The Battle System I Wish RPGs Would Stop Using @ Sinister Design

Craig Stern from Sinister Design (Telepath RPG: Servants of God) writes a lengthy piece about the shortcomings of D&D as a combat system, particularly for cRPGs. Here's a sample:

Reason 4: Mitigating factors in real-life D&D do not translate to computers
For the most part, D&D gets away with relying so heavily on die rolls because it is a role-playing game run by human beings. Players have the flexibility to improvise tactics during a play session—and, just as importantly, the ability to nag the Dungeon Master to fudge the dice in the name of a fun play experience.
If you are designing a computer game, there is no Dungeon Master to fudge the rules for you. There is only a program that is going to execute every line of code you enter with exacting literalness. You do not have the luxury of designing an arbitrary or unfair combat system. Any factors that are going to tilt combat in the players’ favor have to be coded into the game itself.
Unfortunately, most games that use an D&D-style combat system fail to give the player enough tactical options to manage the risks imposed by a highly randomized combat environment. They adopt the Thac0, the randomized damage and the saving throws, but then fail utterly to give the player more than a small handful of real tactical options. The player’s only friends become superior stats and superior loot.

More information.

That's funny if I named my top 5 favorite games based only on combat all but 1 (wizardry which has a similar system) would be dnd. No surprise he would bash it though considering its the competition.

Anyway he can rest easy they have stopped using that combat system unfortunately.

Hey guys DnD is not realistic because it has numbers are relies on random chance, I like it more when hawke whacks on something and it explodes into a million pieces which is realistic because that sword is huge and badass.

I've complained before and probably will again but is every stupid thing someone says in a blog post really news?

No, it is not news. It is just someone's random scribblings. We should title this section "RPG junk found on the internets".

I'm not buying what he's saying at all.

The system is complex. So what? I know more armor makes me safer. I know a +5 sword does more damage than a +2 sword. The computer handles the rest. It can roll 231 dice where the firce die was a 1-sided die, the second was a two sidec, and so on. And it can add them all up in about 50 nanoseconds. Or multiply them.

The system has a lot of randomness. Good. If it didn't, I would not only know I was going to win as soon as a battle started, I would know by just how much I would win, too. Sure I don't completely control the battle, but you would have to make the system EXTREMELY random before I wouldn't feel like I had a strong influence on the outcome. That's all I need.

Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped
I've complained before and probably will again but is every stupid thing someone says in a blog post really news?

Feel free not to respond to anything not worth your time.

I think he has a point of view that, even if I don't fully agree, is worth a read. Feel free to disagree and discuss, which is kind of the whole point of this board - or not.

Originally Posted by Zloth
The system is complex. So what?

Missed the point entirely.

It only gives further proof why we will never see another rpg like Baldur's gate or Neverwinter again. The core audience today just want instant action. Im not counting that travesty Cryptic is making.

Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped
Hey guys DnD is not realistic because it has numbers are relies on random chance, I like it more when hawke whacks on something and it explodes into a million pieces which is realistic because that sword is huge and badass.

I've complained before and probably will again but is every stupid thing someone says in a blog post really news?

Not news maybe, but a source for discussion. I always enjoy reading developers thoughts about game systems, and I enjoy discussing them, so I hope thevWatch will keep posting them. Your Hawke comment is way off - his game, Telepath, is a tactical TB indie game.
That said I don't really agree with him either. I personally don't really like D&D that much either. But there have been several games with pretty good combat based on it - most recently Knights of the Chalice.

there is no Dungeon Master to fudge the rules for you. There is only a program that is going to execute every line of code you enter with exacting literalness. You do not have the luxury of designing an arbitrary or unfair combat system. Any factors that are going to tilt combat in the players’ favor have to be coded into the game itself.

Well, actually, there is. It's called cheating, so if you really want a to nag the DM in a CRPG, head to www.gamefaqs.com.

But what he is talking about -unfair combat- has nothing to do with D&D, it's just a QA problem. If the developers are too lazy to balance and polish their game and if the QA department does not spend enough time on finding balance issues, it won't matter if the game's based on D&D or not. You'll end up having a broken game with unfair combat anyway. Alpha Protocol or Two Worlds did not use D&D and they suffered from the same problem.
He's a developer, so instead of complaining about D&D or other rule-sets, he should start spending time on polishing his game.

I think the author brings up some valid and interesting points. Good read overall.
(As a side-note, for everyone saying that this developer is in favor of dumbing down games for instant action and mass appeal, that is not at all the point he is making. Take the time to read what he's actually saying; he's not in any way making the same argument as, say, inXile and their comments that old-school RPGs were a "30 year detour" and that all turn-based games always wished they could be pure action games.)

