30 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

The discussion started by Realmzmaster in "Should there be more realism in a fantasy game?" started me thinking of another topic...

 

 

Would the DA series benefit from a Standard Ruleset?


Let me explain.

 

A ruleset, such as Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition (like the Baldur's Gate series as an example) is a defined set of rules and interactions of how different actions are performed, how classes operate, how experience is awarded, how magic works, etc. It can cover things as basic as the chance of swing a sword and hitting your opponent to something as high level as large scale siege warfare or interplanar travel. 

 

I realize there are huge licensing issues with Wizards of the Coast to use the D&D ruleset, especially in one of their settings (like the Forgotten Realms and Baldur's Gate) and that part of the reason the DA series was created was to let Bioware operate within their own IP. I understand all of this, but merely want to discuss the benefits of using a standard ruleset... ANY standard ruleset... across the DA games and other ancillary game media. 

 

Also... some people may hate D&D. Or GURPS. Or any of the many random rulesets out there. That's not really the point of this discussion. What I wanted to discuss is "would the DA series benefit from using such a ruleset?" Let's look at a few points about why I think they would.

 

1) Consistency

 

Consider this... in DA:O, there were set stats, skills, restrictions and overall mechanics in play. Rules, like enemies having the same spells as the party, or that warriors could be sub-par archers, could be understood and grasped by a player. Then, DA2 came out and many of these rules were tweaked, changed or altogether thrown out. New skills were added. Stats, though they remained the same names, had different functions for different classes, giving very different outcomes for the exact same builds. 

Though the overall look of combat looked similar (minus the beating-a-dead-horse more "action-y" animations), the rules underneath were different. Foreign. Requiring research and delving to figure out how they work. And, in DA:I, we're likely to see more of the same. This is the nature of iterative games, of course - improving the system and adding new abilities and such. As new needs and challenges arise from game to game, it is understandable that they not use the same exact game design in how the player interacts with the world.

Yet, consider this - a system like D&D has been around for DECADES. It has been player tested in millions of campaigns. It has shown itself adaptable enough to cover a wide range of encounter and session types, along with many different DM and player types. It is detailed enough to provide structure in a vast array of situations and yet still fluid enough to account for rule variances and special considerations.

 

Again, I'm not advocating DA pick up D&D as a ruleset, but just using it as a frame of reference - the set can have a thousand different campaigns and not have any of them play out the same way, despite the rules being (for the most part) exactly the same. Wouldn't this be a boon for both the player as well as the dev, to know what is possible, how to balance it, how to incorporate it into the experience and how to handle for those "weird" one-off's the player may encounter? 

 

2) Inspiration

 

Obviously, the DA world is FULL of great concepts and room for some pretty inventive story items which can be incorporated into the gameplay. So I'm not suggesting Bioware should look into a Monster Guide to find suggestions for such gems as The Calzone Golem or the oh-so-loveable Nilbog for those times when you realize that your DM may, in fact, be a a budding sadistic serial killer... but, instead, that Bioware look at a ruleset for inspiration on game MECHANICS.

 

A system like D&D or Shadowrun or some of the GURPS can have very detailed parameters about what type of likelihood for events happening are, what the effectiveness such actions would be, how long they would take, what could happen if they go wrong, etc. It gives a very real sense of what could happen in the "real" world if such things happened, taking practical considerations into the discussion instead of simply "hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." Rule of Cool always applies, especially in the video game realm, but giving at least plausible areas of concern is a great start when throwing around ideas. It would no longer be creating brand new parameters and math when determining how long a certain Keep could hold out with X enhancements, but rather a very nuanced and understood process without building an entire framework from scratch.

 

3) Simplicity

 

Yes, I know looking at a 400 page Rulebook and the dozens of other addendum books for some rulesets makes this suggestion seem laughable. Simple? One could easily write a doctoral thesis discussing the logic and practicality (or lack thereof) of something like THAC0. How is that simple?

 

There is a saying in business: "Do what you do best, outsource the rest."

 

What is Bioware known for? Character writing, story choices and (in the DA series) tactical, party-based RPG combat. That is, in a nut shell, what Bioware does best.

 

The DA series did not win any awards for its leveling system. The "Strength for melee damage, Dex for dodging, Constitution for Hit Points, Magic for Magic, etc." formula is incredibly simple and rather derivative. The skill sets of both DA:O and DA2 are, in a nut shell, basic DPS maximizers, not truly different playstyles (for the most part). The tactical aspect of DA:O primarily came from enemy unit placement and being able to best allocate your units (I'm omitting DA2 simply because of the dreaded wave mechanic presence). The non-combat skills, seen only in DA:O, were hopelessly unbalanced and really only existed just to have those said skills.

