Well from my point of view D&D is a creakingly old system that was updated with others in table top RP decades ago. So why computer RPG's stick with it I have no idea, are players really hardcore about that?
They are, you just aren't hanging in the right game forums to see them. For them, an isometric party RPG needs to be DnD otherwise it's garbage by default.
The Pillars of Eternity official forums were filled with people being pissed it wasn't DnD based pre-release and some still complain about it (POE not being DnD) in every Pillars related threads on a general RPG game forum I frequent. Currently, they are gushing over Kingmaker a lot (Pathfinder is a 3.5e DnD fork).
DnD was always haphazard and murky, with baked in quirks that made little sense except for legacy, tradition.
It did spawn a generation of game designers, because every GM had to try to make some sense of rules, and roll there own home rules, variant D&D
If you look carefully at 1st edition and 2nd edition, the most prevalent rule was 'whatever the DM said'. Much of the material consisted of charts and tables to help the DM create content for their sessions/campaigns. D&D didn't really have a solid combat resolution system until 3.0.
I've done the home rules thing and even created 4 sets of tabletop rules, the last screamed for a computerized system. I don't want to do that again.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Well from my point of view D&D is a creakingly old system that was updated with others in table top RP decades ago. So why computer RPG's stick with it I have no idea, are players really hardcore about that?
They are, you just aren't hanging in the right game forums to see them. For them, an isometric party RPG needs to be DnD otherwise it's garbage by default.
The Pillars of Eternity official forums were filled with people being pissed it wasn't DnD based pre-release and some still complain about it (POE not being DnD) in every Pillars related threads on a general RPG game forum I frequent. Currently, they are gushing over Kingmaker a lot (Pathfinder is a 3.5e DnD fork).
I can only assume these are computer RPG fans, table top found DnD to be unwieldy so long ago. Thinking about it, if you are going to tweak your character you will need some sort of system like that otherwise the tweaking becomes superficial. But slavish adherence to DnD is ridiculous.
Developers need to stand by their decisions when shown to be a huge success, not take every comment from a vocal minority as some how representing the roleplaying community as a whole.
I would take Skyrim built with even smarter NPC/AI, with a bigger world, more quests, more stuff to do just cuz, but would also lend to more lore/immersion building.
Beyond Skyrim sounds awesome, and the modders that've already added extra free content have done awesome work.
I think Dev's are smart to leave their tools there for players to create things, and use the tools in ways the Dev's never even imagined. I swear I'm not a Skyrim dev, but I keep bringing it up lately as I keep going back to the game after all these years. It just hit the right chords for me for some reason.
If Starfield is going to be Skyrim in space, and each planet would be totally explorable, that would work for me. And if it's totally different I'll still prbly play it as I love FO/ES games.
I think giving us a hub house or shop or area that we can come back to in a game, build up/upgrade, expand, would help immerse us in that particular world. And cool things can be done with the upkeep on it to where we can get into the systems and touch everything, or get 'helpers' to do the monotonous stuff for us; kind of like WoW Garrisons, but less work/more fun.
I hear how they did it in Ni no Kuni II really worked, but haven't played that yet.
I think that Crowdfunding/Kickstarter success stories of Dev's trying different things shows that gamers are willing to pay for new experiences, or improvements over old ones.
I would like to read more about Sawyer's new ideas, but he's prbly scared someone will take the idea out from under him. It's gotta still be cool to make a great game, but to branch out and try new things would def keep it interesting for Devs to flex their creative muscles.
Well from my point of view D&D is a creakingly old system that was updated with others in table top RP decades ago. So why computer RPG's stick with it I have no idea, are players really hardcore about that?
They are, you just aren't hanging in the right game forums to see them. For them, an isometric party RPG needs to be DnD otherwise it's garbage by default.
The Pillars of Eternity official forums were filled with people being pissed it wasn't DnD based pre-release and some still complain about it (POE not being DnD) in every Pillars related threads on a general RPG game forum I frequent. Currently, they are gushing over Kingmaker a lot (Pathfinder is a 3.5e DnD fork).
I can only assume these are computer RPG fans, table top found DnD to be unwieldy so long ago. Thinking about it, if you are going to tweak your character you will need some sort of system like that otherwise the tweaking becomes superficial. But slavish adherence to DnD is ridiculous.
Developers need to stand by their decisions when shown to be a huge success, not take every comment from a vocal minority as some how representing the roleplaying community as a whole.
I always saw 1st and 2nd editions as extremely flexible. We merged ideas and rules from Dragon issues. We borrowed from Role-master heavily.
For me 3.0 was the turning point where D&D got much less flexible and focused on gamification for CRPG fans. It was all about min maxing stats which isn't what 1st and 2nd ed were about at all. People did that and TSR followed the money with 3rd ed, but blech it was a downturn for the RPG fans. It signaled TT PnP chasing the CRPG money. At that time TT PnP was flaggering on the floor some with an identity crisis.
I always thought 3.0 was much less flexible, also. It was the first time that TSR attempted to have a standard combat round. Prior systems and competing games (Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery) followed the basic 'Do it yourself' rules that the early RPG systems used.
I think the best attempt at providing a standard combat resolution came with SPI's Dragon Quest in 1980. By that time, though, gamers were already familiar with the more flexible systems and pretty much rejected the consistent and rigorous rules favored by the wargaming crowd. I've always wondered if SPI was trying to jump on the tabletop PnP craze, or if they were trying vainly to accommodate their hard-core audience.
