same issues whenever they get around to releasing PF 2.0.
A question for those of you who seem to dislike the connection to computer games so much. What makes board games or the cards so different from computer games that you'll froth at the mouth at the mere mention of one, but virtually ignore it when the others happens to come up in random conversation?
|
|
Sunshadow, they don't need to do anything to the table-top game to make a computer RPG - the computer game developers can simplify any rules to make it easier to programme, irrespective of the base ruleset. I've played Neverwinter Nights (fairly close to 3e, but still not the full rules) and another game (the name escapes me, but it was set in the Forgotten Realms, that had nothing to do with D&D except for the setting). Making a computer game out of D&D is an exercise in branding, and nothing more. If they want to do it, they will - and have, in the age of the supposedly "more difficult to programme" base ruleset. And it made no difference - these games came out, and where appropriate the programmers changed the base rules to suit their needs (or even didn't bother with anything resembling the D&D rules). The guys at WotC develop table-top roleplaying games. They don't have to worry about making it "compatible" with computer games. Someone else will worry about that for them, should the need arise - as they did in the past.
Now, this subject is getting tedious, so I'm going to leave it here.
They don't have to worry about making it "compatible" with computer games. Someone else will worry about that for them, should the need arise - as they did in the past.
This isn't the past; they have a bit more competition now, both in the RPG market, and in related markets, and that means that what worked in the past is not automatically going to work anymore, assuming it works at all.
|
|
A question for those of you who seem to dislike the connection to computer games so much. What makes board games or the cards so different from computer games that you'll froth at the mouth at the mere mention of one, but virtually ignore it when the others happens to come up in random conversation?
OK, I'll bite.
The (non-)connection to computer games arises from the comments when the game first came out, and which gets trotted out still at regular intervals, that 4e is "just like an MMO". (Which is nonsense, because MMOs are computer games and 4e is a table-top roleplaying game, yadda yadda. Nevertheless, the OP to this thread manages to mention it, so it's obviously still alive and well.)
I don't think any of us would actually be bothered if the brought out a 4e CRPG - any more than we were bothered by the old CRPGs based upon earlier eiditons. I have happy memories of playing the original NWN and its expansions. Likewise, board games are probably a logical extension of the brand - I haven't played them myself.
What bothers us (well, me, anyway) is the untruths peddled about a game which is much more like earlier editions of D&D, and other table-top RPGs, than anything else it seems to get compared to by some naysayers. We would also like to be able to discuss a game which we play (and, one might suppose, therefore understand better than those that don't play it) without being told by those with, at best, a very slight acquaintance with the game that this or that is wrong with it, or it's only been designed that way to make computer games, or similar such nonsense. It's, well, annoying.
|
|
They don't have to worry about making it "compatible" with computer games. Someone else will worry about that for them, should the need arise - as they did in the past.This isn't the past; they have a bit more competition now, both in the RPG market, and in related markets, and that means that what worked in the past is not automatically going to work anymore, assuming it works at all.
That's rhetorical b&+@!$+s. Unless you are some authority on computer gaming (which you clearly aren't) I think I'll stop wasting my time with you.
What bothers us (well, me, anyway) is the untruths peddled about a game which is much more like earlier editions of D&D, and other table-top RPGs, than anything else it seems to get compared to by some naysayers. We would also like to be able to discuss a game which we play (and, one might suppose, therefore understand better than those that don't play it) without being told by those with, at best, a very slight acquaintance with the game that this or that is wrong with it, or it's only been designed that way to make computer games, or similar such nonsense. It's, well, annoying.
I never said it was designed only for video games, but how does that the fact that consideration for being multi platform might have been part of the design process impact your ability to play the game now? You clearly aren't unhappy with the results of the final product, however they may have come about. No one is saying that it can't be played as a table top game. I can understand the frustration with those who try to pass judgment, but simply pointing out very real connections is not passing judgment on the system or its players, nor does it does impact their ability to experience the game the way they want to, and it gets the same reaction.
