[4e] Why 4e is compared to MMOs

[tumble check]

Fascinated by such hotly debated opinions on the new direction of 4e, I've been scouring the internet for 4e discussion and reviews.

One of the more common comparisons often invoked (even by professional reviewers, not just forum-dwellers) is to liken 4e to MMOs. To be fair, most of these statements come from the "anti-4e" side, but I've in fact seen them come from both.

I think it's hard to deny MMOs' influences on the new Dungeons & Dragons. If anyone has seen the WotC 4e video podcast that demonstrates a 4e encounter, you'll notice that in the beginning of the video, a 4e developer is actually in his cubicle playing WoW, and is markedly recognized as so. The fact that 4e has been streamlined so much can be seen as a notable change in accessibility to gain new players as opposed to satisfying older ones, new players which are more likely to have been raised on video games and not "pen & paper" RPGs. Add that to the fact that the new D&DI is catering to a more computerized edition of D&D, and that it also costs about the same as your average MMO monthly fee, and you've got a decent conspiracy theory on your hands.

But that's not the issue I'm raising here. I was to talk about mechanics. Rules. Crunch. Whatever you want to call it. I find myself tending to agree with the points that compare 4e to MMOs, but I've been questioning myself why. Despite many attempts to explain why, there are only really 2 fairly abstract reasons that I can fathom:

1) The class roles[which are combat-only definitions] are now explicitly defined, not implicitly defined.
2) 4e is more "gamey" or "gamist" than previous editions, especially 3.5e.

However, even with these two points out there, I find that they have not really been very well exemplified in any arguments or opinions.


So here is the question for the topic that I'm hoping can result in more fact (through examples) than opinion. If you think 4e is not like an MMO, this question is not for you.

If you think that 4e feels akin to an MMO(whether that's good or not), why? Cite specific examples; the larger-scope, the better.

[Thrawn183]

More rounds in a fight and effective in-combat healing. My experiences with 3.5 taught me that if it wasn't a Heal or Mass Heal spell, it didn't have much place in combat. In-combat healing is rather crucial from level 1 in 4e. In addition, there aren't those times where two full-round attacks on a solo monster and it goes down. A solo elite with hundreds upon hundreds of HP is going to take many rounds to go down which is similar to the bosses in WoW.

I disagree that more defined classes makes 4e feel like a morepig. I played fighters, barbarians and knights in 3.5 and felt a lot more pigeonholed than I do with 4e. Therefore while 4e may have more explicitly defined class roles, they feel a lot different to me.

[Phil Lucky Cat]

It's a vibe thing.

When your character/arcade figure can do 5 "powers" : 1 once a day, 3 during one encounter a day, and 1 at will, I guess people look for the "fire" button on their joysticks.

The fact that each class now has a videogame like "power increase" when they go up a level... hang on, I'll quote : "Sudden Surge : Fighter Attack 7... move a number of squares equal to your dexterity bonus (minimum 1)"... I'm not even comparing it to WoW anymore. I'm looking for my Playstation controller. You start seeing these ghostly numbers hanging in front of you when you are playing... am I playing D&D or Baldur's Gate : Dark Alliance? Hold L1 and hit button "x" to move wherever my left joystick is pointed... special move!!!

And healing surges (which after an extensive forum thread, we could only collectively justify as cinematic... but I always thought as the video game version of "hitting the healing button"). And the replacement of Vancian magic with a more "points based" magic system is also in that direction.

I own 4e and think its pretty cool. But the parallels are there, as you are no doubt aware. However, the creators of 4e are trying to move the entire thing to the next level... which I think will probably be a complete video game conversion within two years at least.

Whereas the oldskoolers will still be playing 1e and 2e until the rulebooks disintegrate. We (and I am one of them) hold the entire old system pretty dear to our hearts. If Wizards convert 4e to a videogame system, they have now completed the groundwork to do so fluidly and in an awesome way. I just shudder at the idea of meeting so many leetspeakers in a fantasy setting.

Elitist? Me?

[tumble check]

Then what is your response to the already-existing D&D Online?

[Cybren]

Then what is your response to the already-existing D&D Online?

That sums it up nicely.

[Armoury99]

There are certainly some strong influences, but these aren't necessarilly a bad thing. MMOs were themselves heavilly influenced by tabletop RPGs, so the process seems nicely cyclical; different corners of our 'fantasy-hobby-thing' inspiring each other. Off the top of my head, I'd say the biggest indicators are:

- Classes designed to be entirely equal (although admittedly I think I prefered the more comnplicated dynamic of 3e). Powers that essentially are click-recharge time-click, and a lot more combat power in classes... to the extent that by the look of things its imposible to not be heavilly combat orientated.

-The move from narrative to tactical combat (i.e. battlemap almost essential now), the "more gamey feel" mentioned above sums it up nicely. The perceived move towards combat-orientated games (not sure if its accurate, D&D was always pretty light on rp rules but spellcasters have certainly lost a lot of non-combat spells).

- Roles are defined in World of Warcraft pretty much exactly like 4e

- Minor stuff like say... Breaking magic items to get magical components (a direct, err... 'homage' to WoW); the Armour Proficiencies, which sound like WoW's categories (and are diferent from previous editions), etc.

