Monte Cook leaving 5E

[RobbyPants]

*Well I say "here" in the West. What with the world being spherical, Australia is actually to the East of Japan.

Or really far West.

[fectin]

It's actually both. however, there is another, contextually more important direction that Australia is from Japan: south.

[fectin]

If every example we have of a Turn Based Strategy/RPG turned to an RTS version turned out to be massively dumbed down and generally problematic can you not imagine that a Turn Based Strategy game based on the RTS fiction franchise of your choice might not reasonably be expected to be more complex and engaging in exactly the same way as all our reverse examples?

No, actually. In an RTS you are also allocating your time and attention. In a TBS, more micro is always better. So TBS is always inherently shallower.

[hogarth]

Real time isn't bad, but for Dnd, which is turn based, why not just keep it turn based?

Because turn-based games aren't very popular on the Xbox 360 or PS3, presumably. (With a few JRPG exceptions.)

[Parthenon]

If every example we have of a Turn Based Strategy/RPG turned to an RTS version turned out to be massively dumbed down and generally problematic can you not imagine that a Turn Based Strategy game based on the RTS fiction franchise of your choice might not reasonably be expected to be more complex and engaging in exactly the same way as all our reverse examples?

Hold up there a moment. You're saying that a turn based multiplayer game in which you spend long periods not dealing with the game is somehow more engaging than something that demands your attention constantly?

You seem to have your definition of engaging completely fucked up.

[Seerow]

If every example we have of a Turn Based Strategy/RPG turned to an RTS version turned out to be massively dumbed down and generally problematic can you not imagine that a Turn Based Strategy game based on the RTS fiction franchise of your choice might not reasonably be expected to be more complex and engaging in exactly the same way as all our reverse examples?

Hold up there a moment. You're saying that a turn based multiplayer game in which you spend long periods not dealing with the game is somehow more engaging than something that demands your attention constantly?

You seem to have your definition of engaging completely fucked up.

I don't know if I'd agree it's more engaging, but I definitely find it more appealing to me.

For example, I played the MMO Dofus for several years, and eventually only quit because I got tired of how grindy it was and how little actual content there was that you could do without getting a full group (Like at level 100+ you're still grinding against the same stuff as at level 30-40 unless you have a full group, because the experience is better and the monsters that are available at that level fucking kill anyone without a well balanced group).

I played it for so long despite those problems because I found its combat actually pretty fun. It's a turn-based MMO, monsters take about 10 seconds to move, and players have a full minute to take their actions before going on to the next person. So you have the 5-10 minutes between your turns to plan what to do next. It's very nice to be able to play a multiplayer game where you can have that level of tactics and coordination, as opposed to in something like WoW, you have your plan set up 100% ahead of time, and have to be sitting on vent or some equivalent voice chat thing to be able to react to anything that changes in a split second, or you die. It's also nice to be able to, in easier fights, alt tab out and do other things between your turns. Or be able to run multiple clients to control 2 or 3 characters without any drop in efficiency (or really, a gain in efficiency sometimes). Or to be able to just get up and go to the bathroom without needing to tell the group to wait up.

Yeah those things don't make the game more engaging. In fact, it's almost the opposite of engaging. For easier fights you don't need to pay as much attention and can be doing other things. But for me at least, this is a plus.

[PhoneLobster]

You seem to have your definition of engaging completely fucked up.

So you are going to use a bullshit semantics argument to cover the fact that you are basically claiming you find clickfest RTS games more vicariously exciting on a purely subjective level.

Well good for you.

But Turn Based mechanics have a direct benefit in the level of complexity and choice they can implement. And SOME of us find THAT much more exciting. You need TIME in order to fight a war on several fronts, do anything more elaborate with your armies than activate a single special ability on one troop at a time, implement multiple strategies or attempt multiple goals simultaneously, deal with multiple parrallel diplomacy, trade and empire building, mini games and so on.

Even a good RTS, and they are SO rare, struggles at the most simple "war on two fronts simultaneously". A TBS does not have that problem.

