The Trouble With Using D&D Rules In Videogames?

An anonymous reader writes "There's a new article on kuro5hin.org about the trouble with porting pencil and paper RPG games (such as d20 3.5) to RPG video games. One such rules-snatching video game is examined, The Temple of Elemental Evil. The article is also an introduction to a new RPG Standards Compliance system that is currently under development and will be online soon, in hopes of bridging the gap between computers and those lovable PnP evenings we all enjoy."

Comments

Using long words gets me +5 Insightful

[Slashdot Hivemind]

The main problem encountered here is that a system designed primarily for abstraction, that relies on mental visualisation to compensate for the abstraction, is being ported to an environment where complexity can be handled and arbitrary visualisation is provided. Additionally, IMO hitpoints really don't work representationally after a set point.

BTW, I'd like to just point out that I haven't touched a P+P game since I was 12

The problem is

[timothv]

Problem is that D&D's number-crunching sucks and instead of focusing on giving the player a thousand numbers to concern himself with, it'd be better to make a fun game.

Re:The problem is

[Aglassis]

You said: " Problem is that D&D's number-crunching sucks and instead of focusing on giving the player a thousand numbers to concern himself with, it'd be better to make a fun game."

Thats why the White Wolf games are so lax on numbers and vague on what some attribute to your ability will do. The point of a RPG is to role play, not to kill monsters and powergame. Unfortunately, most of the public thinks the latter is what an RPG is. It is painstakingly difficult to talk about a pen and paper RPG without others thinking your are a D&D powergaming freak. Its sad really, since RPGs are a great intellectual game. Once anyone focuses more on making the RPG compliant so that the numbers balance out, they've lost the point of the game altogether.

Re:The problem is

[crashfrog]

Powergaming is roleplaying.

Not everybody wants to play the role of a whiny, neurotic, tortured Gothic denizen of the night. Some of us think vampires are about as sexy as ticks.

Some of us want to play the role of a master of fighting prowess. who puts evil abominations to the sword. Some of us are into kicking down doors and divying up the loot. Since we don't do that IRL but rather construct personas to do it in a game, it's still role-playing. Just because I'm not interested in exploring the many facets of a character that, in real life, would be in a padded room, don't pretend like your games are somehow more legitimate than mine, ok?

Powergamers are role-players. They're just playing a role that you apparently don't like. Well, stuff it. You play Vampire: The Wearing of Stupid Dog Collars and I'll stick with D20 and hopefully, we'll never be at the same gaming table, ok?

Re:The problem is

[Aglassis]

You said: "Powergamers are role-players"

This reminds me of an old problem that existed in Ultima Online. At one point the halberd was the best weapon for a fighter. Now if people were actually roleplaying they would probably pick weapons more suited to different fighting roles than the halberd which is a fairly exotic military weapon. You could probably expect some people to play knights using swords as their weapons, others as archers, etc. But did this happen? No of course not, everyone picked the halberd. Later when a game patch came out that made the kitana the most powerful weapon, did those people stay with the halberd? Nope. They jumped ship for statistical reasons.

How is this roleplaying? How is knowing that your weapon will deal 2 points more of damage a turn on average versus a competitor the deciding factor for someone who wants to play a role as a knight (as an example)?

Its powergaming, not roleplaying. Roleplaying is taking all the good and the bad of a character and making due with it. When you powergame, there is no role being explored; it more like fun with statistics.

Re:The problem is

[Aglassis]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: personal attacks do not win arguments, they are only intended to confuse the facts. Only the truth wins arguments, and it doesn't matter who says it (it could be a trashman or Niels Bohr himself who says it, it doesn't matter). Additionally, its generally not a very good idea to make generalizations or try to draw conclusions from the behavior of a person you have never met. Chances are your conclusions are off. Now to get to my point.

You said: "But it is possible to play a character motivated by a need to win battles, and for that character, optimizing combat effectiveness isn't munchkinism, it's exactly what their character would do."

And previously: "Some of us want to play the role of a master of fighting prowess. who puts evil abominations to the sword."

I think you missed my point on the halberd. Its not a general purpose fighting weapon. Its meant to be a can opener for heavy armor. How exactly is using it on the field a good idea? If you would put yourself into that role I think you would understand that in general field usage you would get killed very quickly. If you put yourself into the role of a master of fighting prowess, for example, I would expect you to more likely pick a weapon that is more general purpose.

Now let me phrase my point on the halberd: a role player is a person who picks it as a weapon because he or she intends to attack heavy armor and it is the logical weapon. A powergamer picks it because a simplistic game world gives it more points of damage while not giving the significant detraction that a person using it would have basically no defensive ability in one on one combat.

Re:The problem is

[Feanturi]

Its powergaming, not roleplaying. Roleplaying is taking all the good and the bad of a character and making due with it. When you powergame, there is no role being explored; it more like fun with statistics.

I understand what you find Roleplaying to mean, and that's cool. However, the guy saying powergaming is roleplaying is right. It's taking on a role enacting things you don't normally do. Does it lack character depth? Sure, yeah, but it's still playing a role that is not one's normal life. You're just into two different types of roleplaying.

Re:The problem is

[Minna Kirai]

no it isnt. it is never role playing to use knowledge outside of the realm of your character's experience to influence your character's actions.

The example given (about UO fighters prefering first the halberd, and then the "kitana") was not about OOC (out-of-character) information.

Which weapon was strongest was known in-character. (Fighting as many random monsters as those guys do, they'd figure it out pretty quickly by experimentation) In real life, there is no "best" weapon, because different tools are preferred for different situations. But because of the simplified game rules, it was apparent in character that halberds were useful in many more situations than they really should be.

If tommorrow all shotguns magically became more accurate than M-16s, the soldiers of the world would quickly switch to the new best weapon.

The "role" these gamers are playing isn't "swordsman" or "spearman", it's "strong fighter, using the best weapon for the situation". If the game rules are so poor as to make one weapon best in every single circumstance, the fault goes to the designers, not the players.

do you think it's role playing to read the monster manual and suddenly your character knows everything about every type monster in the game?

Examples like that are not what was discussed.

depends on your playing style

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're mostly into Hack & Slash, then video game D&D is workable. In fact, it's been around a long time: Rogue was released in the mid-80's wasn't it? Man, I still love that game.
But if you're mostly into grand sweeping epic storylines, or intricate political manipulative shenannigans, or just the camaraderies of hanging out at the gaming table, eating pizza & diet coke (or cheetos & Mt. Dew) and rolling dice and making bad puns or acting out like your character, then the computer version is very, very tame.
I can handle both styles fine though. THey both have merits.
BTW (off-topic) how many people still play older editions? I'm very much into old-school Basic/Expert D&D (those old boxed sets from 1981). That's what I started out with back in the day, and it's what I keep going back to for some reason. I know the new editions are technically better, but I just don't like 'em that much. *shrug*

What a crappy article.

[Scott Lockwood]

The guy has no clue about D20 on PC, as exemplified by the comments he responded to in the article. That, and he has an affinity for twenty-five cent words, when a nickle word will do.

The most amazing thing to me is, the fact that this article posted at all over on K5. I can't believe it did, since it was on it's way down last I looked at it. Looks like K5 really has gone to pot. :-(

Mature and robust

[mao che minh]

The D&D systems/rulesets are always robust and mature, having been in the making for the better part of forty years. Furthermore, they always translate very well to any medium, be it paper and pencil or PC video game.

I would say that it is a much better idea to use the tried-and-true D&D rulesets than to create your own on the fly. Heck, for starters, it saves you a huge amount of time.

Re:Mature and robust

[mabinogi]

I agree, the author of this article seems to think that D&D rulesets were invented overnight on a whim by a bunch of people with no clue, for the sole purpose of selling rulebooks.
I'm sure selling rulebooks is an important buiness issue, but creating a solid game experience comes in to that as well, and you sell more rulebooks by steadily refining and improving the rules, than by randomly changing stuff for the sake of changing it.

Also the idea that people can handle complicated rules better than a computer seems a little bizzare too.

Re:Mature and robust

[Bagheera]

The D&D systems/rulesets are always robust and mature, having been in the making for the better part of forty years. Furthermore, they always translate very well to any medium, be it paper and pencil or PC video game.

Come again? The D&D rules have, historically, had a large following but a lousy game mechanic. They ALWAYS had a lousy game mechanic, all the way back to the original Dungeons and Dragons and the "Three book set" that came before. D&D worked as a game system more because of the extensive source material and the huge number of pre-packaged modules than because it was actually any good. D20 is a little better than old versions, but it's still a Level and Hit Point based system - at least in it's AD&D incarnation.

