D&D 5E So Why Can't 5E Get a Video Game?

[Azurewraith]

I think its interesting that this thread seems to be coming to the "agreement" that a "good" DnD game needs to follow the rules and not stick strictly to a setting as it then not much different from generic fantasy.

I never really thought about it that much until now but aside from a couple trademarked monsters, ye it would be generic perhaps this is more a issue with the realms(most likely what a DnD game would be) and instead a "better" game could be done using one of the more "niche" settings like Eberon or Darksun.

Using a niche setting then causes the issue of alienating the PnP crowd who hate that setting, so the game play would really need to be spot on but then if the games standing on game play wouldn't it just be a "good" game regardless of setting.

Am I just really over thinking this or is this an epic catch 22.

P.S sorry for all the air quotes they felt needed.

 

[Hillsy7]

I think its interesting that this thread seems to be coming to the "agreement" that a "good" DnD game needs to follow the rules and not stick strictly to a setting as it then not much different from generic fantasy.

I never really thought about it that much until now but aside from a couple trademarked monsters, ye it would be generic perhaps this is more a issue with the realms(most likely what a DnD game would be) and instead a "better" game could be done using one of the more "niche" settings like Eberon or Darksun.

Using a niche setting then causes the issue of alienating the PnP crowd who hate that setting, so the game play would really need to be spot on but then if the games standing on game play wouldn't it just be a "good" game regardless of setting.

Am I just really over thinking this or is this an epic catch 22.

P.S sorry for all the air quotes they felt needed.

I think the issue is there's a schism between 2 ideals of what a D&D game should be.

Some people want to play a D&D video game.
Other people want to play D&D in a video game.

That sounds like splitting hairs, but the two mindsets are miles apart.

Group 1 want the feel and lore of D&D in their games, and the familiar names and concepts (Fireball! Mordenkainen's Sword! D&D Classes!) that makes them feel like they are in a tabletop game - mechanically, they'd rather have something good that faithful (obviously both would be best). But moreover, they want to feel like they are in a D&D game, but they don't necessarily want to feel like they are actually playing D&D.

Group 2 look at their tabletop game and want it digitised so they can pick it up and play it without having to organise friends and family, or maybe even the effort that comes with deep RP. They want the experience of looking at the mechanics of the game and planning your next move, all the time. Yes, that means there needs to be story and traditional video game RPG elements, but for them it's about getting to roll dice and move miniatures whenever they want. For them, the video game user manual is the PHB....

Both are valid outlooks that have, by one medium or another, been satisfied in the past. Group 1 look at Baldur's gate, NWN, Dark Alliance, as wistfully reminisce about how good it was, and why can't they do something like that again because the recent efforts just don't "feel" D&D. Group 2 looks at XCOM and Divinity: Original Sin, and just wonders how hard can it really be to plug in the D&D ruleset to those games?

Now, the real kernal of disagreement is that there isn't really a style of game that can satisfy both groups. Go turn-based, rules faithful, you lose the flow of the old real-time gameplay of Baldur's gate and codify things video games do better (conversation, exploration, seemless transition from combat to non-combat) with needless rules. Go too rules light, and you risk not making a game with D&D mechancis at all, only D&D clothing, where all your mechanical knowledge of the PHB is largely useless.

However, there doesn't really need to be a disagreement, because they both want different things. And the best solution is to actually want differing products, well done, that satisfy those two groups (and then argue endlessly about which is best....)

Final Fantasy cracked that with Tactics, and I think if D&D went the same way (Slightly lower powered but rules faithful, mobile and vita compatible, for one group, and the big AAA D&D adventure game for the other). I think Descent did something pretty incredible with Road to Legend, and could be an interesting product for D&D to look at in as something that sits halfway between the board games and the PHB. It's not the same, but it's such an interesting concept.

Anyway, that's my solution - more D&D games....hehe

 

[Azurewraith]

I think the issue is there's a schism between 2 ideals of what a D&D game should be.

Some people want to play a D&D video game.
Other people want to play D&D in a video game.

That sounds like splitting hairs, but the two mindsets are miles apart.

Group 1 want the feel and lore of D&D in their games, and the familiar names and concepts (Fireball! Mordenkainen's Sword! D&D Classes!) that makes them feel like they are in a tabletop game - mechanically, they'd rather have something good that faithful (obviously both would be best). But moreover, they want to feel like they are in a D&D game, but they don't necessarily want to feel like they are actually playing D&D.