But my question is, why do you belabour the point that, even though you have no evidence, 4e was designed with computer games in mind? I’m not saying it was, I’m not saying it wasn’t. In fact, I don’t care either way. Why do you? You state that it’s an important discussion to have. Possibly so, but it seems like no one here wants to discuss it with you.
Apparently people do want to discuss it at some level, otherwise people wouldn't be responding. I'm just trying to understand how they can embrace DDI, including the virutal tabletop, which WotC controls full access to, but hit the panic button when other forms of digital deployment are discussed. I can understand some, due to the acrimony from the release, but that there is still this much despite the anti-4E crowd mostly gone by now suggests to me that there is something about market lines being crossed that people haven't quite accepted, which would have significant implications on WotC's continuing focus on digital products.
Ah, see, this makes more sense. What you’re saying, and correct if I’m wrong, is that if a significant portion of the 4e fanbase is offended by the notion that 4e has its roots in contemporary video game design, then maybe WotC would not be so keen on creating video games based on 4e?
If this is indeed your point, then it’s certainly an interesting topic to explore. Though, the discussion can be had, I think, without trying to prove that the developers of 4e definitely 100% did have video games in mind while creating 4e.
DDI shows they had digital content distinctly on their mind, and the only difference between the virtual tabletop they tout, and other computer games is when the content is entered into the machine by the DM or programmer. The programming is for the most part going to be exactly the same in both cases. Therefore, I am certain they had video games on the mind because they would have been the closest available model to look at and learn from.
The big advantage 4E would have over DDO is everything is already balanced for the most part for that kind of environment. The daily powers would have to be tweaked somehow, but everything else is encounter based already. Also, with the classes more or less balanced against each other, solo play is less of a problem. That right there eliminates, or at least significantly reduces, the two biggest challenges in converting 3.5.
I see no particular reason why a CRPG would need to do anything to the daily powers. You seem to think that the way WOW did things is the only way it could be done or was some how easier to do...its not. Leaving Daily Powers as they stand is one area that a computer programmer would have no real problem implementing. When you click the long rest button (and it works) then you get the power back - simple. If they tweak the daily powers it actually nullifies a lot of the balance in the rest of the system because classes are balanced against each other in part by their daily powers abilities.
Very specifically not all classes have equally good daily powers by a long shot. A cleric has hugely awesome practically game breaking daily powers. I mean stuff like banish the phenomenally powerful enemy Dragon Solo to an extra dimensional prison (save with penalties ends) or give the Dragon a -10 penalty to hit for the rest of the encounter (and these are Heroic Tier powers). This is balanced by the fact that daily fights don't come along all the time and clerics at will and encounter powers are not really as good as the other classes.
My point is if you tweak that element without substantially keeping the same effect your going to throw off the balance that was one of the benefits in the first place.
Also solo play is a huge problem...4E is extremely team orientated. There is no point in the cleric banishing the dragon without a team. The power is insane only if there is a team that can prepare for its eventual return by killing the rider and the rest of the lackeys and surrounding the space it will come back on.
Its pretty irrelevant if you have an awesome marking ability that penalizes the bad guys if they do not attack you if there are no other team mates to protect.
As a single player game or limited sessions like the VT, I agree that 4E does not have any significant advantages over it's predecessors, but as an 24/7 MMO, it would. The things that everyone claims makes it easier to change 4E on the fly as a DM would also apply to programmers...
No it wouldn't. Computers can't think. They cannot make decisions on the fly. The coders need to tell the computer exactly what decision it is going to make ahead of time.
If there is lava in the game the computer cannot make snap decisions on how that is going to work - it can't think. It needs to be told ahead of time by the coders how it is that lava works. In 4E there is no answer to this question. Each DM decides on his own how it works. In 3.5 there is in fact an actual answer - you can look it up in the book. Does X amount of damage under Y circumstances.
This is what a computer needs to function, X if Y. Now its possible to make lava in a 4E game but to do so the designers must first decide what the numbers X if Y are going to be and program the computer to use those numbers whenever Lava is encountered.
