D&D 4E Is there any D&D 4th computer game?

[keterys]

I'm pretty sure a 3E table with a warblade, swordmage, cleric, druid, and wizard was actually pretty complex for numbers of options. Heck, I'm pretty sure even a vanilla spiked chain whirlwind-trip-power attacking fighter was tactically complex and that character really is very basic for choices.

Choosing from 14 powers in real time is very doable, especially when they're basically your at-wills (#1+2), encounters (3-6), dailies (7-9) and then your utilities and items can be any key bindings you like, from shift/alt/ctrl 1-9 to q-u or whatever. World of Warcraft is one of the most casual friendly MMOs out there and characters typically have about twice that number of choices. And it's real time. And there are reactive abilities and cooldown abilities and the works.

D&D Online just went free to play a week or two ago, so I downloaded and tried it out. I just made 2nd level with a rogue/ranger, and I have two rows of buttons already. 3 weapons I swap amongst, sneak, defensive fighting, trip, sunder, shield spell on an item, cure light wounds on an item, cure light potions, aid spell on an item, search, open lock are the ones that I have readily available. I have a heap of scrolls and potions that I don't use often enough to button.

At the end of the day, it really boils down to: these problems are not insurmountable. These problems have already been solved in many games, in many ways.

In fact, if you ask people who have played D&D computer games in some fashion, I suspect you'll get the most responses about realtime ones. It's been a long, long time since the SSI games (as totally awesome as they were). Both Pool of Radiance and Temple of Elemental Evil tried turn-based and one was horrible and the other bug-ridden, so I believe neither was successful. I do suspect Pool of Radiance would have been a _lot_ better game if it had not been turn-based, since I recall it sucking due to immense amounts of time _waiting_ for things to take turns and resolve them.

So, turn-based is totally possible as well we know. Real time is _also_ totally possible, and no amount of naysaying or shortsightedness will make it otherwise.

Me, I'd like some solo turn-based games and some multiplayer realtime games. And a gametable, that would be turn-based of course.

 

[Tai]

I'm pretty sure a 3E table with a warblade, swordmage, cleric, druid, and wizard was actually pretty complex for numbers of options. Heck, I'm pretty sure even a vanilla spiked chain whirlwind-trip-power attacking fighter was tactically complex and that character really is very basic for choices.

But Warblades and Swordmages aren't included in NWN, and Wizards, Clerics and druids only worked because the game was pausable - for exactly the reason that there's too much clicking and busywork involved in casting spells from a big list. In order to make the game work, they had to strip out a lot of the more complex options - and even then, it only really worked when the game was pausable. That's what it comes down to - if you're willing to make the game pausable, then it's definitely doable, but with four to six people all pausing the game when they need to take actions, it slows to a crawl. The best way to do that is to have the game pause at the end of every round... And then you just have turn-based combat with animations.

Choosing from 14 powers in real time is very doable, especially when they're basically your at-wills (#1+2), encounters (3-6), dailies (7-9) and then your utilities and items can be any key bindings you like, from shift/alt/ctrl 1-9 to q-u or whatever. World of Warcraft is one of the most casual friendly MMOs out there and characters typically have about twice that number of choices. And it's real time. And there are reactive abilities and cooldown abilities and the works.

But the WoW abilities are all significantly more simple than D&D 4th powers. The most complex movement abilities you get in WoW are immobilisation, fear etc, which has a prescribed effect on movement. You can't move someone five feet in the direction of your choice, because it's not practical to do in realtime - too much button-work.

D&D Online just went free to play a week or two ago, so I downloaded and tried it out. I just made 2nd level with a rogue/ranger, and I have two rows of buttons already. 3 weapons I swap amongst, sneak, defensive fighting, trip, sunder, shield spell on an item, cure light wounds on an item, cure light potions, aid spell on an item, search, open lock are the ones that I have readily available. I have a heap of scrolls and potions that I don't use often enough to button.

What I've heard about D&D online from people who've played it, and the limited experience I've had of it, indicates that it's really pretty awful when compared to other games of its type. I haven't seen enough to know whether that has anything to do with them trying to implement 3.5 in realtime or not, but I do know that anyone who hasn't had extensive experience with 3rd will have no idea how to play it, which is a significant issue when trying to appeal to a wide audience.

