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

[hong]

Combats will be more complicated.

Heh. I gather that you never played a spellcaster in BG, or tried to properly micromanage one. Keeping track of all those spells was... an interesting experience.

The rest(what happens out of combat) will factor less to combat because of the economies of good gameplay and game design. In the same level combat will factor less to what lies out of combat. I am not talking about the result of the combat but what happens -in combat- what happens in the encounter, how it plays while it plays.

It would appear that you are falling prey to the fallacy that because combat is more complicated, that means it must be the focus of the game. Nothing mandates that.

And besides, if you played BG, you would know that that game was exceedingly combat-focused, in terms of proportion of hours played (as are all of Bio's titles, really). Sure, you may want to say that exploration was what it was all about, but if you added up all the time you spent, including when you died and had to reload, much of it would be in combat. Walking around a map uncovering the darkness doesn't actually take that much time at all; so even if a 4E BG did have lots of fighting, it would merely be perpetuating a longstanding tradition.

The only change is that a 4E BG might have to be turn-based in combat to allow for full tactical complexity, but there are still games like that around. You could even have hybrid real time/TB if you wanted to mow down a random encounter of 5 orc minions without wasting time.

To avoid this, they will have to simplify 4e

You keep saying that. Somehow, I do not believe continuing to say it will make it true.

 

[xechnao]

So... what was the point of talking about the DMG2 again?

A problem about roleplaying players perceive. I guess it is about what happens in combat and out of combat.

No, it had resource management based on classes based on daily depletion. You have constructed a relationship between daily depletion and exploration/plot, but as has been demonstrated in this thread, such a relationship is not the only one that can exist.

And exploration: you found the stuff by exploring. It is not the only one that can exist but it was successful for the broad audience. OTOH d&d tactics was not very successful for the broad audience. And of course they are not the same thing.

Indeed, at the encounter level. But at any higher level... like that dealing with, say, plot, storyline, exploration or theme... they could be very similar indeed. This is because despite what you say, 4E and 2E are not that different in the areas that you have highlighted as problematic.

Just give me a good concrete example I cant rebuff and at the same time that could appeal at the broader audience of today.

 

[hong]

A problem about roleplaying players perceive. I guess it is about what happens in combat and out of combat.

And the way you address that perception in a videogame is by providing meaty dialogues, tough moral decisions, and memorable NPCs. None of these are limited by ruleset.

And exploration: you found the stuff by exploring.

Exploring is also something that is independent of ruleset, your constructed relationship with resource depletion notwithstanding. The darkness covering the map was not something that had "FOR USE WITH 2E ONLY" warning stickers on it.

It is not the only one that can exist but it was successful for the broad audience. OTOH d&d tactics was not very successful for the broad audience. And of course they are not the same thing.

Thankfully, exploration is not something that is limited to 2E, and so a 4E BG-ish game could similarly feature big expanses of darkness to uncover. You seem to be under the impression that a 4E game must be in the mould of an X Tactics (and even then, FF Tactics is very popular indeed).

Just give me a good concrete example I cant rebuff and at the same time that could appeal at the broader audience of today.

What, of how 4E and 2E aren't dissimilar in the areas you've highlighted? Well... daily powers, item powers, consumable items, to name a few.

 

[Cadfan]

What is this level? Is this level the respective chapters in BG?

Look, I'm not trying to be obscure.

You know how in a bioware game, when you raid a cave full of orcs, you proceed from room to room and the orcs attack you whenever you get too close, or whenever an orc makes an "alarm" noise and they're close enough to count as hearing it? Eventually you kill the orcs in every room until you find the room of the Boss Orc, and you kill him and take his treasure chest and rescue his captive or whatever the mission was supposed to be?

The "level" is the raid on the orc lair. Once its started, in a traditional bioware game there aren't that many major choices to be made. You basically just raid the lair. The biggest exploratory choices were made when you sought out whoever gave you the mission to raid the lair, hunted down the lair's location, and decided to complete the "raid the lair" objective. During the raid, the only big things you decide are how and when to draw aggro, whether to use consumable goods, and when to retreat and rest in order to return and continue where you left off as if nothing ever happened.

That's not the only way things can be done.

Replace the bioware style raid with you approaching the cave, fighting the orcs who guard the entrance, having some kind of intentionally designed scene inside the lair, and then some final showdown with the boss. Each as discrete scenes. No monsters are attacking you because you walked too close to where they were idly standing, awaiting a hero walking nearby.

Some of the big decisions from the old school bioware model would be changed.

