|
For video
game designers who want to derive from this feature, be careful. Throwing in a river
of lava or two alone isn't going to cut it. The player needs meaningful ways to
interact with space and move both himself and others around if the terrain is
really going to matter.
If the player can't push orcs into the lava, the lava
isn't going to add much fun. Even then, just adding in some physics motion is
not enough -- it needs to have recognized and easily understandable gameplay
effects.
If
pushing follows actual physics, it's going to be hard for the player to know
how it works -- instead, make pushing a gameplay system so the player always
knows he can push small enemies a certain distance, and larger enemies a
different distance. D&D powers are all universal, even when they don't make
sense.
For example, a rules question on a forum asked if Gelatinous Cubes could
be knocked prone, and what that would look like. The answer: just treat them
the same as anyone else who is prone, even if the character can't see a
difference -- gameplay system trumps reality.
Even with
intuitive player inputs into the system, the system can become tedious if all
the player can do is knock things into lava. Just like with monsters, there
must be enough depth in the trap/hazard system to populate multiple encounters.
Movement mechanics should be as varied and well paced as combat mechanics,
giving players multiple different ways to use these new abilities.
Allow
allies to knock each other out of the way of incoming boulders. Set up enemy
abilities that buff each other within a limited range so the player is rewarded
if he can separate them. Have the combat system provide an interesting response
to prone enemies, and double reward knocking enemies into each other. Fit
everything together into a clear systems design, then build enough content to
support it from start to finish.
Team Builds
Synergy
is not a new idea, but it's well executed in 4E. Rogues like to position
themselves around enemies, and Warlords and other classes like to move allies
around. Multiple classes (Warlord, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin) have multiple
powers that directly aid and abet their allies.
Many class powers react to
states that other classes are good at creating. Already, people are not only
posting character builds on the forums, but also posting team builds, utilizing
synergies from multiple characters working together.
One key
concept that 4E uses to make this work is setting up most team abilities so
that they do more than just help others. Players like to do things. Helping
others works better as a side effect of an attack than its own action. I enjoy
playing a healer in an MMO, and spending all my time concentrating on the
micro-spreadsheet of allies' health, but I'm the exception rather than the rule.
Adapting
this rule from a turn-based pen-and-paper game to a real-time electronic game
requires some simplification -- picking an ally to target in the middle of an
attack isn't exactly streamlined. But that's may have a simple fix -- target
the nearest ally or build the game around a limited number of wingmen, for
example.
And don't
forget to carefully parcel out the abilities so that each class provides
something that the other classes can't get by themselves. If the Rogue could
position himself perfectly by himself, he wouldn't need the Warlord's help.
Hold off on some good abilities to make allies really matter. Single-player
games get less benefit from this, but even single-player games often include
support NPCs. And for MMOs or cooperative gameplay, anything that encourages
players to support each other is critical.
|
For instance earlier when it mentioned about how the system simplified the use of skills. The point here isn't that you're meant to simply any skill system you have. The point is that a heavily abstract list like what they had in 3ed is counter productive to a smooth running game and it made values that were 0s nearly useless to the player. They took a cumbersome system and made it more streamlined and fitting to the feel they wanted. Which has nothing to do with there being "no new ideas".
As to my feelings on this, I love the article, very informative and I have to say some very good points. I have noticed as a designer I have a tendancy to make systems more complex than they really have to be.
I absolutely hated the random and inappropriate shout out to Miyamoto in the end. He abandoned the core audience to cater to casuals, so he definitely does not belong in an article about D&D 4th edition, a game that proves that you don't have to sacrifice the core to reach out to the casuals. You should’ve mentioned Will Wright or at the very least, Blizzard/Harmonix for creating great games that take creativity from everyday people and everyday life but truly translating them into great games, not half-baked attempts. :p
Extra tidbit on Miyamoto: When asked if Mario Galaxy drew any inspirations from Rachet and Clank with the spherical level designs, he said "Rachet and Clank? I've never heard of that game. Is it a PC game?” I’ve never personally played R&C but how can anyone serious about game design and “innovation” not know R&C? Plus, what kind of response was “Is it a pc game?” Any game he never heard of must be on PC?
Shaun, great point about the D&D blogs and podcasts - lots of good design philosophy there. And many of their core design tips apply to video games as well as RPGs. The Magic the Gathering ones are worth checking out, too.
I'm sorry if the Miyamoto thing didn't work for you. I've always drawn inspiration from his talks on how gardening influenced the design of Pikmin, which I consider to be a great example of seeing game design in the world around you. Which is what I was trying to get to, as plucking design secrets from everyday things is the ultimate expression of thievery. But I may have rushed that point a bit.
The DM Guide, among other things, points out that you can create a game with more moral ambiguity rather than being strictly heroic. While we've seen some video games with ambiguity, heroic definitely wins out in most cases. Maybe video games still have a lot to learn from D&D?
"Published modules can define discrete skill challenges as a way to structure to that annoying time between combats." is also an interesting comment. I haven't played D&D for many years, but I remember when the time between combat was meant to be interesting in its own right without being boiled down to discrete skill challenges. Your comment makes it sound like if you aren't rolling dice, then you can't be having fun. (Which seems at times to be a theme behind 4th edition's design as well.)
And while you call "health packs" a stolen version of D&D's "healing potions," to me "healing surges" seem similar to the "quick recovery when resting" trend that blazed across FPS and even some third-person shooters. They certainly seem grounded in the same logic, of only needing a moment to freely get yourself immediately back into the battle rather than having to squander resources spend precious time being cautious while in search of an external means of healing.
But I was also trying to indicate that the time between combats has historically been a difficult time for designers to deal with. Both electronic and role-playing games have their roots in combat-heavy scenarios, so stretching the design outside of combat space has traditionally been an after-thought for the big releases. Of course, there are plenty of other, smaller games (both digital and paper) that explore those spaces in interesting ways, but I'm honestly happy to see the granddaddy of them all - D&D - explore that space a little more than previous editions.
And on the broader issue of D&D and MMORPG similarities, I tried to address that a touch in the text by pointing out how well D&D has managed to take good ideas from other sources without diluting their own feel. I don't think D&D is just mindlessly copying MMOs - I think they're doing a very clever job of stealing the right ideas and applying them well. But it doesn't mean that D&D is no longer D&D, at least to me.