In fact, if you ask people who have played D&D computer games in some fashion, I suspect you'll get the most responses about realtime ones. It's been a long, long time since the SSI games (as totally awesome as they were). Both Pool of Radiance and Temple of Elemental Evil tried turn-based and one was horrible and the other bug-ridden, so I believe neither was successful. I do suspect Pool of Radiance would have been a _lot_ better game if it had not been turn-based, since I recall it sucking due to immense amounts of time _waiting_ for things to take turns and resolve them.

I haven't played most of the older D&D games, but the main thing is that pretty much all of the big "realtime" d20 games - NWN 1&2, Baldur's Gate, KoToR 1&2 - are turn-based. The fact that the animation happens in real-time doesn't mean much, because the game is pausable - in fact, the KoToR games have an option to pause the game at the end of each combat round.
Also, any attempt to play a character with sneak attack damage almost inevitably required the player to pause the game every second or two in order to get behind people - and that movement and board position is one of the main differences, in complexity terms, between 3rd and 4th, so if you want to play a rogue, a warlock, or, god forbid, an Avenger, you'll be pounding that pause button all the time... And that's before you get to the nightmare that is forced movement. Anyone who has played Diablo will tell you that a power that requires more than one click is *extremely* difficult to use effectively in a non-pausable system.

So, turn-based is totally possible as well we know. Real time is _also_ totally possible, and no amount of naysaying or shortsightedness will make it otherwise.

Of course both kinds of game are possible. But if you make a realtime game that isn't pausable, it will either be impossible to play, or will bear very little resemblance to the original product. It's a simple matter of the amount of information the player needs to convey during his turn.

 

[OchreJelly]

Forget making a computer version real-time, I'd like to see the table-top version become real-time! He who throws dice and computes fastest wins!

I kid, I kid, but there are definitely challenges in converting 4E to the PC. I'm in the camp that if you go real-time, you basically are creating the rules from scratch, but keeping enough familiarity that it still feels like DND.

At it's most cursory level that can be things like having the classes, classic monsters etc, but mechanically there are some things that work really well with 4E's template:
- Class-based design: easy. Videogames have been doing this for decades.
- The math is solid enough to port over to a PC version or at the very least make for a good template to work off of.
- "At will" powers translate pretty well
- Encounter and daily on cooldowns would work well
- Feats: As has been done in many video games, these are pretty portable.
- Skill Challenges: This would actually work pretty well in most scripted encounters. Bioware games have used this approach a lot, but usually without consequences. Look to Dragon Age (their new game) for more conversations with consequences.
- Lighting and encumbrance. Video games, in fact, do these so much better than tabletop.
- Interactive environment: WIth a good physics engine, a PC game could handle modeling "stray arrow" collisions better than tabletop.

Here's what's harder to do:
- Zone control for OA's is tricky but I believe NWN did this with some success.
- As stated slides don't work as well. I could see slide being changed as some random movement, or if they get fancy make it positionally based.
- immediate reactions: These would probably need simpler triggers such as "on crit" or on "being hit once every 5 seconds" etc. You could assign one or more "auto cast" reaction abilities with cooldowns. Or they would be turned into passive powers. Basically these would be very different from the tabletop version.
- Skills: Open use of skills has always been tricky in CRPGS. How many have you played where PC's could actually climb? Real skill use would probably only come up in skill challenges or as prereqs.
- Healing surges as a concept, could work really well for games. Like a threshold of healing you can have at any given time so it's not spammable. Certain JRPGS handle this idea interestingly, like Murama Demon Blade has a "fullness meter" to keep you from trying to eat too much to heal constantly in a fight.

* Note: I say PC game a lot but really the arguments apply to any video game platform, some better than others.

 

[keterys]

pausable

All of those games had simultaneous turns in which you could initiate actions at times other than at prescribed begin and end of turn boundaries. They required targeting areas based on where you thought creatures might move to, they had abilities to switch what you were doing to adapt to changing circumstances, and they did not have delay/ready/etc type initiative dynamics.

Being able to pause does not make it turn-based. It was still real time.

I explained that earlier, and you might have missed it.