None of this is to say its actually impossible but it is backward to say that it is easier to program a computer without having concrete numbers then it is to code one when there are actual concrete numbers in place. The fact that the programmers have to go and choose those numbers themselves means they need to do an extra step to code this - an extra step that does not even involve coding but is preliminary to the part where they can write the code.
I simply mentioned daily powers because that was the one non encounter based mechanic I could think of. I never said it would necessarily be hard, just that it would have to be addressed, which you very adeptly did. Solo play would be a challenge but still less challenging than in 3.5. The fact that everyone basically uses the same template power wise means that making a variety of solo missions that were relatively balanced with each other without taking forever to so would be easier.
I've done enough programming to understand, and have no illusions that it would be particularly easy to set up, but it's a lot easier to break out different elements of 4E into distinct pieces and common templates. There would still be as many pieces, but it would be easier to tie those pieces to a common backbone rather than each other because they don't have as many predefined relationships that would have to be taken into consideration. The initial programming would still be a royal pain in the ass, and the overall effort for a traditional single player game would end up being about the same, but for an MMO, or even a partial MMO like setting, like the virtual tabletop in DDI, the long term benefits would be significant. Being more modular is one of 4E strengths, and this is an area where that would show itself. It would be more work to create the base, which you should only have to do once, but the payoff is that it would be less work for the modular activities, like creating specific areas, quests, etc, which is going to occur many, many, many times.
Again note that I am using easy as part of a very specific comparison against 3.5 and bringing in long term factors. Short term or one off projects like single player games have a completely different set of parameters, and the comparison with that would put the two systems much more on par with each other.
No it wouldn't. Computers can't think. They cannot make decisions on the fly. The coders need to tell the computer exactly what decision it is going to make ahead of time.
If there is lava in the game the computer cannot make snap decisions on how that is going to work - it can't think. It needs to be told ahead of time by the coders how it is that lava works. In 4E there is no answer to this question. Each DM decides on his own how it works. In 3.5 there is in fact an actual answer - you can look it up in the book. Does X amount of damage under Y circumstances.
In 4E, the answer wouldn't have to the same every time either. A programmer for game A could do it one way, and a programmer for game B or even a different cave in game A could do it another, just like DMs. The only difference is that the programmer doesn't have the luxury of waiting until it actually comes up to decide how they want to do it. It would be initially harder for the programmer/game developer to do to because they would essentially be doing it all at once, rather than in bits as they came up, but the same fundamental process is the same. Players would still want to see overall consistency in any given setting in either case. All that changes is when does the question get asked. A proper 4E game would basically require all the questions to be answered up front by not putting an element into the game until it's basic physics and the overall physics of the game were worked out. More work up front, but again, in the long haul, would result is less work down the road.
RE: Exploration:
When PCs decide to just leap into the desert or go into some otherwise hazerdous terrain without being fully prepared, that's when the DM licks his lips and stares hungrily at their healing surges.
Attack a player's cantrips, meh, whatever. Attack a player's first level spells, well, they can get a bit annoyed. Attack their hit points and they'll get a bit worried. But start hitting their healing surges directly in 4e and they'll take a great deal of care in preparing for that journey next time.
|
|
Even if, and it's an if, 4e was made into a MMORPG it would be very unlikely WotC would do this - they would license out the IP. I don't honesty believe that the D&D line makes enough $$$ to support a full on MMORPG conversion. D&D is niche, full stop.
Here's something funny - I enjoyed the d20 TT RPG of Warcraft more than I enjoyed the Warcraft MMORPG. Hmmm, did blizzrd make Warcraft such that it could be made into a TT RPG? Was that their plan all along?
Hmmmm,
S.
RE: Exploration:
When PCs decide to just leap into the desert or go into some otherwise hazerdous terrain without being fully prepared, that's when the DM licks his lips and stares hungrily at their healing surges.