Oddly enough, for as much as I liked the Dragon Quest systems, I find them to do the same things that MMORPG developers have done. That is, SPI built a new version of D&D without actually questioning (or redefining) any of the basic assumptions that TSR implemented. There were HPs, levels, spells and the same familiar things. It's always been a bit disappointing to me that my gaming group never was interested in a Dragon Quest campaign.
The only real system that broke away from the TSR model (with any success) was 1991's Vampire: the Masquerade from White Wolf systems. That broke away from some elements of the fundamental TSR model, focusing more on storytelling. Things like stats, levels and combat resolution were far more 'hazy'. It was a bit different also in that it returned to the DIY concept for rules, distinguishing it from the CRPGs that were taking over from the tabletop.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
1st and 2nd ed had a lot of issues in the way that melee classes were extremely strength based and casters had insanely powerful spells at really low level.
The main problem with 3.0 was that you had to plan out your endgame character before you even started playing the game and you started to shop for magical items instead of magical items being something special. It still had some of the issues with powerful spells but nowhere close to the problem that 1st and 2nd edition had.
Still better than the abysmal 4th edition which was the mmofication of D&D.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Great article Now we just have to wait for someone with the balls to do something about it and not just worry about the money. Its the money for the suits that have made the RPG genre stale.
1st and 2nd ed had a lot of issues in the way that melee classes were extremely strength based and casters had insanely powerful spells at really low level.
The main problem with 3.0 was that you had to plan out your endgame character before you even started playing the game and you started to shop for magical items instead of magical items being something special. It still had some of the issues with powerful spells but nowhere close to the problem that 1st and 2nd edition had.
Still better than the abysmal 4th edition which was the mmofication of D&D.
I had not realised that MMOs started to influence DnD, is that what we call pay back? ?)
My experience of DnD was quite limited, but I did cut by teeth on it. just by chance most people I knew were using different systems like Call of Cthulhu or Rolemaster. I liked how it evolved into the sort of system you get in Faded Suns but never GM'd it so my understanding of how it changed is fragmented.
Comments
The Pillars of Eternity official forums were filled with people being pissed it wasn't DnD based pre-release and some still complain about it (POE not being DnD) in every Pillars related threads on a general RPG game forum I frequent. Currently, they are gushing over Kingmaker a lot (Pathfinder is a 3.5e DnD fork).
It did spawn a generation of game designers, because every GM had to try to make some sense of rules, and roll there own home rules, variant D&D
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I've done the home rules thing and even created 4 sets of tabletop rules, the last screamed for a computerized system. I don't want to do that again.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Developers need to stand by their decisions when shown to be a huge success, not take every comment from a vocal minority as some how representing the roleplaying community as a whole.
Beyond Skyrim sounds awesome, and the modders that've already added extra free content have done awesome work.
I think Dev's are smart to leave their tools there for players to create things, and use the tools in ways the Dev's never even imagined. I swear I'm not a Skyrim dev, but I keep bringing it up lately as I keep going back to the game after all these years. It just hit the right chords for me for some reason.
If Starfield is going to be Skyrim in space, and each planet would be totally explorable, that would work for me. And if it's totally different I'll still prbly play it as I love FO/ES games.
I think giving us a hub house or shop or area that we can come back to in a game, build up/upgrade, expand, would help immerse us in that particular world. And cool things can be done with the upkeep on it to where we can get into the systems and touch everything, or get 'helpers' to do the monotonous stuff for us; kind of like WoW Garrisons, but less work/more fun.
I hear how they did it in Ni no Kuni II really worked, but haven't played that yet.
I think that Crowdfunding/Kickstarter success stories of Dev's trying different things shows that gamers are willing to pay for new experiences, or improvements over old ones.
I would like to read more about Sawyer's new ideas, but he's prbly scared someone will take the idea out from under him. It's gotta still be cool to make a great game, but to branch out and try new things would def keep it interesting for Devs to flex their creative muscles.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
I think the best attempt at providing a standard combat resolution came with SPI's Dragon Quest in 1980. By that time, though, gamers were already familiar with the more flexible systems and pretty much rejected the consistent and rigorous rules favored by the wargaming crowd. I've always wondered if SPI was trying to jump on the tabletop PnP craze, or if they were trying vainly to accommodate their hard-core audience.
Oddly enough, for as much as I liked the Dragon Quest systems, I find them to do the same things that MMORPG developers have done. That is, SPI built a new version of D&D without actually questioning (or redefining) any of the basic assumptions that TSR implemented. There were HPs, levels, spells and the same familiar things. It's always been a bit disappointing to me that my gaming group never was interested in a Dragon Quest campaign.
The only real system that broke away from the TSR model (with any success) was 1991's Vampire: the Masquerade from White Wolf systems. That broke away from some elements of the fundamental TSR model, focusing more on storytelling. Things like stats, levels and combat resolution were far more 'hazy'. It was a bit different also in that it returned to the DIY concept for rules, distinguishing it from the CRPGs that were taking over from the tabletop.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The main problem with 3.0 was that you had to plan out your endgame character before you even started playing the game and you started to shop for magical items instead of magical items being something special. It still had some of the issues with powerful spells but nowhere close to the problem that 1st and 2nd edition had.
Still better than the abysmal 4th edition which was the mmofication of D&D.
Now we just have to wait for someone with the balls to do something about it and not just worry about the money. Its the money for the suits that have made the RPG genre stale.
My experience of DnD was quite limited, but I did cut by teeth on it. just by chance most people I knew were using different systems like Call of Cthulhu or Rolemaster. I liked how it evolved into the sort of system you get in Faded Suns but never GM'd it so my understanding of how it changed is fragmented.