What’s The Greatest D&D Video Game?

Gradine said:

Still a pretty solid interpretation of the D&D ruleset, even if Vancian spellcasting is eternally frustrating from a video game perspective.

Click to expand...

You're not kidding. Turn-based action, players on one side, DM on the other, carrying capacity limited only by character sheet (inventory screen), name level at 9 (or FF equivalent), mind-flayers are a dag-gone nightmare...

You'd have to twist my arm real hard to play another wizard who could learn only three spells per level, though.

Ratenef said:

Morrus, I believe you conflated the Neverwinter Nights version from the last 80's, which was a version of the 'gold box' games (similar to Pool of Radiance) that was integrated into AOL and was the first iteration of that name in a PC game.
The Neverwinter Nights that was made in the mid 2000's is the one that allowed for DMs and modules.
In the episode you mentioned that Neverwinter Nights came out in the 80's, yet decribed the 2000's version.
Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Click to expand...

Yes, I misspoke. The game I had was in the early 2000s.

DMMike said:

You're not kidding. Turn-based action, players on one side, DM on the other, carrying capacity limited only by character sheet (inventory screen), name level at 9 (or FF equivalent), mind-flayers are a dag-gone nightmare...

You'd have to twist my arm real hard to play another wizard who could learn only three spells per level, though.

Click to expand...

To be fair though, FF1 wizards only had to worry about combat spells.

It occurs to me that FF1's version of Vancian casting is much closer to the 3.X Sorc than any rendition of wizard. You don't memorize individual spells, you just had the slots per level.

DMMike said:

You're not kidding. Turn-based action, players on one side, DM on the other, carrying capacity limited only by character sheet (inventory screen), name level at 9 (or FF equivalent), mind-flayers are a dag-gone nightmare...

Click to expand...

I've always felt that the Final Fantasy style of putting the PCs on one side and the monsters on the other, which was explicitly inspired by American football of all things, is a great reflection of the type of abstract combat that a lot of lazy DMs implement instead of actually tracking positions when using Theater of the Mind. Because the actual rules for Theater of the Mind are that the DM needs to track positions mentally, and everything is the exact same as when using a grid (except you don't bother to actually draw it out). The abstract version for lazy DMs is just that anyone can attack anyone at any time, and position is irrelevant.

DMMike said:

You'd have to twist my arm real hard to play another wizard who could learn only three spells per level, though.

Click to expand...

Really? It's still more than the sorcerer gets. All things considered, it's always struck me as about the right number of spells, so that you don't have to constantly look up the effects of spells that you don't use very often. Just cut the spells that nobody really uses, or fold their effects into existing spells, and the game becomes much more streamlined and efficient.

Whenever I get the mind to try and write a D&D-clone, I usually pare the arcane spell list down to four spells per level, of which a wizard can potentially learn three. It's always seemed like an interesting and meaningful choice, to decide which spell you won't learn at each level.

Neverwinter Nights for me.

honorable mention to Temple of Elemental Evil

My personal list would be:

Best story/experience: Planescape: Torment, perhaps even the best game, but in spite of its D&D heritage. Seriously, the D&D parts just weigh that game down.

Best challenge: Icewind Dale II, great, great D&D game with a focus on combat, strategy and tactics

Best adaptation: Temple of Elemental evil, not a great game but excellent use of the 3.x engine

Best big old RPG: Baldur's Gate 2 I guess. It's still the golden standard for crpgs (although Pillars and some other games are finally pushing the envelope).

Best action: the Shadows over Mystara arcade game. Sticks to snakes!

Saelorn said:

I've always felt that the Final Fantasy style of putting the PCs on one side and the monsters on the other, which was explicitly inspired by American football of all things, is a great reflection of the type of abstract combat that a lot of lazy DMs implement instead of actually tracking positions when using Theater of the Mind.

Click to expand...

That might well be, but I see the Final Fantasy screen as a division of the game table more than the battlefield. I really hope that FF players didn't see a 50-yard-line down the middle of their screens while fighting, despite the resemblance.

Saelorn said:

Really? It's still more than the sorcerer gets.

Click to expand...

It's probably not fair, but I was comparing wizards to wizards. Maybe sorcerers don't need a lot of spells, but I was spoiled by D&D's wizards - limited only by the size of their spellbooks.

For what it's worth, [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], I listened to the first half-hour of the podcast leading up to the end of this post, but still haven't heard about the Greatest D&D Video Game ever. Are there any plans to post podcast timestamps on the Podbean site?