How D&D Shaped the Modern Videogame

PC Gamer UK, via the CVG site, has a feature up on the influence Dungeons and Dragons had on the development of videogaming. The role D&D has had in inspiring gamers is fairly well known; Masters of Doom chronicles the inspiration the Johns' campaign had on the creation of Doom and Quake. The article discusses more recent confluences of the tabletop game and videogame development, such as Obsidian's use of pen-and-paper to develop the early areas of Neverwinter Nights 2. Ideas for the late, lamented, Fallout 3 were sparked by a number of tabletop roleplaying moments from developer campaigns.

Comments

HP

[Spazmania]

Two words: Hit Points. Every game has them and as kids we learned the concept from D&D.

Re:HP

[lymond01]

And now that we have computers that can easily represent and display physical damage in terms of gameplay and character efficiency...we still use hit points.

At times I wish game designers would FORGET about hit points.

Re:HP

[__aaclcg7560]

I don't think "miss points" would work out that well. You don't want the monsters to chant, "Loser! Loser! Loser!"

Re:HP

[p0tat03]

We have forgotten about hit points. Play games like Gears of War or Call of Duty, where death is based on the rate at which you're taking damage, as opposed to depleting an existing HP supply.

Call of Duty: Get shot, it's ok. Get shot too much in too little time, your screen starts turning red. Keep getting shot, die.

Re:HP

[Nasarius]

Well, it's an abstraction. I've talked to someone who has extensive real-world experience with sword/knife combat and the injuries that result, and he sketched out a system (in the context of a true medieval RPG) where each limb would have its own status: broken, different levels of bleeding, etc. All of which would have an effect on gameplay; for example, if your arm was damaged, you couldn't fight as well. Like MechWarrior 2, but for people.

It's an interesting idea, and likely something I will be implementing for various reasons, but does it really add enjoyment for the player? Probably not. Just get rid of the absurd situation where a character is nearly dead and can still fight at full capacity, and the traditional global HP isn't a bad abstraction.

Re:HP

[Lemmy Caution]

Even more important to MMORPGs and other comparable games: experience points and levels. Apotheosis as a numbers game.

Re:HP

[Feanturi]

you say "Ow." and you might go woozy or you might get emotional or some part of your body might not work right

Call of Cthulhu the PC game handles this very well. While you do have a form of hitpoints on your character sheet (an EKG), your real indicators of your state are the blurred vision that gets worse with additional damage, blood spatter in your view, vision slowly going white from blood-loss, controls that stop working quite correctly, labored breathing, and the slow shuffle of walking on a broken leg with that horrible little crunching noise with each step. Insanity-inducing events or locations pull in some of these elements as well, such as the vision problems, breathing, and loss of movement control. All in all, the game is downright heart-pounding at various points throughout.

Re:HP

[Qzukk]

and he sketched out a system (in the context of a true medieval RPG) where each limb would have its own status: broken, different levels of bleeding, etc.

Phantasie III on the C64 (I think there was a PC version as well, amongst others) had that kind of a system. In addition to hit points, your limbs, chest, and head could be "injured" "broken" or "gone", with obvious implications for losing your head or body. It led to interesting battles, where I'd have characters with two broken arms continuing to fight because they still had most of their hitpoints and I needed to conserve the appropriate level of potion (IIRC, Potion 3 would heal 60hp and either 2 broken limbs or one lost limb). As far as actual gameplay went, it didn't really add or detract anything significant, it just made it different.

Re:HP

[Sigma 7]

I remember trying to convince my friends of the complete lack of need for using stats in a game, and how it would be better if they were a lot more obscure. But people just didn't seem to understand.

Most people familiar with Table-top RPGs consider a lack of numbers to be equivalant to arbitrary - in the same way that some consequences of a Choose-your-own-adventure book are just as arbitrary.

People are comfortable with numbers because it gives them a comfort that their Infinitly-powerful character won't be one-hit-perma-killed by a lowly kobold.

For some reason, I couldn't get across to them that just because something is represented numerically internally, it doesn't have to be explicitely known.

Try an example, such as explaining it's just like playing Tie Fighter when you receive a critical hit that takes out the screen that shows your craft's hull and shield strength. You know that your craft is severly damaged, but not by how much (unless you've been counting hull hits.)

Re:HP

[Anonymous Daredevil]

CoD absolutely had HPs. Just because they added some temporary damage as well doesn't mean it's suddenly a new concept. If I recall correctly, when you got hit you took some permanent damage and some temporary damage that slowly returned. Temporary damage wouldn't kill you, but if you got hit again while your temporary damage had you below zero you would die.

It even had a bar that clearly represented a hidden numerical value (Hit points) and you died when it was empty (zero).

Not sure if this link will work, but here is a screenshot (off GameSpot) showing the hit points in action:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/pc/callo fduty/1029/call_screen006.jpg

Re:HP

[Kuciwalker]

And people say Halo isn't innovative... as far as I know, this type of health system was invented in Halo 2. IMO it's infinitely superior to hit points.

Re:HP

[dyslexicbunny]

Call of Duty: Get shot, it's ok. Get shot too much in too little time, your screen starts turning red. Keep getting shot, die. I agree completely. I run in blindly and kill as many people as possible and when I go red, I hide until I "heal." This makes the game way too easy when combined with the number of checkpoints in every level. Why both playing seriously? Honestly, I wished for something more after beating the game.

It feels like the game is more suited for a casual gamer than serious players that want more realism. I forsee this trend to continue since although design for both is not impossible, adding features and programming additional characteristics to be more than publishers would like to do. I would almost be willing to believe completely that the serious player desiring realism is going to be ignored more and more in many major games.

Re:HP

[insignificant_wrangl]

Some games in the Resident Evil series had the "get-hurt-and-watch-your-leg-drag-behind-you." Though it is still a HP based game, it was neat to have a game directly affect gameplay based on damage.

Re:HP

[Thangodin]

Hit points allows for gradual damage, allowing you to change strategy, withdraw, etc. Limb damage takes you out of the fight, instant kills make for an unplayable game, and auto-recovery unless you take a lot of damage quickly is just too unrealistic--particularly when the damage is done by bullets. What the hit point system does is give you reaction time.

In any case, the hit point system did not reflect actual damage, but exhaustion, bruising, blood loss from superficial wounds, disorientation, etc. The final blow or two did the actual damage. This works better when the combat is swords and sorcery. But as a friend pointed out to me, bullets do one of three things: kill you, maim you, or almost nothing. Yes, there are soldiers who've been shot six times and still kept fighting. This friend was a military historian told me about a Canadian soldier in a peace-keeping mission who got hit five times (once in the mouth--he spit the bullet out with a couple of teeth.) It all depends on where you're hit--the first hit could kill. Melee is different, since most wounds tend to be superficial until you're too tired to dodge or fend off the killing blow.

Re:HP

[XxtraLarGe]

Deus Ex also had such a system. The body parts were each arm, leg, trunk & head. If your arms were injured, you'd be less effective with melee weapons, and finally you couldn't even wield a weapon. If your legs were seriously injured, you could only crawl. Take too much head damage, you're dead no matter what.

Imagine that..

[Lithdren]

A Game built around Math, paper, and your imagination inspired the development of other games.

I've been a long time player of D&D type games, and I personally think they should be done in school. They helped me in school early on learning Math, giving me a solid foundation to build on. Story writing being the DM of such a game gets developed quite well if you're sucessfull anyway.

But the most important part is it spurs your imagination into high gear. Something that alot of people, old and young, are lacking more and more. Its nerdy as hell, but its fun to pretend to be that strong warrior loping the head of an orc off.

Re:Imagine that..

[ToxikFetus]

They helped me in school early on learning Math, giving me a solid foundation to build on.

Solid foundation? I swear you need a freaking PhD in Mathematics to figure out what the hell THAC0 means!

Nerd: My armor class just went negative, w00t!
Bystander: Huh?

Re:Imagine that..

[Lithdren]

Yeah, Thac0 is rather complicated.

For those of you who dont know, Thac0 is the number your character must roll in a 20 sided dice to hit an Armor Class (AC) of 0.

