I'm most interested in the current heated debate regarding the new 4.0 release and whether it discourages roleplaying in favor of Warhammer-like tactical combats. Desslock summarized one side of the debate in his PC Gamer column in the September issue. Comparing 3.0 to 4.0, Desslock writes, "The D&D 4.0 rules strive to make the game more accessible, but often at the cost of removing character customization and roleplaying options. Players no longer have to carefully consider which class or skills to select, because skills now automatically advance and classes are now more balanced and useful in any situation. As a result, character are more likely to artificially resemble each other instead of personalized alter-egos." Desslock addresses two issues here, that 4.0 changed class roles (for the worst) and made roleplaying harder.
The issue of roleplaying first: Desslock, if you're relying on rule sets to roleplay, you're doing it wrong. Take all the rules and the dice and the checkered game boards out of D&D, what do you have left? Theater! Without the laws governing the limits of what people can do with their character, imagination takes precedent and amateur acting or MacGyver problem-solving take center stage. The line cuts finely between Doritos chomping geek and gesticulating thespian. And D&D with no rules is a close relative of the community college acting workshop.
The fact of the matter is, roleplaying has always operated outside a rule set, even back in the first edition days. The rules exists to ground the game in a certain reality, like how far can I run in six seconds, can I break down that door, or can I scale that wall. But roleplaying has always encompassed those rare (the games I play are combat heavy) moments of the gaming session where improvisation kicks in and stars are born. Roleplaying is the chance to prove to the rest of the table that your character is more than just the statistics on a page and that you can manipulate the world around you with clever dialogue, a cultural or racial idiosyncrasy, or a novel approach to a stubborn obstacle. Those game facets operate outside any ruleset. D&D 4.0 didn't ruin those opportunities anymore than 3.5 improved them. So if roleplaying suffers in modern D&D, inspired players need to look to themselves or their DM if they want to improve (or begin) that part of their game.
As for the class roles, I again disagree with Desslock. It didn't help that at the end of his column, he declared Fallout a better RPG than Diablo. First, that's like saying New York strip tastes better than yak vomit. Second, Diablo isn't a RPG. Desslock might as well declare Fallout a better RPG than Call of Duty 4 because his first comparison is nearly as silly. Though fertile ground for another blog another day, I would go so far as to say WoW and its peers are as much RPGs as Diablo.
I do agree that the 4.0 classes seemed more balanced now, overall power wise. 3.5 suffered awfully from leveling scale. The game played fine at lower levels, but as characters leveled past the teens, certain classes became impotent while others grew into tremendous (fire)powerhouses. Fighters especially suffered. Their AC and hit points didn't keep up with the attack rolls and damage directed at them. Playing a high level fighter in 3.5 boiled down to going toe-to-two for a few rounds before a saving throw was missed or a couple of monster blows landed. A chew toy distraction at best.
I suspect 4.0 is going to scale much better. The leveling upgrades are written directly into the skills themselves. And I count the designers behind 4.0 as wise men for borrowing and incorporating the MMO model into their combat system. Tank, DPS, and healing are the fundamental class roles; crowd control, aggro control, healing, dps the means of resolving the combat. When you edit the 3.5 fighter, giving him aggro grabbing and and interrupt abilities, you create a more focused class, a more focused class role, and a more satisfying combat experience. He might still be a chew toy at times, but at least he's getting something done in the process besides distracting that umber hulk for two rounds.
Desslock doesn't like the new MMO influence. That's fine, but he's got his horse and cart mixed up when he writes, "D&D 4.0 needlessly imports MMO game play conventions and terminology, which is ironic, since many MMO mechanics originated as necessary compromises when it was impossible to re-create the more open-ended game play of tabletop RPGs."
Needless, ironic import? I guess you could view it that way. Another way would be to see today's MMOs refining RPG combat, not just because it works better in a computer game but because empirically it's an improvement. I don't have hard numbers, but within WoW's 10 million subscriber base, surely some of those are ex-tabletop RPGers, D&D included. With their consumer base shifting over to MMOs, it's not surprising to see Wizards of the Coast dissecting their appeal and then grafting appealing elements into the next iteration of their game.I see the MMO class roles as a game play innovation, even if it is a refinement of what Gygax and Arneson started with Chainmail back in the day. The D&D community can resent the influence till the beholders come home, but MMOs borrowed from D&D and then they turned around and evolved it. To quote a platitude, imitation is the highest form of flattery. D&D can only benefit from taking a look at what MMOs (and other computer games too) do well, steal that, and then roll a d20 to see if they pulled it off.
The good news here is that if you agree with Desslock, you can continue playing the more "roleplay" friendly 3.5 rules. Personally, I think it behooves the player base to support the latest version of D&D if it's well-designed and fun. Which 4.0 is. If they don't . . . well, Wizards is a business and it's not beyond the pale light of forecasting to see a day when they abandon D&D altogether.
Leaving naught but leviathan MMOs ruling the world.
