Are RPGs Evolving or Dying?

[waywardOne]

but not because the developers suck, but because they are targetting an entirely different market.

regarding RPGs, there's no difference: they suck because they are targetting an entirely different market.

 

[Goliath]

but not because the developers suck, but because they are targetting an entirely different market.

regarding RPGs, there's no difference: they suck because they are targetting an entirely different market.

That's an emotional statement.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Conversely, and I don't know how many times this has to be said, DOW 2 and it's expansions are NOT RTS, they don't even resemble an RTS so I don't know why people keep referring to them as such (because DOW 1 was RTS?). They are squad based tactical shooters with some RPG elements for good measure. I don't mind - I think they're great, especially the two expansions, but NOT RTS.

Tactical shooters? You mean like Counterstrike?

Counterstrike is a squad based tactical shooter? Shooter's don't have to be FP/3P you know. I probably should have said "squad based tactical game" so as not to confuse you.

Shooters need to include shooting stuff manually.

From what I've seen, the combat is the same as in DoW. And combat in DoW still has the same RTS gimmicks that were derived strategic games. You still get super-tough units, you still get short range of sight, etc.
It's not a true tactical game. It's RTS minus the base building part (Real Time Operational ?).

Huh? There's no fucking strategy involved, real-time or otherwise - it's all tactics. What the hell to you consider a true tactical game?

Close Combat, Firefight, Steel Panthers, Armored Brigade, etc. Games whose mechanics are actually made for tactical gaming, not ripped off from a turn-based strategic game and dumbed down and then dumbed down even more by removing the strategic elements.

Ok, so DOW 2 is NOT a strategy game (where's the strategy?) , it's NOT (according to you) a tactical game (seems pretty tactical to me), it's NOT a shooter (because you don't actually aim at anything?), it's NOT an RPG (though it has RPG elements), it's NOT...... fuck, what the hell is it?? Have they invented a new genre? I am confused...


I still think my definition is close enough - "squad based tactical shooter (or game if you prefer) with RPG elements". There is not one iota of strategy involved so RTS is way off the mark. However, as already stated, this is true of many (most?) RTS's due to the whole fucking industry seemingly not knowing the difference between 'tactics' and 'strategy'.

I'm guessing you just want to call it an RTS because that's what everyone else calls it (including the publishers)?

 

[felipepepe]

4th edition was created to be played by MMO addicts if the internet or electricity goes down.

Ignorant much? 4E has the most tactical combat of every D&D version. It is not free-form like AD&D was, it is more like a wargame, but at least the game is back into how you play it instead of how you build (power-build, ridiculous excuse class combo-built) ultra powerful characters that can solo anything.

And all that "MMO" crap is just parroting whatever the drivel of other ignorant morons who have never even played the game. What the fuck does a combat system that is so dependent on being turn based that it will be unrecognizable when it is inevitbly converted to a moronic real time computer system have with an MMO?

But sure, if an evil Paladin throws a simple mind into confusion I can see how a game where you have to know how to play it to survive can throw them off.

There is no game that is so perfectly balanced it doesnt have a "better build", and if your problem with older editions was power-builds you were just playing with retards who think RPG is about soloing a Tarrasque and posting it on Youtube.

4th edition (yes, I played) turned Wizards from powerfull forces that can change the battlefield with some well-played magics to a dude that does ranged damage. And I dont have to think before casting, becase I got infinite Magic Missles! I don't even have to care if I waste a powerfull spell, because it will come back at the end of the encounter, once the "cooldown" ends. Pure tactics!

Also, you no longer play a group of versatile adventurers brought together by fate. The corebook ask you to have a Tank, a Healer and some DPS dudes. My "simple mind" must be dreaming that all this bullshit came from MMOs.

 

[waywardOne]

That's an emotional statement.

fine. they remove or bastardize core elements that defines the genre to appeal to people who dislike that genre because of those elements. six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

When I sat down to write about RPG development, I went through the list of things I like to see in an RPG. Depth of characterization and plot. Reactivity of the world. Believable NPCs. Feeling like you're playing a 'role'. Then I tried to decide which is the most important in RPG development - and the answer is none of them.

