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

[xechnao]

If they could make it work for 2E, where encounter difficulty scales across a drastically wider range (compare if an 18th level mage is on full, and if they're on empty), then they can most certainly make it work for 4E.

This is one variable in BG. You could balance it with more party members, equipment and deciding limits where to travel-explore and where not.

 

[hong]

Or it may be that you like to be a fanboy and annoy people that do not share your POV. The overwhelming design problem is not only in the video game. It is traceable in the tabletop too. More people perceive this and addressing this with an article is a selling point of DMG2. But for a video game it would be more significant due to the medium's less flexible nature.

... say what now? And move goalposts much?

The DMG2 is addressing a perception that it's hard to roleplay in 4E. Let's ignore for a second the whole thorny issue of defining what "roleplay" means, and narrow it down to something more usable: "have noncombat encounters that are meaningful and significant".

Well, if you take that definition, a BG-ish 4E game certainly should have no problems with noncombat encounters that are meaningful and significant, because BG's noncombat interaction consisted almost solely of dialogue trees. You could also search in barrels and pick up torches, but the point is: noncombat interaction was handled entirely outside the ruleset. So if anything, 4E makes it EASIER to have noncombat interaction within the ruleset, because you will now actually have things like Diplomacy and Intimidate to work with. And if you don't want to have that... well, you can always go back to plain dialogue trees. But I don't know why you would, when even non-D&D games like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 have social skills these days.

But let's say you don't agree with that definition. Let's say you prefer "tell a story that's more than just a string of combat encounters". Well, this is something that videogames excel at: a deep, meaty storyline, with well fleshed-out NPCs and difficult choices, and maybe a cinematic climax at the end. It's possible that they may reduce your freedom of movement somewhat compared to p&p, but that's a well-known tradeoff when moving to electronic gaming.

Regarding what I was saying before: yes, I was saying that it would be necessary to add more things beyond combat tactics to appeal to a broader audience. Not just things, but find a way to deliver really interesting and engaging things. And I was/am also saying that this things is difficult to achieve and the reason that 4e can not succeed as a 4e video game to the broad market.

And what you are saying is invalid, insofar as your presented arguments go. Nothing that you have raised is difficult to achieve. Nothing that you have raised is an insurmountable barrier to an interesting and engaging game.

 

[hong]

This is one variable in BG. You could balance it with more party members, equipment and deciding limits where to travel-explore and where not.

... and you can still do this in a 4E BG-ish game, because all of these things are independent of ruleset.

 

[xechnao]

You do not have too many choices. You have exactly as many choices as you did in BG. And you have exactly as many choices as in p&p 4E, and noone is being overwhelmed. Well, I guess it's always possible that they are and I just haven't seen it, but I wouldn't count on it.

Nor is game design rendered more difficult by having 4E powers and consumables in the one framework. If they could make it work for 2E, where encounter difficulty scales across a drastically wider range (compare if an 18th level mage is on full, and if they're on empty), then they can most certainly make it work for 4E.



And I thought early on, you were saying to add more things to the game, to attract more than just "hardcore fans". But now you appear to be reversing your position. This is intriguing.



It may not be an easy task for you, but it certainly seems to be easy enough for everyone else. As said, this is all already a part of 4E.



It can be done just by following the standard encounter guidelines. You know, the ones that ppl are using right now to build 4E adventures and modules. That would be doubly true for professional game designers, who are paid to make these things work. Perhaps you should consider whether you are the best benchmark for gauging whether this task is difficult.

A level is a discrete, self-contained gameplay environment that acts as the basic building block of a game. If you haven't, perhaps you should play a few modern games to familiarise yourself with the subject matter.

Or it could be you like to be a fanboy and annoy people that do not share your POV. Part of this problem is perceived even in the tabletop. A selling point of DMG2 would be to address this in an article. They will consider some new approach to adventures too, or at least Scott seemed to agree with this proposal. In a video game problems would become bigger because of the more limited nature of the media.

Regarding what I was saying before and still am: you would need to add more than combat tactics to appeal to a more broad audience but that seems difficult to pull for a video game since combat tactics are a full and big game by themselves.

 

[hong]

Regarding what I was saying before and still am: you would need to add more than combat tactics to appeal to a more broad audience but that seems difficult to pull for a video game since combat tactics are a full and big game by themselves.

Naturally. But this is not something that is an inherent limitation of the 4E ruleset. BG managed to produce a critically-acclaimed game and the ruleset it used didn't even have social skills or even any skills at all (other than the rogue stuff). In more modern times, Mass Effect is another critically-acclaimed game and its TWO noncombat skills are Diplomacy and Intimidate; 90+% of its mechanics deal with shooting people in the face (or making them explode, or making their weapons explode). So the fact that most of 4E's crunch is related to combat is hardly a major issue.

 

[xechnao]

... and you can still do this in a 4E BG-ish game, because all of these things are independent of ruleset.

It wont happen unless they drastically simplify the 4e ruleset to the point that a strong connection with 4e (with the selling strong elements of the tabletop 4e) regarding the strong elements of the video game-if they succeed to make a strong video game-that connection would be questionable.

 

[hong]

It wont happen unless they drastically simplify the 4e ruleset to the point that a strong connection with 4e (with the selling strong elements of the tabletop 4e) regarding the strong elements of the video game-if they succeed to make a strong video game-that connection would be questionable.

... you are saying that you can't have varying party members, varying equipment levels, or time-limited quests unless they simplify the ruleset?

Nonsense. You most certainly can have all of these with the full range of 4E crunch, because 4E crunch already allows for all of these things. (Well, except maybe for time-limited quests, but only in the sense that it doesn't explicitly talk about them. But then it also doesn't explicitly talk about characters needing to pee either, and yet we blithely assume that toilets are still necessary in a D&D world.)

 

[xechnao]

Naturally. But this is not something that is an inherent limitation of the 4E ruleset. BG managed to produce a critically-acclaimed game and the ruleset it used didn't even have social skills or even any skills at all (other than the rogue stuff). In more modern times, Mass Effect is another critically-acclaimed game and its TWO noncombat skills are Diplomacy and Intimidate; 90+% of its mechanics deal with shooting people in the face (or making them explode, or making their weapons explode). So the fact that most of 4E's crunch is related to combat is hardly a major issue.

BG did not have social skills. It had resource management tied to classes tied to exploration tied to plot. 4e is a different beast. It has resource management tied to classes tied to encounter tactics. 4e and previous editions are distinctly different games. A video game based on 4e would be build on a different model-gameplay model than what BG was build upon.

 

[hong]

BG did not have social skills.

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

It had resource management tied to classes tied to exploration tied to plot.

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.

4e is a different beast. It has resource management tied to classes tied to encounter tactics.

No, it has resource management based on classes based on encounter and daily depletion. Because it has daily depletion, it can be used for a BG-ish game and reuse the relationship you have constructed, even.

4e and previous editions are distinctly different games. A video game based on 4e would be build on a different model-gameplay model than what BG was build upon.

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.

 

[xechnao]

... you are saying that you can't have varying party members, varying equipment levels, or time-limited quests unless they simplify the ruleset?

Combats will be more complicated. 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.

To avoid this, they will have to simplify 4e