Following D&D Rules in Tactical Combat Based Games
bigdogchris
Member Posts: 1,336
Question: When attempting to recreate D&D in tactical video games like Baldur's Gate, how closely should you follow the rules that you are able to implement?
- Following D&D Rules in Tactical Combat Based Games97 votes
- Closely follow the rules, only break them when necessitated by the video game69.07%
- Loosely follow the rules, breaking them even if not necessitated by the video game19.59%
- Other - See below6.19%
- No opinion / view results5.15%
0
Comments
Now that said, I get that compromises have to be made. An accessible and fun game is more important than detailed, excruciating faithfulness to the rules. But I always hope to have it all.
I'd clarify, but contract limitations. >;)
DMs tell stories. They don't ask you to point-and-click your way through the town just to find the inn. Let's stop this. Let's make computer DMs that tell stories, too.
I'm hopeful that for BG3 that Edition Next will be highly customizable such that the best ruleset ever can be devised for RTS CRPGing.
I see nothing particularly sacred about the rules. They should be used as general guidelines, but one shouldn't be to concerned about breaking them if it makes for a better game. The important part is capturing the spirit and general feel of 2nd edition while still making a fun and balanced game. The details of the original mechanics take a backseat to that.
Honestly, if you truly wanted an exact recreation of D&D in a video game, it would be better to use 4th Edition. It's already a far more tactical, elegant, and balanced system than 2nd and would translate very well to a tactical cRPG.
Even the rules that were specified were generally stated as being optional and at the DM's discretion. In some cases (for example: at what point death occurs, or how ability scores are generated) two or more different rules are given, leaving it up to the DM to decide which. Even character classes other than the basic four were explicitly stated to be optional. The DM was expected to pick what rules to use, ignore or modify in order to create a complete game. It was never possible to play AD&D (at least not 1st edition) strictly by the book, since there was no one way to do it.
3rd+ edition rules were designed to be more comprehensive and amenable to straight-up computer game implementation, as they were far more oriented towards tactical combat and strategic character building. (No one called a character a "build" in AD&D.)
Picking nits!
- Gary Gygax
And Pool of radiance was a 16-bit game constrained by this very fact to both memory and storage limitations. Not to mention the fact its design choices meant the player party was a fuzzy entity that didn't represent every character in a specific place in a 3D coordinate system. It would have been impossible for any of the Gold Box games to fully emulate AD&D rules for this very reason.
Just like a good DM on a PNP campaign, the game should break the rules in all the places needed to make a better game, better story, and better play experience in general.
This is why Aerie, raised by Gnomes, is an illegal class, and an illegal race. This is why Eldoth has a unique ability nobody even know what how why. This is why Coran makes a mockery of the rules.
This is why NWN2 reinvented the Bard almost entirely, and came out with one of the coolest implementations in any third edition setting.
Thing is, people only really tend to notice the rulesbreaking they *don't* like, so it gets a bit of a negative schtick.
Also, the poll doesn't ask about GM's, AD&D general rules, races, or bards. It's strictly about tactical combat. So why are we still discussing it?
... So ...
What about games in general that try to implement AD&D tactical combat rules? AD&D was designed for turn-based tactical combat from day one. The question I feel is warranted, is how well does AD&D create a set of rules for that purpose? How good those rules are? Would a game that tried to implement AD&D Turn-Based Tactical Combat rules apply those rules to the core because they were good rules (this depends on the ruleset), or should a game make modifications because it is being faced with a set of rules that don't do well in emulating a turn-based tactical combat system for fantasy games?
Reading comprehension is vital. "In Tactical Video Games like Baldur's Gate" is not strictly about tactical combat, it's about tactical combat based games explicitly like Baldur's Gate.
Part of tactical combat based games like Baldur's Gate are plot and characters, characters and the classes they can achieve especially are particularly valid, as they are the agents by which tactics can be performed.
Secondly, Baldur's Gate is indeed a pseudo real-time engine, and as games like Baldur's Gate are in turn not following strict turn-by-turn PnP rules of initiative this is a fundamental part of the issue - No tactics game like Baldur's Gate is capable of being both rules legal and in the format they are in. "General rules" have a major and far-reaching impact on all aspects of the game, including combat.
Since the question is explicitly about implementing the rules of AD&D into a game, not a pure tactical simulator, all the originally raised points remain accurate to the question as asked, until such a time as the question is changed.
The best games of (non dungeon crawling) D&D have very little encounters, maybe one every two sessions at the most, depending on how much free time you have. The fun in a real RPG comes from acting a part in a bigger picture. Many video games try to replicate that feeling, and some (like BG, PS:T, Arcanum) show a fair amount of success, but they all fail to capture the fullest feeling because they're more restrictive thanks to being governed by lines of code instead of a human mind. In an actual PnP game, there's only an outline, the actors write the script through improvisation, and the more clever players can not only outwit the director of their story, but completely throw him off and force him to rewrite hours worth of material. I know this because I've done it. A player will do something so insightful and outside the box that I'll have to end the session and take a week off just trying to do damage control. Other times, a similar thing will happen that one guy goes full retard and causes some catastrophic event by being too impulsive, but I can still write around that, even if a Total Party Wipe occurs. This CAN NOT, and WILL NOT ever be a feature in a video game, and thinking otherwise is a waste of time.
Let's use the old Ultima games as an example. In those games, you can learn a spell called "Armageddon," and even use it. What happens in the game is that every creature dies. The game is now broken, you should just turn off the game and stop playing because that's it. What's great about DnD is that if I was DM/GM I could continue that game if I wanted. Maybe they're all in hell, and they have to face a series of challenges as punishment. I could house-rule in some sanity points, steal some monsters from Planescape or Call of Cthulu and we still have a playable game. As long as I can imagine it, it can happen.
Basically, a video game will never get DnD right, video games suck compared to PnP games, and it's truly a sad thing that they're so much more popular in our world of nerddom.
Imma put my soapbox away now
R/C exploits, shouldn't have happened, but they're the only class that share the same spell casting type, and they failed to add a separate book for druid spells. No reason at all for that to have happened.
Specialists not getting their proper bonuses and penalties...that's just laziness there.
Bards getting the shaft. Made by bard haters apparently.
Various stat bonuses not being implemented (Dex save bonus, wis save bonus, dex adjustment when DWing, none of the high stat perks for int/wis, int requirements for casting).
Not having the Lesser divination and greater divination schools.
Slopping implementation of the proficiency system
Ranged weapons not having proper bonuses
Several kits just had their abilities made up out of thin air, in no way resembling their PnP incarnations (again for no reason, since it would work fine real time or turned based).
Lots of other crap
I do think that 2e had plenty of flaws, but if you change too much, it's not really D&D anymore, is it?
Moving on... No. Tactical combat rules are independent of any consideration about characters, class, and even more so about plot (plot, really!?). You can grab AD&D 2nd Edition tactical combat rules and apply it to any other fantasy setting with different classes and races (within reason). The tactical combat rules are only concerned with positioning, initiative, melee, ranged and magical combat. Exactly what I said in my post. Why do you disagree by reiterating? Your attempt at legalese won't change the fact that no mention to realtime video games is made either. "Games like Baldur's Gate" can be interpreted in any way, including simply games that attempt to emulate AD&D rules. You agree? Meanwhile, we know (and agree) turn-based combat ruleset cannot be fully applied to a real-time game design. But can for turn-based games. It's for this reason that I defend this poll should have been better constructed. It's completely ignoring the fact that the ruleset can be 100% applied. I know, you will probably say that goes into the "other option". If that's the case, why then not put there the first option instead? Clearly, the poll could have been better constructed and take notice of the fact that Turn-Based games also exist.
But above all, what really made me comment, was that the argument that GMs change rules is fallacious. It doesn't change the fact GMs don't need to change rules if they don't want to. And for sure it's irrelevant in the context of video games, where there's no GM (and no, the game ruleset is not a GM).
Temple of Elemental evil (the newer one), was largely well done in regard to implementing the system it was based on better then I've ever seen done in a CRPG. While the game had other issues that marred it's success, it did capture the spirit of table top fairly well. Much better then BG did. BUT that was not the fault of using real time vs turn based. It was mostly laziness, oversights, and ignoring a lot of mechanics in the material on part of the BG crew. Yes they made a good game..is it a AD&D game? Sort...of..it has some similarities, but there's lots of missing mechanics and somethings are more powerful then they're supposed to be, while others are weaker then they're supposed to be, it's a detriment to the overall experience, since it didn't have to be that way. The system itself would've been fine with the proper mechanics.
No. Tactical combat rules are independent of any consideration about characters, class, and even more so about plot (plot, really!?).
The poll, as stated, is about games, not about tactical combat rules, but I shall humour you. In short, you are failing to understand the basic design principles behind game creation.
If the plot demands situations that would normally be against the rules - such as an unkillable character, a character that has rules illegal abilities, or scenarios not covered by the ruleset, then the rules must be changed in order to accomodate the plot, and the tactical situations demanded thereof.
Characters, and classes, are tactical constructs, and are fully integrated into combat, as characters are what become involved in combat. In order to make an Elven Mage/Cleric a viable unit to use in a tactical setting, the rules must first be broken. Even Chess and Draughts are defined by the rules that govern each piece, changing how those pieces work changes the entire game.
So no, they are not independent of any consideration about plot, as plot places its own demands on a game that must be met, from piloting gnomish mecha to sky battles riding dragons. They most definitely are not independent of characters, without the interactions of characters with one another, there would be no simulation.
Exactly what I said in my post. Why do you disagree by reiterating?
Your statement was that there was no mention of real-time combat in the poll, the crux of my post was that my response was oriented towards tactical games like Baldur's Gate, and as Baldur's Gate is a real-time game, its inclusion was implicit.
Your attempt at legalese...
I merely attempt to be accurate, and in this case 'tis so.
But above all, what really made me comment, was that the argument that GMs change rules is fallacious.
The fact that are you arguing with my choice of simile is indicative that you have either misread my post or have misunderstood its content. To clarify, my sentence states the opinion that a game must be free to reshape the rules whenever necessary to produce the optimal game experience, and then liken it to a good DM who uses house rules whenever they need to in order to produce the optimal campaign.
In turn, your argument that "the game doesn't need to change the rules if it doesn't want to" is nonsensical, and does not oppose my statement in the slightest; if the game is not improved by changing the rules, then it would not be necessary to do so. You are opposing an argument I did not make.
In short, reading comprehension is vital.
However, I allow (and even encourage) full bending of rules for plot and certain restricted RP purposes.
I would of course prefer to have it all turn based, ala TOEE rather than BG or NWN, but NWN (especially the second) certainly did the realtime/pause well, with how it implemented turns and all.
I like to feel that rules exist, though...
2nd Edition is all about THAC0, negative armor class, races limited to certain classes, etc. If you want to change the rules radically, then you should just make up a separate system. Limits are what define things and give them shape.
2nd Edition AD&D is far from a perfect rules system I'm sure, but it's definitely a good one, and the deviations from it made by the BG games haven't improved it at all. These decisions seem to usually be made for some simple reason without considerations concerning how it will affect the game overall (for example, gimping grandmastery in BG2, improving CON regen, etc.).
In terms of what should be done in games based on existing rules systems in general, the question is too broad. If a game is based on a rules system, it's ultimately the game designers' choice to what extent that will be implemented (w/in their contractual limitations). Is it possible that many liberties could be taken with a rules system and could improve the game overall? I'm sure it is possible, I just haven't seen it in these games. The liberties taken always seem superfluous, and the game would play fine (imo, better) without them. Players only favor most of these deviations now because they're used to them and they, in many cases, only seem to favor them when they lead to a much more "powerful" character.
I never see anyone coming out to defend deviations from PnP in the cases where the PnP rules positively affect the character. Giving PnP bonuses for WIS, and many other instances where the PnP tables actually provide for a stronger character, never seem to be objected to by those that object to taking away regen bonuses, etc. Plenty of examples on this forum that prove this point; threads concerning un-nerfing BG2 grandmastery and implementing PnP bonuses, never a naysayer in sight. This seems to be quite telling to me about what the issue really is.
I was a DM many years back, and played lots of games with other DM's. From my experience, the worst games were when DM's were too concerned with enforcing every stupid little rule. They would stop the game and search through book pages to make sure they were right. The whole night would be a complete waste of time.
Those rules were guidelines that were meant to be modified or ignored in many situations to keep the game fun and flowing at a decent pace. The best DM's made sure they were keeping the story exciting and didn't fiddle around with the stupid books all night.
So yeah...making a video game match PnP rules completely was never the original intention with the game. Why bother with it now?