The hardest thing to accomplish when creating an RPG is to make an in-depth RPG that sells. Now I know all you purists out there think that what's important is the quality of the game and not how much it sells, but try finding a new contract when your last game sells less than 400,000 units. The ultimate challenge for an RPG developer is to find some kind of hook that will convince the marketing dept at your prospective publisher that this really isn't a "hardcore RPG" they're going to have to sell, it's an action RPG! (My skin is already crawling.) So not only do you, as an RPG designer, have to create a compelling RPG (which is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult genres to do right) you also have to find a way to sell it as something else - or, at the very least, an RPG hybrid of some sort. But never state it's a hardcore RPG to the marketing people - it tends to give them seizures.

Read the entire thing if you haven't already: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=19

You know how this ended: Troika went out of business because they tried to do what makes no business sense: pleasing nerds.

Yes, RPGs aren't what they used to be, but not because the developers suck, but because they are targetting an entirely different market.

I suspect that they have made some huge marketing error as it's not like cRPGs like Fallout were for some special elite audience. It's not like Fallout wasn't enjoyed by ADHD kids with average intelligence back then. They just weren't told that it sucks.

I still think my definition is close enough - "squad based tactical shooter (or game if you prefer) with RPG elements". There is not one iota of strategy involved so RTS is way off the mark. However, as already stated, this is true of many (most?) RTS's due to the whole fucking industry seemingly not knowing the difference between 'tactics' and 'strategy'.

I'm guessing you just want to call it an RTS because that's what everyone else calls it (including the publishers)?

The genre is already called RTT - Real Time Tactics. It's still a RTS derivative, though.
Anyway, what tactics are used in that game? All I've seen on gameplay videos is guys standing and shooting each other at point blank range until they run out of hit points.

 

[Azrael the cat]

When I sat down to write about RPG development, I went through the list of things I like to see in an RPG. Depth of characterization and plot. Reactivity of the world. Believable NPCs. Feeling like you're playing a 'role'. Then I tried to decide which is the most important in RPG development - and the answer is none of them.

The hardest thing to accomplish when creating an RPG is to make an in-depth RPG that sells. Now I know all you purists out there think that what's important is the quality of the game and not how much it sells, but try finding a new contract when your last game sells less than 400,000 units. The ultimate challenge for an RPG developer is to find some kind of hook that will convince the marketing dept at your prospective publisher that this really isn't a "hardcore RPG" they're going to have to sell, it's an action RPG! (My skin is already crawling.) So not only do you, as an RPG designer, have to create a compelling RPG (which is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult genres to do right) you also have to find a way to sell it as something else - or, at the very least, an RPG hybrid of some sort. But never state it's a hardcore RPG to the marketing people - it tends to give them seizures.

Read the entire thing if you haven't already: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=19

You know how this ended: Troika went out of business because they tried to do what makes no business sense: pleasing nerds.

Yes, RPGs aren't what they used to be, but not because the developers suck, but because they are targetting an entirely different market.

I suspect that they have made some huge marketing error as it's not like cRPGs like Fallout were for some special elite audience. It's not like Fallout wasn't enjoyed by ADHD kids with average intelligence back then. They just weren't told that it sucks.

I still think my definition is close enough - "squad based tactical shooter (or game if you prefer) with RPG elements". There is not one iota of strategy involved so RTS is way off the mark. However, as already stated, this is true of many (most?) RTS's due to the whole fucking industry seemingly not knowing the difference between 'tactics' and 'strategy'.

I'm guessing you just want to call it an RTS because that's what everyone else calls it (including the publishers)?

The genre is already called RTT - Real Time Tactics. It's still a RTS derivative, though.
Anyway, what tactics are used in that game? All I've seen on gameplay videos is guys standing and shooting each other at point blank range until they run out of hit points.

It IS a huge marketing error, BUT not necessarily one based on false predictions regarding sales. FO was profitable, but it wasn't a megahit. It sold far less than BG, let alone BG2, let alone a true mega-seller like Doom, Quake, Halo or Street Fighter series.

The problem is that gaming publishers are focussed entirely upon that one megahit, sort of like the film industry circa 1985. They haven't worked out that it doesn't have to be 'one or the other'. I don't expect them to stop making most games for a mass audience, nor do I expect that those games won't always be the most expensive, with games for a niche receiving 'hand-me-down' tech. But the games industry could take a good hard look at film/TV and realise that they can open up a low-end 'art' studio under a subsidiary (so debts don't flow on to the parent publisher, and the 'art' studio is mentally separated from the mainstream publisher in peoples' minds), give them existing engines from last-gen's mainstream hits, and complete creative freedom to make games for niche audiences. That way they can tap a safe market (safe due to much lower costs) without slowing AAA production, use it as a training ground for talented new designers, as a reward for top designers ('make me an AAA megahit and we'll give you complete freedom for your next project, but with your normal AAA fee guaranteed') and to try out new ideas.

