| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Where D&D Fails Video Games @ Kuro5hin |
|
A site called Kuro5hin has an editorial entitled <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/4/10/231927/504" target="_blank">Where Dungeons & Dragons Fails Video Games</a>, using Troika's ToEE as their prime example. The intro explains their position:<blockquote><em>The problems experienced by TOEE users might be best described as systemic, rules based problems that were not developed by Troika, but by RPG rules publisher Wizards of the Coast (WotC), a bastardized version of what TSR used to be in its hey-day, prior to the removal of a very important figure from the company: The Father of RPG, Gary Gygax, first created Dungeons & Dragons with a bunch of people who hung out with him regularly, and it was through this intensive and subjective process that the rules of all future video games were spawned. Hit points, stats, skills and all were first developed by Gary using Tolkien's work as a solid base for story and development, following the footsteps of military styled board games, yet significantly altering the process to suit a whole new genre of gameplay: the Pencil & Paper Role Playing Game (PPRPG).</em></blockquote>I don't agree at all but I'd be interested to hear the opinion of D&D experts. |
Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:25 am |
|
|
Lucky Day
Guest
|
The Father of RPG's is not Gary Gygax but Dale Arneson. Mr Arneson was forced out of TSR by Gygax who began to heavily promote his own name. Mr Arneson was not paid royalties for his part in the creation of Dungeons and Dragons when Mr Gyagx began developing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.
Mr Arneson later settled with TSR who subsequently hired him to finish publishing the Blackmoor/Mystara campaign which first introduced Epic/Immortal rules to D&D in the mid-80's.
I agree that WotC has severely hurt AD&D with its 3rd edition. In a supreme irony, The AD&D 2nd Edition's main purpose was to take Gygax's name off the credits and therefore not pay him royalties as well. 2nd edition was by and large the same rules as AD&D with the exception of demon's to appease sensitive parents and quite a number of new subclass books to increase revenues. Declining sales was the biggest motivation as most of their customers had the necessery rule books by this time. The 2nd Edition Player's Handbook even returned to putting nudity on the cover.
The 3rd Edition D&D rules, which is more like the 8th edition, is no different in its attempt for planned obsolescence. One can mark the state of sales by the rush to put out its current "3.5" edition. |
|
Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:35 am |
|
|
Lurkeee
Guest
|
What nudity on 2E PHB cover are you talking about? I have 2 different covers and don't see any. |
|
Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:10 am |
|
|
niteshade6
Guest
|
I think it's kind of wrong to say that D&D was hurt by 3rd edition. You might say you didn't like it, but 3rd edition put the game into new heights of both popularity and sales success. And 95% of the people I talk to think it was a huge improvement, but that part is a matter of opinion. What isn't a matter of opinion is how much it revived the game, which was falling apart and losing money under TSR. |
|
Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:57 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
DnD has never been a very good system. 3E is worse though. The only improvement over 2E in 3E is that its easier for mental midgets to understand. |
|
Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:16 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
It’s hard for players to separate our enjoyment of a game and the company politics that are behind it. Gagax and Anderson are both credited with creating the game, along with a few other names I don’t recall. Every business has some politics assoc. with it because that’s what people do, that is how they act, it is our nature. However, when I sit down to play an RPG I don’t focus on these things at all, and ironically some politics in the plot line are what makes the games fun and interesting.
The article addresses some of the same things I believe are true. The rules systems themselves are never prefect, and it has been brought up many times that pen and paper rules don't always convert well to computer games. I always thought that computer RPGs would be great because they wouldn't have the limits that the human brain has in regards to rules, memory, and execution of mechanics. But repeatedly we see that computers are not good at being dynamic. The human brain overcomes this through experience and creativity. It would be possible to make a game that can cover or limit most possibilities that the human brain can come up with, and name the game (for the sake of argument) AC2, but most folks would find it boring right off the bat.
I enjoy the conventions of RPGs (HP, AC, EXP), as long as I do will continue to play D&D p&p. 3rd ED was a great boon to my friends and myself who have played RPGs over 15years. We wanted to go back to D&D but didn’t find the 2nd ED compelling to relearn. 3rd Ed allowed us to get back into the game, and get the rules behind us so we could focus on role-playing and interacting, instead of hunting up or making up rules. We stopped using all those old house rules we needed for 2nd ED which never seemed to fit the way we thought the game should work. If 3rd Ed should be criticized for anything it should be its poor editing and English usage.
LB |
|
Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:10 pm |
|
|
OctarineDragon
Head Merchant
Joined: 28 Nov 2003
Posts: 57
Location: The Void |
Hmmm... while I appreciate the provocative quality of the author's initial statement, I think his argumentation is rather flawed. Most of his reservations towards the use of a PnP system for a cRPG stem more from the inability of the developers to predict loopholes in their AI than from the rules themselves.
In fact, when 3E came out, I was struck at how streamlined the system was for use in computer games. Compared to AD&D, everything was unified, all classes treated pretty much equally, individual rules standardized to work the same way whatever you do. In fact, the system was changed (improved, IMO) in the very direction the author is proposing his 'revolutionary' own solution to go.
Devil goes on to argue that PnP rules lived from their complexity, cRPG rules from their simplicity. I couldn't disagree more. Good games rules, wether this be a board, a PnP or a computer game, are as invisible as possible to a player. Players shouldn't hit the boundaries those rules describe head first but instead just be lead away from them gently. A computer is great at managing rules and is so much more suited to work with very complex sets of rules. A human DM, on the other hand, profits from simple rules augmented by his own strength, i.e. the ability to analyze a situation on the fly and prevent an unbalancing of the game by tweaking the rules or introducing a deus ex machina right there and then.
I'm not sure what the author wants with an individual starting point depending on character class - he's playing with an entire party, after all, without a designated main character (IIRC)! This is utter nonsense.
If there is an intrinsic problem with the 3E set it's the sheer breadth of its magic and feats system which are incredibly difficult to protect against exploitation. Faced with this, it is almost impossible to program an AI that is prepared for any possible combination. But this is also part of the fun at playing a single player cRPG - similar to playing Magic, you try to find a combination the AI hasn't thought of and gain a 'well-deserved' advantage from it. |
|
Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:02 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
The problem certainly didn't lie with third edition rulesets for 3.5 in TOEE. Nearly every rule was implemented... and while a great many weren't perfect they were closer than any other game so far.
Ok, the guy doesn't like 3rd edition... fair enough. Attacking the system isn't the solution, though. Previous editions of D&D were boring, boring, BORING. All your fighters looked the same. They really did. I've been playing nearly 20 years now and while that might not make me an expert on how things were vs how things are I've logged thousands of hours into AD&D... every class, ever race, every multi-class combination, every level (well, not every level... highest level character I've ever had in 2nd edition was a human dual classed level 24/25 Fighter/Mage). It all looks the same.
3rd edition was a slap in the face that instantly became a breath of fresh air. Character customization is higher than it's ever been (which doesn't mean an improvement to the functionality of a game... quite the opposite: variety bogs down rule systems) which makes the game FUNNER than it's ever been to a LOT of players. My entire current group, whom I've played D&D with for 10 years, love 3rd edition more than any other edition.
Another group, mostly of people 5 or 10 years older than I am, that plays downtown loathes 3rd edition. They feel that the amount of customization slows character creation, the amount of variable modifiers in combat slows combat, and that the variety of feats and 'combos' allows for much more rules abuse.
And they are absolutely correct on all of it.
D&D 3rd edition IS more complex which makes it less computer friendly. Of that there can be no question. However, the ruleset is NOT what makes D&D games fail.... it's the lack of improvization to unexpected situations that makes all CRPGs fail to live up to their PnP counterparts. No matter the system used.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:18 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I agree everythingXen,
The only good Ad&d system was Buck Rogers. It had skill and something to do when you level. Darksun had a better character creation, bt leveling was still way to simple.
I still think 3.5 is to simple, but it is a huge advancement. I can't stand the mmorpg-like push for balance in 3.5. No need to equal out classes in a system made for parties, but I guess it helps out games like NWN.
For D&D 4th edition WotC should just buy Harn and put D&D 4 on the cover. Thats a push in the right direction (in my opinion, but not very many other people would agree probably).
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:18 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
D&D 3rd edition IS more complex which makes it less computer friendly. Of that there can be no question. However, the ruleset is NOT what makes D&D games fail.... it's the lack of improvization to unexpected situations that makes all CRPGs fail to live up to their PnP counterparts. No matter the system used.