So really I don't give a shit if you say "but I find constant action more subjectively engaging", because that's just you saying "but I PREFER shallow RTS game play because I do not understand thinking about the implications of actions that happen outside of my turn!". Because that's just you being a stupid RTS fan. And you can just go back and play your shallow RTS games and enjoy them, because your games are not under constant inexplicable threat of being turned into the next cheap hatchet job of a TBS.

[TheFlatline]

Real time isn't bad, but for Dnd, which is turn based, why not just keep it turn based?

Because turn-based games aren't very popular on the Xbox 360 or PS3, presumably. (With a few JRPG exceptions.)

I might stick my neck out there and suggest that JRPGs are specifically a large reason why turn-based gameplay is more or less abandoned these days.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I might stick my neck out there and suggest that JRPGs are specifically a large reason why turn-based gameplay is more or less abandoned these days.

Turn-based games were always in danger of being diminished as soon as video game speed got advanced enough to implement more complicated schemes. See: the pre-Baldur's Gate D&D games that tried to faithfully recreate the mechanics. There's no reason why RttTEE, NWN, BG, and all them had to use semi-real time to model combat, but when the hardware got boss enough to allow them to do it with decent graphics they did.

[Kaelik]

Turn-based games were always in danger of being diminished as soon as video game speed got advanced enough to implement more complicated schemes. See: the pre-Baldur's Gate D&D games that tried to faithfully recreate the mechanics. There's no reason why RttTEE, NWN, BG, and all them had to use semi-real time to model combat, but when the hardware got boss enough to allow them to do it with decent graphics they did.

And they were objectively worse for having done so. How is that a point in favor of real time?

The thing where you can't fireball anything in NWN except by accident is just really fucking dumb, it's not better.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I totally agree that D&D video games should be run like Final Fantasy Tactics or Vagrant Story -- I'm just saying that the apparent decline in turn-based probably mostly stems from the fact that most game developers didn't want to implement their game that way in the first place. They just didn't have a choice due to technical limitations and the fact that, well, Wizardry or Final Fantasy or Ultima clones are cheap as fuck to implement.

Now, whether their original vision was a good idea in the first place is another story. I can understand why the developers of NWN or BG wanted to do something more 'actiony' but I still would've preferred something more traditional.

[Parthenon]

I think we're talking past each other- I thought that you were talking about engaging as "occupying the attention of the player" and not "I like it".

D&D already has the problem of not necessarily engaging all the players during an actual game. The problem of one player wandering off to go and play Smash Bros or whatever because they aren't interested is an actual one, and will get worse in an online turn based strategy.

How many games of Dominion or Civilisation or whatever trail off because people get distracted or have emergencies? That is what I'm talking about with the fact that TBS are not engaging.

It has nothing to do with my personal preference- which happens to be preferring TBS to RTS by a long way.

[PhoneLobster]

The problem of one player wandering off to go and play Smash Bros or whatever because they aren't interested is an actual one

Not a problem for ME however. An actual good GM who doesn't over crowd the table just doesn't have people wandering off to play smash brothers. If that happens you have too many players or a GM who cannot hold the interest of the players. It is not a problem inherit in turn based gaming that someone inexplicably doesn't give a shit about the various out of turn events that effect them directly and should be interesting regardless. It's a problem inherit in not being very good at GMing.

, and will get worse in an online turn based strategy.

All the greatest turn based CRPGs and TBS games are not fucking online games. They are typically single player games, occasionally multiplayer games with suited to small numbers of highly organized players.

Even so turn based games CAN be designed with a mind toward speedy simultaneous turn resolution and general multiplayer support. It's rarely done because those design elements, and the whole "lets support multiplayer" started to turn up around the same time as companies abandoned Turn Based design for reasons basically as Lago suggests (because they had the hardware capability and thought it was a kick ass "modern style feature" to stick on the back of the game box).

How many games of Dominion or Civilisation or whatever trail off because people get distracted or have emergencies? That is what I'm talking about with the fact that TBS are not engaging.

Then shut the fuck up because "These games are boring and unengaging when not actually played" is a stupid fucking argument.