They haven't developed that level of sophistication yet, which indicates that despite their complaints to the contrary, the publisher end of gaming is woefully UNDERcompetitive - which also contributes to the problem of developers with largely developed games not being able to get them out due to lack of a publishing contract, and developers with small but profitable catalogues going under because publishers don't think a small profit is enough to waste their time with (e.g. Troika's demise).

 

[Jigawatt]

The problem is that gaming publishers are focussed entirely upon that one megahit, sort of like the film industry circa 1985. They haven't worked out that it doesn't have to be 'one or the other'. I don't expect them to stop making most games for a mass audience, nor do I expect that those games won't always be the most expensive, with games for a niche receiving 'hand-me-down' tech. But the games industry could take a good hard look at film/TV and realise that they can open up a low-end 'art' studio under a subsidiary (so debts don't flow on to the parent publisher, and the 'art' studio is mentally separated from the mainstream publisher in peoples' minds), give them existing engines from last-gen's mainstream hits, and complete creative freedom to make games for niche audiences. That way they can tap a safe market (safe due to much lower costs) without slowing AAA production, use it as a training ground for talented new designers, as a reward for top designers ('make me an AAA megahit and we'll give you complete freedom for your next project, but with your normal AAA fee guaranteed') and to try out new ideas.

They haven't developed that level of sophistication yet, which indicates that despite their complaints to the contrary, the publisher end of gaming is woefully UNDERcompetitive - which also contributes to the problem of developers with largely developed games not being able to get them out due to lack of a publishing contract, and developers with small but profitable catalogues going under because publishers don't think a small profit is enough to waste their time with (e.g. Troika's demise).

I once believed that this was the direction the industry would go, following the example of the film industry, but I'm pretty sure it's impossible now. Games just became big business too quickly and missed some crucial formative stages. I'm sure you've read a headline such as this before "Company XYZ posts $25b quarterly profit; stock price plummets". Why? Because it's not enough just to make some money, you have to make more profit than ever before. Small, safe but profitable ventures are completely useless toward this goal, so the odds of a large publisher wanted to own such a subsidiary are zero (do those studios that get bought-and-closed by EA actually lose money, or are they just not as profitable as hoped?)

The only hope for anything interesting these days is from indie devs, and the barriers of entry are so high (and the average skill level so low) that I can't really have any faith that I'll be interested in computer games for much longer. Kinda sad, really

 

[Shemar]

There is no game that is so perfectly balanced it doesnt have a "better build", and if your problem with older editions was power-builds you were just playing with retards who think RPG is about soloing a Tarrasque and posting it on Youtube.

No it is not perfectly balanced but it is set up so that you need a team to win battles, you need a diverse group of characters, in contrast with

Wizards [=] powerfull forces that can change the battlefield with some well-played magics

I have no problem with that, I fully approve that. All character classes should be similarly useful in all level ranges. Wizards (or any other class) should not be above the rest.

And I dont have to think before casting, becase I got infinite Magic Missles! I don't even have to care if I waste a powerfull spell, because it will come back at the end of the encounter, once the "cooldown" ends. Pure tactics!

And now you demonstrate that you either have not played the game or you were simply terrible at it. The most powerful spells are daily, not encounter based. So are magical item powers where not only must you choose when to use them but also which to use. And furthermore, the beauty of the system is that all classes have similar resource management, not just spell casters.

Also, you no longer play a group of versatile adventurers brought together by fate. The corebook ask you to have a Tank, a Healer and some DPS dudes. My "simple mind" must be dreaming that all this bullshit came from MMOs.

And again you obviously have not played the game contrary to your claims (and skimmiing through one of the core books does not qualify as playing ther game). Every single class in the game can do at least 3 of the above two roles, one very well and two moderately well. And while it is true that the game is easier if you have at least one character that is really good at each of these roles, that has never stopped my group from mixing any characters we like. You obviously need characters that can absorb damage, characters that can do damage, characters that can heal damage and characetrs that can manipulate the battlefiled, because these are the things a group of adventurers is called upon to do in battle and because it is a deeply tactical game where team tactcis and cooperation are much more important than character builds and magical item collections. But that does not mean that you have to split the roles or even that you need a specialized character for each role. That is a suggestion for the newbies. My dwarf figher is not just a tank he is also the controller of the group, while in another campaign my wizard can actually tank for 2-3 rounds to give the beefier tanks a break.