I like your post, EverythingXen, but I have to disagree that 3rd ed is more complex. 2nd ed was so pooring 'as is' that every each class was dull, I agree, but the rule books supplements that tryied to make the game interesting and sometimes broke the game completely (was it called "Advanced Options"? it was fun to play with, but you had to watch your PCs like mouse sneaking behind an owl) made the game too complex. All these suppliments made 2nd Ed too complex, and they where required to make it enjoyable and interesting. 2nd Ed also had a different way to calculate everything. d20 vs wierd saveing throw chart, different exp charts for each class, rules for who and how for multi classing, and dual classing rules for humans which were are joke. 3rd Ed unifies many of the rules, and skill rolling is easy to understand, no argueing over what skill number is required, its explained. The feats system allows for alot of customizing for characters under a uniform system, and prestage classes add in even more variety under uniform mechanics. Each supplimenting book fit into the uniform system, and as a DM i largely knew what to expect from them when they where introduced.
All this should help in making them game, but even Troika admited early on that some things had to be changed to make the game balenced and fun. If ToEE falls short in any areas its bugs, and shortness. Game mechinics are the best I've played in a turn based D&D game hands down. Pools of Radence (orginal games) still beat ToEE in terms of epic lenght and replayablity.
LB
PS: Pools of Rad.: Ruins of Myth Dranor would be an interesting contrast to rules of p&P made into a computer and compared to ToEE, can someone comment on that? I havnt played it yet. |
|
Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:44 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
Ruins of Myth Drannor... Ruins of Myth Drannor.... it finally comes to this. Very well... I will now discuss Ruins of Myth Drannor. A lot of people have asked for my opinion on it and get the impression that I don't like it, but I never discuss it. Now I will. Briefly.
Ruins of Myth Drannor is easily the worst D&D computer roleplaying game ever made. It doesn't just dip below the baseline... it defines absolute zero of D&D CRPG quality. Read on, and despair.
Character creation: To most the funnest part of D&D computer games is making a good party. Well, forget it. You're given 25 points, like using point buy in Temple. That's ok. The computer controlled characters and the pre-generated characters, whom you may not even rename, are given 32. That is NOT ok! Strike one: Not all characters are generated equal.
Druids and gnomes didn't make it into the game because the developers couldn't handle druidic abilities (finding them unbalanced) or the purpose of gnome. Wizards also did not make it into the game, as they couldn't find a way to get their engine to allow for the memorization of spells... which games have been doing since... oh... I don't know... 1982. Since they couldn't eliminate cleric and have people survive the game this means clerics cast all their spells spontaneously, not just healing, and are walking gods. So much for druid being unbalanced. Strike two: If you can't make your engine follow the rules you have no business programming a game based on the rules.
Lastly comes the BIG ONE. In Bugs Bunny spanish: El Deciso Moy Stupido! You know that most wonderful innovation of 3rd edition? Feats that allow customization? Forget them! The computer picks them for you based on your level and your classes. Guess what, all rangers are archers... they have no choice. FIghters don't get cleave... that's for barbarians. Fighters get improved critical instead, and 6 levels too low at that. This is no different than saying to your DM:"I'm going to be a paladin when I level up" and having them say "Ok. Give me your sheet." *makes changes and passes it back*
"There you go."
"But... I don't want skill focus: diplomacy! I want to be able to smite evil more often, or ride a horse better, or use my faith to strengthen my shield!"
"Look, who's the DM here... I say you get skill focus: diplomacy and that's that."
Strike three: For the sin of removing the customization of characters from D&D 3rd edition, let Ruins of Myth Drannor burn.
And that is just character generation. Let's not discuss how badly they butchered the mechanics. How every encounter started by rolling surprise round.... this leads to you sneaking up on a pack of ogres, kicking the door down and yelling surprise, and then being surprised by ogres... surely the most canny of foes... and killed. Congradulations: You successfully ambushed yourself.
Bad design decisions: The party can't leave sight of each other. THis means the rogue gets to wince at the clanking of the fighter in full plate, and largely just gets to sigh and say "You know, I could have been a scout in another lifetime....".