 

If the best thing the DA series does in terms of its mechanics design is either a fairly clear copy/paste of 99% of RPG genres, then their strength comes from encounter design, not gameplay design. Which means the rules could be Monopoly style and they would still have the same chance of failing or succeeding based on their own merits. So why should DA seek to re-invent the wheel every game to try and accommodate some new feature they want to implement (such as, say, mounts, which we are going to see in DA:I) when an existing ruleset covers many of these topics already (such as nearly every form of mount combat known - or imagined - by man)?

 

By having a defined ruleset, the team can quit trying to work on class balancing, or skill distribution, or determining the math on if trying to row a canoe through swampy waters... others have come before and done all of the heavy lifting on this. All DA would need to do is tweak these formulas and it could easily be applied for all future features, situations and instances.

 

 

Wrap-up

 

I've referenced primarily D&D in this thread. This is for two reasons - it is the most documented (and therefore, covers the most scenarios) and it is the system I had the most experience with when I was doing PnP RP'ing. However, it could really be any existing ruleset. In fact, Dragon Age has its own PnP ruleset made by Green Ronin. This is fairly straightforward stuff, with a few variances to make it fast paced but enjoyable. If this system was made the basis for the DA games as well, such that one could conceivably play a PnP campaign exactly like a video game session (or vice versa), this would be a very passable solution*. And it would help take a lot of the number crunching and work that can come with creating a brand new system of gameplay right alongside new encounters, new plots, new systems and all the other work that comes with making a game. Essentially, it would let them focus on making a new game, instead of INVENTING a new game along with the rest of the dev work.

 

*my only caveat here would be that the DA PnP system is not nearly as fleshed out as some other PnP rulesets, so it would lose a lot of the benefit from already having a source that covers many different situations - that being said, it could also work that anything created in a video game could be ported to the PnP (and vice versa) and, hence, to future games/titles, so it would save them from having to duplicate their efforts in many different forms of media when they want to make a new rule/piece of logic.

[Realmzmaster]

Doe not Green Ronin Publishing publish a Dragon age P N P rpg with a ruleset. The Dragon Age RPG already has a players handbook and Game Master's Guide. Why would Bioware/EA license an different p n p rpg. Would it not be better to see what Green Ronin has done to make Dragon Age viable for the tabletop. Maybe some of those ideas could be translated back to the crpgs.

[Jorji Costava]

I like the idea, but I do think it's unlikely to be implemented, the reason being that Bioware might want to overhaul certain mechanics (especially combat) from game to game. For instance, if they decide to move to a more player skill-based melee combat system, it might be difficult to translate rules designed for more tactical combat to that system. Still, it's possible. The Quest for Glory series (one of my favorites) managed to change its combat system from game to game while maintaining a relatively consistent rule system.

[AlanC9]

 

Though the overall look of combat looked similar (minus the beating-a-dead-horse more "action-y" animations), the rules underneath were different. Foreign. Requiring research and delving to figure out how they work. And, in DA:I, we're likely to see more of the same. This is the nature of iterative games, of course - improving the system and adding new abilities and such. As new needs and challenges arise from game to game, it is understandable that they not use the same exact game design in how the player interacts with the world.

 

I don't see what you're talking about here. Abilities in DA all work the same way. Activation, base damage multiplier, cooldown, etc. The abilities do different things, of course, but since they're different abilities they're supposed to do different things. Could you give a specific example or two of an actual problem that your approach would solve? 

[metatheurgist]

I don't think an established ruleset is necessarily a good thing. There are heaps of terrible systems out there that have been around a long time. What's needed is a logical, transparent system that fits the lore. But returning to a mechanically "crunchy" system may be contrary to appealing to casual action gamers, which seems to be the market they are chasing. I think us grognards have to accept that the RPGs we want are a niche product now.

[Fast Jimmy]

Doe not Green Ronin Publishing publish a Dragon age P N P rpg with a ruleset. The Dragon Age RPG already has a players handbook and Game Master's Guide. Why would Bioware/EA license an different p n p rpg. Would it not be better to see what Green Ronin has done to make Dragon Age viable for the tabletop. Maybe some of those ideas could be translated back to the crpgs.

 

I actually do mention the Green Ronin PnP campaign in my post (it is towards the end, I believe) as a decent place to start. Especially since the campaign mimics the video game experience in most of its design (to be mana based, quick paced and straight laced). It doesn't have some of the more robust elements of other more established rulesets, but if it was consistently applied and expanded, it could be a great framework for the games. 