Attack a player's cantrips, meh, whatever. Attack a player's first level spells, well, they can get a bit annoyed. Attack their hit points and they'll get a bit worried. But start hitting their healing surges directly in 4e and they'll take a great deal of care in preparing for that journey next time.
I will say when I heard that about the Dark Sun setting I was pleased enough with the implementation. Having the book say "The player does something stupid or gets unlucky and he dies" is a big part of what D&D is all about. Without that risk, you can't really say you had an adventure so much as a vacation.
In 4E, the answer wouldn't have to the same every time either. A programmer for game A could do it one way, and a programmer for game B or even a different cave in game A could do it another, just like DMs. The only difference is that the programmer doesn't have the luxury of waiting until it actually comes up to decide how they want to do it. It would be initially harder for the programmer/game developer to do to because they would essentially be doing it all at once, rather than in bits as they came up, but the same fundamental process is the same. Players would still want to see overall consistency in any given setting in either case. All that changes is when does the question get asked. A proper 4E game would basically require all the questions to be answered up front by not putting an element into the game until it's basic physics and the overall physics of the game were worked out. More work up front, but again, in the long haul, would result is less work down the road.No it wouldn't. Computers can't think. They cannot make decisions on the fly. The coders need to tell the computer exactly what decision it is going to make ahead of time.
If there is lava in the game the computer cannot make snap decisions on how that is going to work - it can't think. It needs to be told ahead of time by the coders how it is that lava works. In 4E there is no answer to this question. Each DM decides on his own how it works. In 3.5 there is in fact an actual answer - you can look it up in the book. Does X amount of damage under Y circumstances.
OK now we at least seem to be on the same page. However this no longer looks like some one was thinking ahead and saying 'we need to design this to be good for computers'. If they where then the coders would not have to invent these numbers. WE would have gotten 3.5's DCs for every instance in the DMG since its clearly easier for the coders to copy those numbers then it is for them to first have to create those numbers and then implement them. Especially important because this element is going to add months to development not only to implement the part where you work out the numbers (And now you paying coders salaries for work that could have been done by people who don't make close to 6 figures a year). Furthermore you will need extra time in development to playtest things unless there is a requirement that the coders are also 4E DMs with practical experience in making these things and making them work. Especially true for any element that is basically a skill challenge since those really require quite a bit of DM experience to implement them well.
Solo play would be a challenge but still less challenging than in 3.5. The fact that everyone basically uses the same template power wise means that making a variety of solo missions that were relatively balanced with each other without taking forever to so would be easier.
They don't use the same template - not since Essentials.
A question for those of you who seem to dislike the connection to computer games so much. What makes board games or the cards so different from computer games that you'll froth at the mouth at the mere mention of one, but virtually ignore it when the others happens to come up in random conversation?OK, I'll bite.
The (non-)connection to computer games arises from the comments when the game first came out, and which gets trotted out still at regular intervals, that 4e is "just like an MMO". (Which is nonsense, because MMOs are computer games and 4e is a table-top roleplaying game, yadda yadda. Nevertheless, the OP to this thread manages to mention it, so it's obviously still alive and well.)
I don't think any of us would actually be bothered if the brought out a 4e CRPG - any more than we were bothered by the old CRPGs based upon earlier eiditons. I have happy memories of playing the original NWN and its expansions. Likewise, board games are probably a logical extension of the brand - I haven't played them myself.
What bothers us (well, me, anyway) is the untruths peddled about a game which is much more like earlier editions of D&D, and other table-top RPGs, than anything else it seems to get compared to by some naysayers. We would also like to be able to discuss a game which we play (and, one might suppose, therefore understand better than those that don't play it) without being told by those with, at best, a very slight acquaintance with the game that this or that is wrong with it, or it's only been designed that way to make computer games, or similar such nonsense. It's, well, annoying.
Obviously there is no way anyone that actually PLAYED 4E would not like it. That is an impossibility. The only people that could have a negative opinion are people that are unfamiliar. If someone does not like the game, they are the problem. They are probably not perceptive enough to see how awesome the game is.
|
|
Obviously there is no way anyone that actually PLAYED 4E would not like it.