If your AC is 5, and my Thaco is 15, I need to roll a 10 or better (15-5). If your AC is -5, I need to roll a 20 (15-(-5)). 20 always hits, 1 always misses.

Personally, yeah, i'd consider that a good foundation. :P

What if TSR had patented "hit points?"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

What if TSR had patented "hit points?" Or, "the idea that one hit doesn't kill the player"?

Could you teach computer to run a D&D campaign?

You'd probably have a better shot with English, first. But for Christ's sake, who among us DIDN'T write a dice simulator or treasure generator before hitting the teenage years?

Re:What if TSR had patented "hit points?"

[Planesdragon]

What if TSR had patented "hit points?" Or, "the idea that one hit doesn't kill the player"?

They would have licensed it, managed it badly, and the patent would have been hocked to a bank to keep them afloat a bit longer into the 90s. At worst, WotC might not have bought them.

Re:What if TSR had patented "hit points?"

[Jimmy_B]

What if TSR had patented "hit points?" Or, "the idea that one hit doesn't kill the player"?

Fortunately, such things are not patentable. They would have if they could, and in fact, they pissed a lot of people off by trying to enforce a trademark on hit points. (They asked people to use "hits to kill" instead, which never caught on). They also sent takedown notices to various fan sites for fan-created but D&D-related content, and claimed copyright over some things that they'd obviously copied from mythology. TSR was everything that Slashdot loves to hate, and the hate contributed to their eventual demise.

That's easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

CAST MAGIC MISSLE!!!

Re:That's easy...

[Chmcginn]

at the darkness?

Emergent Gameplay

[Anonymous Coward]

What D&D still rules at is emergent gameplay- IE, setting the gigantic boss villain on fire by collapsing the house on her, etc. Rather than focusing on simple "dice mechanics," game devs should be putting their money towards physics engines and other things that will let players PLAY with the world.

What's funny is a lot of devs get it backwards trying to emulate the simplicity of D&D: D&D uses simple mechanics because players have to do all the work themselves. Computers are happy to calculate THAC0 a hundred times a minute if it makes for better gameplay.

Most game developers started with D&D

[WillAffleckUW]

In fact, from just the club I co-founded at SFU, The GoT, I think half of us went on to become game designers.

Many of us were computer scientists, so making the jump into video games was pretty easy back then.

AC -10 award

[tepples]

Nerd: My armor class just went negative, w00t!
Bystander: Huh? "AC -10" means you're playing GoldenEye 007 for Nintendo 64 and camping the body armor.

Helped shape the gamer too!

[Morris Thorpe]

How D&D Shaped the Modern Videogame

How D&D shaped the modern videogamer: like a pear.

Seems rather obvious...

[bigstrat2003]

"Obsidian's use of pen-and-paper to develop the early areas of Neverwinter Nights 2." Wouldn't that be considered an amazingly obvious first step, seeing how the game is based in D&D?

Re:D&D Was great back in the day...not so much

[CrashPoint]

Before it was a simple game now theres like 75 books you have to buy if you want to understand the rules.

If by "75" you mean "between one and three", sure. The Player's Handbook is the only "required" book. The DM's Guide and Monster Manual make things easier but are not strictly necessary - you can run a perfectly good game without them. Everything else is purely optional. This, by the way, is exactly how it was in the older editions, so nothing has changed in that respect.

Also, the rules in 3rd Edition are actually a lot simpler, saner, and more streamlined than in 1st or 2nd.

This should have a follow up

[crossmr]

called how the modern video game raped D&D and abused its children. Early D&D games were great. lately they've been rotten.

Full Sail

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need to know about this: There is a class at Full Sail, the world's top video game design school, called Rules of the Game. It talks about how all games - from card games to D&D to video games, are all based on the same principles. Best game design class I've ever had.

The instructor? Dave Arneson, co-creator, Dungeons and Dragons.

destructing rule books

[Rizzer]

Did your old D&D rule books suddenly self-destruct or something?

Heh, mine did. That is, my mother burnt them while I was studying away from home. "satanic" or something, apparently...

WOW

[mshurpik]

The fact that I played pen-and-paper D&D (and Ultima for PC) as a kid explains why I can't get anywhere near a game of World of Warcraft. I actually had a 19-year-old try to explain to me that in WOW, mage armor is weak and thiefs are stealthy. I was like...this is new to you?

Not only is WOW a carbon copy of the "generic D&D-based RPG", but it owes its success, apparently, to the fact that most of its users are unfamiliar with the source material. What WOW adds to D&D, is the group dynamics of a 30-member campaign party, and if you want to see how that works, the South Park WOW episode is pretty accurate. (In short, the illusion of teamwork gradually gives way to a system that is pretty mechanical.)

Why do we still use classes?

[ductonius]

Like others in this thread I wish video games would forget about D&D for a while. Just a little bit. Not permanently, just enough to let other ideas have their time in the light.

There's a reason why I'm hesitant to buy any medieval-looking RPG nowadays. It's because I know, absolutely know that when I start up the game the first thing I'm going to have to do is choose to play a fighter guy, a magic guy, a stealth guy and or a ranged attack guy. Why in God's name, during the age of computers, do we still have to pick classes?. There is no need for this abstraction. Anything you can do with classes you can do with simple attributes or skills. Furthermore, many things that are done with classes make no sense ("I'm sorry, you can't wear that shirt, you're a mage, mages only wear the purest right-spun Italian cotton"). Role playing games work well with out them. Fallout1/2 and Deus Ex. Both great RPGs. A huge variety in play, enabled by simple attributes and skills. No fucking classes. Game designers: Please stop using classes, at least for a bit.

Also, why do most games have ludicrously low numbers of hit points? Most games out there (including Fallout and Deus Ex, I might add) I only allow the player one, maybe two hundred hit points. There is an almost infinite difference between a bullet to the brain and pricking your finger. Again, with computers a character could have 100,000 hit points instead of 100 and it wouldn't cause any disruption in game play. All it would do is allow the game to represent a greater variety in levels of damage. The same attack by an enemy could do a wide variety of damage depending on where it hit. Eg. arrow to the cranium vs. arrow stopped by chain mail (yes, that would hurt). Low hit points work well when they need to be tracked by hand and the calculations that go into them are fairly simple, but when a computer can do them automatically faster than you can blink, low hit points do not make sense.

D&D is fun. That's why it's popular, it's just also possible for things other than D&D to be fun too, and I'd like to see more of that.

Re:Why do we still use classes?

[theghost]

We have classes because it is easier to balance 12 classes with a finite set of skills for each class than it is to balance every possible combination of 100 different skills. The less time you spend balancing the more time you can spend creating content for those things to be balanced against, and content is king.

What about a more fundamental influence?

[ghastlygray]

It's striking to me that the discussion so far (correct me if I missed something) ignores what I thought was the more important bit of the article. I quote (emphasis mine):

The central idea remains constant: videogames began with two-player games, experienced through the proxy of a machine. Two or more humans matching their abilities, with victory and failure adjudicated by hard rules, has remained true, from chess to Pong to Battlefield.

There's another way of looking at videogames: how the vast majority are able to entertain when there's no other human being there at all, just you and a machine. The machine just exists to interpret your actions and turn them into a world for you to experience. It exists to entertain you, to take you somewhere else, to give you a place to explore. It is a storyteller. This is a different approach to the idea of 'game', and - interestingly - its core emerged at a similar time to MIT's Space War, as if culture was suddenly ready to reconsider what a 'game' could be.

They claim, in essence, (if I understand correctly) that DnD helped change our very concept of the computer game; of how the computer can be utilized for entertainment. It's not about hitpoints (pong could have hitpoints). It's about the concept of the computer "as storyteller" -- a concept which underlies a vast array of genres in gaming. Now, this is a significant historical assertion. Is it indeed true?

Re:D&D Was great back in the day...not so much

[Macgrrl]

I've been playing (A)D&D for 20 years or so, and we only use 3 books, PHB, DMG, MM. I use the MM more than anyone other than the GM because I play a druid. The DMG is used to calculate the value of wonderous items when dividing up the loot. Everything else comes from the PHB and our imagination.