Warlords and Dragons and
Devils, Oh My!
Beyond
the core changes, every edition has its quirks, the changes to basic options
that define the feel of that edition. These are important to recognize, as they
are likely to shift the baseline perception of fantasy gaming for this
generation of gamers.
Warlords
are a new class that focus on bringing out the best from other characters.
Dragonkin are a new core race that puts the dragons back in Dungeons &
Dragons. Tieflings are another new core race with demonic origins.
To make room
for these additions, druids, monks, gnomes and a few other classes and races
from previous editions are out. At least for now -- D&D makes its money on
putting out new books, so expect all the old content to be back soon.
The core
books are not set in a particular setting like previous books have with
Greyhawk, but instead are in a generic "points of light" setting. The
basic structure is defined -- a few small civilized clusters surrounded by
danger on all sides -- but the DM is intended to fill in the details and make
the world his own. This is a good example of a simplified game world built to
serve the needs of the player. The story is in the service of the gameplay.
The
setting and the core content are good to know, but aren't really suggested
topics for thievery. Deriving content without understanding the underlying
logic is too easy. And coming up with new settings is generally well worth the
effort. But keep an eye out for games with an abundance of dragon-people and
devil-people for no good reason, as it's a good sign that they might be jumping
on the newest fantasy bandwagons.
Focused Content
The previous
edition of D&D approached many problems from a simulationist perspective.
It tried to come up with coherent rules for the game universe and apply them
consistently. So if players gained class levels, then monsters and NPCs should
do the same.
This can
create interesting situations, but at the cost of added complexity. Creating an
interesting encounter in 3rd edition can take hours, as the DM has
to choose creatures, adjust their level and class, and research different
spell-like abilities spread across multiple books, with no
guarantee of ending up with something fun. Simulation gets in the way of
gameplay.
So 4E throws the simulation idea out the window -- to create a new type of
monster, just set the base values as determined by the math, and create a few
unique powers. Or even better, take those powers from other monsters and
reskin them with a new appearance. Don't worry about non-combat abilities for
most monsters -- only design the parts of the monsters and NPCs that matter.
Since
most monsters are on-screen only long enough to take a few swings at the
players and then die, that's what they should be designed to do. Unless it's
the big boss, just give each monster two or three interesting attacks at most.
Leave the non-combat design to the individual DM's world.
Fourth edition really
focuses on designing content to do what it needs to, and nothing else. Develop
a clear vision for each piece of content, then cut away everything that doesn't
serve that goal.
|
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.