What isn't so obvious is why people who have played 4e and didn't like it bother to state so in the 4e thread. I hope they don't think that their opinion is so important that they will make people who have played 4e and liked it suddenly stop liking it?
|
|
Obviously there is no way anyone that actually PLAYED 4E would not like it.What isn't so obvious is why people who have played 4e and didn't like it bother to state so in the 4e thread. I hope they don't think that their opinion is so important that they will make people who have played 4e and liked it suddenly stop liking it?
Actually Stefan, this is the only part of the forum where they're allowed to come and complain about 4th edition. They have the right to do so, it would just be nice if more of them actually had concrete reasons why rather than nebulous things drawn from a lack of understanding of the game or very limited play time.
People are hanging around the Pathfinder section complaining all the time, including many of the folk who are in here defending 4th edition. I think it's fair that others can do the same here. As long as things remain civil and the discussion is worthwhile.
4th edition has its limitations, I just don't think the ones thrown out in this thread are them. Of course, that's only based on my experience DMing a group for about a year and a half. Maybe another two years or so and I'll start seeing more things that need improving, guess we'll see.
Cheers
OK now we at least seem to be on the same page. However this no longer looks like some one was thinking ahead and saying 'we need to design this to be good for computers'. If they where then the coders would not have to invent these numbers. WE would have gotten 3.5's DCs for every instance in the DMG since its clearly easier for the coders to copy those numbers then it is for them to first have to create those numbers and then implement them. Especially important because this element is going to add months to development not only to implement the part where you work out the numbers (And now you paying coders salaries for work that could have been done by people who don't make close to 6 figures a year)....
I don't think that is the case. Whether or not coders have access to a larger list of what DC it is to do something, it eventually will be turned over to a level designer who will have to throw out challenges appropriate to a party. A designer might throw in a good lock intending it to just challenge most parties and find that either is impossible for level appropriate groups or trivial for a party with a decent bonus. Just using a DC by level table the level designer should be more able to choose the right DC for the challenge they are looking for.
Defined DCs for actions would be most useful for physical actions. Climbing, jumping, swimming, and other skills one would be able to easily do outside the realm of the crafted scenario. The level designer shouldn't have to define the DC to jump a random gap that most players might not notice and if they do, it still is still beneficial to base it to being similar to the standard DC just so it reacts the same way as the rest of the world.
Note: I don't think that 4th edition was designed with the intent on making it easier to program, but I do think that it is easier to program as a side-effect of it being cleaner and more understandable overall.
They don't use the same template - not since Essentials.
OK now we at least seem to be on the same page. However this no longer looks like some one was thinking ahead and saying 'we need to design this to be good for computers'. If they where then the coders would not have to invent these numbers. WE would have gotten 3.5's DCs for every instance in the DMG since its clearly easier for the coders to copy those numbers then it is for them to first have to create those numbers and then implement them. Especially important because this element is going to add months to development not only to implement the part where you work out the numbers (And now you paying coders salaries for work that could have been done by people who don't make close to 6 figures a year). Furthermore you will need extra time in development to playtest things unless there is a requirement that the coders are also 4E DMs with practical experience in making these things and making them work. Especially true for any element that is basically a skill challenge since those really require quite a bit of DM experience to implement them well.
I will admit that Essentials threw a monkey wrench into the works that may or may not have been expected.
The development time would have to be greater, and it would have to include actual 4E DMs, but the coding would not take any longer. The pre coding research and writing out the outline of the basic structure of the game, its physics, and required parameters would all take longer, as you would pretty much have to start with building the world from scratch and work up to specific elements like the PCs, making each element fully interactable. This would take up the bulk of the development time because shortcuts here would not actually end up being paid for 10 times over later on.
If you hired more than one or two actual programmers before the developers had at least worked out the world physics and basic world structure on paper, you'd be stupid and bleeding money for no reason. Once you had that, the coding probably would take about the same amount of time because the modularity would tend to make "cut, paste, modify as needed" much easier once the basic templates were created, counteracting the need to rework the same chunk of code two or three times.