 

I don't see what you're talking about here. Abilities in DA all work the same way. Activation, base damage multiplier, cooldown, etc. The abilities do different things, of course, but since they're different abilities they're supposed to do different things. Could you give a specific example or two of an actual problem that your approach would solve? 

 

In DA:O, Cunning had a VERY different underlying function than it does in DA2. DA:O, Cunning is a pre-req for some non-combat skills and also drive crit hit % as well as two-handed damage. In DA2, it also replaced Dexterity as the primary "defense" attribute, in a very counter-intuitive sense. If one were to apply the same logic to character building they learned from DA:O, it would result in a sub-prime build, as the DA2 Official Guide suggests every class to place at least one point in Cunning every 3rd level to help keep pace with standard defense. 

 

Or, for example, a spell like Crushing Prison. In DA:O, it does Spirit Damage and reduces enemy speed, while in DA2 it deals physical damage and completely immobilizes the enemy (unless it is a boss). As well, the amount of damage done is DRASTICALLY different, because the design change to make all enemies have exponentially larger HP pools in DA2 when compared with the party. 

 

In DA:O, there is the ability for a warrior to dual wield with the right skill unlock. They would suffer a penalty and not be as effective as a dual-wielding rogue, but they could create a viable build using this concept should they so desire. DA2 had no such ability.

 

 

This demonstrates very different rules. Hence, different rule sets. If we are saying "both games have skills and cooldowns, therefore they are the same rules," then that means WoW is operating under the same ruleset as well. Which is patently not true.

 

I don't think an established ruleset is necessarily a good thing. There are heaps of terrible systems out there that have been around a long time. What's needed is a logical, transparent system that fits the lore. But returning to a mechanically "crunchy" system may be contrary to appealing to casual action gamers, which seems to be the market they are chasing. I think us grognards have to accept that the RPGs we want are a niche product now.

 

And, again, DA can even use its OWN ruleset it developed for the Green Ronin product. It doesn't have to be an outside ruleset, inherently. I'm just suggesting some form of standard, whereby the lore can stay consistent, because the rules that govern the universe are consistent. That way. the team doesn't have to, again, re-invent the wheel every time a game (or even a DLC/expansion, as we kind of saw with Awakening) is released. 

 

I know the goal is to find a "sweet spot" that best creates the game they are trying to make, but that is why an established ruleset offers so much appeal - some of them have been played, tweaked and road-tested by millions of players, taking a lot of the guesswork out of the process. It comes pre-balanced, pre-researched, pre-worked. That offers a lot of freedom when you don't have to write a thesis to introduce a new mechanic - all of the documentation and math have already been done, the real challenge is where it SHOULD be in video game development - implementing it in game.

[AlanC9]

Ah. I was confused. I thought we were talking about common mechanics within one game, not between games of the series.

 

Whether a common method for the whole series would be a benefit or not depends on whether you like the first implementation best. You're locked into it. Would DA2 be better if Dex drove Defense, or Crushing Prison didn't stop enemies and did different damage? Hell, it wouldn't stop there; you'd have to restructure everything. Similarly, ME2 would have had to keep ME1's aiming system (and inventory?) if your proposal was adopted.

 

I don't see any value here. I think that combat systems should be improved between games if possible

[Fast Jimmy]

Ah. I was confused. I thought we were talking about common mechanics within one game, not between games of the series.

Whether a common method for the whole series would be a benefit or not depends on whether you like the first implementation best. You're locked into it. Would DA2 be better if Dex drove Defense, or Crushing Prison didn't stop enemies and did different damage? Hell, it wouldn't stop there; you'd have to restructure everything. Similarly, ME2 would have had to keep ME1's aiming system (and inventory?) if your proposal was adopted.

I don't see any value here. I think that combat systems should be improved between games if possible

But here's the problem - games are tweaked constantly because their mechanics were viewed as unbalanced from one game to the next (or, in the case of multiplayer games, from one update to the next). This is because the system is fresh, undeveloped, untested. The devs have some good ideas for how the rules should work and then release it out in the world.

An established ruleset like D&D has already been stress tested. It has survived interaction with the outside world and tweaks already been made countless times. I'm not saying a video game should never change the rules from one game to the next... what I'm suggesting is using the rules already established and tested elsewhere, where the kinks and variables have already been worked out and pre-determined. I'm not saying "games should never change," but rather that if a solid foundation is adopted in the first place, it becomes much more of a focused effort to replicate the already-established rules instead of working at creating brand new "from scratch" game design each release.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see what you're talking about here. Abilities in DA all work the same way. Activation, base damage multiplier, cooldown, etc. The abilities do different things, of course, but since they're different abilities they're supposed to do different things. Could you give a specific example or two of an actual problem that your approach would solve? 

