What Blizzard Teaches Us About Games

[JVisgaitis]

Work for SoE huh? =P

lol.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Great post Zelc! Lots of interesting discussion to be had here.

I think the psychology part is dead-on. People don't like to lose. People like to have fun. The definition of "lose" and the definition of "fun" may be different between different people and different games, but the idea is the same no matter what game you are playing. That includes sports, that includes video games, that includes card games, and board games... the whole gamut. Heck, it's even interesting to apply that to life in general.

There's a joke concept on the Bioware Dragon Age forum of how everything can be solved with a toggle. The sentiment behind the statement is that on the surface it's that easy, but in actuality it's not, and then people want toggles for everything to customize their game. I think the same applies to WoW, and the same applies to D&D. It's simply not realistic from a work-time aspect to provide options for everyone for everything. Then the game never gets released, and/or it's unfocused because you've spent so much time on toggles you don't make a fun game.

Anyway, there's a line that has to be drawn, and that line will always draw dissent. Hopefully, if you've done your research, that dissent is a vocal minority and not a true majority view. With D&D, (hopefully) WotC did research and found that save-or-die effects were not fun for a majority of people, because they were an instant lose people had no (okay, little) control over. So, they were removed from the game, to try and get people to lose less, and have fun. Will it work? Who knows. It was a line they drew, a risk they took, and without it the game remains more unfocused.

As an aside, this is the sort of issue I think the SRD/OGL license was made to address. I've mentioned my views on the OGL before, and I won't go into them here for fear of derailing the thread. However, if some enterprising person wanted to introduce save-or-die spells back into the game, they could do that. In that essense, WotC allows for a degree of freedom in their system. Hopefully the GSL allows for that as well.

 

[Mirtek]

the 15-minute adventuring day is an eminently logical strategy for people engaged in such dangerous pursuits as adventuring.

Only if anybody else also takes their break when the characters do. Like you said: People know how the physics of magic work and will exploit it to the limit if they know that their adversaries will take the rest of the day off after 15 mins of fighting.

The party might retreat to rest, but after the have rested, the adventure is already over, because the other side did not rest.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Or that, you know, roleplaying has anything to do with these problems at all? Or that there is something inherently superior about whatever it is he means by "roleplaying" compared to a more "beer & pretzels" style? Or that pretending a problem doesn't exist "because my character wouldn't want to stop going even though we're out of resources" is anything to be proud of?

Jesus, I forget how touchy this board gets.

No, I don't see anything wrong with more hack-and-slash gameplay. No, I don't think my playstyle is inherently "superior." I was asked a direct question about the 15-minute workday, so I used that as an example of how some gameplay styles and DMing techniques serve to ameliorate game-design flaws. It's not that our casters ignored opportunities to rest because they felt that was better roleplaying; it's that we almost never faced situations where we could just wade into danger at a leisurely pace.

Now, again, my whole point here was that system flaws take longer to become obvious in D&D than they do in a video game. This is a bad thing for D&D as often as a good thing, because ideas that didn't last 5 years in video games (Vancian casting, for example) remained the default in D&D for decades.

Unless, of course, you change groups. Or play in the RPGA. Or actually want to keep your game as close to RAW as possible to make life easier when running published adventures. Or... or... or.

Um, yes, you "have to" play with the newest rules if you decide you want to play with the newest rules, or if your friends convince you to.

And there's the rub isn't it? A "good DM" won't let you get away with it. So, even though the rules are bad, it can be fixed with a "good DM", so, we should never change the rules?

This is the problem with threaded discussions - people respond to responses to responses, and the original point gets buried.

My WHOLE POINT was that D&D obfuscates flaws in the rules, making them harder to find and fix. We've had dumb rules like rolling for hit points survive decades because anyone who recognized how dumb they were could just houserule them.

 

[Derren]

Only if anybody else also takes their break when the characters do. Like you said: People know how the physics of magic work and will exploit it to the limit if they know that their adversaries will take the rest of the day off after 15 mins of fighting.

The party might retreat to rest, but after the have rested, the adventure is already over, because the other side did not rest.

Thats what I sad in the other 15 minute workday discussion.

Rules are not the solution for 15 minute workdays. adventure design is.