The playtest period would probably end up being about the same or a bit shorter because the required modularity would again speed the troubleshooting and debugging process up, counteracting any major changes to the code still required at this point.
The big payoff would be long term maintenance and minor debugging. Because of the modularity that the game would have to have to emulate 4E, assuming that those who did the base work did their job correctly, "cut, paste, modify as needed" becomes the normal activity required, with a growing library of defined objects and templates reducing even the modify down to a less common activity outside of a few common parameters.
All of this in comparison to 3.5 makes 4E a better candidate for a MMO, or anything that emulates that kind of setting, like the virtual table top. 3.5 the development work is spent about equally in each phase, as each step is harder to separate from the previous and the next step. Thus, costs per any given unit of time tend to be about the same, making it a fine candidate for a single player game, but not an MMO. 4E has a much higher upfront cost, so a single player game would have a much harder time recouping the cost, but a long term game or application that will require maintenance and support would easily make up the initial cost with the long term savings, both in manpower and hardware requirements. Hardware wise, it would take a hefty server to handle the load, but short of a major expansion, any additional hardware needs would be incremental and minimal.
The biggest difference between 3.5 and 4E relative to computer games is the type of game they are best suited for, programming wise. I do believe that part of why they made the game so modular was because it would enhance the ability to make it sustainable in an a long term digital environment, like a virtual tabletop or an MMO, at less cost. It isn't the only reason that they made it more modular, but with the VT being planned from the start, it would have been part of it.
|
|
The biggest difference between 3.5 and 4E relative to computer games is the type of game they are best suited for, programming wise. I do believe that part of why they made the game so modular was because it would enhance the ability to make it sustainable in an a long term digital environment, like a virtual tabletop or an MMO, at less cost. It isn't the only reason that they made it more modular, but with the VT being planned from the start, it would have been part of it.
There's a ton of games already programmed to run using the 3.x system. There are quite a few virtual tables that also work amazingly well using the 3.x system. What on earth makes you think it is easier to programme for an entirely new system, when all the old programming is there already.
If they'd kept the mechanics the same, they only needed to update graphics.
Change the game engine, so to speak, and you have to change everything. How is that design philosphy "making it easier to programme?"
You talk about this edition being more modular. That makes me smile since most folk who complained about the game when it first came out touted the modular and interchangable nature of 3.x/pathfinder as its strength.
While I don't care how or why they came up with the deisgn system, to be truthful, the way you keep touting your idea as a fact when it clearly falls outside the realm of logical money saving concepts is almost silly.
They designed a game. It has elements of traditional DnD. It has elements of card games. It converts to a board game nicely. It uses miniatures. All of these are things Hasbro already had and are things they are building on to great success.
What haven't they done? Built a computer game or a successful virtual tabletop. I wonder why?
Cheers
I don't think that is the case. Whether or not coders have access to a larger list of what DC it is to do something, it eventually will be turned over to a level designer who will have to throw out challenges appropriate to a party. A designer might throw in a good lock intending it to just challenge most parties and find that either is impossible for level appropriate groups or trivial for a party with a decent bonus. Just using a DC by level table the level designer should be more able to choose the right DC for the challenge they are looking for.Defined DCs for actions would be most useful for physical actions. Climbing, jumping, swimming, and other skills one would be able to easily do outside the realm of the crafted scenario. The level designer shouldn't have to define the DC to jump a random gap that most players might not notice and if they do, it still is still beneficial to base it to being similar to the standard DC just so it reacts the same way as the rest of the world.
Note: I don't think that 4th edition was designed with the intent on making it easier to program, but I do think that it is easier to program as a side-effect of it being cleaner and more understandable overall.
This works after a fashion in a single player game because we know what level the players will likely be when they reach the scene in question. This of course is why the system works for 4E DMs. Its not so clear cut though in an MMO where there can be a wide spread on what level any given group might encounter any given area.