How about hit point progression?  Or potion cooldowns?

[Sylvius the Mad]

There are so many great RPG systems out there.  D&D often evokes a visceral negative reaction from some people, but it was arguably improved upon with Pathfinder, not to mention things like the old Star Wars RPG (before the d20 version - the old one was all d6 based), or MERP, or the shortlived Mythus game.  Even the old BattleTech rules had some nice features.  And this doesn't even mention Shadowrun.

 

I still think GURPS would be the best place to start, but the options are many and varied.

[AlanC9]

D&D is a balanced and stable system? In which era?

 

In any event, Bio's D&D based games don't strike me as being any better balanced than their non-D&D games. HotU had the worst balance in Bio history, though Dev Criting everything in sight was kinda fun. Though I suppose you could argue that 3.0 wasn't balanced yet.

[AlanC9]

How about hit point progression?  Or potion cooldowns?

 

I forgot that DA2 changed potion cooldowns so health pots are all on one timer. I already played DAO that way thanks to the Combat Tweaks mod.

[CybAnt1]

I get the impression that both games have used a subset of the rules that are used in the Green Ronin tabletop game (as well as adaptation for calculations that don't need to involve dice), and that they streamlined even more in DA2 than in DAO. It also seems like they may do a slight reverse correction for DAI. 

 

I think the DA ruleset could use more classes. Four to six would be fine. I'd also implement usable magic items (I don't see why this conflicts with a low-magic setting anymore than enchanted items with 6 passive magic properties). There could be other tweaks. 

 

I think the main issue is documenting the rules the game is using, but yet it seems to feel it needs to hide its underlying complexity/mechanics from players, whether newbie/casual or hardcore/grognard ... that was a big problem I had with DA2, see discussions of elemental resistance and how it scales, or descriptions of item properties. It's OK to keep them normally hidden, but perhaps visible in a place where people who want to see them, can. 

 

The big problem with the D & D rules is you can't take the rules without the setting, at least not according to WotC, so it means going back to Forgotten Realms/Faerun/etc. but Thedas is rather growing on me. Plus, who has the right/license to make D & D games still seems a bit stuck in legal limbo. I understand why Bioware wanted to have its own IP, under its own control, instead of having to answer to WotC or LucasArts or any outside "power". 

[Realmzmaster]

I would say that one of the biggest points with DA and I can see the reason from a story telling point of view is limiting magic to those who are born with it.   I see no reason why an apostate mage (especially) would not learn to use a sword , club, dagger, or flail. 

I would like to see a real Battlemage or Spellsword.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I forgot that DA2 changed potion cooldowns so health pots are all on one timer. I already played DAO that way thanks to the Combat Tweaks mod.

I noticed it particularly in DA2 because I hardly ever used potions in DAO.  But because DA2 relied so heavily on tanking (aka taking damage), potions because far more necessary.

[metatheurgist]

DnD is a bad example since 4th changed the rules dramatically (and frankly they sucked). 5th is also coming up with some hokey new mechanics (like advantage/disadvantage). DnD is too much of a loose cannon now to consider stable and stress tested.

[Fast Jimmy]

DnD is a bad example since 4th changed the rules dramatically (and frankly they sucked). 5th is also coming up with some hokey new mechanics (like advantage/disadvantage). DnD is too much of a loose cannon now to consider stable and stress tested.

 

Again, I wasn't meaning to hold DnD up as the ultimate ruleset upon which all RPG video games should/could be based. Just that it has been around for decades and has already taken into account countless situational questions that, at the very least, some basic framework and structure has already been given.

 

Want to give the player the option to open their own business? There are hundreds of pages of texts that deal with various mechanics, considerations and gameplay points that can occur with owning a shop already laid out. Want to have the player become a feudal lord for a section if they so choose? There are many rules that deal with time progression, issues of administration, economies of scale, etc. Want to have a player device their own spell or even their own branch of magic? There are parameters, suggested steps and guidelines which would keep the newly implemented skill within the range of acceptable in the world. If such rules had existed for DA from the start, do you think a class like the Arcane Warrior would have come about and made class balance a bit of a joke in DA:O?