Also. Civilisation is not really a multiplayer game and trying to make it one has generally been a bad idea. And Dominions is a piece of shit designed by and for lunatics that has basically NO thought to being designed to be functionally playable at all, much less to provide the sorts of features that would facilitate rapid and responsive multiplayer support.

Though even dominions has, I believe, simultaneous turns. So even IT has no particular inherit excuse for people to lose interest and wander off.

Of course what you are REALLY saying with this argument is that you have a short attention span and regardless turns or of the need to be directly active or alert out of turn or whatever, if a game (RTS or TBS or whatever) just runs more than half an hour you get confused and wander off.

But I remind you. Board games exist. They are commonly turn based. They are commonly very engaging providing a remarkably amount of strategic choice considering their limited complexity. And even with the players doing all the background work instead of a computer these games commonly are rather quick and short and people don't fucking "wander off" just because it's someone elses fucking turn for 2 minutes.

This is not an inherit problem with turn based games. This is a problem with you and your friends lacking attention spans.

[Koumei]

Ignoring your hatred of Dominions - and I'm pretty sure my laptop can't run it so I can't find out for myself who's right about that famous debate - and your trumpet-blowing of your GM skills, I agree with the bulk of that.

(because they had the hardware capability and thought it was a kick ass "modern style feature" to stick on the back of the game box).

Note that actual game developers flat-out admit to this and say it is a real thing. Just like at some point (or still?) "IT IS NOW IN 3D WITH THEM POLYGONS THE KIDS LOVE!" was a big selling point on boxes if the game couldn't boast any actual good or unique features.

I recall the creator of Worms saying in an Interview that, when making Worms 2, various people said "Why not throw in 3d?" like it was just a simple display option, and that some said "Oh all games are real time these days, let's do that" and he pretty much had to tell them to fuck right off because when changing the way the game works, you should actually have a good reason.

Actually, come to think of it, closer to back-on-topic than this...

I'm sure Magic or Final Fantasy or Warhams or whatever will pick up the pieces.

Let's think about these possibilities for a moment. FFG becoming the new flagship (more like flagshit) with the Warham games would be fucking awful.

The MtG guys being told "Look, you know what you're doing unlike those other fucks, you know how to make stuff that sells, make a new RPG based on MtG" could be interesting. As long as they understand an RPG can't work exactly like a CCG. It does kind of push towards a 4E-style "Exception-based design" wankfest as well as "Your power only does exactly what it states on the card, exactly that, fire spells don't light straw on fire or make light" stuff, but it needn't necessarily do it.

I could actually see Squarenix doing an official Final Fantasy tabletop RPG as being successful for them (yeah, less successful than churning out another video game, but quicker and cheaper and potentially drawing more fans into the video games) and a reasonably good idea all-round. I mean, they could cover it with beautiful art and very feminine men with weapons that piss "historical re-enactment" people off (good, fuck them), they could base it on the existing game world of their choice - or make a new one, they have some races/monsters that are classics for the fans...

And furthermore, they could sell it in:
A) Roleplaying/Hobbyist stores (as normal for an RPG)
B) Book stores in general (because it's Final Fantasy, so it gets chucked into the manga-and-assorted-other-Japanese-things section at Borders next to Bleach, and sells like fucking heroin)
C) Video game stores and infinite money is made. Put it there right next to Final Fantasy CLXVIII or whatever they're up to, telling people "Here, get this as well and play it with your friends if you get any*."

*I'm kidding, they wouldn't put it like that. The FF players know they won't have any friends.

[OgreBattle]

Turn based games can make a comeback. Draw Something is turn based pictionary and millions of people play it.

http://www.robotentertainment.com/games/heroacademy
Hero Academy is an iPad title that is a turn based strategy game. I'm not sure exactly how popular it is though, but it seems to be doing well.

There's also a few turn based MMO's in China. They play like a Final Fantasy title. It's good for slow connections.

Also. Civilisation is not really a multiplayer game and trying to make it one has generally been a bad idea.

Actually it's a really, really good, lucrative idea and games that are "multiplayer online Civilization" have made millions. Evony is the most famous example. Right now they have 30 something servers, with 100,000 players per server, so perhaps 3 million players total. That's pretty good.

Evony, Kingdoms of Camelot, Trabian, and those other empire building games are real time, but actions take hours or days to complete so it works out as turn based, sorta. As in you check once a day or so and can see somebody is going to invade you in 12 hours, you have time to respond. If you want to be inactive for a week without getting pillaged though, pay money for an attack shield (micro transactions are all the rage)

So yeah, the mechanic of being turn based itself is immensely popular today. A few of those titles are fantasy strategy games, some are doing quite well. If I find out more I'll mention it.

[Koumei]

Turn based games can make a comeback. Draw Something is turn based pictionary and millions of people play it.

All to repeat /v/ memes endlessly, as I sadly discovered. It was awesome until 4chan got to it though.

[Avoraciopoctules]

With regards to the thread title:

[PhoneLobster]

Evony is the most famous example.

From my only exposure to it through the manner and places in which it advertises I am fairly confident Evony is not a strategy game and is instead an internet advertising pyramid scam of some form.

It seems basically interchangeable to the various brands of "hot women near you want to suck your dick online" banner ads.

Yes. I dredge through the wrong side of the internet tracks sometimes, yes really on sites that advertise Evony.

[Koumei]

I believe it was explained on Cracked or something. They go out of their way to advertise it as being mega-sexy-times but it's one of the most boring fucking games ever. Even when compared to other browser-based MMOs.

[shadzar]

Real time isn't bad, but for Dnd, which is turn based, why not just keep it turn based?

Because turn-based games aren't very popular on the Xbox 360 or PS3, presumably. (With a few JRPG exceptions.)

who cares? D&D wasnt made for Xbox or PS...they didnt exist at that time.

you dont need D&D to make sword and sorcery computer games. ow is D&D Online the MMO doing right now? does it still even exist?

[John Magnum]

It still exists, just got an expansion pack, and has basically been doing moderately well but not spectacular since it switched to a microtransactions payment model. However, since it's basically "WoW in Eberron", that doesn't really tell you a whole lot about the viability of D&D as a computer game.

[shadzar]

It still exists, just got an expansion pack, and has basically been doing moderately well but not spectacular since it switched to a microtransactions payment model. However, since it's basically "WoW in Eberron", that doesn't really tell you a whole lot about the viability of D&D as a computer game.

tells you a lot actually about a lot of things.

1. people dont care for the microtransactions as much as the company wants them
2. people dont need WoW turned into D&D, nor D&D in the form of WoW.
3. MMOs are dying as a whole for being a business
4. eBerron isn't D&D, it is eBerron.

when i played NWN i only saw it as D&D when either:
a. i was playing it on AOL under the SSI GoldBox engine
b. i used it as a virtual tabletop. (damn HD crash causing me to lose 80 gigs of scripts and maps and hacks)

just having the D&D name, doesnt make it D&D, which is a problem with branding. it just makes it able to have proprietary copyrighted and trademarked elements. as you can see WoW does just fine without those D&D IP elements.

[John Magnum]

Microtransactions are incredibly successful for MMOs and even other genres, it's just that DDO specifically hasn't been doing spectacular. And what the fuck are you talking about with MMOs dying? The fact that one six-year-old MMO is only doing decently is somehow evidence that the entire business of MMOs is dying? How ignorant are you? And if you're so ignorant, why the fuck would you post about it instead of just shutting up and talking about the things you DO know?

[shadzar]

lets go back a decade shall we?

where is EverQuest?

while there are more MMOs now, the idea behind them has failed. most have gone to free play with microtransactions such as DLC like everything else.

the idea behind them and market for the MMO has failed. now they are nothing more than the same as facebook games, which the type of them are vastly stripping away games that require a full computer to run, but people are favoring things that work on their portable devices such as phones and pads, as people themselves move away from computers as a whole for those devices.

WoW is still the leading MMO, so what is going on with it says a lot. EQ is pretty much dead in the world, and i think it even went free to play or at least an email i got said SOE wants me back and there is no more monthly subscription requirements to play anymore.

[MfA]

Why are you talking to shadzar?