- Lack of any real non-combat information on monsters.

- Design shift towards a world that only exists as a backdrop for the PCs actions (see monsters, above), rather than a 'realistic' (internally consistent)world. D&D didn't exactly have glowing credentials in this area previously, however...

- Emphasis on online play and the "virtual gaming table" (whenever it arrives). The monthly subscription fee that will allow this is also (openly admitted by WotC) a business strategy taken direct from MMOs.

- THe perception that all of the above is designed to target the MMO audience over existing D&D fans.

Anyway, that's my two cents. At the moment I don't particularly love or hate 4e... its just a different game.

[Phil Lucky Cat]

That sums it up nicely.

Ummm, to be fair, pre-existing D&D is probably best represented by Bioware's NWN (which to borrow from freakin' leetspeakers : OWNS), and Obsidian's NWN2 (which is one of those children which... ahem... needs a little time...).

Unfortunately, WoW and its brethren have removed some of the amazing talent base of module developers that made NWN such a success, so I am not sure that the same ballistic arc of development will occur for its sequel.

I am sure (for commercial and other reasons) WotC will want to turn D&D 4e into, if not an MMO, at least something like it... my feeling about the rules is that it almost read like a handbook of "how to play this online" and is the basis of a massive (online) conversion.

[Andras]

Ummm, to be fair, pre-existing D&D is probably best represented by Bioware's NWN (which to borrow from freakin' leetspeakers : OWNS)

...what? NWN can be fun, but it's hardly a good representation of 3E.

[Phil Lucky Cat]

...what? NWN can be fun, but it's hardly a good representation of 3E.

Well, I still haven't found a better representation computerised of the game, virtually, than NWN. If you have, please let me know. HotU, for example, is an amazing oldskool romp through the lower planes. Plus the brilliant and extensive proliferation of both P'n'P conversions (stretching back to Gygaxian stormers and even obscure Judges Guild modules) and new content developed by volunteers that come to life in a way that I have never before and since seen in any way...

Comparatively, the NWN2 versions look a little cartoonish... no offense... it just doesn't... FEEL... right. However, as WoW may be the new paradigm, cartoonish might be the way forward... which leads me to 4e...

I think it will become THE fantasy game platform on PC's and (what I was trying to get to in my previous posts) consoles. Hit your r2 button to access your Encounter Exploits! Hammer that triangle button for your At Will exploit!

It has been consciously constructed that way. Thus the resistence (and other qualms) from some gamers.

And that's why 4e is compared to MMO's.

[wodan46]

I have fond memories of Baldur's Gate. Was my first taste of D&D, and one of the first RPGs I ever was interested enough to play the whole way through.

[RukiTanuki]

I was hoping to get in before the sarcasm. Alas.

Generally speaking, I have a few strong beliefs about game design:
* It's a good thing for your designers to play as many games as possible.
* It's a good thing for your designers to identify what works well within other games, and why it does so.
* It's a good thing for your designers to identify what works poorly, why it doesn't work, and what might replace it.
* It's a good thing for your designers to use good ideas.
* It's a bad thing for your designers to reject good ideas, soley on the grounds that they've been used elsewhere.
* Using the good parts of another design does not inherently imply that you automatically picked up the bad parts of said design.
* Corollary to the above: Thus, while a consensus may be reached that 4e and MMOs share common elements, this does not imply that other elements of MMOs (that work poorly in D&D) are inherently in 4e. Such statements must be demonstrated and proven.

That said, I'll dodge the rest of the silliness and hyperbole.

[Phil Lucky Cat]

Thus, while a consensus may be reached that 4e and MMOs share common elements, this does not imply that other elements of MMOs (that work poorly in D&D) are inherently in 4e. Such statements must be demonstrated and proven.

Eh!

Are you saying that 4e EXCLUSIVELY picks the GOOD (i.e. D&D friendly aspects) only from MMO's and uses them for the tabletop RPG? This does imply some level of infallibility from Wizards of the Coast into the conversion into a MMO style gaming system? *confused*

I believe that 4e is actually taking a whole new direction, that is, converting the entire tabletop RPG system into a new, totally ready for computer upload RPG... that is, if, your version of an roleplaying is a new "tabletop wargaming system." First of all, they need to get us used to the new "canon" pen and paper version, before it is conveniently converted in the new form.

Which was my point of my previous post.

They are essentially changing D&D into an ready-to-be-converted-computer-version, with pencil and paper, prior to lifting the whole kit and kaboodle into a computer form. Within two (or a few) years. Believe me.

If (and I hope to God they do this, and it will kick ass) they manage to incorporate freeform versions of Bioware's conversation trees, Bethesda's absolute immersion, and some of their own chutzpah, I am sure that this will be the best computer version of an RPG ever seen. If, instead, they prefer to go for WoW's cartoonishness, Guild Wars' repetitive mission structure, and leetspeekishness freeform PvP of a World of Whatever... that will be a tragedy... changing the entire experience of Dungeons and Dragons into a pixelated cartoon of our imagination's boundless potential.

I think it CAN be done well.

It can be done in a way that you meet parties of roleplayers for amazing adventures within worlds that we can contribute to. A Dungeon Master can create a world that his group can access. And imagine the worlds that the "house/Wizards" could create that different people can referee, and play through, and build upon. MMORPG? Not so much. Instanced worlds of our own creation, either OOTB (out of the box) or home made? That, it is the very heaven. Maybe not in two years... but THAT is the aim.