Group 2 look at their tabletop game and want it digitised so they can pick it up and play it without having to organise friends and family, or maybe even the effort that comes with deep RP. They want the experience of looking at the mechanics of the game and planning your next move, all the time. Yes, that means there needs to be story and traditional video game RPG elements, but for them it's about getting to roll dice and move miniatures whenever they want. For them, the video game user manual is the PHB....

Both are valid outlooks that have, by one medium or another, been satisfied in the past. Group 1 look at Baldur's gate, NWN, Dark Alliance, as wistfully reminisce about how good it was, and why can't they do something like that again because the recent efforts just don't "feel" D&D. Group 2 looks at XCOM and Divinity: Original Sin, and just wonders how hard can it really be to plug in the D&D ruleset to those games?

Now, the real kernal of disagreement is that there isn't really a style of game that can satisfy both groups. Go turn-based, rules faithful, you lose the flow of the old real-time gameplay of Baldur's gate and codify things video games do better (conversation, exploration, seemless transition from combat to non-combat) with needless rules. Go too rules light, and you risk not making a game with D&D mechancis at all, only D&D clothing, where all your mechanical knowledge of the PHB is largely useless.

However, there doesn't really need to be a disagreement, because they both want different things. And the best solution is to actually want differing products, well done, that satisfy those two groups (and then argue endlessly about which is best....)

Final Fantasy cracked that with Tactics, and I think if D&D went the same way (Slightly lower powered but rules faithful, mobile and vita compatible, for one group, and the big AAA D&D adventure game for the other). I think Descent did something pretty incredible with Road to Legend, and could be an interesting product for D&D to look at in as something that sits halfway between the board games and the PHB. It's not the same, but it's such an interesting concept.

Anyway, that's my solution - more D&D games....hehe

I think you hit a very important point with the schism of ideas and needing two games. This makes me giggle as well the game that was made first would need to do well for the second to be made and given how the positive voices on the internet are rapidly lost under a torrent of negativity, the games detractors would kill their own game.

 

[Lord Twig]

I am surprised that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 keep getting thrown out as games that didn't stick to the D&D rules. Personally I turned on "Show Rolls" and "Auto-Pause at end of Round" and the game played very much like sitting at the table. I would chose an action for every character, hit play, one round would go by where all the characters took their action, then the game would pause again and I would plan out the next round of actions. I finished BG1 and BG2 with all expansions playing this way.

I played similar in NWN and NWN2.

The problem (or one of them) with Sword Coast Legends was that it was advertised as a D&D 5e game, and it wasn't. The rules were totally unrecognizable. If you had played D&D 5e it would not really help you decide how you leveled up your character or what to pick in the skill tree. It was just not a D&D game. It was a standard CRPG in D&D clothing.

And yes, I loved the Temple of Elemental Evil video game. It's basically just D&D 3.5 on a computer. And it was great (with the Circle of Eight patch to help it along).

So for me, and I realize that of course other people will like different things, a D&D game needs to have certain core systems to be a D&D game and not just a D&D influenced game...

1. Character creation and growth should follow PHB rules with little variation.
2. Magic should work like in the table top game. So no cooldowns. You get spell slots and you get them back after a long rest.
3. Physical combat should use d20 rolls, hit points, bonuses and damage based on the PHB. It can be hidden, but it should be there. And ideally the option should be there to show the behind the scenes rolls.

So again, this is just what I want. Others may be able to play World of Warcraft and go, "It's just like D&D!" but I'm not one of them.

 

[VikingLegion]

I am surprised that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 keep getting thrown out as games that didn't stick to the D&D rules. Personally I turned on "Show Rolls" and "Auto-Pause at end of Round" and the game played very much like sitting at the table. I would chose an action for every character, hit play, one round would go by where all the characters took their action, then the game would pause again and I would plan out the next round of actions. I finished BG1 and BG2 with all expansions playing this way.

I played similar in NWN and NWN2.

The problem (or one of them) with Sword Coast Legends was that it was advertised as a D&D 5e game, and it wasn't. The rules were totally unrecognizable. If you had played D&D 5e it would not really help you decide how you leveled up your character or what to pick in the skill tree. It was just not a D&D game. It was a standard CRPG in D&D clothing.

And yes, I loved the Temple of Elemental Evil video game. It's basically just D&D 3.5 on a computer. And it was great (with the Circle of Eight patch to help it along).

So for me, and I realize that of course other people will like different things, a D&D game needs to have certain core systems to be a D&D game and not just a D&D influenced game...