In effect this brings us back to the common contentious issue regarding the dynamics and mechanics that should be chosen to swing from a chandelier.
An issue that, IIRC, had about three different answers on these boards depending on who you asked and was mainly academic in any case because in most home campaigns the players don't return to the scene of the chandelier and try and swing from it again 6 levels later. That is one of the tricky elements with an MMO...they do return to farm for more gold or because the group they have hooked up with is doing that adventure or just because they liked the way that scene plays out.
In effect the designers need to answer which of our 'academic' answers for the issue is 'true'. Probably its some variation of the set DC model (that is once the DCs for a specific chandalier are determined the DC does not change if it is returned to later) because for an MMO the issue is not academic and hard coded DCs are easier to work with when dealing with characters of an unknown semi arbitrary level.
The modifiable version that we do depends on the fact that we as DMs decide what the difficulty of an adventure is (i.e. what the appropriate DCs are) at the adventure creation stage. In effect walking a tightrope is always level appropriate if its in the adventure because we stuck it in the adventure. What we actually did was decide at what level such an adventure was appropriate to our campaign.
I'd bet money that my view on the correct answer to this is actually different then your view and chances our both of us have a different answer then MK.
This works fine for a single player game because the choice - what I've been referring to as look and feel - only has to handle our one group but in something like an MMO it needs to be able to handle lots of groups of widely disparate levels. A philosophical model of 'its level appropriate by virtue of the fact that you are in it' breaks down here.
Furthermore a 'rule of thumb' guideline like the table on page 42 does not work well when followed by the computer because the computer does not have judgment to know when not to use the numbers. In our home game if the player absolutely insist on doing stuff that is far to high level for them (based on our own personal opinions of look and feel for our personal campaigns) then, after we drop several major hints meant to warn them off we sigh an raise the DCs of everything to reflect the level they should have been to run the adventure.
What I see when I look at 4E, is a mishmash of various focus-group-design grabs. You have powers you have to choose a few of, just like your action bar in WoW. You have cooldown times (encounter powers) just like WoW. You have party roles (tank, DPS, healer...) just like WoW. You have Solo and Elite monsters, just like WoW. And so on. About the only thing from WoW you do not have is crafting. Then, there are other influences too. When you look at monsters, a large portion of them have two or three abilities that interact with one another, say, one ability building up the damage a second one does or the like. Take a look at Magic the Gathering cards for a while, and the pattern becomes eerily familiar. But there are two things that are the worst parts of it for me: First, all monsters have oodles of hit points, to make the quick and streamlined combat take longer. Second, I just can't stand their monster names. 4E was the first edition that jumped on the "let's make every critter in the game trademarkable" train. So just like Magic the Gathering, you don't get goblin, you get goblin firegrenadeslinger(tm) or troll swordberserker(tm).
But all that pales compared to the worst design flaw: It's extremely non-generative. From the very start, it's not made to design new elements easily. If you make a new class, you need to make pages of class powers for it. If you make a new monster, you have nothing to start with, you have to basically either modify an existing creature (again, with the synergistic powers mentioned above), or pick every number for the monster by hand. If you make a new class power, you need to fit it into the existing power tree of the class. And so on. It seems to me that their philosophy of "when you design a monster, it's a monster you design" is more aimed at "you need to be employed full time to design for this game".
There is a serious design influence from both MMOs and CCGs in 4E. The real problem is just that WotC didn't understand that if you wanted to play a MMO or CCG, there are games that are better at giving you that. I think the best example of this problem is the conversion of Diablo and Diablo 2 to 3E. We played them for a while, but eventually we decided that it was just as much fun as it was to play Diablo - at a hundredth of the speed. However, despite me thinking this, I consider it a serious miss that they never made a 4E CRPG.
Second, I just can't stand their monster names. 4E was the first edition that jumped on the "let's make every critter in the game trademarkable" train. So just like Magic the Gathering, you don't get goblin, you get goblin firegrenadeslinger(tm) or troll swordberserker(tm).
