D&D Daggerdale - Interview @ Eurogamer

After waiting for signs of life from D&D for so long, this is what we'll be getting? Colour me unimpressed. A quasi-Dark Alliance 3 with 4th edition rules? I'll pass, thanks.
Not the greatest of interviews either, when it seemingly ignores Dark Alliance in the first lead-in sentence.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,975
Location
Australia
wolfing said:
I didn't like them either, but I do realize it's because they changed it to be more like WoW, so I think the system should work just fine in a computer game.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that it's a much easier system to implement in a computer game.

It's just that it's far too rigid compared to 3-3.5 D&D - especially regarding multiclassing and roles.

I like flavor, and I don't mind a bit of mess here and there :)
 
I actually prefer 4th edition. 3.5 forces you to design your characters future in advance like it was a career or somthing. I dont like that, because it forces me to do decisions I might regret later.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
zakhal said:
I dont like that, because it forces me to do decisions I might regret later.
Click to expand...

They once had a name for that kind of affair. Let think me think...

ah, "Choice and Consequence".
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
635
Location
Germany
Sir_Brennus said:
They once had a name for that kind of affair. Let think me think…

ah, "Choice and Consequence".
Click to expand...
Theres a difference in choosing what you do when you level now and what you do for the next 20 levels. You have to learn the whole game before you play instead of learning it bit-by-bit while playing.

We are talking about very long term consecuences that are hard to see if you are not very familiar with 3.5. Short term consecuences I dont mind but long I do.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
zakhal- I gotta agree with you generally, though I don't know much about 4.0.

It's like you had to approach 3.5 with a spreadsheet. And that attracts a, um, certain type of player. Min-maxxing, "splash classes" and all that kind of bullsh!t is just too much for my tastes.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
zakhal said:
If they want to make an action game they dont really need AD&D licence for it. I bet AD&D players would rather play an AD&D game instead of this.
Click to expand...

It could be educating (A)&D players into loving action games … Says the conspiracy theorist in me …
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,964
Location
Old Europe
Ovenall said:
zakhal- I gotta agree with you generally, though I don't know much about 4.0.

It's like you had to approach 3.5 with a spreadsheet. And that attracts a, um, certain type of player. Min-maxxing, "splash classes" and all that kind of bullsh!t is just too much for my tastes.
Click to expand...
Well I do agree with zakhal too, but it's a bit in case you want optimized your character. If you didn't bother the game still let you lot of choice... but with a blind approach not easily knowing what you could unlock or not with your choices.

I'd say that FNV brought me back the same unpleasant feeling of managing my character blindly not really been able to pinpoint what I unlock or not nor where I go.

I'm sure it's cool for replaying a lot the same game but this never really worked well for me with the heavy story based RPG because see again the same story bore me rather fast. Only G2 succeed appeal me through 3 plays because of some important intriguing variations and an action that could be rather different.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
You didn't have to approach 3.5 with a spreadsheet. However, if you ARE a min-max gamer - you would probably get that feeling, because you'd feel underpowered compared to others.

So, if you felt inferior playing 3.5 - you're probably a min-maxer without even knowing it ;)

But most builds do fine, as long as you don't make completely stupid choices.

It's true, however, that a careful approach to planning your character will yield better results.

That's exactly why I like that kind of game, but it's not about power as much as experimentation. I love to figure out new ways to put together classes and come up with unique playstyles. That's great fun - and I've played lots of characters that weren't necessarily the most powerful, just plain fun.

4th Edition is the casual version of D&D - and it's streamlined exactly like AAA games are streamlined. Remove complexity and flavor, so everyone can do what they're supposed to - and no one needs to plan or feel confused about how to go about building their character - or what to do during a combat encounter.

Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not a casual gamer.
 
Look, I know you didn't HAVE to approach 3.5 with a spreadsheet. It's just that it was a system that attracted the type of players who would do just that, and approach the game like a group of accountants looking at tax law. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but to my mind it sucked a lot of spontaneity out of the experience, and pushed the story telling (and fun) more to the back.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
Ovenall said:
Look, I know you didn't HAVE to approach 3.5 with a spreadsheet. It's just that it was a system that attracted the type of players who would do just that, and approach the game like a group of accountants looking at tax law. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but to my mind it sucked a lot of spontaneity out of the experience, and pushed the story telling (and fun) more to the back.
Click to expand...

I think you must have had some bad experiences, and I understand if you think that means everyone has to.

But, I've played D&D for many, many years - and powergamers have always been there.

3.5 didn't make people into accountants - but it definitely made the system more interesting. I'm sure that people who don't want to invest in building an efficient character found 3.5 frustrating when playing with powergamers - but that's not about the system.