More bad design decisions: "Let's make it turn based... people want turn based. Turn based slows a game down, but we want a lot of combat... so let's give them 1/100th the experience of what the creature is worth. That way we have a game that is slow to play and unrewarding as well! MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! er... wait...."
NWN: 1/10th the experience, 10x the encounters. Staggered time for fast action.
TOEE: Full experience, tailored encounters, turn based for tactical action.
ROMD: 1/100th the experience, 100x the encounters, turn based for mind-numbing endless action... with super slow monster animations thrown in for fun. It takes 5 minutes for 12 skeletons to move in and miss your fighter. I am not kidding. Read a book, get coffee, take up computer game programming...
And repetitive backgrounds: "Wow. Mud brown. Level 3b looks identical to level 1a in every way. Hmm... I think I'm lost... yep... I can not longer tell where in the game I am. Lovely."
And no sense of balance: "Woo! We're weakly statted and have no control over our feats. We have no magical items... let's see... the first thing we fight shall be... a CR 3 shadow! YEAH!!!! Rock and roll!".... followed soon by "Can't carry any more magical items... they're raining from the sky. Inventory fulll..."
The story wasn't bad, if nothing new. The voice acting was... um... ... there? What little spoken dialogue there was, anyways.
You could play it multiplayer but I never did. I have more love and respect for my friends than to convince them to buy this game.
I could rail about specifics for hours but there's no point... the general details are bad enough.
How this relates to D&D failing? Easy... you stray from D&D and your game sucks. TOEE was totally the wrong target for the writers editorial... he should have selected the most flawed D&D game to ever exist (and may it continue to be for a very long time).
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Apr 20, 2004 4:38 pm |
|
|
niteshade6
Guest
|
I really think there is no question that 3rd edition is waaaaay more complex then 2nd edition ever was. Back when I played 2nd edition, I'd tell new players to just tell me what they wanted to do, and they could play the game just fine that way. That doesn't work at all in 3rd edition, the rules are so much more complex, and players require so much more understanding of them in order to play. That's really the only usual complaint most people have over what is otherwise a vastly superior system.
As for saying 2nd edition supplements made the game more complex, well that's true. But even those just made character creation more complex, and one might argue that it was still less complex then 3rd edition. And then lets remember that 3rd edition had tons of supplements that increased the complexity (and also reduced the balance)
Oh and I'd say class balance is even more important in a game made for parties. Nobody wants to feel that their character is obviously inferior, which was happened in 2nd edition if you didn't built your character the same way as everyone else. |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:51 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade6
Oh and I'd say class balance is even more important in a game made for parties. Nobody wants to feel that their character is obviously inferior, which was happened in 2nd edition if you didn't built your character the same way as everyone else.
In regards to second edition, you mean create your character, right? After character creation there is no character building I know of (besides spell picking).
In regards to class balance, your character will never be inferior if he has a vital role in a party. Thier push for balance takes party out of the factor too much in my opinion. Like an mmorpg making sure that every class can solo. Support classes aren't meant to solo, they're meant to support. I personally think WotC should have made a lot more character unbalance to achieve a greater party balance. And I believe they should do away with potions altogether or make them very rare. Or make an alchemist class. And charge 100x the cost of current potions on the market or get them from your parties alchemist. It doesn't matter anyway. People like balance and all the numbers equaling out, so thats what they get.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:40 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
THere are two players in my group that can't be bothered to fully learn the rules. One just wants to play her character and the other doesn't want to worry about the rules... she just wants to beat or blow things up. They've both been describing their actions or simply saying what they want to do for years. I just get to tell them what to add to a d20 roll, or how many dice of damage their fireball does (though I think that's the only thing the blow everything up player has memorized is her damage output on various spells or swords. The other has religiously asked 'how much do I roll for sneak attack' every round of combat for two years... from level 1 to 16 of her character.).
3rd edition works well enough with the 'tell me what you do... ok, this is what you roll'.
It's only stacking bonuses in combat that drag the system down at all... and computers are good at addition.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:11 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Xen, thank you. You have managed to put into words my thoughts exactly on PoR2. Definitely the most BORING CRPG ever made and I've been playing them since the Commodore 64 was the latest and greatest!! Actually I go back beyond that to Intellivision. I still have mine and the games I bought for it!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