Further, when playing multiplayer versions of many of these games, you _didn't_ pause the game except for things like 'doorbell, pizza' because that crippled gameplay, as you note. When people play 64-player nwn, they don't pause, at all.

Now, for team-based multiplayer, as I said earlier, you can do realtime with a pause option, as some of these games did, but turn-based will fail.

But the WoW abilities are all significantly more simple than D&D 4th powers.

They tend to have less forced movement, it is true, but that doesn't make them significantly more simple. At the end of the day, _whether you're playing tabletop or on a computer_ if you can't make decisions about the use of a power within a few seconds, then that power is probably poorly designed. Being quite honest, it is possible to play at an actual table, with actual dice, and living breathing people, and make a decision about what power to use and what to do with it, in 5 seconds. Sometimes you won't get the most superlatively excellent result, but much like speed chess it is possible to play games faster. In fact, if you look on these boards, there's a lot of threas about trying to make it so. Agonizing over decisions is not actual a game feature of 4e

You can't move someone five feet in the direction of your choice, because it's not practical to do in realtime - too much button-work.

WoW only started playing with forced movement recently, they might have more later. Champions Online is filled with forced movement. Knockdowns, knockups, knockaways, with buttons you hold down to increase radius or increase the distance pushed or chance to do so, etc. All pretty tactical considerations handled in real time.

What I've heard about D&D online from people who've played it, and the limited experience I've had of it, indicates that it's really pretty awful when compared to other games of its type. I haven't seen enough to know whether that has anything to do with them trying to implement 3.5 in realtime or not, but I do know that anyone who hasn't had extensive experience with 3rd will have no idea how to play it, which is a significant issue when trying to appeal to a wide audience.

It's actually got a lot of good things about it, but it being shackled to 3e rules makes its character creation and handling really complex, and they added to it by giving you customizable enhancements they could sprinkle throughout the leveling process - like I chose from a huge list of options to get +1 damage with elven weapons, faster stealth, and more sneak attack damage. In that respect, 4e would be a lot easier since you don't have to pick a class and skill ranks at every level up point, and the system assumes you can retrain feats and powers.

I haven't played most of the older D&D games, but the main thing is that pretty much all of the big "realtime" d20 games - NWN 1&2, Baldur's Gate, KoToR 1&2 - are turn-based.

No... they aren't. I've played almost _all_ of the D&D CRPGs (nice thing about having a hobby, people know what kinds of gifts to give you, and they made some very nice dnd compilations of games). SSI Goldbox, Dark Sun, Pool of Radiance, Temple of Elemental Evil - those are turn-based. Baldur's Gate & Icewind Dale were real-time with some turn-based elements and the ability to pause at turn markers. Nwn was just real-time, regardless of pausing.

Unless you think you'd call D&D tabletop turn-based if you did it auction style, with everyone moving their mini as they reached for it, calling out their actions with rolls and effects, all going at once. I'm pretty sure that's not.

Also, any attempt to play a character with sneak attack damage almost inevitably required the player to pause the game every second or two in order to get behind people

Several of the dnd CRPGs changed sneak attack from requiring flank to requiring the target not be attacking you and engaged in fighting another enemy. So you could sneak attack in NWN as long as a buddy was fighting it.

and that movement and board position is one of the main differences, in complexity terms, between 3rd and 4th

Psst. There was flank in 3rd edition. There was almost Point Blank Shot. And Cover.

Anyone who has played Diablo will tell you that a power that requires more than one click is *extremely* difficult to use effectively in a non-pausable system.

In NWN (3e), a sorcerer could use metamagic-ed versions of _all_ their spells, so a sorcerer might have 4 different versions of fireball that they cast, not only picking which one, but also picking where to send it. And there are lots of people who could do that without pausing.

Of course both kinds of game are possible. But if you make a realtime game that isn't pausable, it will either be impossible to play, or will bear very little resemblance to the original product. It's a simple matter of the amount of information the player needs to convey during his turn.

You're just wrong. It is neither impossible nor bearing very little resemblance to the original product. It is possible. It could bear a very strong resemblance to the original product. Would it be more difficult than making something from scratch entirely without restrictions? Well, yes. That's why Bioware, after great success doing dnd-based games, got out of it and started doing their own thing. They didn't want the restrictions.