However, some tabletop gamers will prefer the old version. More face-to-face character action, development, interaction. Less "uber"class action and "mutant powers" exclusive to the PC's. Some will even prefer 1e and 2e for that, and do already. There is the resistance.

Hmmph. I have been ranting. Off to bed. ;)

I do like your quote of (4e) page 42 from the DMG though... freestyle if you are a GM, please... :)

[Artanis]

Eh!

Are you saying that 4e EXCLUSIVELY picks the GOOD (i.e. D&D friendly aspects) only from MMO's and uses them for the tabletop RPG? This does imply some level of infallibility from Wizards of the Coast into the conversion into a MMO style gaming system? *confused*

I don't think he was even close to implying anything like that.

He was saying that taking elements from something does NOT mean that it AUTOMATICALLY takes the worst elements from that something as well.

Now, it very well may take bad elements, but you have to prove them on a case-by-case basis. Saying "OMG, 4e takes one thing from teh MMOz so 4e is an MMO wit teh grinding and pplz azking how 2 mine 4 fish!" is idiotic, but is logically similar to what some people do.



And yes, writing that sentence made me feel dirty. I'm going to go shower now. In bleach.

[Starbuck_II]

Don't want a debate but some ideas are wacky enough to be commented on.

- Roles are defined in World of Warcraft pretty much exactly like 4e

I thought roles were invented by players not the game in WoW.

- Minor stuff like say... Breaking magic items to get magical components (a direct, err... 'homage' to WoW); the Armour Proficiencies, which sound like WoW's categories (and are diferent from previous editions), etc.

And yet, D&D did it first. Artificer is the primary culprit.

Tis funny, that few remember this.

- Emphasis on online play and the "virtual gaming table" (whenever it arrives). The monthly subscription fee that will allow this is also (openly admitted by WotC) a business strategy taken direct from MMOs.

Buh, online play is a complaint only when DDI is finished.

- THe perception that all of the above is designed to target the MMO audience over existing D&D fans.

The only ones who mention this are the obne who think this I feel. Seems like self perpetuated destiny rumour (they think it so keep repeating it and other hear it so repeat it).

Anyway, that's my two cents. At the moment I don't particularly love or hate 4e... its just a different game.

Only wish all could be at least level. Hate is a bad thing. Leads to dark side.


Now: I feel D&D is considered morepig because morepig stole ideas from D&D.

So when the new edition was made, the ideas D&D was working on
(Vancian: dailys)/ (Bo9S?Encounter)/ (At wills/eldritch blast/melee attack) were close to other games. But D&D made the new edition anyway.

I mean, it wasn't like Book of 9 Swords wasn't created prior, but not everyone looks logically at history. Some miss information; so they forget or don't know 4th edition was already being attempted long before 3.5 was old.

I do hope they bring out a computer game like Buldar's Gate for 4th. I do hear the next Buldar's Gate is in development so here is hoping.

[Covered In Bees]

Okay, I've just got to actually say something, at this point.

I believe that 4e is actually taking a whole new direction, that is, converting the entire tabletop RPG system into a new, totally ready for computer upload RPG... that is, if, your version of an roleplaying is a new "tabletop wargaming system." First of all, they need to get us used to the new "canon" pen and paper version, before it is conveniently converted in the new form.

Which was my point of my previous post.

It's also blatantly ridiculous. Hey, did you know that there were some computer games made out of 2e? I think there were a couple called "Baldur's Gate" or something that people absolutely LOVED. I guess that makes the AD&D rules a VIDYA GAYM ZOMG!!!111111onkjwnrestupidstatement. And then they had this Neverwinter Nights thing for third edition? And Temple of Elemental Evil, which played turn-based and everything.

It's pretty gosh-darn hilarious to hear a guy who's reminiscing about 1e and 2e talk about how 4E is about WARGAMING OH NOES, not ROLEPLAYING, when 4e has more rules support for noncombat stuff than any of the previous editions thanks to skill challenges and DMG p.42. Meanwhile, AD&D had... ummm.... nonweapon proficiencies? I guess? CLEARLY A BRILLIANT SYSTEM FOR ROLEPLAYING GOOD SIR I AM PERSUADED

They are essentially changing D&D into an ready-to-be-converted-computer-version, with pencil and paper, prior to lifting the whole kit and kaboodle into a computer form. Within two (or a few) years. Believe me.

Why should I believe you? You sound like a conspiracy theorist. "They're going to KILL TABLETOP! And turn it into a VIDEO GAME! Because they only care about MONEY!"

There are going to be computer games that use 4E mechanics--just like Neverwinter Nights and ToEE existed for 3E and Baldur's Gate existed for 2E.

Maybe not in two years... but THAT is the aim.

No, the aim is a TABLETOP RPG. You can tell, because that's what they've actually published and that's what they're about to publish the usual swarm of splatbooks for (Martial Power, Forgotten Realms, Draconomicon, tome of treasures, I missed you, my little game-enhancing supplements... er, I don't mean steroids, there).