I would say that it is a much better idea to use the tried-and-true D&D rulesets than to create your own on the fly. Heck, for starters, it saves you a huge amount of time.

Actually, since the programmers have to implement it, there are a number of considerably better and more versatile systems that would make a good base for a CRPG.

Considering that any CRPG that's run by the machine (rather than an active GM, as you could get in, say, NwN) lacks the dynamic "Rules Bender" called the Game Master (A good GM makes the STORY run the game, not the DICE. CRPG's don't know when to fudge a roll so the hero can survive, or kill a monster, or whatever is needed to tell a good story.) they're ALL going to basically suck.

Personally, the hypothetical "best" CRPG would allow GM interaction at whatever level was required. A fast and clean implementation. And a good way to make characters ballance within the rules. Any game that tries to port the inherently unbalanced AD&D rules over is going to have holes.

That's the fact.

Re:Mature and robust

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

That's why Paranoia is the best game system - players are forbidden to know the rules, and the GM's one main rule is: Keep it lively. If a player is boring, they're dead.

What about..

[simrook]

Baldur's Gate? This article confuses me on several levels.. First, it's operating within a microcosm of video games that are based off of AD&D - in particular just one. This isn't really that great of a study if it's just using one source. I'm taking an introductory statistic's course right now at my college, and my professor would fail me if I used only one souce. (He also mentions something called d20 in passing a few times but makes no arguments over it.) Second, what about Baldur's Gate? There are very few more successful game series then the Baldur's Gate line. The game is able to be played as a traditional RPG with pause's after each move, the storyline is diverse, and with BG2 onward you have different plots devlop based on your char's alignment, class, race, etc.. it's quite a wonderful and diverse game. Neverwinter Nights continues to expand it allowing user/gameplayer customization of the settings and rules. This customization of the rules of the game is also my third point with what's wrong with this "article". The author says that Pen and Paper games are much more flexiable and adaptable based on their player's needs.. well, if I am playing a game of NWN or BG or Ice Wind Dale, all I have to do is change the settings in my preference box to change the level of hardness of the monsters or the speed of the game, etc. It's not difficult, and just requires a few clicks of a button. So in conclusion, what happened to the Baldur's Gate line of games? I mean, come one... the games span three platforms, are wellknown amongst gamers, and have won more awards then I can count. Why didn't the author include BG and Black Isle analysis in his article? All this means is that this article is a bit of FOO and should be sent to /dev/null, or rather /dev/menzoberranzan. - Simrook.

Knights of the Old Republic

[tm2b]

Knights of the Old Republic used essentially the same rules as D&D, the d20 game, Star Wars Roleplaying Game. I've played the RPG, it works well as a table top game.

I think that KotOR makes it pretty obvious that a great game *can* be based directly on a table-top RPG. But a crappy game is a crappy game, no matter what property they license to go under it.

Re:Temple of Elemental Evil is SO BAD

[Babbster]

I haven't played the game, but the bug point seems to be key to the "op-ed" piece linked to in this story, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the D&D system and it somehow "failing" computer RPGs.

Just because someone does a shitty game based on D&D doesn't make it a failure of D&D. It's a failure of the developer. D&D rules have served quite well in many computer RPGs over the years (my first true D&D CRPG was "Eye of the Beholder," which was a blast).

Of course, this is a failure of videogame reviews in general. If a game element is poorly implemented, that means to some reviewers that the game element itself is flawed as opposed to the way it was integrated into the game.

I have to say

[Aexia]

The article pretty much seems to ignore its premise.

The fact that TOEE is bug-ridden doesn't say *anything* about the suitability of adapting Pen N Paper RPGs to the computer. It just means there were sloppy programmers.

God, are we ever nerds...

[softspokenrevolution]

All I got from this article was that the guy wasn't happy about the d20 system, he really didn't seem to be all that coherent, which he warns us of this ("this is no review of TOEE, although it could be"), it apparently could also be a rambling condemnation of WotC, or a big circle jerk about how great J.R.R. Tolkien was.

As people pointed out in the thread below, a computer is more than capable of performing the functions that the d20 system has laid out. I for one have never found it difficult to comprehend, as everything is simply a plus or minus on a random interger 1-20. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really isn't that tough (compared to say, creating some good content) to establish these scripts and commands?

I mean really, for now all we're going to get is a fairly modular design, but the rules are not the problem, shit games with tons of bugs are the problem. Who wrote this article, why are they qualified to make these statements, why is it on /. aside from the usual comments about the editors?

I'd disagree

[rsilvergun]

The problem with D&D rules is they're set up for long term (years and years) campaigns, not 30-40 hr games. So you're characters get just a few skill points and new abilities per level; so few in fact that it's a waste to spend them on anything other than what the game intended for that character. This makes leveling up a linear and dull event, better handled by just clicking 'automatic level up'.

Re:I'd disagree

[geekoid]

not true anymore.

They designed the system so that you quickly get to about 8th level, and in 40 hours, you could get to 20th, reasonably.
However, level pails compared to a good, challenging, and exciting adventure.

Hell, if you played for 40 hour, only gained 3 levels, but had a kickass time playing, wouldn't that be alright?
The goal of the game should nopt be to make the character as high level as possible.

Re:I'd disagree

[rsilvergun]

Yeah, but if all I wanted was adventure, I'd play the old Sierra Quest games. I'd like some gameplay with my adveture, perferably of the min/max kind. I like fiddling with stats and trying out new spells and abilities. If I'm role playing a character, I want to feel like my decisions matter, or at least like I have decisions.

What follows is my Kotor rant:

Kotor's problem is it's so damn linear. Yeah, I can be dark side/light side, but when the choices boil down to stuff like, "kill this innocent person in cold blood, or don't", that's hardly a choice. You know exactly which path you're taking. I was hoping for better writing from Bioware. I know they're capable of it (see Baldur's Gate). Come on, why don't my light side companions abandon me when I do evil? Why don't I pick up dark side companions? Why aren't my light side/dark side choices (at least the inital ones) more grey area? Well, the answer's probably that Bioware needed to get the game out the door, and didn't have time for all of that. Either that, or they wanted to dumb things down to improve the game's mass appeal. What would have been cool is a slow, steady decent into darkness that's genuinely hard to avoid and that traps you once you're in.

Re:I'd disagree

[Syberghost]

If I'm role playing a character, I want to feel like my decisions matter, or at least like I have decisions.

But you're not role-playing a character. You're playing a video game.

If you want the pen-and-paper role-playing experience, you have two options:

1) Wait until artificial intelligence has advanced to the point that a home PC or console game can be as smart as a human GM.

2) Put down the controller, turn off the Orbital Mind Control receiver, pick up an actual pen and paper, get out of the house and GO PLAY GAMES WITH ACTUAL PEOPLE. Social interaction will be a side benefit that will help you in your future dealings with other human beings at work.

Break away from D&D?

[MachDelta]

Mod me troll for saying this... but i'd actually like to see game designers move AWAY from D&D or other paper based rulesets. Don't get me wrong, P+P can be great fun... but when's someone going to make a ruleset that takes advantage of a computer? I've always felt that paper systems were simplified because rolling 20 dice just to see if your right-handed 32 degree slash hit, wasn't deflected, broke a link in their chainmail, and caused a wound... well its just not fun. So in paper, thats all done in what... 2 rolls? But hell, with a computer you could make 20 dice rolls in an instant and the user would never know the difference. Basically I just think the rules for computers need to be streamlined for FUN, not some non-existant physical limitations. And by the same token, much of the power and flexibility in having a real DM is lost with a computer... so compensation in that area is definitly needed. Its all about limitations and tradeoffs IMO, and paper's are definitly NOT the same as a computers.

