What Blizzard Teaches Us About Games

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Your post makes me worry. I played Diablo II, and I played it a lot (those where the days where I still had such time), but it never had the great replay/long-term motivation for me than it had for many others. The constant running behind items and the "it's the same monsters, but stronger" at higher difficulties wasn't really for me, either. And you seem to feel similar - Considering that you are 4E critical while I like to describe me as a 4E fanboy, does this mean that 4E isn't actually a game for me? Noooooo!

 

[Zelc]

@Diablo 2: Like many JRPGs, Diablo 2's difficulty can scale based on how you want to play. Want to breeze through the game? Make a Hammerdin and get the twink gear. Want to make things difficult? Play a melee character in hardcore. Want to make things really hard? Play a hardcore naked no-stat no-skill Sorceress through all of Normal except Baal (no pun or naughtiness intended), or play a Necromancer through Hell difficulty without killing any monsters not necessary for quests or advancement through the game. But I agree, the game did leave a lot to be desired.


@15 minute day: I didn't intend for this thread to turn into a discussion on whether the 15 minute day can be prevented by DMs or whatnot. I wanted to bring it up as an example of how incentives can cause unintended consequences. We could instead talk about stuff like Scry-And-Fry or the lack of incentives to play a Fighter. Even if a good DM might be able to fix most of these things, it's clear WotC is trying to solve these problems for 4E. And they should.

 

[FadedC]

All three are still being developed. Angband has dozens of variants, and modern versions of NetHack are under the name Slash'em. The creator of ADOM is working on a new version as we speak. And they're all free!

Diablo was inspired by this genre of games, with very similar play and themes. The only major differences are the addition of graphics and real-time play as opposed to turn-based play.

So if you like the *game* enough to pass on the graphics, all three will provide a rewarding experience. They're not to everyone's taste, I admit.

Ben

Saying Adom is still being developed is questionable, I mean I know the website resurfaced recently after being dead for years, but there hasn't been a new version of it for a very very very long time, and while it's clear the author is working on his new project (which he's been working on for at least 10 years now with no clear signs of progress) there is no major sign that a new version of Adom is ever coming.

Haven't seen a new version fo slashem for a very long time either, but I haven't been looking as much. Angband always has it's 9 million variants so I'll grant you there is still development there. Other then that though I never see anything new coming up. There were other good roguelikes besides those 3 (dungeon crawl being a favorite of mine) but I haven't seen anything new out in a very long time.

 

[Hussar]

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

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

I disagree. I think the answer is both actually. You need a good adventure AND you need rules to support it.

Look, no matter how you slice it, when the party runs out of healing, they are going to stop or they are going to die. Players know that. So, when the healing gets a bit low, they are going to stop if they can.

My thoughts about the 15 minute day have never circled around the wizard. I've played enough arcane casters and seen enough played to know that it's pretty rare for the wizzie to blow through his repertoire. It's the cleric that's the problem in most cases.

Combat in 3e was just so lethal that you had to have your highest level healing available. If you didn't you died. Wand of CLW doesn't cut it when a creature is pumping out 100 points of damage per round. By about 10th level, you HAVE to have a heal spell on call, or you lose PC's. So, even if the cleric still has the majority of his spells, if he's out of Heal and Cure Critical, you have to rest.

That's where I'm seeing improvements in 4e. Healing in combat=no more need for Heal spells in combat. Which knocks on to the 15 minute day.

 

[Delta]

The 15-minute adventuring day is perfectly good role-playing. It may not be as much fun, it may not be heroic, but it's not bad role-playing and it's not metagaming. 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.

So here I'm piling onto this discussion. I'm an old-time gamer -- I've also never seen the 15-minute day problem in person. In classic D&D, there'd be a number of things I can think of that prevent it:

(1) Wandering Monsters. You've got a trope of random hostiles that are around gameplay-wise specifically to suck down resources if you don't find ways to conserve them. Particularly in the context of big dungeons, the further you push down, the less advantage you get from running all the way back to a safe location before returning.