In contrast with the 3/3.5 mess, choosing your powers and building your character is not so much about being more powerful (because barring obviously stupid choices, characters of similar levels are similarly powerful no matter the build) it is about how you want your character to play, which really is what character building should be about. A player should not have to make a choice between play style and level of power in a good system and 4E proivides that. It is the fact that there are no obvious paths to power, like in previous editions, that you actually get the really diverse group of characters.

 

[Rhalle]

The issue is Big Publishing.

I mean, how many people does it take to make a quality game and give them all good salaries? Let's say you have a team of 50 designers. Can you make a $50 game that sells a million copies? I'd wager that even with everything considered-- publisher's cuts, development time, etc.-- that those fifty people could make a pretty good salary out of that gross $50 million.

If you are, say, EA, though, you aren't just paying the team; the stockholders want profit, and lots of it. They don't just want a salary; they want their investment to keep increasing forever. It's simply not sustainable. You will run out of consumers and hit a wall sometime; it's inevitable; "growth" cannot continue indefinitely, no matter how much you jack up the price and keep slicing away DLCs or streamlining to attract the most 'tards with enough money to buy a copy.

That's why it's ultimately a short-run sort of strategy. It's a get-rich-quick scheme, because the bomb that will blow it all up is ticking from its inception.

None of that bullshit is relevant for a private group of developers who are doing nothing but getting a paycheck.

And I agree: it's just about over for PC games. And frankly I'm not sure the Indy developers are the same as that of yesteryear. I'm not sure they've got the talent or creativity anymore.

 

[felipepepe]

The most powerful spells are daily, not encounter based. So are magical item powers where not only must you choose when to use them but also which to use. And furthermore, the beauty of the system is that all classes have similar resource management, not just spell casters.

My point exactly. Why should a Wizard play like a Fighter? Does it makes sense to you that a Warrior tries to shield bash an enemy to a pit, but the GM says "hey man, you already did that today"? That's trowing in some stupid limitations in favor of "balance".

All character classes should be similarly useful in all level ranges. Wizards (or any other class) should not be above the rest.

Your GM should create a campaign that explores the strengths and weakness of every class, so there is no "better character" and thus creating an challenging adventure. If you only encounter goblins in a "fireball me" formation, of course Wizards will do better.

In contrast with the 3/3.5 mess, choosing your powers and building your character is not so much about being more powerful (because barring obviously stupid choices, characters of similar levels are similarly powerful no matter the build)
...
It is the fact that there are no obvious paths to power, like in previous editions, that you actually get the really diverse group of characters.

If you choose your character based on how much "DPS" it will do, you're not role-playing. Your whole statement is the same as a MMO player whining that he can't play the class he likes because he will lose at PvP "since is unbalanced". To see a PnP RPG player complaining like that is disturbing.

Either you are playing with a group of assholes power-gamers and a really bad GM or you just like bland gaming, every character with similar gameplay, hundreds of monsters to kill the same way, no challenges like playing a Lv 3 Wizard out of spells since everyone is good for everything....hey, ever heard of Dragon Age 2?

 

[DraQ]

Also, the whole idea of taking a strategic game in real time?

It could actually be pretty awesome if it used extreme time compression to allow gameplay to consist of both, fast, tactical stuff, and stuff taking long stretches of time.

Traditional RTS is not a terribly good idea, though at best it will yield something awesome like Homeworld. It can also be modified by removing building/resource gathering, which gives us games like Myth.

CRPGs died when designers stooped basing them on PnP RPGs.

Obviously the first step was making RPGs real-time. Diablo was the first nail in the coffin but there was still hope even then.

EoTB and LoL send their regards.

Games like Morrowind and Bloodlines (two modern examples) stayed true to RPGs roots by basing the combat on character attributes. Unfortunately, the new RPG fans didn't like that. The game was not responding in the way it would in a pure action game... the character would either miss or do minimal damage despite the head-shot.

To rectify, they decided to use character attributes to modify player ability instead (see Oblivion and Alpha Protocol).

Crap solution to ill-recognized problem - the usual fare.

The problem was never game responding like an action game, it was the mechanical layer and presentation layer showing completely different things.

Mechanical layer decides what happens, presentation layer shows it.

If the game shows my character sending bullet through the enemy head or slicing through most of the enemy neck, I have every right to expect something more spectacular than miss or negligible damage.