I've enjoyed many Dn'D CRPGs, but I would personally prefer more of a tactical challenge when it comes to combat instead of the min-max power-gaming that is often necessary to be successful in a Dn'D CRPG. I can also see why so many people love Dn'D, because some people prefer the rigid rule-system and stats-based gameplay. I think a combination of the two - more of a focus on actual strategy and tactics to go along with the Dn'D system - would be a good solution that has proven to work in the past, as seen in Temple of Elemental Evil. But I mostly agree with the author in the sense that I would prefer a system that still has a lot of meaningful depth for character building, but with more interesting and tactical-based gameplay over pure statistical dice-roll gameplay (Something along the lines of Jagged Alliance 2 but with more role-playing depth would be perfect).

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
I personally don't really like D&D that much either. But there have been several games with pretty good combat based on it - most recently Knights of the Chalice.

I agree with you, but I personally think a game like Knights of the Chalice had satisfying combat not purely as a result of the rule system, but because of well-thought out encounter design.

there are too many factors to consider for failed/successful examples.
But i approve. A game should rely more on the user's skill in combat,
the entire dnd thing is for chess players. It only relies on your brain in a mathematical way.
See dota, the electronic sport, that's how hardcore a gameplay can get.
It matters more the positioning, micro-ing around, every second counts, an action can be amazing, here you would only say wow or cry, if the random chance got you luck or badluck(which is also part of the game, should not be excluded). the counter items, are chosen wisely, because you can have vision of the game, while in Dnd there is no such thing, you don't know how to prepare, you prepare a generic hero to fight generic monsters as best you can. you hardly ever adapt to something.

Pute BS.

Why is D&D unfair? Just because the ruleset is followed consequently? Mmh, then real life is unfair, too. Cross the street without looking, getting hit by a car - Instadeath.
Yepp, life is unfair, whiney boy.

Why bringing up the THAC0? I thought D&D got rit of that.

What does "more tactical" really mean? Have you overwhelmed the Troll gang in the Slums of PoR without playing tactical?

I can't see his point. If he criticizes spreadsheet autism in RPGs then it's a cheepo and in the end it always will lead to the "Awesome"-Button.

I think his main point is that simpler rule systems can lead to more interesting (more complex) gameplay, and that the adherence to the D&D style system has really hampered the development of TB combat systems. Arguably there has been relatively little innovation on the basic TB formula over the years of its heyday, so he may have a point. Maybe thats one reason why puzzle quest was so refreshing - it just tried something really different.

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan
Not news maybe, but a source for discussion. I always enjoy reading developers thoughts about game systems, and I enjoy discussing them, so I hope thevWatch will keep posting them. Your Hawke comment is way off - his game, Telepath, is a tactical TB indie game.
That said I don't really agree with him either. I personally don't really like D&D that much either. But there have been several games with pretty good combat based on it - most recently Knights of the Chalice.

TB alone doesn't make for tactical, or interesting, or even something I can look at without shuddering. I guess we have to make do with what's there, though, which in this case is a low rent flash game.

But here is a point by point analysis.

Reason 1: The D&D combat system is sloppy.
response: It's not sloppy, it's deep. Any idiot can calculate some damage for the computer. DnD allows DM and players to get very creative. However this is hard to do in a computer, so this guy's solution? Don't do it at all!

Reason 2: The D&D combat system is inscrutable.
response: Yes, people who are deeply stupid will make statements about how mages are useless until they get fireball, and how classes are so unbalanced.

Reason 3: Results are too randomized under the D&D combat system.
response: So player skill should determine result. Meaning usually that you are in for a twitchfest.

Reason 4: Mitigating factors in real-life D&D do not translate to computers
response: Not if you are a bad game developer, they don't. The semantics, the use of the system, the blanks not filled in by it are up to you cowboy. Translate languages doesn't cause any hitpoints of damage, but that doesn't mean you can't work it into your game as something that is a good thing to have. Instead of doing the work, this guy wants to eliminate it completely. What a genius. Also just happens to be a good excuse for why he made things simple.



So yeah, this is just more marketing combined with excuses. I am disgusted by this kind of crap.

Originally Posted by borcanu
A game should rely more on the user's skill in combat,

Don´t have time to read the article now, but I´d like to point out that in cRPGs user´s skill pretty much equals ability to utilize character skills.

We're not exactly awash with CRPGs using D&D rules these days.

How hostile!

I don't see what's wrong with setting aside D&D and seeing what you can come up with that would be new, simple, emergent. What about Magicka for instance? Poorly optimized and a bad scaling system, but really creative and enjoyable.

Player skill doesn't have to mean "twitch", it could mean "tactically thoughtful" or "strategically thoughtful". I think there's something to be said for making the system simple, transparent, fair, and a bit more deterministic in a way that allows complex strategy to emerge.

It's reads like a poor excuse for someone who is too lazy or dumb to apply the depth of the DnD ruleset.

you fail to understand the big picture, it's not about people who are frustrated by dnd, its about people who are bored with it, or have thought of something better.
there is no perfect combat system.
maybe i am defending exactly the man you are picturing , and he is bad at logic
the issue is not "that man", but the idea that he exposed, and that can lead to good conclusions