"When and how do I draw aggro?" would be largely gone under this model. Because each fight is a self contained scene, you'd instead choose which fights to encounter (within limits of plot, skill, etc). So you might choose to sneak through one area, encountering a stealthy, assassination encounter, instead of charging headlong into a different area, encountering a big melee brawl. But in each fight, how and whether you draw aggro would be controled by the scenario, much like in regular, tabletop D&D, where you can't fight half the monsters in a battle by just staying 11 spaces away from the others at all times.

"Whether to use consumable goods" wouldn't be affected. It could be kept or left as the needs of the game and opinions of the designer decide.

"When to retreat and rest" would be a non issue. No one retreats to take a nap in the middle of raiding an orc lair! Retreat, if available, would constitute some degree of failure, and would be treated by the game as such. Either it would not be possible (you're too far in to back out without getting cut down as you run), or it would count as losing the scenario (a plot based reason why you could no longer win the scenario would explain this), or it would create some customized drawback such as reinforced guards or an inability to fully complete the objective.

If you really, really need examples of how this would work, consider regular D&D. You are either in or out of initiative. When you're in, you track things one way. When you're out, you track things another. You don't encounter monsters just standing around in their own homes waiting to be cut down (NVN was a big offender in this regard, you'd raid the homes of corrupt nobles to find large dining rooms set in architectural alcoves that hold nothing but 16 heavily armed mercenaries and a table). Leaving a dungeon or a castle or a series of encounters and then coming back results in things having changed while you're gone.

All of this is possible to program. From the perspective of a programmer, if you divide things into discrete scenes of combat or negotiation or investigation, coupled with travel and decision making in between, you really just have a flowchart.

 

[hong]

Hmm... to be honest, that sounds like quite a major departure from how established CRPGs work.

 

[xechnao]

Heh. I gather that you never played a spellcaster in BG, or tried to properly micromanage one. Keeping track of all those spells was... an interesting experience.

In 4e you will have to make encounters dealing with micro-managing more member interactions (each one with a number of powers and abilities) versus more monsters and how they interact. Something like jagged alliance but more complicated regarding the significantly distinct interactions to the player.

snip

Do you have a somehow clear vision yourself of how you would want a 4e video to be? Just sayin

 

[hong]

In 4e you will have to make encounters dealing with micro-managing more member interactions (each one with a number of powers and abilities) versus more monsters and how they interact. Something like jagged alliance but more complicated regarding the significantly distinct interactions to the player.

There's nothing wrong with that. None of this is somehow a barrier to producing a nonlinear game with lots of open spaces to go wandering.

Do you have a somehow clear vision yourself of how you would want a 4e video to be? Just sayin

Well, it would be like BG, but using 4E.

 

[xechnao]

(and even then, FF Tactics is very popular indeed).

It wasnt BG. A FF Tactics like 4e wont even touch the effect BG had to the broad market regarding D&D.

There's nothing wrong with that. None of this is somehow a barrier to producing a nonlinear game with lots of open spaces to go wandering.




Well, it would be like BG, but using 4E.

What, of how 4E and 2E aren't dissimilar in the areas you've highlighted? Well... daily powers, item powers, consumable items, to name a few.

Yeah, that phrase of yours does not make the contest clear enough. You do not seem to understand the why, I wont bother saying again the same things.
So what about combat? Would it be like jagged alliance? Would you build the game on more big grid maps?

 

[Cadfan]

Hmm... to be honest, that sounds like quite a major departure from how established CRPGs work.

Yeah. It is.

Basically, you know the format you see in most CRPGs for handling whole regions? You start from a predetermined point. You get some freedom and variation for a while, but then things narrow down to a single gate that must be passed, typically a boss monster, before advancing to a new region and beginning the process. The illusion of freedom is created by allowing you to progress through a region at your own speed and in the order you choose, coupled with microdecisions (bribe the guard or cut his throat?). The game is kept on rails by forcing it back through the plotline gates every so often (no matter what you do, you must eventually defeat the orc warlord to open the pass and travel to the next city, where the process repeats).

I'm suggesting adopting that on a smaller scale as well as on the larger, coupled with turning the "draw aggro" system of a computer rpg or mmorpg into the "discrete encounter" system of a tabletop rpg or a tactics game.

The "gates" would be deciding to take the mission, and the final scene of completing the mission. The variety in the middle, instead of consisting of traveling about, removing darkness from the map, and drawing aggro when you get too close to monsters, would consist of a series of encounters based on your decisions on how to proceed.

Maybe I should make a picture. I think I will.

 

[Derren]

Would it be like jagged alliance? Would you build the game on more big grid maps?

Considering that so far all modern turn based D&D games failed hard (ToEE, D&D Tactics) I doubt that would happen.

It would likely be NWN like with real time combat and a Editor and DM function. The rules will get modified until they are usable in real time.
Or 4E gets ignored by Atari and they continue to produce 3E games and include the 4E races and classes. They did something similar with BG2.