The only thing they're planning to release in that respect is D&D Insider's online gaming table. Suggesting that they reworked the system just to make it easier to do that is absolutely ridiculous, since online gaming tables already existed for 3E, check OpenRPG, and since the D&DI online gaming table won't even enforce the rules (for purposes of house rules, DM adjudication, etc--things that are explicitly the opposite of the "video game experience" you suggest), likening it to "they're turning our D&D into a video game!!!" is pretty darn wild.

However, some tabletop gamers will prefer the old version. More face-to-face character action, development, interaction. Less "uber"class action and "mutant powers" exclusive to the PC's. Some will even prefer 1e and 2e for that, and do already. There is the resistance.

I think it's hilarious when AD&D grognards get elitist about their gaming. (PROTIP: using a cumbersome system doesn't make you a better roleplayer. Not having any rules for noncombat stuff doesn't make the game good for roleplaying, you can freeform the roleplaying in any system.)
You guys should talk to some of the elitists in the White Wolf crowd, who will sneer at your "ROLLplaying", tee hee, and suggest that D&D is for chumps and real roleplayers play Vampire or whatever.

What does "uber" class action even mean? You think the PCs are too powerful? They're less powerful than they were in 3E (except at level one, because level one has always completely sucked--until now). This isn't Exalted or anything, but it's a heroic fantasy game. It's not like the characters don't get challenged. But the numbers are different, so it must be "uber!"
"Mutant powers exclusive to the PCs" is hilarious considering that metagame mechanics like action points have been around in other games for decades... and that in AD&D monsters and PCs don't work the same way. 4E powers are just class features you can pick. It's really not that complicated.

In conclusion, your conspiracy theory about how WotC is turning D&D into, OMG, a VIDEO GAME is really, really out there.

[Tengu_temp]

I compare 4e to WoW and Final Fantasy because these names are synonymous with good quality.

[Chronicled]

stuff

Your name and avatar are utterly hilarious.

[Covered In Bees]

Your name and avatar are utterly hilarious.

I try.

(Batman HATES bees.)

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Though the above observations seem valid in part, I suspect the WoW comparisons come from that some of the 4e powers have similar names to those powers had by their analogous WoW classes.

[Ulzgoroth]

It's pretty gosh-darn hilarious to hear a guy who's reminiscing about 1e and 2e talk about how 4E is about WARGAMING OH NOES, not ROLEPLAYING, when 4e has more rules support for noncombat stuff than any of the previous editions thanks to skill challenges and DMG p.42. Meanwhile, AD&D had... ummm.... nonweapon proficiencies? I guess? CLEARLY A BRILLIANT SYSTEM FOR ROLEPLAYING GOOD SIR I AM PERSUADED

I can't speak to 1/2e, but 3.5e had much more mechanical support for non-combat activities than 4e, by every credible account I've heard. Whether this is a flaw or a virtue may be a matter of opinion.

Also, skill challenges were appallingly broken prior to some errata, according to The Alexandrian (who doesn't seem to like much of 4e, but this is more than a flavor complaint).

(My view on 4e is that I might read the books, someday, if they happen to be lying around and I'm bored. I don't want what they're selling.)

[Capfalcon]

I compare 4e to WoW and Final Fantasy because these names are synonymous with good quality.

Eh... I dunno. I wouldn't say that ALL of the Final Fantasy stuff was good. None of them were BAD, but I would say that FF9 was phoned in. I even think that FF7 is pretty overrated, but still a good game.

Of course, if we count FF: The Spirits Within...

/off topic

Anyway, I think it's rather funny that people accuse Wizards of stealing from Morepigs. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times. You can’t steal from yourself. I mean, the idea that Roles were invented by MMO's makes me smile.

To illustrate...

In tonight's performance, the troupe will be performing an old classic, "Kick Down the Door, Stab Anything with Green Skin, then Rob them Blind."

Fighter McStabKill will be playing the part of the Defender. He will do his best to keep the nasties from eating the rest of the party.

Rogue McSneakShank will be playing the part of the Striker. He will do his best to stabinate squishie monsters before the other monsters know he was there.

Cleric McHealerton will be playing the part of the Leader. He will do his best to buff and heal his allies during the fight.

Finally, taking the place of Wizard McChantBoom, who has fallen under the weather, Deus ex Machina, the Warforged Wizard, will be playing the part of Controller. It will do its best to lock down monsters and make the battlefield a safer place for its friends.

So, what edition does this performance take place in?

[Covered In Bees]

And while I'm at it, I might as well pick on a few more mindboggling statements.

There are certainly some strong influences,

Don't be so certain, by golly.

- Classes designed to be entirely equal (although admittedly I think I prefered the more comnplicated dynamic of 3e). Powers that essentially are click-recharge time-click, and a lot more combat power in classes... to the extent that by the look of things its imposible to not be heavilly combat orientated.

You may not realize this, but the classes were *intended* to be equal in 3E, too. And in AD&D (except that they had no idea of how to design a good game, so they went with things like "racial level caps" and "suck now to be awesome later"). Good games are at least decently balanced, and aiming for balance doesn't make a game "like an MMO" any more than it makes it like other tabletop games.