(2) Monsters that Reinforce & Counterattack. This had sizable sections in the original 1E DMG, and most 1E adventures. If you left off when you had the advantage, it would come back to haunt you.

(3) Opposing Adventuring Parties. Original D&D also assumed that the DM had multiple adventuring parties he DM'd all trying to loot the same complex (likely other PCs, possibly evil NPCs). Again big section in the 1E DMG on tracking Time specifically to know when one group of PCs beat another to a certain location or prize. So backing out too early opens up some other adventurers stealing your goal.

(4) Tournament Play. Of course, most of the original adventures come from tournament play, and I still think that's my favorite context for playing D&D. In that situation, the game intinsically assumes one scoring expedition; if you leave, game over.

So some of this stuff are interrelated details, and if removed they have unintended consequences. If you nix Wandering Monsters and Big Dungeons because they're uncool (perhaps in favor of some more plot-heavy story-play), then I can absolutely see how the 15-minute day problem suddenly pops up (among other issues, like arbitrary time for thief/rogue searches). At any rate it's not necessarily the "eminently logical strategy" unless you specify all these other environmental issues.


Edit: Oh, yeah and I guess (5) 10-minute long turns helped, too.

 

[Hussar]

So here I'm piling onto this discussion. I'm an old-time gamer -- I've also never seen the 15-minute day problem in person. In classic D&D, there'd be a number of things I can think of that prevent it:

(1) Wandering Monsters. You've got a trope of random hostiles that are around gameplay-wise specifically to suck down resources if you don't find ways to conserve them. Particularly in the context of big dungeons, the further you push down, the less advantage you get from running all the way back to a safe location before returning.

Wandering monsters is held up as an example every time this issue comes up. There's several problems with this idea though. First off, finding a secure place to hole up usually isn't a large problem. That's what secret doors are for aren't they? I mean, if you find that room that no one has gone into in a hundred years, you've got a perfectly good place to hole up and rest any time you want to.

Never mind that a DM that keeps chucking monster after monster at the party regardless of the precautions they take will simply result in the party leaving the dungeon, which comes back to the whole 15 minute adventuring day thing anyway.

(2) Monsters that Reinforce & Counterattack. This had sizable sections in the original 1E DMG, and most 1E adventures. If you left off when you had the advantage, it would come back to haunt you.

Let's not forget that in 1e D&D, PC parties were enormously more powerful than most of the monsters they faced. Monsters simply couldn't do that much damage to PC's, if they could even hit them in the first place. Getting a 0 AC or lower wasn't all that tricky. You got your full Dex bonus regardless of armor and plate mail and shield wasn't all that expensive. Even at 1st level, with a 16 Dex and chain and shield, you had an AC 3. Pretty much any monster you would face at that level had a 20% chance of hitting you and would only do a d8 points of damage at best. By sixth level, you were more or less invincible.

(3) Opposing Adventuring Parties. Original D&D also assumed that the DM had multiple adventuring parties he DM'd all trying to loot the same complex (likely other PCs, possibly evil NPCs). Again big section in the 1E DMG on tracking Time specifically to know when one group of PCs beat another to a certain location or prize. So backing out too early opens up some other adventurers stealing your goal.

Now this is a totally new one to me. I've never heard this one before. Did anyone actually play this way. I know I certainly didn't. I'm wracking my brains here, but I cannot think of a single module from 1e that assumed this.

(4) Tournament Play. Of course, most of the original adventures come from tournament play, and I still think that's my favorite context for playing D&D. In that situation, the game intinsically assumes one scoring expedition; if you leave, game over.

Again, huh? I never went to tournaments, so I can only judge by the rules in the modules themselves. There's nothing in the G series modules to suggest this. I don't recall anything in the A series either. Is this something that came up at tournaments?

So some of this stuff are interrelated details, and if removed they have unintended consequences. If you nix Wandering Monsters and Big Dungeons because they're uncool (perhaps in favor of some more plot-heavy story-play), then I can absolutely see how the 15-minute day problem suddenly pops up (among other issues, like arbitrary time for thief/rogue searches). At any rate it's not necessarily the "eminently logical strategy" unless you specify all these other environmental issues.