 

[Singing Smurf]

In a world with D&D-style Vancian magic, where the basic "laws of magic" (casters have a limit on how many spells they can prepare, and must stop and rest before they can prepare new ones) are well known to the characters, the 15-minute adventuring day is an eminently logical strategy for people engaged in such dangerous pursuits as adventuring.

This is perhaps the best post I have ever seen on this topic. I raise a cup of coffee in salute!

 

[Propheous_D]

Only if anybody else also takes their break when the characters do. Like you said: People know how the physics of magic work and will exploit it to the limit if they know that their adversaries will take the rest of the day off after 15 mins of fighting.

The party might retreat to rest, but after the have rested, the adventure is already over, because the other side did not rest.

Not really actually. The problem tends to be that the opponents are alert now. Maybe they have called in for reinforcements and maybe they have layered a few more traps or enchantments, but in reality it is nothing to bad that the PC's won't be able to get around. Unless the DM is being a prick a solid party will know enough to attack from different angles. Most of the time you can whipe out the major concentrations of force with out having to worry. The only question that really ever comes up is why the dang BBEG doesn't just run and hide.

Think about it most dungeons are designed with deadly traps, ambushes and as many bad arsed things in the way as they can stuff. What are they really gonna accomplish that you should not all ready of thought of. If the PC's can't handle then they should retreat and come back when they know they can.

 

[Celebrim]

off-topic remark

I hope (after StarCraftII) that they will one day release Diablo 3. There are a lot of people out there waiting for Blizzard to move their ass a 'lil bit and get to work! Diablo 2 was (aside HoMM 3 and 5) my favorite computer game of all time.

Interesting. I thought Diablo II was a major step backword from Diablo I.

a) There were no longer any true random areas. This greatly harmed the games replayability and interest, because you could predict where everything was going to be after the first time you saw it.
b) The gameplay never really seemed to change. This greatly harmed the games replayability.
c) By far the hardest fight of the game (Durial) occurs in the middle.
d) Although I can't say I'll ever miss Diablo I's perpensity for staircase fights, I never found myself engaged in the sort of square to square tactics essential to beating Diablo I while playing Diablo II. In short, Diablo 2 was really really easy. The only times I ever found myself dying after beating Durial for the first time (Durial came as a shock the first time), was when I became so bored I was no longer paying attention. After Durial, the other bosses were pretty, but anti-climatic. I see absolutely no problem in beating Diablo 2 in 'hardcore' mode, except that it would require that I like the game far more than I can myself do.
e) Much of the games appeal seems to rely on loot chasing for its own sake. I can't say I understand that. For one thing, at higher levels especially, one of the attractions of the game (using items probably unique to your character) tends to go away, as everyone is approaching the same sort of kit. Besides, if all you want is 'the best stuff', you can always cheat and get a trainer.

I stopped playing after beating Nightmare with several different classes. I couldn't muster any additional interest.

I think that shows that you can have a game in which two people share a common interest, in this case Diablo I, but that it can be very difficult to extend that game in a way that both people are happy with. The direction that they took Diablo was very different than the direction I wanted to see them take Diablo when I considered what I liked and what I didn't like about the game. But apparantly it was in the direction which you wanted to see the game taken.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Only if anybody else also takes their break when the characters do. Like you said: People know how the physics of magic work and will exploit it to the limit if they know that their adversaries will take the rest of the day off after 15 mins of fighting.

The party might retreat to rest, but after the have rested, the adventure is already over, because the other side did not rest.

If the other sides plans involve fighting, they will also suffer from the 15 minutes.

Furthermore, there is a limited amount of resources the NPCs have at their disposal. They can't reinforce their defenses indefinitely.

Example Scenario:
[sblock]
I once mastered a scenario where an underground country has found a teleportation portal. It lead to a buried underground area, and they found it sealed and so it was mostly useless for them - until some hapless dwarven miners broke through the seal during their mining operation. The NPC army reacted quickly enough and managed to get the town under their control. Since the major army was using the teleportation gate to find elsewhere, they just created a beachhead, until they could actually launch a massive strike at the surface dwellers. I decided beforehand how many troops they had, and what reinforcements they could expect. Possible "endgame" scenarios could be (assuming the PCs wouldn't fail)
- total defeat by the PCs.
- closing the portal after the PCs deal enough damage
- arranging a peaceful solution (for the time being), allowing the use of the portal for trade. (This would require effort from the PCs to convince the NPCs to do so.)
- Taking control of the teleportation portal by the PCs and the town.