If you think 4E powers are "click-recharge time-click", what must you have thought of the Tome of Battle (you know, one of the best D&D splatbooks ever published)?
(Pssst. 4E PC powers don't recharge. You're thinking of 3E--breath weapons recharge in 1d4 rounds, the Horizon Walker's dimension door ability recharges in 1d4 rounds, and that's just in core--the Binder in ToM has abilities that are actually "every 5 rounds". Wow, 3E is just like a morepig.)

-The move from narrative to tactical combat (i.e. battlemap almost essential now), the "more gamey feel" mentioned above sums it up nicely. The perceived move towards combat-orientated games (not sure if its accurate, D&D was always pretty light on rp rules but spellcasters have certainly lost a lot of non-combat spells).

The move from NARRATIVE to... what?!
You think 3.5 was a NARRATIVE game?
I'm gonna stand back and just... let that little jewel sit there.

(Hey, everybody, this guy thinks 3.5 was a narrative game! You can point and laugh at him now, then pelt him with rotten fruit.)

The battlemap was almost essential in 3E as well. You want to try telling me what I hit with a 45' cone fired diagonally down at a 30' angle from 30 feet in the air without a battlemap (or, uh, at all)? If you can adjudicate fireballs and glitterdusts in 3E without a mat, you can do the same for 4E powers. If you can adjudicate attacks of opportunity for 3E without a mat, you can do the same for 4E abilities that put you next to, a shift away from, a move away from, or 2+ moves away from the people you're attacking.

D&D feels just as gamey as it did. Or have you forgotten the days of "hey guys check out/help me with my build" threads?

There is no perceived move towards combat-oriented games, there's the realization that spotlight balance is a pretty crappy way of handling things in D&D, because if the bard is sitting out , the fighter is sitting out everything but combat (having, you know, no non-combat abilities).
4E has MORE support for noncombat stuff in the rules. What it has less of is spells that do absolutely everything... because some of us enjoy playing fighter types and watching the spellcasters not just dominate in-combat (less of an issue with ToB and not-really-optimized casters) but do pretty much everything out of it (an issue all the time) kind of blows. A lot.

In 3E, if you had a problem, you cast a spell. In 4E, if you have a problem, you go into a skill challenge in which you describe what your character does and narrate the results. "I cast Rope Trick and we hide from the guards/I turn us all invisible and we hide from the guards/I cast Fly and fly away from the guards" is BETTER for roleplaying than the DM narrating a street chase, the fighter overturning carts in front of the guards, the rogue scrambling up a building and shouting directions to the party from his vantage point, the wizard leaving clouds of force-knives in the party's wake that the guards aren't going to rush through, etc? You're a funny man, ain'tcha.

- Roles are defined in World of Warcraft pretty much exactly like 4e

What? No they're not. You've got shadow priests doing DPS and stuff like that.
Furthermore, MMOs got their roles FROM TABLETOP GAMES, so saying that having roles makes 4E like a morepig is like saying that having fireballs makes it like anime (because, you know, Slayers has fireballs...)

- Minor stuff like say... Breaking magic items to get magical components (a direct, err... 'homage' to WoW);

Hurr durr that sure isn't something Artificers could do in 3E, no-sirree-bob-jim. (Actually, it was in a Dragon article long before it showed up in WoW.)

the Armour Proficiencies, which sound like WoW's categories (and are diferent from previous editions), etc.

Oh, no! They called "just clothing" cloth armor instead of.. um... very lightly padded armor? "Clothing", which doesn't convey the same thing? This is like the whole "Slayers has fireballs so 4E is an anime" thing.

- Lack of any real non-combat information on monsters.

Yeah, not being told that, say, "Fang dragons are greedy, rapacious, and cunning creatures" or "golems are tenacious in combat and prodigiously strong as well" really makes this game like an MMO. Wait, what's that? It has nothing to do with MMOs? Oops.

- Design shift towards a world that only exists as a backdrop for the PCs actions (see monsters, above), rather than a 'realistic' (internally consistent)world. D&D didn't exactly have glowing credentials in this area previously, however...

How many people do you know that used the fluff in the core books?

(Advanced player tip: designing the world is something the DM does, just like it's always been something the DM does. Alternatively, you can use an existing campaign setting.)

- Emphasis on online play and the "virtual gaming table" (whenever it arrives). The monthly subscription fee that will allow this is also (openly admitted by WotC) a business strategy taken direct from MMOs.

Oh, I get it! It's a subsc

- THe perception that all of the above is designed to target the MMO audience over existing D&D fans.

This perception only exists because "existing D&D fans" are nerds and therefore love to rage at the people who make the things they love. It's exactly like when teenage girls who write bad fanfiction rant about how J.K. Rowling has RUINED THE CHARACTERS and only they REALLY understand Harry.

[Covered In Bees]

I can't speak to 1/2e, but 3.5e had much more mechanical support for non-combat activities than 4e, by every credible account I've heard. Whether this is a flaw or a virtue may be a matter of opinion.

No, 3.5e had much more mechanical support for non-combat spellcasters. The Fighter was limited to using his scant points in Animal Handling (better hope there isn't a ranger or druid in the party), or maybe jumping occasionally (but not very well).

3.5 had spells for absolutely everything. Spellcasters could solve all your problems. Need to sneak past some guards? You can put them to sleep with a sleep spell, or distract them with an illusion, or charm them magically, or turn invisible, or... oh, what's that, you're not a spellcaster?
Make a skill check.

