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

[hong]

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

You appear to have snipped the substantive part of that paragraph:

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​

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.

I do understand the why. It would appear that you have not properly thought through your objections to a 4E-ish BG, and that is why I was able to refute them. (And the biggest design problem -- how to handle immediate actions -- you even solved by yourself!)

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

Well, what I would LIKE is a game that is turn-based using squares, but with the ability to use real-time for the less challenging encounters (much as you would have in a BG-ish game featuring random monsters). You would also have maps to explore and plenty of space in the middle to go exploring -- but not too much, because wandering around for too long results in loss of focus. You would have things tighten up again close to the end, and the pace of the game would accelerate as you neared the final fight.

You would have plenty of gorgeous cinematics, ideally of the same quality as Mass Effect. You would also have plenty of dialogue that allowed you numerous options that really let you find a good fit to your character's personality. Some of these dialogues might even have repercussions further down the track; none of them, however, would deprotagonise you in the sense of leaving you thinking you'd been conned or left in a lose-lose situation. Oh yeah, and it would have Jennifer Hale voicing the protagonist.

Because in the end, it's all about Jennifer Hale.

 

[hong]

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.

I dunno. I quite like the illusion of freedom thing.

(I just played Valkyria Chronicles as my last SRPG. Gorgeous game; wonderful production values. The gameplay itself was pretty cool too; turn-based with several squad members of three classes to choose from. Highly recommended if you have a PS3. But in the end, I missed wandering around looking for random stuff to kill.)

 

[xechnao]

Look, I'm not trying to be obscure.

...

Are you familiar with "Betrayal at Krondor"? This seems similar in approach I think. Lots of strong points as a video game, only problem I have with this is that it does not gives the impression of how D&D is an open game and the expansive stuff you can do with it as a tabletop player that can go beyond a video game. BG was very good at this OTOH.

 

[Derren]

Well, what I would LIKE is a game that is turn-based using squares, but with the ability to use real-time for the less challenging encounters (much as you would have in a BG-ish game featuring random monsters).

Never mix turn based and real time combat. So far that never worked (Fallout Tactics, X-Com Armageddon)

You would have plenty of gorgeous cinematics, ideally of the same quality as Mass Effect. You would also have plenty of dialogue that allowed you numerous options that really let you find a good fit to your character's personality. Some of these dialogues might even have repercussions further down the track; none of them, however, would deprotagonise you in the sense of leaving you thinking you'd been conned or left in a lose-lose situation. Oh yeah, and it would have Jennifer Hale voicing the protagonist.

Thats a problem. The Mass Effect Dialogue were so good because the character creation was very limited with a fixed voice and surename. Same with The Witcher.
So unless you restrict the race, name and voice of the main character the dialogue would of the main character must be silent.

 

[hong]

Are you familiar with "Betrayal at Krondor"? This seems similar in approach I think. Lots of strong points as a video game, only problem I have with this is that it does not gives the impression of how D&D is an open game and the expansive stuff you can do with it as a tabletop player that can go beyond a video game. BG was very good at this OTOH.

I don't see why "giving the impression that D&D is an open game" has to be a design objective for any 4E CRPG. It's a videogame. It should be built according to the principles that result in good videogames. To the extent that these principles also coincide with or reinforce what makes a good p&p game, that's nice.

 

[hong]

Never mix turn based and real time combat. So far that never worked (Fallout Tactics, X-Com Armageddon)

Pish tosh. Fallout Tactics is my favourite part of the Fallout series. The reason the fanbois don't like it is because it went against everything that they liked about Fallout: open-endedness, nonviolent interaction, plenty of NPCs to talk to rather than shoot, and so on.

Thats a problem. The Mass Effect Dialogue were so good because the character creation was very limited with a fixed voice and surename. Same with The Witcher.
So unless you restrict the race, name and voice of the main character the dialogue would of the main character must be silent.

Nothing wrong with restricting the race, name and voice. As long as it gets me Jennifer Hale. (Oh, and the enhanced cinematic immersiveness of Mass Effect also wouldn't go astray.)

 

[xechnao]

Well, what I would LIKE is a game that is turn-based using squares, but with the ability to use real-time for the less challenging encounters (much as you would have in a BG-ish game featuring random monsters).

How would you implement this? Any idea? In Jagged Alliance for example the whole map was a grid map of squares only that when you were not fighting time flowed real time instead of turn based.

 

[xechnao]

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

That would be nice to see.

 

[hong]

How would you implement this? Any idea?

Why ask me? I'm not being paid money to design a game. I'm just describing what I'd like.

In Jagged Alliance for example the whole map was a grid map of squares only that when you were not fighting time flowed real time instead of turn based.

Yes, that might work. Do you think it wouldn't?

 

[Cadfan]

I dunno. I quite like the illusion of freedom thing.

Two quick comments.

1. The "partially real time, partially turn based" isn't that uncommon in CRPGs. Several bioware games defaulted to real time, but ran on clearly defined initiative sequences, and allowed you to pause at will and issue commands which were then carried out during your next time up in the initiative line. Functionally, that's a turn based rpg pretending to be a real time rpg, with a really awkward interface. Improve the interface, make the game default to turn based but give each character a basic AI that will function in the real time if given no specific orders, and you'd be good to go.

2. The illusion of freedom could still be maintained in a game where combat takes place in discrete scenes. All you'd need is an elegant system for routing the player between scenes. The same exploratory "walk around and uncover the darkness" system could even be used. Plus, the illusion of freedom, in my opinion, is more important between missions than inside the actual mission. Once you're in the castle raiding it, allowing you to wander about freely to create the traditional illusion of freedom often requires unrealistic tropes like the entire castle's militia standing at their posts waiting for you to show up and then fighting you one by one. I think that the advantages gained in being able to realistically script enemy responses would be worth any minor losses in freedom that might take place. And I suspect that few people would actually notice the loss of freedom, because it would stem logically from the responses of your enemies, rather than from an artificial barrier. "Why can't I leave and rest after beating up half the orcs in the cave? Oh, because if I do, they'll execute the hostages, or pack up the McGuffin and hide it somewhere else where I'll never find it, or call in twice as many reinforcements."