1. Character creation and growth should follow PHB rules with little variation.
2. Magic should work like in the table top game. So no cooldowns. You get spell slots and you get them back after a long rest.
3. Physical combat should use d20 rolls, hit points, bonuses and damage based on the PHB. It can be hidden, but it should be there. And ideally the option should be there to show the behind the scenes rolls.

So again, this is just what I want. Others may be able to play World of Warcraft and go, "It's just like D&D!" but I'm not one of them.

I think @Hillsy7 really nailed it in his post - because I read what you just wrote and despair that the two sides could ever agree. See, the things that you find "essential" in a D&D video game are the things that drive me away. Let me explain:

A long time ago I found a bunch of friends online in a game called Everquest. We were a tight group that played a bunch of games together, separated by thousands of miles and never to meet face-to-face. When DDO (Dungeons and Dragons: Online) was announced, I was beside myself with joy. Finally I can have my video game crew unite together in a game while also enjoying the fantasy IP that is most dear to my heart. DDO was (is still?) a very faithful interpretation of D&D rules - they satisfied the 3 points you found to be essential. Let me tell you something.... things like Vancian magic systems and the need to rest to recover abilities works great for a group of friends sitting around a table, eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew, joking around, etc. It is absolutely horrific for an online group sitting at their terminals in different houses. If one character dies and we don't have a rez available, he literally has to sit at his computer and stare at the screen until we can get to a "rest shrine" to replenish our spells. Each dungeon typically only had one of these things, and they are single use - so if you screw up a second time, that character is excluded from completing the dungeon. Either you press on without him (a crappy thing to do), or you bail out and get no xp or treasure rewards - meaning you and your group of friends might have just thrown away an hour of your weekly gaming time budget and have nothing but frustration to show for it. The D&D ruleset is great for tabletop, and even single-player turn based, tactically heavy games. But for online, massively multiplayer, it is a nightmare to incorporate. DDO was so frustrating for us, it actually caused our longtime gaming crew (10+ years together) to fracture. 2 players quit completely, the rest of us tried out some other games, and it took years for us to eventually reunite in a different game, all because the D&D ruleset was just to clunky to translate properly to an enjoyable multi-user online experience.

And I think that's where a big disconnect lies. To build on the excellent post of Hillsy7 I think this is yet one more area in which we are miles apart. If I want to play a solo game, then yes I would agree with everything you posted. The D&D rules are just fine, I enjoy a Vancian spellcasting system where I have to parcel out my usage of spells judiciously, can't blow a Meteor Storm on a handful of goblins. Resting is fine too, it all goes as part of the strategy of the game. Single player games allow one person (you or I) to control the entire party, so it's ok if the mage or cleric is kinda hanging out in the back row, not doing much until they are needed. But in a multiplayer, MMO style cooperative game where each player is controlling just one in-game avatar, that is just not fun. If I'm playing a mage in a party with other friends, it's very boring to just sit there and save my spells because I suspect a boss enemy is going to be coming up soon. That's not really fair (or entertaining) to bench a player while the fighter and others are hacking away, doing their jobs.

In a perfect world, we'd see 2 games come out:

1. A single player, turn-based CRPG that nearly perfectly emulates the 5e ruleset. This game allows the strategists and purists to basically enjoy their favorite hobby, only in a different medium and without the need to have a tabletop group.
2. An MMO that takes some liberties with the nuts and bolts of the rules in order to deliver a more enjoyable experience, but still has enough of the iconic elements - spells, items, monsters, locations, etc. to let the online crew romp around in their favorite D&D locations, while still being a fun game. I'm currently playing Neverwinter on my PS4, and it is *close* to this experience, but yuck on the 4e inspired classes and also I'm a big opponent of the Forgotten Realms timeline jump that basically destroyed the setting. My dream would be a game that plays like Neverwinter, mechanically, but uses 3e or 5e classes, and utilizes the original launch timelines of several iconic D&D worlds - Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Darksun, and Ravenloft. About a year ago I posted on just such a game, with a cohesive storyline that linked all those worlds and the ability for players to slide back and forth to all of them, but it got erased, possibly for legal reasons. I don't think we're allowed to "create" a hypothetical video game that uses Wizbro properties on ENWorld.

For the record, I would play the hell out of BOTH of those games, because I enjoy both the solo, tactical experience, as well as the fast paced, massively multiplayer approach. But I realize I'm in the minority and most players will gravitate heavily to one or the other, but not both. Therefore, I don't think we will ever come to any kind of meaningful agreement in this thread or in the gaming community in general.

