Not like a MMORPG at all
As I said before, 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons was a huge change for the game. And as it always happens with huge changes, you get people who like the change, and others who don't. And to an extent which I don't remember happening when 2nd or 3rd edition was released, the release of 4th edition caused something generally known as the "edition wars". People claimed their favorite edition of D&D to be the "true Dungeons & Dragons", and better than whatever edition others preferred. And one of the arguments / insults used in this edition wars was that fans of earlier editions dismissed 4th edition as being "like a MMORPG". That is a remark which always puzzled me, because looking at it from the other side my main problem with MMORPGs is that they aren't more like 4th edition.
The major difference between 4th edition and other editions of Dungeons & Dragons is that 4E is a tactical miniature wargame to the core. Spells and powers do things which can often only be expressed in game terms, but which wouldn't make much sense if you tried to express them in role-playing terms. People calling 4E "unrealistic" certainly have a point, although I'd say "less realistic", with wizards and fireballs not really being realistic in the first place.
In every game I always like to look at what the player is actually *doing*. Not the make-belief part of him saying "I throw a fireball", but the actual part of where he points on the battlemap to indicate where the fireball is centered and rolls some dice. The reason I am looking at this is because it is the actual activity which ultimately determines how much fun I am going to have. Are there "interesting decisions" involved, to quote Sid Meier? Are there good moves and bad moves possible? How important is it that I make the right decision, press the right button, and how important is it to press that button as fast as possible? Two games which have exactly the same make-belief situation, let's say my fighter character in a sword fight against an ogre, will feel very differently if they have very different actual activities, e.g. one being fast button-mashing and the other being tactical combat.
So in my mind 4th edition isn't like a MMORPG at all. If I had to compare 4E to a computer game, I would point to tactical role-playing games like Disgaea, Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, or Fire Emblem. World of Warcraft or similar MMORPGs simply do not play like tactical role-playing games. Both the decision-making process and the speed are just the opposite of a tactical role-playing game. The only similarity I can see between a MMORPG and 4th edition is having spells & abilities (powers) with different "cooldowns". But even there the decision-making process ends up being a very different one. MMORPGs don't have "daily" powers, extended rests, and the like. Using a daily power in 4E is a strategic decision, taking other combats of the day into account. In a MMORPG the decision to use a power with a long cooldown remains a tactical decision, as usually the cooldown isn't long enough to affect several fights.
I very much wished there were more tactical role-playing games for the PC around. And it would be an interesting exercise to think how a cooperative multiplayer tactical role-playing game could work online. But current MMORPGs aren't like that, and thus I don't find the comparison with 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons to be valid.
The major difference between 4th edition and other editions of Dungeons & Dragons is that 4E is a tactical miniature wargame to the core. Spells and powers do things which can often only be expressed in game terms, but which wouldn't make much sense if you tried to express them in role-playing terms. People calling 4E "unrealistic" certainly have a point, although I'd say "less realistic", with wizards and fireballs not really being realistic in the first place.
In every game I always like to look at what the player is actually *doing*. Not the make-belief part of him saying "I throw a fireball", but the actual part of where he points on the battlemap to indicate where the fireball is centered and rolls some dice. The reason I am looking at this is because it is the actual activity which ultimately determines how much fun I am going to have. Are there "interesting decisions" involved, to quote Sid Meier? Are there good moves and bad moves possible? How important is it that I make the right decision, press the right button, and how important is it to press that button as fast as possible? Two games which have exactly the same make-belief situation, let's say my fighter character in a sword fight against an ogre, will feel very differently if they have very different actual activities, e.g. one being fast button-mashing and the other being tactical combat.
So in my mind 4th edition isn't like a MMORPG at all. If I had to compare 4E to a computer game, I would point to tactical role-playing games like Disgaea, Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, or Fire Emblem. World of Warcraft or similar MMORPGs simply do not play like tactical role-playing games. Both the decision-making process and the speed are just the opposite of a tactical role-playing game. The only similarity I can see between a MMORPG and 4th edition is having spells & abilities (powers) with different "cooldowns". But even there the decision-making process ends up being a very different one. MMORPGs don't have "daily" powers, extended rests, and the like. Using a daily power in 4E is a strategic decision, taking other combats of the day into account. In a MMORPG the decision to use a power with a long cooldown remains a tactical decision, as usually the cooldown isn't long enough to affect several fights.
I very much wished there were more tactical role-playing games for the PC around. And it would be an interesting exercise to think how a cooperative multiplayer tactical role-playing game could work online. But current MMORPGs aren't like that, and thus I don't find the comparison with 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons to be valid.
Comments
Post a Comment