Player-Driven Recovery
Healing
in 4E is handled very differently than previous editions. The old system
required players to either use magic items to heal, or rely on the priest to
spent his actions casting spells. This meant that the cleric spent most of
their time healing others rather than directly affecting things.
The new
system gives all players "healing surges" that they can use once per
encounter to regain one quarter of their health.
And the healing classes (there
are now two: cleric and warlord) can heal and attack on the same turn or even
as part of the same action, so they can provide a meaningful attack presence
while also helping others.
One of
the nice results of this system is that all players have a hand in healing.
Using a Healing Surge is a conscious decision the player makes that aids his
character. Everyone feels involved, and healing is something the players do,
not something others do to them.
This also
has the side benefit of making it feel like the player's fault when it goes
wrong: "I should have used a healing surge" rather than "How
come the game didn't heal me faster?" The lesson here is that healing
doesn't have to be a background passive action. Give the player inputs, and he
becomes more involved.
For most
video games, directly adapting healing surges wouldn't be the best idea. Variants
of this have worked in some cases: health packs in many games were basically a
stolen version of healing potions.
But as health packs show, it can be
difficult to manage health as a resource while worrying about five other thing
in real-time.
That's where the healing classes can provide some additional
inspiration -- having player attacks that alter healing rates as a side effect
could be interesting in a variety of games, especially cooperative ones.
Give
the player ways to alter his healing, but without adding new actions that could
overload the process.
Location-Based Combat
D&D
has always been about the monsters. But there's a dungeon in there with the dragons,
which often gets neglected. And while the sense of place depends highly on the
individual DMs setting up interesting encounters, the new edition provides
tools to make it easier to craft unique encounters that are more than just
monsters.
Terrain rules are clear and simple, and include many examples of
interesting magical terrain with solid gameplay effects. But traps are where
the DM has the most control of the combat space.
Traps get
more attention in 4E, with the intent of integrating traps within a combat
encounter. The character doesn't disable the poison darts in one room and fight
the kobolds in the next -- they're all in the same room.
Traps are designed to
be recurring dangers that threaten players and monsters with a variety of
effects during combat.
And many of the new special powers, for player
characters and monsters both, involve pushing each other around the room,
giving all those traps and other danger zones interesting strategic roles. A
good DM can quickly set up different rooms that create dramatically different
combat experiences.
|
For instance earlier when it mentioned about how the system simplified the use of skills. The point here isn't that you're meant to simply any skill system you have. The point is that a heavily abstract list like what they had in 3ed is counter productive to a smooth running game and it made values that were 0s nearly useless to the player. They took a cumbersome system and made it more streamlined and fitting to the feel they wanted. Which has nothing to do with there being "no new ideas".
As to my feelings on this, I love the article, very informative and I have to say some very good points. I have noticed as a designer I have a tendancy to make systems more complex than they really have to be.
I absolutely hated the random and inappropriate shout out to Miyamoto in the end. He abandoned the core audience to cater to casuals, so he definitely does not belong in an article about D&D 4th edition, a game that proves that you don't have to sacrifice the core to reach out to the casuals. You should’ve mentioned Will Wright or at the very least, Blizzard/Harmonix for creating great games that take creativity from everyday people and everyday life but truly translating them into great games, not half-baked attempts. :p
Extra tidbit on Miyamoto: When asked if Mario Galaxy drew any inspirations from Rachet and Clank with the spherical level designs, he said "Rachet and Clank? I've never heard of that game. Is it a PC game?” I’ve never personally played R&C but how can anyone serious about game design and “innovation” not know R&C? Plus, what kind of response was “Is it a pc game?” Any game he never heard of must be on PC?
Shaun, great point about the D&D blogs and podcasts - lots of good design philosophy there. And many of their core design tips apply to video games as well as RPGs. The Magic the Gathering ones are worth checking out, too.
I'm sorry if the Miyamoto thing didn't work for you. I've always drawn inspiration from his talks on how gardening influenced the design of Pikmin, which I consider to be a great example of seeing game design in the world around you. Which is what I was trying to get to, as plucking design secrets from everyday things is the ultimate expression of thievery. But I may have rushed that point a bit.
The DM Guide, among other things, points out that you can create a game with more moral ambiguity rather than being strictly heroic. While we've seen some video games with ambiguity, heroic definitely wins out in most cases. Maybe video games still have a lot to learn from D&D?
"Published modules can define discrete skill challenges as a way to structure to that annoying time between combats." is also an interesting comment. I haven't played D&D for many years, but I remember when the time between combat was meant to be interesting in its own right without being boiled down to discrete skill challenges. Your comment makes it sound like if you aren't rolling dice, then you can't be having fun. (Which seems at times to be a theme behind 4th edition's design as well.)
And while you call "health packs" a stolen version of D&D's "healing potions," to me "healing surges" seem similar to the "quick recovery when resting" trend that blazed across FPS and even some third-person shooters. They certainly seem grounded in the same logic, of only needing a moment to freely get yourself immediately back into the battle rather than having to squander resources spend precious time being cautious while in search of an external means of healing.
But I was also trying to indicate that the time between combats has historically been a difficult time for designers to deal with. Both electronic and role-playing games have their roots in combat-heavy scenarios, so stretching the design outside of combat space has traditionally been an after-thought for the big releases. Of course, there are plenty of other, smaller games (both digital and paper) that explore those spaces in interesting ways, but I'm honestly happy to see the granddaddy of them all - D&D - explore that space a little more than previous editions.
And on the broader issue of D&D and MMORPG similarities, I tried to address that a touch in the text by pointing out how well D&D has managed to take good ideas from other sources without diluting their own feel. I don't think D&D is just mindlessly copying MMOs - I think they're doing a very clever job of stealing the right ideas and applying them well. But it doesn't mean that D&D is no longer D&D, at least to me.