Edit: Oh, yeah and I guess (5) 10-minute long turns helped, too.

Ok, you're making assumptions here that aren't true. I played the World's Largest Dungeon, and I certainly saw the 15 minute adventuring day. Actually, it's dungeon crawls where this problem becomes the biggest. Dungeon crawls, by their nature, allow the party to find certain points that will be relatively safe. Look at pretty much any dungeon map and you'll see where you can find resting points. Once that resting point is found, then it becomes a simple matter to mount expeditions from that point.

But, really the biggest reason for the 15 minute day (which isn't really EXACTLY 15 minutes, but rather the idea that you adventure for less than a full day), is the fact that 3e combat is TOO LETHAL. Entering combat at less than 100% hp's is suicidal. When creatures can kill PC's in a single round of full attacks, if you are at less than full hp's you simply increase the chance of dying in one round.

1e never had this issue, because, barring save or die, creatures couldn't kill you in one round. You could enter combat with half your hp's and be fairly sure of surviving for several rounds. Try that in 3e.

The main reason for the 15 minute adventuring day is there is not enough buffer for the PC's. Being anything less than full is just too deadly.

 

[hong]

Look ppl, the OP asked for ppl to lay off the 15-minute day already. kthxb.

 

[Hussar]

Look ppl, the OP asked for ppl to lay off the 15-minute day already. kthxb.

Heh, ok, got carried away.

But, really, you could substitute most of the issues into the same conversation. Scry and fry for example. I never had an issue with this. Not once. Never saw it in a game. And, I do believe that it's not a big thing to fix.

In my games.

But, and this is the big but, I have absolutely no problem with WOTC coming down on an issue that is apparently a big problem for a lot of groups and trying to fix it. Lots of things can be done to fix it - making teleport a less attractive options is probably the easiest in my mind. Heck, make teleport line of sight only and you've just solved the problem.

So, yeah, I think that mechanical fixes to issues are good idea.

 

[Delta]

Hussar, your observations are not bad, I'll just respond to two:

Never mind that a DM that keeps chucking monster after monster at the party regardless of the precautions they take will simply result in the party leaving the dungeon, which comes back to the whole 15 minute adventuring day thing anyway.

Well, that's precisely the point. If they insist on the 15-minute-day strategy ("full auto" spell usage), they'll be leaving the dungeon before they get anywhere rewarding. So the only fruitful strategy then is to conserve spells, avoid the wanderers, use the max firepower in the interesting terminal areas, and commit to coming back through the weaker wanderers with your top spells reduced or out.

Let's not forget that in 1e D&D, PC parties were enormously more powerful than most of the monsters they faced. Monsters simply couldn't do that much damage to PC's, if they could even hit them in the first place. Getting a 0 AC or lower wasn't all that tricky. You got your full Dex bonus regardless of armor and plate mail and shield wasn't all that expensive. Even at 1st level, with a 16 Dex and chain and shield, you had an AC 3. Pretty much any monster you would face at that level had a 20% chance of hitting you and would only do a d8 points of damage at best. By sixth level, you were more or less invincible.

The damage amounts I can agree with, but I've found the ability for monsters to land hits much lower in 3E than in 1E.

 

[Delta]

Again, huh? I never went to tournaments, so I can only judge by the rules in the modules themselves. There's nothing in the G series modules to suggest this. I don't recall anything in the A series either. Is this something that came up at tournaments?

Here's a few examples. Feel free to ask other players if they were ever allowed to "rest a day" in a tournament game.

1E DMG in its critical Time section says (p. 38), "Generally, time passes day-for-day, or turn for X number of real minutes during active play. Players who choose to remove their characters from the center of dungeon activity will find that 'a lot has happened while they were away'...". So when the A modules mention a 3-hour time limit, it's intended to be both a real-time and an in-game time limit. No resting overnight was expected.

Another example: If you look in the tournament scoring notes to AD&D module C2 ("Ghost Tower of Inverness", p. 3), there's a -1 point cost per in-game turn used. Trying to take a whole in-game day off under those rules would be an instant loss.