It may be entirely true that _you_ can't imagine how to do it, but the folks who make computer and video games are very experienced in figuring out solutions to such things and it is entirely possible. Of course, it's entirely possible we'd get a crappy real time game, just like Pool of Radiance was a crappy turn-based game.

Either way, the market will likely not bear a truly turn-based _multiplayer_ D&D4e game unless it's basically a version of the game table (which will have a much smaller slice of potential market). People have expectations of multiplayer in games and one of those big expectations is being able to act more than once every few minutes.

Being able to pause games will be nice for any solely team-based multiplayer game, but it will still need to react in real time. And if the game requires people to pause frequently for basic gameplay, then multiplayer wil become untenable rapidly.

Solo I'd prefer turn-based and controlling a whole group, likely. Different requirements entirely though.

 

[Tai]

Being able to pause does not make it turn-based. It was still real time.

No, the fact that the game had turns is what made it turn-based. Characters had initiative. You choose the action they take that round, and they take it on their initiative, each round. That is turn-based. Aside from the movement, which was only real-time to stop everything looking overly disjointed, the game was about as real-time as Battle Chess.

They tend to have less forced movement, it is true, but that doesn't make them significantly more simple. At the end of the day, _whether you're playing tabletop or on a computer_ if you can't make decisions about the use of a power within a few seconds, then that power is probably poorly designed. Being quite honest, it is possible to play at an actual table, with actual dice, and living breathing people, and make a decision about what power to use and what to do with it, in 5 seconds.

Yeah, but unless you're a professional Starcraft player, indicating which power to use, which two targets to use it on, how to shift between them, and where to slide them once you're done, on a moving battlefield, isn't going to work. If things are continually moving, you can't select all the movement options for a power, because there just isn't time, and not everyone is a mouse ninja.

Actually, a thought did just occur for how to deal with powers like this in multiplayer - you could have your screen turn into an interface to choose your powers (they'd still have to be simplified, but you could pick three targets to zip between and hit) while the other players get treated to a close-up bullet-time view of you doing your sweet move. Needs a bit of work, but it could be done...

Unless you think you'd call D&D tabletop turn-based if you did it auction style, with everyone moving their mini as they reached for it, calling out their actions with rolls and effects, all going at once. I'm pretty sure that's not.

But that's not what happens in NWN. You stack up three attacks, and then everyone follows the same initiative order they'd use in a tabletop turn-based game to execute them. It's just a turn-based game with a time limit on action choice.

Psst. There was flank in 3rd edition. There was almost Point Blank Shot. And Cover.

There was flanking in 3rd, but the fact that a lot of parties played it without a battlemat shows how much less important these aspects are. Unless you're a rogue, most parties wouldn't even consider flanking if they didn't have a mat, and a lot of people didn't use them. In 4th, things like that are essential, which means that you either have to include them fully, or change the rules.

In NWN (3e), a sorcerer could use metamagic-ed versions of _all_ their spells, so a sorcerer might have 4 different versions of fireball that they cast, not only picking which one, but also picking where to send it. And there are lots of people who could do that without pausing.

Yes, I know. Did he then have to pick where to slide three enemies and two allies afterward? Because that's the kind of mouse gymnastics you'd have to be able to do for some of the fancier powers.

You're just wrong.

Not a very nice way to have a civilized discussion.

Being able to pause games will be nice for any solely team-based multiplayer game, but it will still need to react in real time. And if the game requires people to pause frequently for basic gameplay, then multiplayer wil become untenable rapidly.

And this is one of the reasons why we haven't seen a new D&D 4th game yet.

 

[keterys]

Actually, a thought did just occur for how to deal with powers like this in multiplayer - you could have your screen turn into an interface to choose your powers (they'd still have to be simplified, but you could pick three targets to zip between and hit) while the other players get treated to a close-up bullet-time view of you doing your sweet move. Needs a bit of work, but it could be done...

Yep - it's complicated, but that is one possible solution. I don't know if it would fly, but that's using your imagination to problem solve, exactly!

There was flanking in 3rd, but the fact that a lot of parties played it without a battlemat shows how much less important these aspects are. Unless you're a rogue, most parties wouldn't even consider flanking if they didn't have a mat, and a lot of people didn't use them. In 4th, things like that are essential, which means that you either have to include them fully, or change the rules.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Cover, point blank, flank, area attacks, opportunity attacks all made a map a big deal for 3e.