Roleplaying always worked best when playing with like-minded people. Personally, I'm not much of a powergamer when I play PnP - because that's not what interests me. I play with good friends - and we've always had a good time, regardless of the system.

Besides, you're talking about your personal experiences with PnP D&D - instead of the system itself.

I'm talking about the system, and specifically when used in computer games. That's when I love to experiment and "powergame" - and that's when it doesn't affect other people, unless it's multiplayer.

So, I think it's a bit unfair to blame the system for the kind of people you choose to play with.
 
Of course I'm only talking about my personal experiences and opinions.

Actually I think the "deep character building" trend is what led to the endless ripoffs of crap loot-fests like Diablo that we still see pumped out today. Say someone plays a CRPG. Once he's played through it, how many more times does he really want to go through the same story with different characters, just to try out builds?

The Diablo games took the notion of character-builds and skill-trees and made the game almost ALL about that. The story is almost besides the point. It's all about trying different builds, planning for them, discussing builds on forums, etc. The only things getting you through the same random dungeons are the character build you're trying out, and of course, random loot drops.

Older versions of D&D had much more rudimentary character building systems and relied far more on a story and role playing to provide the fun.

This is all just my opinion though, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
DArtagnan said:
But, I've played D&D for many, many years - and powergamers have always been there.
Click to expand...

I think they are in any system … TDE has its share of them, too …

@Ovenall : Very interesting opinion. i tend to see it the same way as you do.

What did I say : "interactive growing into manhood" - kind of ? ;)
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,964
Location
Old Europe
Ovenall said:
Of course I'm only talking about my personal experiences and opinions.

Actually I think the "deep character building" trend is what led to the endless ripoffs of crap loot-fests like Diablo that we still see pumped out today. Say someone plays a CRPG. Once he's played through it, how many more times does he really want to go through the same story with different characters, just to try out builds?

The Diablo games took the notion of character-builds and skill-trees and made the game almost ALL about that. The story is almost besides the point. It's all about trying different builds, planning for them, discussing builds on forums, etc. The only things getting you through the same random dungeons are the character build you're trying out, and of course, random loot drops.

Older versions of D&D had much more rudimentary character building systems and relied far more on a story and role playing to provide the fun.

This is all just my opinion though, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think a deep character system must somehow affect the story, but that's probably how we differ. Personally, I'd like a combination of a deep character system and an engaging story - and I have absolutely no doubt they can co-exist just fine - which is something I've witnessed several times, including during PnP sessions.

It's pretty clear to me that you REALLY don't like the first aspect - and I just happen to love both aspects.

Nothing wrong with you hating interesting character building - though I think you're focusing on the wrong thing - but that's just my opinion.
 
Couchpotato said:
They almost did but somehow won the battle in court. Use goggle and you will see Hasbro tried to get there d&d license back from Atari. The new never-winter doesn't have me excited either. The game franchise has been in decline for over 5 years on the pc and consoles.
Click to expand...

The paper game franchise has been in decline since they abandoned 3.5e. The 4e rules were meant to appeal more to on-line gamers and such and lost a huge amount of the fan support they had gained by doing 3/3.5.

Actually, you could probably argue that D&D has gone downhill since Hasbro bought out Wizards of the Coast.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,769
Location
Minnesota, USA
One more thing about this:

My gut tells me that all the added complexity of the character system is what drives a lot of the other added complexities of game systems: the bottom line, or money. Sell more rule books, expansions, character sheets, monster manuals, etc.

But really, what the heck is a Red Dragon Disciple (just picking an example here) as a character? It's the end result of a bunch of accumulated stat points that forces (or at least greatly encourages) a person to "play backwards" in his head before starting just to eventually end up there. Make sure you have the right alignment first. Then level this class first, then multi- to this other class and take various skills and abilities along the way, just to reach some endpoint where you end up with some other abilities, which will unlock other abilities, etc., etc.

Not my bag.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
Optional rules are optional.

Sure, NWN2 jammed a billion secondary and prestige classes to the game, but the reality is, in a pen and paper campaign, all of those rules are optional.

3.5E was a fantastic system, if a little cumbersome in combat. It did reward you for thinking ahead of your character build, but I'll tell you that I've ran a large handful of 3E campaigns since the month the PHB was released and it does not punish you for not picking the right options in advance. If a prestige class is available to you, but has an alignment or pre-requisite you don't have, well, tough- there's probably other options available or your DM is failing you specifically.

There's a reason why d20 lives on in Pathfinder and why Pathfinder is doing so well in the RPG world despite the bigger name of D&D. d20 was the right kind and level of complexity and was pretty much fully modular.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
837
3.5e was kind of collapsing under the weight of all the supplements. Many of them were filled will ill thought out and never test classes and spells. We now usually only allow very select stuff from anything other than the basic books and the spell compendium.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,769
Location
Minnesota, USA
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom