Forked Thread: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - 4e video game

[hong]

Is it? Think of the scrolls, wands etch, equipping the various weapons what big effect in the gameplay they had.

... and consumable items still exist in 4E.

You are really claiming that being able to use wands and scrolls is such a huge part of the BG experience? Really?

They cant have the same effect in the 4e. 4e has its own things to track and manage in tactical combat that BG did not have. If you mix the two I get the feeling that you would make a very overwhelming game, gameplay wise.

Nonsense. They didn't overwhelm anybody then, they already exist in 4E, and noone is feeling particularly overwhelmed now.

 

[xechnao]

The only problem is probably: 4E will not port 100% into a CRPG - because it was designed as a tabletop game.

But a good adaption needs to take some liberties anyway.

Cheers, LT.

Exactly -the question being how many liberties to make a good competitive game that shows the 4e tabletop's strong points: if this feat can be accomplished.

 

[hong]

Exactly -the question being how many liberties to make a good competitive game that shows the 4e tabletop's strong points: if this feat can be accomplished.

This thread is demonstrating that such an adaptation may be easier than we think!

 

[Cadfan]

I told you there is an important problem with this. You would have to build the whole game on a plethora of different script paths and IMO this is an immensely difficult task to accomplish.

Moreover, even if it were made the game would feel as a string of tactical combats as you said. You have to include some randomness to give this open game feeling.

Not necessarily.

First, as to the difficulty, its not as tough as you might think. You'd have to script individual sequences, yes, but there's a specific pathing sequence trick you can do that really helps where you branch repeatedly and then repeatedly rejoin the branches using different flavor and dialogue to keep things unique to the path you used to reach the conclusion.

Second, as to the string of tactical combats feel, I'd rather a string of tactical combats than a string of random monsters sitting in the dirt waiting for me to walk too close. Really, this shouldn't make a difference to the sense of exploration. Combat might take place in a string of fights, but what's between combat needn't operate that way.

Seriously, I'm only really advocating that we take the way D&D works on the table and bring it to the computer as much as possible. If we're stuck with a choice between open ended decisions on when to rest, and realistic combat scenarios, I'd rather drop the when to rest decision in favor of realism. The sense of exploration can be addressed elsewhere, in the plot branches.

 

[Cadfan]

One of the most interesting decisions, at least for me, is whether such a game should be a neverwinter nights style game where your character is a vague cipher onto which you project your own vision or personality, or a planescape: torment game where you are a specific predetermined person and the rpg elements are mostly for allowing you to grow or develop.

 

[hong]

One of the most interesting decisions, at least for me, is whether such a game should be a neverwinter nights style game where your character is a vague cipher onto which you project your own vision or personality, or a planescape: torment game where you are a specific predetermined person and the rpg elements are mostly for allowing you to grow or develop.

The big dichotomy these days appears to be between Mass Effect and Fallout 3: ie, whether to go for the cinematic storytelling route, or old-school exploring.

 

[xechnao]

... and consumable items still exist in 4E.

You are really claiming that being able to use wands and scrolls is such a huge part of the BG experience? Really?

Yup. Equipment management was huge in BG's gameplay.

Nonsense. They didn't overwhelm anybody then, they already exist in 4E, and noone is feeling particularly overwhelmed now.

I do not think you understood what I was trying to say. Employing both the tactical combat management of 4e and the resource management of BG (the way spells and equipment worked in the gameplay (exploration and stuff) would be overwhelming in a game. You would have to build encounter points where both should be taken into consideration. I do not think this would even be possible from a game design standpoint. But my point was that as a video game player you could not pleasantly be thinking about both the 4e rules and a robust Vancian-equipment element attached to the encounters of the game.

 

[xechnao]

This thread is demonstrating that such an adaptation may be easier than we think!

Like your edification in the other thread!

 

[xechnao]

Not necessarily.

First, as to the difficulty, its not as tough as you might think. You'd have to script individual sequences, yes, but there's a specific pathing sequence trick you can do that really helps where you branch repeatedly and then repeatedly rejoin the branches using different flavor and dialogue to keep things unique to the path you used to reach the conclusion.

Second, as to the string of tactical combats feel, I'd rather a string of tactical combats than a string of random monsters sitting in the dirt waiting for me to walk too close. Really, this shouldn't make a difference to the sense of exploration. Combat might take place in a string of fights, but what's between combat needn't operate that way.

Seriously, I'm only really advocating that we take the way D&D works on the table and bring it to the computer as much as possible. If we're stuck with a choice between open ended decisions on when to rest, and realistic combat scenarios, I'd rather drop the when to rest decision in favor of realism. The sense of exploration can be addressed elsewhere, in the plot branches.

I dunno. Can you think of an actual example of a game? What about a game like final fantasy only with combat being like 4e? Is this more similar to what you would like? It still has some randomness though.

 

[hong]

Yup. Equipment management was huge in BG's gameplay.

The only "huge" equipment management that I recall was juggling the 500 arrows and 4 suits of plate armour (per person) you picked up as loot. Inventory management, in other words. If you were chewing through consumables at such a rate of knots, you were definitely playing some other Baldurs Gate to me.

I do not think you understood what I was trying to say. Employing both the tactical combat management of 4e and the resource management of BG (the way spells and equipment worked in the gameplay (exploration and stuff) would be overwhelming in a game.

Nonsense. As said, spells and consumables already exist in 4E, they are not overwhelming anyone now, and they will not overwhelm anyone in a videogame where the computer can do all the bookkeeping for you.

You would have to build encounter points where both should be taken into consideration. I do not think this would even be possible from a game design standpoint.

Nonsense. If it was possible with 2E, which had an even bigger potential disparity in power level depending on how many daily spells you'd used, then it is most definitely possible in 4E, where everyone has a basic minimum of at-wills and encounter powers in reserve.

But my point was that as a video game player you could not pleasantly be thinking about both the 4e rules and a robust Vancian-equipment element attached to the encounters of the game.

Then your point is invalid, because ppl are already using (not thinking, using) the 4E rules with built-in consumable items and daily equipment recharge. Clearly there is more to heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, xechnow.