 

 

Point being - if you go make a Shadowrun game, you know how skills progress. You know how Karma works. You know the rough range where weapons adn nuyen should be distributed. Instead of being confining, it actually gives you a solid base with which you can hop right into the content of your game creation, rather than trying to do a bizarre balancing act of gameplay design, resource constriction and scope creep. DnD, Shadowrun, Pathfinder, GURPS... I'm not saying any of these rulesets or any better than each other for the purposes of DA:O. All have their balancing issues, but I feel like having a fleshed out, established ruleset... ANY fleshed out, established ruleset... would be beneficial to keeping a game focused and content driven, instead of constantly worrying about how to create your gameplay mechanics (let alone the HOW of actually programming and designing it as well).

[Fast Jimmy]

I would say that one of the biggest points with DA and I can see the reason from a story telling point of view is limiting magic to those who are born with it.   I see no reason why an apostate mage (especially) would not learn to use a sword , club, dagger, or flail. 

I would like to see a real Battlemage or Spellsword.

 

I don't disagree. If the game had locked stats, where they didn't increase at a near exponential rate over the course of the games, you could argue that such a build could be totally doable, with the understanding that the player would either need to forgo high strength to have high magic, or forgo hihg magic to have high strength, or forgo high values for either and have a "middle ground" value for both, or have high values for both strength and magic, but have abysmal attributes for all other stats. 

 

But since points constantly increase, there is little reason why you couldn't create a Mage character with good combat stats, good magic stats and well chosen spells and combat skills in a result that makes it the best class to play. This is, in fact, pretty much exactly what happened with the Arcane Warrior (especially since it allowed the player to replace Magic for Strength not just in terms of damage dealing, but also equipment and fatigue). 

 

Class balancing shouldn't be the ultimate goal in a SP RPG game by any stretch of the imagination, but, at the same time, it makes little sense to have one class or particular build be completely weighted towards total dominance with one over another. Again, something many established rulesets have already wrestled with and, in many cases, resolved.

[Realmzmaster]

Another question would be would that standard ruleset have classes or be classless. Will templates be used to suggest a "class" for beginners.  There are many p n p systems like GURPS, RuneQuest, Tunnels and Trolls, World of Darkness, D20 and DA RPG. What ruleset would do?

[Fast Jimmy]

Another question would be would that standard ruleset have classes or be classless. Will templates be used to suggest a "class" for beginners. There are many p n p systems like GURPS, RuneQuest, Tunnels and Trolls, World of Darkness, D20 and DA RPG. What ruleset would do?

It would really depend on the ruleset chosen, honeslty. Given how much being a Mage differntiates someone from the rest of the population, I really can't see DA operating in a classless ruleset. That being said, many rulesets offer cross-class abilities that often would be more balanced than the one real case of this we'd seen so far in DA, the Arcane Warrior.

Although that is a bit of a more "in the weeds" discussion that would need to occur once Bioware even agreed that having an established ruleset would be a good idea.

[Wulfram]

A balance that works for the tabletop doesn't necessarily work well for a CRPG.  And a lot of tabletop rulesets rely on human adjudication, I think.  At the least I think Bioware would want the right to change things without having to get them vetted by any outside types.

 

Also, the fact that you've got a computer to handle the calculations allows you to do some fancy math that would be impractical on pen and paper.  Though I sometimes wonder if this is a bad thing - the requirement to keep the maths possible for ordinary people to do in their heads keeps the mechanics fairly intuitive, and discourages the massive stat inflation you seem to end up with.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It would really depend on the ruleset chosen, honeslty. Given how much being a Mage differntiates someone from the rest of the population, I really can't see DA operating in a classless ruleset.

I think it would work.  You just make magic affinity an expensive ability that it only selectable at first level.  A character would either have a bunch of points to spend on non-magical abilities (or attribute points), or have to dump most of his starting points into being a mage, thus leaving him far behind other characters' non-magic abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Also, the fact that you've got a computer to handle the calculations allows you to do some fancy math that would be impractical on pen and paper.

This is the primary strength of the CRPG, I think.  It allows mechanics that keep track of far more variables.

 

However, fundamental to the tabletop game is the symmetrical mechanics that treat all characters similarly under the rules.  This is something CRPGs are doing less and less, and I think that's a mistake.

[AlanC9]

I think it would work. You just make magic affinity an expensive ability that it only selectable at first level. A character would either have a bunch of points to spend on non-magical abilities (or attribute points), or have to dump most of his starting points into being a mage, thus leaving him far behind other characters' non-magic abilities.

DragonQuest did something similar. Characters could either be proficient in one of the colleges of magic, or could get a big bonus to magic resistance. And Magical Aptitude is a dump stat if you aren't a mage, since even the quasi-magical skills don't check MA. GURPS works this way too, since Magical Aptitude is a 15-point Advantage.