Well, the PCs are asked to contact the occupied town since they expected some travellers from there. They quickly dispatch the soldiers occupying the town, and then enter the mine.
And here, D&D attrition-based encounters is at its best. The enemy defensed their underground base well. The PCs manages to get into the upper level, and dispatch a lot of soldiers. Unfortunately, they have to retreat.
The NPCs regroup and reinforce their defenses. But there is a limit to what kind of resources they have, and so they can't create an impenetrable wall. So the next PCs attacks prevails again, but this time, they need to rest even earlier.
The NPCs use this oppertunity to send a strike force out to attack the PCs at night. The force isn't in unlimited strength (but still considerable), because the NPCs don't know what's really going on on the surface (there might be an army waiting for them), so the PCs eventually prevail again.
AFter not hearing from their force, the NPCs change their plan. They trap the upper part of the section, and retreat to a better defensible position. And again, the PCs enter, kill some foes, and retreat.
A this point, things felt already a bit ridiculous. I didn't want another attack/retreat. The NPCs couldn't really "win" anymore. So I gave them, again, some relief troups, reeinforced their defenses, and decided that this would be the last try. If it failed again, they would leave and block the teleportation portal until they had an army to defend the gate.
[/sblock]

My conclusion:
[sblock]
But ultimately, in retrospect, the constant retreating, while sensible within the rule framework (and maybe even from a "realistic" perspective) felt unsatisfactory for me as the Gamemaster, and I got the impression that the players felt similar. The scenario would have worked just as well if it was done in one or two days, and some feeling enemies alerting their superiors over the course of the day / between encounters to get some resources. Their could have been even a time "ticking" where the PCs have to get to the teleportation gate to close it before the nasty ubermonster/NPC arrives...
[/sblock]

 

[MaelStorm]

Interesting. I thought Diablo II was a major step backword from Diablo I.

a) There were no longer any true random areas. This greatly harmed the games replayability and interest, because you could predict where everything was going to be after the first time you saw it.
b) The gameplay never really seemed to change. This greatly harmed the games replayability.
c) By far the hardest fight of the game (Durial) occurs in the middle.
d) Although I can't say I'll ever miss Diablo I's perpensity for staircase fights, I never found myself engaged in the sort of square to square tactics essential to beating Diablo I while playing Diablo II. In short, Diablo 2 was really really easy. The only times I ever found myself dying after beating Durial for the first time (Durial came as a shock the first time), was when I became so bored I was no longer paying attention. After Durial, the other bosses were pretty, but anti-climatic. I see absolutely no problem in beating Diablo 2 in 'hardcore' mode, except that it would require that I like the game far more than I can myself do.
e) Much of the games appeal seems to rely on loot chasing for its own sake. I can't say I understand that. For one thing, at higher levels especially, one of the attractions of the game (using items probably unique to your character) tends to go away, as everyone is approaching the same sort of kit. Besides, if all you want is 'the best stuff', you can always cheat and get a trainer.

I stopped playing after beating Nightmare with several different classes. I couldn't muster any additional interest.

I think that shows that you can have a game in which two people share a common interest, in this case Diablo I, but that it can be very difficult to extend that game in a way that both people are happy with. The direction that they took Diablo was very different than the direction I wanted to see them take Diablo when I considered what I liked and what I didn't like about the game. But apparantly it was in the direction which you wanted to see the game taken.

The thing is I never played Diablo I. So, I can't compare both version. I'm not a big computer gamer, I prefer tabletop RPGs, Wargames and Boardgames. As I never tried D&D 3.5.

But I think it's all about the time you invest in a game.

Even if we disagree with 4E, I think we share the same interest as roleplayer, and that is much better than this version is better than the other. Perhaps if I played D&D 3.5 with you I would be in your camp. But at the end of the day people shouldn't fight each other over games. We should all be playin and havin fun instead.