That's the extend of 3.5's "support for non-combat activities". Make a skill check... and enough spells to do it five different ways. Have you ever looked at just HOW MUCH of the PHB is taken up by spells? How is it fair for a few of the classes to get that much attention?

Also, skill challenges were appallingly broken prior to some errata, according to The Alexandrian (who doesn't seem to like much of 4e, but this is more than a flavor complaint).

"Appallingly" is over-the-top, but the math didn't work the way it was supposed to. Now it does.
Also, listening to what that guy has to say is pretty ridiculous. He seems hidebound to intentionally interpret it in the worst possible manner without a thought for how it plays. Narration? The rules don't MAKE you narrate, so it doesn't happen!

[Covered In Bees]

So, what edition does this performance take place in?

World of Warcraft, OBVIOUSLY, you filthy morepig player.

[Ulzgoroth]

No, 3.5e had much more mechanical support for non-combat spellcasters. The Fighter was limited to using his scant points in Animal Handling (better hope there isn't a ranger or druid in the party), or maybe jumping occasionally (but not very well).

3.5 had spells for absolutely everything. Spellcasters could solve all your problems. Need to sneak past some guards? You can put them to sleep with a sleep spell, or distract them with an illusion, or charm them magically, or turn invisible, or... oh, what's that, you're not a spellcaster?
Make a skill check.

As opposed to now, when you have vastly many non-combat techniques other than 'use a spell' via rituals, or make a skill check? What are they? I was not talking about spells...

Hell, in plenty of RPGs, and good ones at that, most situations of any kind come down to 'make a skill check'.

That's the extend of 3.5's "support for non-combat activities". Make a skill check... and enough spells to do it five different ways. Have you ever looked at just HOW MUCH of the PHB is taken up by spells? How is it fair for a few of the classes to get that much attention?

Again, it's not about spells. It's about trying to provide a more complete and in depth skill system. Yes, the fighter got abused in every possible regard (though I do think hardly anyone understands how to use those skill points to best effect). That doesn't invalidate the advantages of actually having skill point allocation and a larger and more complete skill set in providing comprehensive non-combat mechanics.

"Appallingly" is over-the-top, but the math didn't work the way it was supposed to. Now it does.
Also, listening to what that guy has to say is pretty ridiculous. He seems hidebound to intentionally interpret it in the worst possible manner without a thought for how it plays. Narration? The rules don't MAKE you narrate, so it doesn't happen!

That is appalling, for the largest commercial RPG product on the world, allegedly playtested and maybe looked at by someone who can do math.

I am not going to make any effort to look at the rules myself (at least, without a free SRD), so I can't engage in a deep argument about the validity of criticisms.

[tyfon]

Yes, it borrowed a lot:

- class balancing
- roles
- power system (on every level, list for every class, 95% combat-oriented, power per encounter - here I almost can see "cooldown time")
- breaking magic items for 'residuum' (matter of individual taste - for me like midichlorians in StarWars I )
- armor versions (chainmail, megachainmail and then uberchainmail)
- m. items usable starting from given level
- tactical encounters, and squares&minatures - they were going for it before, but now it's just part of core system
- minions & boss fights
- versatility cut, because of possibility of abuse (this power works this way and no other is possible). If there was possibility to create illusion of celestial wolves or tigers to confude enemy, now you summon illusion of two wolves (and wolves only!), hit Int vs. Will, hit effect: d10+int psychic damage and dazed until end of your next turn...


Now something that may be easily argued: mood and theme. This game is IMO less role-playing than it used to be. Books are more combat oriented, and game is about "where is the dungeon?" info and then series of tactical encounters. This have to be proven by adventures published by Wizards, but udging from titles (Shadowfell, Labirynth of someting, something pyramid and so on) it'll be crawl after crawl. With rise of eberron I belived that WotC is reinventing role playing (as playing some role) again - now I'm not so sure.

Time will tell

[Jade_Tarem]

Of course, if we count FF: The Spirits Within...

The following exchange took place in that movie:

"Are you alright?"
"Yes, I think so, what do we do now?"

But the movie could have redeemed itself if it had gone like this:

"Are you alright?"
"My home city just got taken over by soul-devouring ghosts, I'm a wanted criminal due to circumstances I can't control, we've just fallen thousands of feet into a crater populated by those same soul-eating spirits, while a crazy general fires his doomsday laser at us. Oh yes, and I'm terminally ill, like I have been for months. NO, I am not 'alright!'"

Sorry for the off topic post, but I thought it needed to be said.

[Swordguy]

World of Warcraft, OBVIOUSLY, you filthy morepig player.

Dude, while I more or less agree with your sentiments, you may wanna tone down (or clearly label) the sarcasm. I'd like your particular writing style to be around these boards for a while.

[Ulzgoroth]

- class balancing
- roles
- tactical encounters, and squares&minatures - they were going for it before, but now it's just part of core system
- minions & boss fights

All of those existed very firmly in 3.5...at least in the designer's minds (I imagine we're all aware that the first 2 were weakly implemented). Minions didn't have specific mechanics incorporated, but mixed encounters were certainly supported.