 

[Lord Twig]

[MENTION=6794627]VikingLegion[/MENTION] Actually it sounds like we are agreeing. What I described was for a single-player CRPG, which you said you would enjoy. MMO or other multiplayer games would of course have to be different.

Back in the day I played vanilla EverQuest (before the release of Ruins of Kunark) and I had early access to DDO. I liked DDO a lot, but it didn't play like most MMOs today. In WoW, when you get into a dungeon, as soon as everyone is there the tank starts running. Everyone else just tries to keep up while you blow through the dungeon in the quickest time possible. DDO didn't work like that (or it didn't seem to be meant to work like that). I think you were supposed to slowly move through the dungeon looking for traps and strategizing how to attack the monster ahead.

But yeah, changes would have to be made for a multiplayer game.

 

[BookBarbarian]

In a perfect world, we'd see 2 games come out:

1. A single player, turn-based CRPG that nearly perfectly emulates the 5e ruleset. This game allows the strategists and purists to basically enjoy their favorite hobby, only in a different medium and without the need to have a tabletop group.
2. An MMO that takes some liberties with the nuts and bolts of the rules in order to deliver a more enjoyable experience, but still has enough of the iconic elements - spells, items, monsters, locations, etc. to let the online crew romp around in their favorite D&D locations, while still being a fun game. I'm currently playing Neverwinter on my PS4, and it is *close* to this experience, but yuck on the 4e inspired classes and also I'm a big opponent of the Forgotten Realms timeline jump that basically destroyed the setting. My dream would be a game that plays like Neverwinter, mechanically, but uses 3e or 5e classes, and utilizes the original launch timelines of several iconic D&D worlds - Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Darksun, and Ravenloft. About a year ago I posted on just such a game, with a cohesive storyline that linked all those worlds and the ability for players to slide back and forth to all of them, but it got erased, possibly for legal reasons. I don't think we're allowed to "create" a hypothetical video game that uses Wizbro properties on ENWorld.

For the record, I would play the hell out of BOTH of those games, because I enjoy both the solo, tactical experience, as well as the fast paced, massively multiplayer approach. But I realize I'm in the minority and most players will gravitate heavily to one or the other, but not both. Therefore, I don't think we will ever come to any kind of meaningful agreement in this thread or in the gaming community in general.

Curiously, I'd want neither of those games.

Local Co-op would be what I'd want. It was actually what got me excited about Sword Coast Legends. I still think it is a cool idea, just wasn't a fan of the execution.

 

[cheeseguy]

Curiously, I'd want neither of those games.

Local Co-op would be what I'd want. It was actually what got me excited about Sword Coast Legends. I still think it is a cool idea, just wasn't a fan of the execution.

Local coop or just coop really. Mmo gets to crazy and frankly turns me away from the thought of it having DND elements. Hell a 16 bit would work great.

Sent from my Z963VL using EN World mobile app

 

[Shasarak]

A long time ago I found a bunch of friends online in a game called Everquest. We were a tight group that played a bunch of games together, separated by thousands of miles and never to meet face-to-face. When DDO (Dungeons and Dragons: Online) was announced, I was beside myself with joy. Finally I can have my video game crew unite together in a game while also enjoying the fantasy IP that is most dear to my heart. DDO was (is still?) a very faithful interpretation of D&D rules - they satisfied the 3 points you found to be essential. Let me tell you something.... things like Vancian magic systems and the need to rest to recover abilities works great for a group of friends sitting around a table, eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew, joking around, etc. It is absolutely horrific for an online group sitting at their terminals in different houses. If one character dies and we don't have a rez available, he literally has to sit at his computer and stare at the screen until we can get to a "rest shrine" to replenish our spells. Each dungeon typically only had one of these things, and they are single use - so if you screw up a second time, that character is excluded from completing the dungeon. Either you press on without him (a crappy thing to do), or you bail out and get no xp or treasure rewards - meaning you and your group of friends might have just thrown away an hour of your weekly gaming time budget and have nothing but frustration to show for it. The D&D ruleset is great for tabletop, and even single-player turn based, tactically heavy games. But for online, massively multiplayer, it is a nightmare to incorporate. DDO was so frustrating for us, it actually caused our longtime gaming crew (10+ years together) to fracture. 2 players quit completely, the rest of us tried out some other games, and it took years for us to eventually reunite in a different game, all because the D&D ruleset was just to clunky to translate properly to an enjoyable multi-user online experience.

That is odd. I was told that having a Player sitting around and doing nothing was an essential part of playing DnD so I dont know how that would break up your gaming group.