The currently preferred solution is (obviously) ass-backwards, because it "fixes" the problem by assfucking the mechanical layer so that it conforms to the presentation, which conflicts with established purposes of both layers.
Instead, the presentation layer should show what's happening in the mechanical layer - If I don't score a headshot because my character is a shaky-hands noob, then the game should show why and how do I not score the headshot - jerk the sights off the target randomly as it often happens when an inexperienced shooter squeezes the trigger, make the enemy dodge or parry my attempted lethal throat-slice and so on.

Funny enough once 3D and a Gun is involved, people can't seem to account for stats at all. People complain about the shooting in games like "Deus Ex", "Mass Effect (1)", "Alpha Protocol", and "Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines" often because the gun play does not work like in most first or third-person shooters. The cone of fire effect confuses people, even in the games with the clearly drawn slowly closing cross hairs. People seem to misunderstand what is happening, and why.

It seems having stats-based aiming and a real-time 3D environment will never work hand-in-hand... or at least not to peoples expectations.

How about portraying the inaccuracy better - by showing how inept PC jerks the gun off-target when squeezing the trigger, and by making weapon slightly shaky and hard to line-up properly.
If the presentation confuses people, fix the presentation, dammit, not the fucking mechanics!
Mechanics should only be fixed when it needs extra detail or falls apart under closer scrutiny.

Even worse most games just have the "BIG CHOICE!" right at the end. It's like a footnote.

"Psst... whose side do you want to be on for this final fight? One side will instantly forgive you for everything, and the other will despise you despite all the good you have done. Be sure to save now so you can see both endings just by reloading and replaying this fight! Don't worry about anything before this moment, we've gone ahead and made it all trivial. Now... choose your immediate consequence!"

And that pretty much sums it up. It's supposed to be Choice and Consequences, but the consequences are so predictable it becomes "Choose your Consequences" instead.

Probably one of the main reasons why codex likes The Witcher - delayed consequences.

 

[janjetina]

This kind of publisher approach leads to convergence of game features. In essence, it will devolve into everybody making the same game, battling for the same demographic. In the meanwhile, other, smaller parts of the demographic are forgotten. This ''all or nothing'' mentality will lead to demise of certain publishers.

In this situation, there is a vacuum to be filled left by indies that sell a few tens of thousands of copies and big publishers who aim for a few million copies. These niches are not that small, we are still talking about hundreds thousands of game copies sold and millions of revenue. The potential is there. The same quality that appealed to those who bought Fallout in 1997 would appeal to the people of similar mindset now. With relatively small development costs (reusing late 90's / early 2000's technology), focusing on the systems and on quality writing, with proper marketing support, such a game could easily turn a profit.

 

[zeitgeist]

I mean, how many people does it take to make a quality game and give them all good salaries?

Dramatically less than there are employees at an AAA studio.

 

[Micromegas]

My point exactly. Why should a Wizard play like a Fighter?

Because it means Fighters can remain a relevant class throughout the game.

Your GM should create a campaign that explores the strengths and weakness of every class, so there is no "better character" and thus creating an challenging adventure. If you only encounter goblins in a "fireball me" formation, of course Wizards will do better.

But in 3.0/3.5 every encounter beyond around 5th level will have the Wizard (or Cleric/Druid) be the best response, even an encounter based around antimagic will still punish non-spellcasting characters. Fighters and Rogue type classes simply cannot add anything meaningful to a party after 10th level or so. By the higher levels an optimized Wizard can easiloy be a better Fighter than a Fighter can.

Now I don't think 4e is a particularly great RPG system, it's a decent Tactical game but not a good RPG, but to argue that it's MMO inspired is simply wrong (okay the art-style is copied from WoW but the mechanics aren't). 4e's system is based around fixing the fundemental balance issues that troubled 3e, you may not like the way they tried to fix them (I don't) but don't pretend that the issues weren't there.

 

[felipepepe]

My point exactly. Why should a Wizard play like a Fighter?

Because it means Fighters can remain a relevant class throughout the game.

Your GM should create a campaign that explores the strengths and weakness of every class, so there is no "better character" and thus creating an challenging adventure. If you only encounter goblins in a "fireball me" formation, of course Wizards will do better.

But in 3.0/3.5 every encounter beyond around 5th level will have the Wizard (or Cleric/Druid) be the best response, even an encounter based around antimagic will still punish non-spellcasting characters. Fighters and Rogue type classes simply cannot add anything meaningful to a party after 10th level or so. By the higher levels an optimized Wizard can easiloy be a better Fighter than a Fighter can.