- power system (on every level, list for every class, 95% combat-oriented, power per encounter - here I almost can see "cooldown time")

I don't play any 'normal' MMOs either, but I had the impression that most powers are expected to be usable more than once in a single battle. Cooldown time would indicate powers between 'at will' and 'encounter'. (A few of which did exist in 3.5, though not many.)

- armor versions (chainmail, megachainmail and then uberchainmail)
- m. items usable starting from given level
- versatility cut, because of possibility of abuse (this power works this way and no other is possible). If there was possibility to create illusion of celestial wolves or tigers to confude enemy, now you summon illusion of two wolves (and wolves only!), hit Int vs. Will, hit effect: d10+int psychic damage and dazed until end of your next turn...

All of these, assuming basic factual accuracy, are very much MMORPG, or at least CRPG, derivatives.

Now something that may be easily argued: mood and theme. This game is IMO less role-playing than it used to be. Books are more combat oriented, and game is about "where is the dungeon?" info and then series of tactical encounters. This have to be proven by adventures published by Wizards, but udging from titles (Shadowfell, Labirynth of someting, something pyramid and so on) it'll be crawl after crawl. With rise of eberron I belived that WotC is reinventing role playing (as playing some role) again - now I'm not so sure.

Time will tell

This. Somewhere along the line, D&D players got the idea that the game was, like other RPGs, intended to support semi-general fantasy roleplaying and not just (or in many cases not at all) dungeon crawling. 4e seems to be WotC's declaration that they aren't interested in that anymore.

And you know what defines MMO/CRPGs more than anything else? Stomping savagely on the idea of roleplaying, and claiming credit for flexibility in situations that PnP players would find railroading.

EDIT: Not that 4e can stomp on the idea of role-playing, but it can (and I'd say appears to) refuse to offer any support for it.

[Covered In Bees]

As opposed to now, when you have vastly many non-combat techniques other than 'use a spell' via rituals, or make a skill check? What are they? I was not talking about spells...

Now, you have to get creative. And the game rules support this, with skill challenges and the DMG p.42. Skill challenges incorporate multiple skill checks that drive the narrative, affect each other (in some situations, trying to use a certain skill can make other skills easier or harder--try and Intimidate the guy and he might close up, for example), aren't resolved by a single roll so they're less wildly random ("Oops, a 1. I guess I can't convince him."), and are generally better, and the DMG helps you adjudicate anything players try (as opposed to "pick a skill and make up a DC").

Again, it's not about spells. It's about trying to provide a more complete and in depth skill system. Yes, the fighter got abused in every possible regard (though I do think hardly anyone understands how to use those skill points to best effect). That doesn't invalidate the advantages of actually having skill point allocation and a larger and more complete skill set in providing comprehensive non-combat mechanics.

"Skill point allocation" did a few things:
-It let you dump a few points into worthless skills like Profession for flavor. This did nobody any good, especially since mechanically Profession only made a little money and nothing else. Now you can just say that your character was a farmer or a blacksmith or etc. My rogue was raised by a scholar, so I gave him Skill Training: History. He worked as a scribe for a while, but that's just part of my story. If a situation where it's relevant comes up, as it already has, he'll get +2 on relevant check like the DMG suggests, or he might simply know things others don't.
-It made learning new skills almost impossible. If you have 13 ranks in Hide and Move Silently and you want to pick up Spot, you have to not raise anything other than Spot for a few levels. Assuming Spot is even a class skill. Speaking of which, you were well-nigh guaranteed to suck at any non-class skill.
-It made non-maxed skills either cap at a certain level for effectiveness (tumble, all you need is +14) or worthless. Your cross-classed hide won't let you hide from anything that has Spot. Your cross-classed Spot won't spot CR-appropriate monsters. Your cross-classed Jump won't take you very far.

The 3E system is a huge improvement over what AD&D had (nothing or Non-Weapon Proficiencies), but it's not exactly great. The 4E system is another improvement, but it's still not perfect. I think it suffices for D&D.

4E makes each skill broader and more versatile, and makes acquiring new skills easier. Building a Fighter who's an aristocrat skills-wise is pretty much impossible in 3E and easy in 4E. Feats are plentiful and it just takes one to become trained in a skill. On top of that, every character gets at least a few useful skills (a human Fighter can start with Athletics, Heal, Intimidate, and Streetwise, and then pick up Nature with a feat, say). In 3E, a fighter has to take Jump and Climb separately; if he's a 10 INT non-human fighter, that's ALL he can do. If he's a human, maybe he can swim, too.

That is appalling, for the largest commercial RPG product on the world, allegedly playtested and maybe looked at by someone who can do math.

I am not going to make any effort to look at the rules myself (at least, without a free SRD), so I can't engage in a deep argument about the validity of criticisms.

Every remotely major RPG ever has needed errata. I'd rather this wasn't true, but it *is* true. WotC seems to be giving us theirs promptly this time around, which puts them far ahead of everyone else.
You can go on about how "appalling" it is, or you can enjoy the fixed rules. (Or ignore them, in your case.)

Dude, while I more or less agree with your sentiments, you may wanna tone down (or clearly label) the sarcasm. I'd like your particular writing style to be around these boards for a while.