Yes, I know. Did he then have to pick where to slide three enemies and two allies afterward? Because that's the kind of mouse gymnastics you'd have to be able to do for some of the fancier powers.

True. I did say earlier in the thread that _slide_ has issues. But if you cut out 10% of the powers, you'd not encounter that problem at all, and D&D with 90% of the power choices would still be more power choices than they're likely to want to code off the bat _anyways_. So you can have Footwork Lure, and maybe a couple things like Diabolic Grasp (where you get to move your 'claw-mouse' to where the enemy gets dropped), but Shout of Triumph is out.

Not a very nice way to have a civilized discussion.

And yet, the truth. Don't use words like impossible if it isn't. Simple as that. If anyone says 2+2=5, I'd _also_ tell them flatly they were wrong. And consider it civilized.

And this is one of the reasons why we haven't seen a new D&D 4th game yet.

It's actually a lot more human than that. Legal rights are murky (for example, see the stories about Atari, Cryptic, and Turbine), there's significant resource and time-based expenditures involved, the software company WotC was originally working with did not work out, the game table got tossed along with much of their digital games team last year, etc.

 

[keterys]

At any rate, at the heart of it, as long as you disable the pause button if it's sufficiently multiplayer to not be exclusively one team, NWN & Baldur's Gate's style of real time play was more than sufficient for implementing 4e.

 

[KarinsDad]

At any rate, at the heart of it, as long as you disable the pause button if it's sufficiently multiplayer to not be exclusively one team, NWN & Baldur's Gate's style of real time play was more than sufficient for implementing 4e.

For the basics, I agree.

The two elements of 4E that I see as difficult to implement well are forced movement and limited durations (real time, or turn based).


For all of the forced movement such as: "I move the foe here into flank", I think it will be tough to implement this well, even with a top down view. 4E is designed for precise forced movement as part of its tactical appeal.


As for durations, it doesn't matter if it is 6 second turns or 2 second turns using real time. Casting a spell on a foe and it's gone in one round will be more annoying in a CRPG than a tabletop because few of your non-computer allies will have enough time to notice it and take advantage of it. If the game is 6 second rounds, it will be so slow as to not be fun. If it is 2 second rounds and the player uses the mouse to click on hot keys (as opposed to the keyboard), by the time he finds and moves the mouse to the proper icon, the stunned foe that he was going to attack might no longer be stunned.

Turn based is even less screwed up, but unless there is a way to view all foes at once and quick select a target, I can see it being slow and cumbersome. I cannot think of a way to implement that without using the keyboard extensively (which some people do not like).

The reason WoW spell durations work is because each the spell durations are longer. I can look up and see that my 10 or 20 second spell is about to expire, so it's time to cast it again on foe #1. I have time to cycle through one foe to the next and make decisions.

That won't happen if most spells last a few seconds.

The entire appeal for 4E is that the players can visualize tactics real time. That foe is Dazed, so that means that my Sneak Attack will work on him because he is also giving Combat Advantage. I have a few minutes to figure out what I am going to do.

I don't see a nice way to implement that if most spells are going to have one+ round durations and these durations are a few seconds to make the game seem real time.

 

[keterys]

That is an interesting point - you could probably just change all durations to 2s*, with saves made every 2s after a spell affects you, to help prevent 1s turns. It'd also have some nice side effects on saves lasting less time than 'next turn' durations.

* Assuming 2s is the desired length for a round's worth of action

Course, that is _very_ short in computer game terms. And 10-20 second combats might be a bit too fast, given that combats tend to be about 5 rounds normally, and 10 rounds at the far outside...

So would too little be happening with 5s rounds? Anyone know what nwn or bg did for time/round?

 

[Garthanos]

So would too little be happening with 5s rounds? Anyone know what nwn or bg did for time/round?

6 second rounds are what I assume in D&D.

I have a buff in WoW it lasts say 60 minutes (sharpening the blade) ... now mechanically it increased the weapon rating so little that in D&D well it wouldnt even approach a +1 damage

The reason I use it in WoW is because I like the look of the glint on the blade ;-)