Now I don't think 4e is a particularly great RPG system, it's a decent Tactical game but not a good RPG, but to argue that it's MMO inspired is simply wrong (okay the art-style is copied from WoW but the mechanics aren't). 4e's system is based around fixing the fundemental balance issues that troubled 3e, you may not like the way they tried to fix them (I don't) but don't pretend that the issues weren't there.

I really can't imagine what kind of GM you guys have, but he must be REALLY bad. Unless you fireball/magic missile everyone and then go to sleep at every encounter, your Lv 5 Wizard would just run out of spells in the first battle. That's the huge drawback that makes a Wizard challenging, without spells he SUCKS! And has no armor or life. He can't even use a bow, just trow stones. You spend most time trying HARD not to die, not killing.

I'm starting to believe you guys never even played D&D 3 or AD&D on pen&paper, just on the PC, sleeping after every single fight so that your spells come back.

 

[Micromegas]

I really can't imagine what kind of GM you guys have, but he must be REALLY bad.

I've been with a few DM's and I've DMed myself and in almost all circumstances spellcasters become increasingly powerful in relation to everything else as time goes on.

Unless you fireball/magic missile everyone and then go to sleep at every encounter, your Lv 5 Wizard would just run out of spells in the first battle. That's the huge drawback that makes a Wizard challenging, without spells he SUCKS! And has no armor or life. He can't even use a bow, just trow stones. You spend most time trying HARD not to die, not killing.

Except decent spellcasters don't run out of spells beyond level 2 or so. Scrolls, wands, staves for high levels, and spells designed to allow you to sleep anywhere at any time. That and the spells that are instant encounter winners.

I'm starting to believe you guys never even played D&D 3 or AD&D on pen&paper, just on the PC, sleeping after every single fight so that your spells come back.

Have you played 3rd edition beyond 8th level? Because if you have and you didn't notice the balance issues between the class then you probably weren't playing with an experienced group. Most DnD forums dedicated to 3rd edition aknowledge this, go look them up if you really think non-spellcasters are at all viable past mid-level play.

 

[Shemar]

My point exactly. Why should a Wizard play like a Fighter?

No it does not, but then again that could not be further from the truth of what is actually happening. A wizard plays a whole lot different than a fighter, but their power potential and their usefulness as parts of the team and their range of options are on similar levels.

Does it makes sense to you that a Warrior tries to shield bash an enemy to a pit, but the GM says "hey man, you already did that today"? That's trowing in some stupid limitations in favor of "balance".

It would be if shield bashing was an encounter power, but since it is not and it is just a standard at will action any character can take at any time your example just turns into just more proof that you have not really played the game. And why was it not stupid that a wizard could only cast magic missile once and then never again for a whole day? If that is not an example of stupid limitation in favor of balance then what is? The entire way wizards worked pre 4E was a stupid limitation in an utterly failed attempt to balance their power.

Your GM should create a campaign that explores the strengths and weakness of every class, so there is no "better character" and thus creating an challenging adventure. If you only encounter goblins in a "fireball me" formation, of course Wizards will do better.

Yes we are all aware of how horribly broken 3/3.5 was and how it was up to GMs to fix the unfixable. Thankfully in 4E all classes are useful in all fights so GMs can spend their precious time creating adventures and battles that are interesting, rather than ones that try to fix/balance a broken system.

If you choose your character based on how much "DPS" it will do, you're not role-playing. Your whole statement is the same as a MMO player whining that he can't play the class he likes because he will lose at PvP "since is unbalanced". To see a PnP RPG player complaining like that is disturbing.

And once again we see the "yes we know the system is broken but good players can work around it" excuse. Yes, I am sure everyone who has ever played DnD is aware that you don't 'have to' take power into consideration when building a character but the fact remains that in 3/3.5 a player was always put in a position to choose between efficency and role playing, whereas in 4E a player can have both so 4E is clearly the better system. Using extreme examples like "choose your character based on how much DPS it will do" and buzz phrases like "MMO player whining" does not hide the clear deficiencies of 3/3.5 when compared to 4E.

Either you are playing with a group of assholes power-gamers and a really bad GM or you just like bland gaming, every character with similar gameplay, hundreds of monsters to kill the same way, no challenges like playing a Lv 3 Wizard out of spells since everyone is good for everything....hey, ever heard of Dragon Age 2?

And once again, pointless generalities devoid of any notion of fact, further proof that you have never actually played the game.

