D&D 5E [+] What can D&D 5E learn from video games?

[overgeeked]

More on the DOTA mention. I'm not that familiar with the genre (or game), but I like to poke around and learn stuff. So I came across this video and loved it.


If what he's describing is accurate, and something like that would end up in D&D, I'd love for characters to be designed around one or two wildly overpowered abilities that effectively balance out against each other. Importantly, that's a PVP game, so I'm not sure how that would actually translate to something like D&D.

It was interesting to see him touch on what's effectively the QWLF problem in other games. The aliens vs hunters and one of the DOTA pairs, specifically. At least that's a problem that's not unique to D&D, I guess.

 

[Jolly Ruby]

Everybody in Baldur's Gate 3 is horny, being more faithful to Ed's original Realms than WotC could ever be. Half-jokes apart, I do think think WotC Forgotten Reams are too "aseptic", and that they could be a bit more daring, more ambiguous, scary, violent and even horny. And I do think Larian's take on the Reams are more in line with what I would like to see published.

 

[Zardnaar]

Everybody in Baldur's Gate 3 is horny, being more faithful to Ed's original Realms than WotC could ever be. Half-jokes apart, I do think think WotC Forgotten Reams are too "aseptic", and that they could be a bit more daring, more ambiguous, scary, violent and even horny. And I do think Larian's take on the Reams are more in line with what I would like to see published.

Nyet. More blandness for you!!!!!

 

[Aldarc]

Though it's worth noting that both of these types of games have begun to reach market over-saturation. I want to say either earlier this year or sometime last year, we had like four different "go do farming stuff!" games announced within like a month of each other. That doesn't mean that these things have no lessons to teach us, but rather that we should be careful to account for both the fickle tastes of consumers collectively, and the twin issues of bad clones of popular games and mistaking "this specific game was popular" for "this specific genre combination was popular." E.g. generally combining action-RPG and city-building is not going to result in an interesting or coherent gameplay experience, but it unusually did do so with Act Raiser.

You would think that D&D-based fantasy adventure would have also reach market over-saturation in our hobby, but looking at the offerings out there, that wouldn't appear to be the case.

I would also add that Blizzard still has not released their Survival game that was announced. Blizzard (at least the one of old) had a impeccable habit of mainstreaming a lot of genre games.

The particularly important thing to note here is that a huge, huge part of the "tank" (and, to an extent, bruiser) vs all other MOBA roles is that it is about the economy of attention, not about some absolute threat list which must always focus on the numerically top spot. Meaning, "tanks" do their job in MOBAs by being a dangerous but difficult to kill threat. High defenses, high maximum HP, crowd control effects, punishments for attacking them, punishments for ignoring them...and what does all that sound like? The Defender role in 4e. "Taunts" are exceedingly rare in 4e--but Marks are commonplace, and the Marking mechanic is all about the economy of attention. What risks will the Marked target be willing to take? Which is the safer bet, attacking the high-defense, high-HP Defender, or trying to geek the mage and risking both failure to actually do anything AND punishment from the Defender?

"Tanky bruiser" just means drifting Striker--and that, too, reflects some of the same ideas that went into MOBAs. Note, for instance, that the full flowering of these design ideas was pretty much simultaneous with the launch of 4e, since DOTA1 launched two years before and LoL launched two years after. There are avoidance Defenders (Swordmage), high-HP Defenders (Warden), inherently tanky-bruiser Defenders (Fighters), etc. There are light and mobile Strikers (Rogue, Storm Sorc), high-HP/regen Strikers (Barbarians, particularly Rageblood), super-accurate Strikers (Avenger), long-range/"carry" Strikers (Ranger), etc. And support characters aren't dull, monotonous affairs. They're actually quite fun (I recall very much enjoying a support-heavy Malfurion in the few Heroes of the Storm games I played.)

I think that the problem is that when people heard the term "tank," especially with 4e roles, that their mind went to MMOs. But as you say, the tank or bruiser in MOBAs are more applicable to how a 4e tank works. Like @overgeeked, I feel that 4e D&D should have expanded their roles or at least been more specific about them.

Though this comes with it a second lesson, not in what is done but what is not done: The risk of shallow experiences which do not grip you.

A very long (non-ranked) LoL match takes 45 minutes to an hour. A short one can be as little as 20 minutes if the enemy team performs particularly poorly (whether through bad luck, bad plays, or bad behavior). With such a narrow time window and rapid game turnover, you need characters that are easy to get into and easy to get out of. D&D doesn't work like that. Indeed, I would argue it can't, and trying to make it so would break it.

I've been playing more LoL casually lately, as I've met some folks who play, and a champion I like aesthetically (Aurelion Sol) semi-recently got a rework. His old design was...clunky at best, very unintuitive, and not particularly rewarding even if you played it well. The new version, while losing the One Weird Trick that he previously had, is significantly better, and in fact one of my favorite champions to play. (I like scaling champs, and Aurelion Sol is neat because he doesn't just scale for damage, he also scales for area and range, which really matters as games wear on!) He became much more standard, much easier to slide right into--much less to catch on, so to speak.

But that process cuts both ways. There's nothing to hold on to later. No depth and little complexity. 90% of games, you'll buy the same items, and only swap out 1-2 depending on the context. You'll always have the exact same suite of abilities. This, again, is good--great, even!--within the context of LoL, where matches are meant to be relatively short.

In the contest of D&D, where even for very old-school-minded players a single character should last several weeks if not multiple months of once-a-week, multi-hour sessions...having nothing to catch on can be a pretty big problem. People slide in...and the slide right back out again, having gained little to nothing from the experience. Finding the way to balance these two concerns--making it easy to get in, but also easy to get hooked, to stick with it, to feel rewarded for doing so--is an extremely tricky design problem.

This is why I talk as much as I do about how "approachable" a game is (how easy it is to get into the game) and how much "depth" it has (how it leverages its parts to provide an engaging experience.) Different players want different amounts of engagement--what is just right for one player may be stultifyingly boring for another and vastly too complex for a third. The lesson to take from MOBAs is not that every character should be dirt-simple so that it can be fully explored in 25-45 minutes; it's that every game should focus on upping approachability while preserving a selection of different options for depth.

This is where I would lean into more diagetic progression. So while you have a smattering of abilities, a character could progress in the game through what you find and do. They could even find things that change or modify their existing abilities.

I would also add that we may be seeing a move towards such a simpler game with Darrington Press's Daggerheart game that is in development. Based on what we have seen and heard, it sounds like a character can only "equip" a limited number of abilities. But this is also the game that they said that they were designing for campaign play.

 

[overgeeked]

Everybody in Baldur's Gate 3 is horny, being more faithful to Ed's original Realms than WotC could ever be. Half-jokes apart, I do think think WotC Forgotten Reams are too "aseptic", and that they could be a bit more daring, more ambiguous, scary, violent and even horny. And I do think Larian's take on the Reams are more in line with what I would like to see published.

I'm fine if WotC skips the horny in D&D books. They can barely handle generic fantasy. Anything with even a hint of spice is likely beyond them.

 

[overgeeked]

You would think that D&D-based fantasy adventure would have also reach market over-saturation in our hobby, but looking at the offerings out there, that wouldn't appear to be the case.

It is really weird. At least there's more variety in the video game and board game spheres. I know there's plenty of variety in indie games, but there's nothing that's broken into the mainstream, besides D&D, there's nothing that's even come close to D&D (even Pathfinder is a mere 10% or less of D&D's reach), etc. You have to get down to the 1-2% range before you get out of fantasy. It's really bizarre.

Like @overgeeked, I feel that 4e D&D should have expanded their roles or at least been more specific about them.

It's that weird thing where basically everyone knew that's what they were doing, copying WoW, but didn't want to admit it. Was MOBA even a thing back in 2008. This link tells me that it was mostly confined to the modding community until after 4E launched. If they were to do this again, I'd hope they'd be more clear about their influences and be more open about it all.

What I meant about more roles was non-combat roles. I was find with defender, striker, leader, and controller. Things like social roles, dungeon delving roles, wilderness exploration roles, etc. Not to the degree of combat roles, but very clearly delineated things you could do in certain areas and a smattering of resources to be used in those areas.

This is where I would lean into more diagetic progression. So while you have a smattering of abilities, a character could progress in the game through what you find and do. They could even find things that change or modify their existing abilities.

That would be great. That's what harvesting and crafting are for. I also love cyphers from Numenera.

I would also add that we may be seeing a move towards such a simpler game with Darrington Press's Daggerheart game that is in development. Based on what we have seen and heard, it sounds like a character can only "equip" a limited number of abilities. But this is also the game that they said that they were designing for campaign play.

Yeah. I'm very interested in Daggerheart. I love what I've seen so far. I'm very leery of the cards though. If they make it to the final design, I'd want them to be extras, game aides, rather than a necessary component. I think that's a great idea though, limiting what loadout you can have at any one time. It's already in D&D with some casters' total spells available vs what's prepared for the day.

 

[Scribe]

Anything with even a hint of spice is likely beyond them.

Without a doubt it is, but the feel could still be there. As I have said before if the style of Conan is wrong, I dont want to be right.

When I finally finish BG3, if someone hasnt already started a thread I hope there can be a discussion around how it can (imo should) inform the 'feel' of D&D going forward since we are seemingly going to be stuck with 5e anyway.

 

[overgeeked]

As I have said before if the style of Conan is wrong, I dont want to be right.

Agreed.

 

[Aldarc]

It is really weird. At least there's more variety in the video game and board game spheres. I know there's plenty of variety in indie games, but there's nothing that's broken into the mainstream, besides D&D, there's nothing that's even come close to D&D (even Pathfinder is a mere 10% or less of D&D's reach), etc. You have to get down to the 1-2% range before you get out of fantasy. It's really bizarre.

It's that weird thing where basically everyone knew that's what they were doing, copying WoW, but didn't want to admit it. Was MOBA even a thing back in 2008. This link tells me that it was mostly confined to the modding community until after 4E launched. If they were to do this again, I'd hope they'd be more clear about their influences and be more open about it all.

Yeah, MOBAs mostly started from the Starcraft and Warcraft modding community. A number of the early characters in both DotA and LoL are some of the Warcraft 3: Defense of the Ancients mod characters but with a legally-distinct facelift and name change. A lot of what we would call "roles" or LoL calls "classes" came later as the genre needed ways to differentiate characters and help players identify the character's overarching playstyle.

What I meant about more roles was non-combat roles. I was find with defender, striker, leader, and controller. Things like social roles, dungeon delving roles, wilderness exploration roles, etc. Not to the degree of combat roles, but very clearly delineated things you could do in certain areas and a smattering of resources to be used in those areas.

Don't worry. I mean both. Expand combat roles but also include non-combat roles as well.

 

[overgeeked]

Combos. Do extra damage when combining attacks with an ally or stringing your own attacks together.

Combo Breakers. Spend a resources to stop a combo against you and/or gain a buff every hit you take in a combo so when you counterattack you wreck face.

Limit Breaks. After you’ve taken a certain threshold of damage you gain a huge buff and can wreck face.

Power Ups. Instead of starting at full and draining resources, start at zero and gain resources as the fight progresses.