Did you see Monster Manual 4 or 5?
Yeah. I have them. I don't use them. I never said it started with 4E. However, it would be a stretch to claim things were the same in 3E before that...
This works after a fashion in a single player game because we know what level the players will likely be when they reach the scene in question. This of course is why the system works for 4E DMs. Its not so clear cut though in an MMO where there can be a wide spread on what level any given group might encounter any given area.
In effect this brings us back to the common contentious issue regarding the dynamics and mechanics that should be chosen to swing from a chandelier.
An issue that, IIRC, had about three different answers on these boards depending on who you asked and was mainly academic in any case because in most home campaigns the players don't return to the scene of the chandelier and try and swing from it again 6 levels later. That is one of the tricky elements...
The chandelier issue could be a problem, but I only think it really is an issue with the design of the game. My favored option would still be to have the DCs set by how hard the the stunt appears to be rather than being determined by the level of the party, but even if another route is taken I don't think it is any harder to program. No matter route they go it doesn't define how we run our games as wrong.
I think that it works very well in a MMO environment because one of the things that a designer does in the creation of a scenario is to define what level the party facing it should be.
I think it is about as being similar creating most adventures. I don't think that for a MMO that you really have to prepare for a wide array of levels. I think that one could design an adventure within the game for a defined level (and I would suggest that they already do this for similar MMORPGs) and not worry about if a higher or lower level party attempts to accomplish it. If a band of six 25th level characters want to run through a dungeon of wimpy kobolds for kicks, I say let them. You don't need to make it so that the kobolds become a threat a challenge to the epic party
I'm not suggesting that a computer would be the one to assign the DCs. I wouldn't imagine that would be typical for most video games (except for maybe an automatically generated simulation type game). The DCs would be set by the people creating the adventure, right along with the monsters, traps, plot, dialogue, and all other components of the adventure.
But all that pales compared to the worst design flaw: It's extremely non-generative. From the very start, it's not made to design new elements easily. If you make a new class, you need to make pages of class powers for it. If you make a new monster, you have nothing to start with, you have to basically either modify an existing creature (again, with the synergistic powers mentioned above), or pick every number for the monster by hand.
I think it's astonishing that you find it easier to create monsters in pathfinder. I disagree with the whole 4E=WOW thing, but I can understand how it could look like that. Ease of monster design is one of the huge advantages I find with 4E, though - I'd almost say it's the primary reason I have for running DandD
But all that pales compared to the worst design flaw: It's extremely non-generative. From the very start, it's not made to design new elements easily. If you make a new class, you need to make pages of class powers for it. If you make a new monster, you have nothing to start with, you have to basically either modify an existing creature (again, with the synergistic powers mentioned above), or pick every number for the monster by hand. If you make a new class power, you need to fit it into the existing power tree of the class. And so on. It seems to me that their philosophy of "when you design a monster, it's a monster you design" is more aimed at "you need to be employed full time to design for this game".
I agree and disagree with this, and this is really both the strength and weakness of 4E. You both have to and have the luxury of filling in all the details yourself. While good for long term campaigns or sustained computer games, it also makes it very hard to justify the cost of completely unique one shot scenarios or projects.
This works after a fashion in a single player game because we know what level the players will likely be when they reach the scene in question. This of course is why the system works for 4E DMs. Its not so clear cut though in an MMO where there can be a wide spread on what level any given group might encounter any given area.
That can be worked into the programming; it's one of the biggest reason why before even a single line of code is attempted, you have to spend so much more extra time on making sure the overall outline for the game is not only at least half way done, but that every step in writing that outline was as thorough as possible and that no shortcuts were taken at this step of the process. It is possible to make computers appear reactive; it just requires an exhaustive level of being proactive before you even consider touching actual code, with the payoff being once you're done with that critical first step, the vast majority of the actual design work should be done. The rest is simply implentation, testing, tweaking, and polishing, which by comparison is relatively easy.