 

[felipepepe]

And furthermore, the beauty of the system is that all classes have similar resource management, not just spell casters.

You brought that up, but at least Micromegas has the insight to recon it made characters alike trying to achieve "balance" and it ended up bad.

And it explains why you like 4th edition: it stopped your group from destroying the game. No more "I chose this guy because it does more damage" players. No more GM letting Wizards stockpile scrolls/rods/staffs and sleep all the time. That's what made it "horribly broken".

 

[waywardOne]

cute. an argument about which was less derp: 3rd or 4th ed. this was a good discussion when it was called "DAO vs DA2".

 

[GarfunkeL]

Idiots playing with retarded GMs saying that it's all 3.5ed fault - priceless

I've been with a few DM's and I've DMed myself and in almost all circumstances spellcasters become increasingly powerful in relation to everything else as time goes on.

No, you've played with shitty GMs and you are a shitty GM. It doesn't take that much of effort to create a campaign where everyone has a role to play and everyone gets to shine. If you complain that every encounter after 8th level was easily solved by the mage and the cleric, you, as the DM, are doing it WRONG.

Except decent spellcasters don't run out of spells beyond level 2 or so.

Yes they do because the GM can easily enough limit the loop-holes they might want to use. Personally I never allow anything from PH2 because the whole books is just fucking ridiculous. Just try to make the rope-trick-resting and see what happens. Again, asshole players and a shitty GM and any system is *suddenly* broken.

A wizard plays a whole lot different than a fighter, but their power potential and their usefulness as parts of the team and their range of options are on similar levels.

It's cute that you still believe in tooth-fairy but that's not how a fantasy game is supposed to go. I guess if you've grown up with World of Warcraft and Everquest, that's what you want, but please allow us who prefer more "old school" version of fantasy gaming to keep our style of games as well. The difference between mage and figher always was that fighter was powerful in the beginning of the campaign while wizard became powerful in the end of the campaign. And a good GM works with that. What 4th edition did, was to make the whole character system extremely bland and disinteresting.

Thankfully in 4E all classes are useful in all fights so GMs can spend their precious time creating adventures and battles that are interesting, rather than ones that try to fix/balance a broken system.

Bullshit. 3.5 must have raped your ass really badly for all this butthurt to ensue. No-one ever used ALL the possible rulebooks. Was TSR and WotC wrong in releasing all those books? Sure, it was a money-grabbing scheme from them. But it's always been the role of the GM to decide which books to use and which to discard. Calling it "fixing a broken system" is quite unfair - as the books themselves say, in the introduction, that everything is always under the ultimate ruling of the GM.

And why was it not stupid that a wizard could only cast magic missile once and then never again for a whole day? If that is not an example of stupid limitation in favor of balance then what is?

Because it wasn't just magic missile - it was one spell slot and you had to think about what you were going to use it for! In 4th ed you have basically unlimited amount of magic missiles - wizard has turned from fragile glass cannon into a trusty ranged DPS - exactly like in any theme-park MMO. Besides, mages are almost always better suited for support/utility role, if there is only one in the party, than just flinging fireballs.

In the end, both Shemar and MicroMegas argue that 4th ed is better because it helps wimpy, idiot GMs to not be abused by their players, no matter that the game itself has turned into a bland, cookie-cutter offline MMO.

 

[Shemar]

Idiots playing with retarded GMs saying that it's all 3.5ed fault - priceless

Again, asshole players and a shitty GM and any system is *suddenly* broken.

Blind much? How limited is your scope anyway? ANY system is PERFECT with the competely moronic assumption that playesr and GMs have to modify the hell out of it and constantly fight with it in order for it to just work. A GOOD system is one that players can just play with without a tome of house rules just to make it work.

It's cute that you still believe in tooth-fairy but that's not how a fantasy game is supposed to go. I guess if you've grown up with World of Warcraft and Everquest, that's what you want, but please allow us who prefer more "old school" version of fantasy gaming to keep our style of games as well. The difference between mage and figher always was that fighter was powerful in the beginning of the campaign while wizard became powerful in the end of the campaign. And a good GM works with that. What 4th edition did, was to make the whole character system extremely bland and disinteresting.