The other thing is, and do excuse the tangent, i've always HATED D&Ds magic and ability system. Maybe i'm just a Diablo-noobie, but if I can do some kick ass backflip-powerstrike, or ultimate-spell-of-destruction... why the fuck can I only do it twice a day?! What, is there some internal clock on my character? Does he go "DING!" when 24 hours pass? Thats stupid. I've always preferred the mana/stamina "pool" method because its so much more flexible. Mana is raw ability... do anything with it, but your supply is limited. D&D you've got all that memorization and per/day limit stuff... its just stupid. Say your mage character unleashs some raging inferno and completely annihilates a whole clan of orcs in an instant. Once. Now imagine the conversation:
"That was badass! Do it again!"
"Sorry man, I can't".
"Why not?"
"Oh because I have to wait 19 hours to do that again."
"Oh, so like you're tired?"
"No, not tired... I just can't do that again."
"So you could cast another spell?"
"Yeah sure."
"So cast that spell again!"
"Can't dude, like I said. All i've got left is... light. Want me to make the room glow? Its really cool, watch!"
*Grumbles* "Stupid wizard."
And yeah, I know there are some ways to fudge that stuff... but the flexibility just isn't built into the game, and thats what I hate about it. Don't get me wrong, the D&D universe is a blast... I just wish there was some plausible explanation why, in NWN, my badass, "more pissy than a castrated dragon", lvl 22 human female Fighter/Thief/Weapon Master with dual flaming longswords can only perform 6 "Ki Powerstrikes" a day. Bah.

Re:Break away from D&D?

[mark-t]

I've got two words for you that, I believe, explain much better than any other reason why the rules are the way are: Game Balance.

A lot of people don't like this reason because it offers no explaantion that makes sense _within_ the framework of the world.

For an in-game explanation, one of the best explanations is that the gods simply made it so, perhaps for easons beyond the character's ability to comprehend.

Sounds too contrived? Perhaps it is... but the characters within the game world wouldn't know that, and the only reason you actually know it is contrived is because you exist outside that domain in the first place, and have another perception of reality to compare it to. Characters within the fantasy realm wouldn't have that luxury, so it would appear completely natural to the average (or even well above average) character.

The exceptionally intelligent character may have a rational basis for questioning the arbitrariness of that sort of law in the world, but there would be nothing he or she could do about it, much as cutting edge physicists today raise theories about the nature of the universe which illustrate how some phenomena that most people take for granted can be seen as slightly... well... arbitrary. Most people can't be bothered to think on this level though... and even those that do are powerless to do anything about it. Further, this level of thinking is exceptionally modern anyways... and in a D&D setting, you're involved in a middle-ages type environment where advanced scientific questioning isn't exactly commonplace anyways.

More standardized?

[nnnneedles]

Video game RPGs need to be *less* standardized if you ask me.

The rules aren't really that important in a video game, as opposed to a pen and paper RPG. It's mostly done behind the scenes.

What we need is games with more imagination than "kill rat 500 times, then kill spider 1000 times".

Because you know these rpg developers are too focused on "standards". How about a mafia rpg where you start with collecting money for loan sharks, then move up the ladder? Yeah, you never thought about that, assholes. Thanks for all the spiders and small poisoned rats. I want to kill you by drilling a hole in your eye.

Please. Change.

Re:Battletech and paper vs. computer

[skermit]

What kind of retarded street justice is that? Do you see every CS player ganging up on the guy who shoots for the head? This is just plain dumb.

Never the Same adventure twice!

[BobRooney]

The difference between a true PnP game of AD&D and the computerized experience of a D&D themed game can be slight or immense depending on the skill of you RL GM compared to the auto-scripted content of a computerized world.

A bad/unimaginative GM is little better, or possibly WORSE than online or computerized gaming environments. In contrast a talented GM will bend the adventure to fit the individual characters involved.

A good GM is many things, including an Actor, Story teller, statistician, and above all else a quick-thinker. Players like to try and out-smart the GM and a good one will do their best to limit how successful their players will be, preferably in humorous ways.

The real trick is the Story-telling apect. A good DM makes you believe you're actually in another world. That suspension of disbelief is only maintainable if the number crunching is done quickly and with as little distraction to the players as possible.

Computational talk should be limited to "Roll for Perception", or "Roll to hit" and even then it helps to not get too into the numbers. A good GM hears your roll and paints a picture of the action it caused.

Free Will vs. Determinism in RPGs

[goodviking]

One of the major issues that I have with CRPGs is that ultimately, regardless of how good the AI in a game is, you are still fundamentally limited in the possibilities for game play. It's like a big "Choose Your Own Adventure Book". Maybe every so often you flip a coin to choose the next page, or maybe there are so many paths that you can't enumerate them all before you just get bored, but your still limited.

I contrast this to pen and paper games like D&D or Palladium (my fav fantasy). You are limited by the creativity of the GM, and the limits of your belief in human free will (and how long the pizza lasts). It's always been the unexpected turns of other players that makes these games fun to play.