If it's not clear to somebody that I was being sarcastic there, then they are beyond my help. Indeed, they may be beyond any help, mortal or divine; an angel would simply shed a tear and turn aside. We can only hope to ease the pain of their passing.

Yes, it borrowed a lot:

- class balancing
- roles

How are these exclusive to MMOs? Class balancing existed long before them, and MMOs took roles FROM tabletop RPGs.

- power system (on every level, list for every class, 95% combat-oriented, power per encounter - here I almost can see "cooldown time")

I guess Exalted's charm trees make it an MMO?
The powers are just class features that give you a choice. Of course ATTACK powers are combat-oriented; you get utility powers, which have a lot of out-of-combat functionality for classes like Wizard and Rogue. Less so for, say, the Paladin, but still better than before (ooh, Remove Disease. That's useful... not).

"Per encounter" and "cooldown time" are completely separate things. Why are you conflating them?
...are you sure you understand what cooldown time means? Things like the 3.5 Binder's "once per five rounds" are "cooldown time".

- breaking magic items for 'residuum' (matter of individual taste - for me like midichlorians in StarWars I )

Artificers. Was in Dragon Magazine first.

- armor versions (chainmail, megachainmail and then uberchainmail)

This... has absolutely no connection to MMOs.

- m. items usable starting from given level

You imagined that. Magic items have a level. That doesn't mean you can't use it until that level. If you make stuff up, of course it's going to be like an MMO.
If you mean the ring thing, that's not in the PHB.

- tactical encounters, and squares&minatures - they were going for it before, but now it's just part of core system

It was already part of the core system (hello, Spiked Chain, Combat Reflexes, and Enlarge Person). Tactical encounters make it LESS like an MMO, even, since MMO tactics tend to consist of hitting some keys and letting your abilities cycle (while we're at it, World of Warcraft doesn't have squares, either.)

This is the problem with the MMO argument. People seem to think ANYTHING is "like an MMO". The tactical encounters make it "like a wargame" (it is like a wargame, just like 3.5 was and AD&D was), not "like a morepig".

- minions & boss fights

Are you kidding me? PLEASE tell me you're kidding me. I guess pulp fantasy novels are MMOs now?!

- versatility cut, because of possibility of abuse (this power works this way and no other is possible). If there was possibility to create illusion of celestial wolves or tigers to confude enemy, now you summon illusion of two wolves (and wolves only!), hit Int vs. Will, hit effect: d10+int psychic damage and dazed until end of your next turn...

Versatility cut for spellcasters. Other classes are more versatile.

Illusionary wolves would be more likely to grant combat advantage (for distracting the enmy).
"Psychic damage" from illusions dates back to AD&D. They think the wolf bit them, so they feel hurt.

As for "wolves only", why do you insist on making things up? The book EXPLICITLY ENCOURAGES people to make up their own power descriptions. What you describe (in 3E, it was called "Phantasmal Assailants") you could describe as wolves or tigers or Dreaded Smoggoth Beasts from Beyond the World's End, each with two bodies connected by a mass of writhing tentacles.

Now something that may be easily argued: mood and theme. This game is IMO less role-playing than it used to be. Books are more combat oriented, and game is about "where is the dungeon?" info and then series of tactical encounters. This have to be proven by adventures published by Wizards, but udging from titles (Shadowfell, Labirynth of someting, something pyramid and so on) it'll be crawl after crawl. With rise of eberron I belived that WotC is reinventing role playing (as playing some role) again - now I'm not so sure.

Have you ever looked at AD&D modules? White Plume Mountain or something? Guess what they consist of.
Have you ever looked at 3.5 modules? Red Hand of Doom is basically some player-driven roleplaying between fight after fight, despite being a good module. And then we have things like the World's Largest Dungeon.

The game has MORE support for non-combat stuff, in that it actually has mechanics beyond "roll a skill check once" now. You're basically saying "it's less about roleplaying, because I think their modules WILL BE about hack and slash". You haven't even seen them.

You realize Eberron is going to be published for 4E, right? And old greats like Dark Sun and Planescape, eventually, from what they've said?

This. Somewhere along the line, D&D players got the idea that the game was, like other RPGs, intended to support semi-general fantasy roleplaying and not just (or in many cases not at all) dungeon crawling. 4e seems to be WotC's declaration that they aren't interested in that anymore.

Yeah, I know. That's why they're *adding* a mechanic for non-combat stuff! Oh, wait.

You know, my 4E game has been chugging merrily along with fewer combats per session (since 4E doesn't rely on the stupid "four-encounter day" like 3E does) than our 3E games and nary a dungeon in sight.

D&D has never been particularly good at combat-less games. You can tell by the way 90% of the rules are about combat.

And you know what defines MMO/CRPGs more than anything else? Stomping savagely on the idea of roleplaying, and claiming credit for flexibility in situations that PnP players would find railroading.

Frankly, Planescape: Torment allowed for better and more interesting roleplaying than many D&D tables.

EDIT: Not that 4e can stomp on the idea of role-playing, but it can (and I'd say appears to) refuse to offer any support for it.

Do you think "Profession skill you can put points into" equals "roleplaying"? 4E supports roleplaying just as much as D&D ever has. It's better for adjudicating noncombat situations. It's worse for spellcasters doing everything, but that's never appealed to me--and if it did I'd play Mage.