What is cute is how you take the limitations of your favorite system and present them as 'old school' advantages. Nobody forces you to play 4E. It would be nice though if you could avoid boasting your ignorance and inflexibility. I was playing AD&D from when it first came out, and never actually got into 3/3.5 not because I liked AD&D so much but because by then we had designed our own system free of the deficiancies that AD&D had (and 3/3.5 later exaggerated). Deficiencies you seem to celebrate as advantages. Oh well, to each their own. As a player I like knowing that I can pick the class and powers that seem interesting to play without worrying about ending up being a spectator in most of the action and as a DM I like playing in cooperation with the players rather as the adversary that has to keep them in check.

Bullshit. 3.5 must have raped your ass really badly for all this butthurt to ensue. No-one ever used ALL the possible rulebooks. Was TSR and WotC wrong in releasing all those books? Sure, it was a money-grabbing scheme from them. But it's always been the role of the GM to decide which books to use and which to discard. Calling it "fixing a broken system" is quite unfair - as the books themselves say, in the introduction, that everything is always under the ultimate ruling of the GM.

I never played much with 3/3.5, it never inspired me to play a full campaign much less DM one. The few times I played I found it pretty tedious and uninspiring, lacking the free-form of AD&D but yet not having much merit as a tactical game. Again, ANY system works perfectly fine with the assumption of perfect players and DMs. That does not mean that one that needs constant supervision, reduction and house ruling is not broken.

Because it wasn't just magic missile - it was one spell slot and you had to think about what you were going to use it for! In 4th ed you have basically unlimited amount of magic missiles - wizard has turned from fragile glass cannon into a trusty ranged DPS - exactly like in any theme-park MMO. Besides, mages are almost always better suited for support/utility role, if there is only one in the party, than just flinging fireballs.

You liked how mages used to work. Others did not. Live with it. Just because your pet class was made to work differently and not be a one man does everything any more does not mean a game is dumbed down. The tactical combat of 4E is the best RPG combat I have ever seen (including all PnP and computer systems I have used in the decades of playing) and is certainly far superior and supremely more interesting than 3.5.

In the end, both Shemar and MicroMegas argue that 4th ed is better because it helps wimpy, idiot GMs to not be abused by their players, no matter that the game itself has turned into a bland, cookie-cutter offline MMO.

Your "Proud to remain ignorant" t-shirt is in the mail.

 

[Squeek]

The right answer is computer RPG, as a genre, is dying (and almost dead). Arcade-game RPG, on the other hand, is healthy and prosperous. The future for that genre is undeniably bright.

CRPG lost its way and needs to be reinvented, IMO. As a group, folks here seem to have a pretty good handle on the precise moment of its ruin. Myself, I tend to think it happened about a year or two earlier.

Like simpler devices, PCs can be good platforms for enabling audio and graphics. But I think they could be better utilized for simulating collaborative thinking. They could enable smart, flexible access to remote systems, ones that could host single-player game worlds existing in a myriad of iterations, worlds where characters could experience unique adventures.

I can imagine servers having personalities and rules to match them, and players having to make careful choices, even when they're not actually playing their game. And I can imagine fantasy worlds that would never be static and never be completely understood, worlds that would always be beloved for it.

IMO, that would be more like computer RPG. And definitely not like arcade game RPG.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

 

[GarfunkeL]

I never played much with 3/3.5, it never inspired me to play a full campaign much less DM one. The few times I played I found it pretty tedious and uninspiring, lacking the free-form of AD&D but yet not having much merit as a tactical game.

So you have only glanced at 3.5ed and feel that you are now perfectly capable of arguing that it's shit and that 4ed is better in every aspect? Because that's what you are doing. I don't understand at all what you mean by the part I quoted in bold. I've played and GM'd both 2nd and 3.5 plus trusty old Classic D&D back then, along with quite a few other p&p games and while there assuredly are many better systems than any generation of D&D, I don't really get your point especially as you use such subjective claims.

You liked how mages used to work. Others did not. Live with it. Just because your pet class was made to work differently and not be a one man does everything any more does not mean a game is dumbed down. The tactical combat of 4E is the best RPG combat I have ever seen (including all PnP and computer systems I have used in the decades of playing) and is certainly far superior and supremely more interesting than 3.5.

Really? No hyperbole at all? Either 4ed is giving you slobbering blowjobs at the moment or your decades of experience are quite limited in scope. I'd say that Twilight 2000 along with Cyberpunk 2020 have much better combat than 4ed. Heck, Runequest back in 1978 had awesome combat. Praising a game version that did away with skill points and abandoned Vancian magic is kinda retarded especially as I already said, all your argument seem to stem from the idea that somehow 4ed is invulnerable to bad GMing or exploit-hungry players while 3.5ed was/is wide open.