Competitive D&D... is it wrong

[NaughtyTiger]

WotC is endorsing a competitive version of D&D. 4PC vs 4PC using pregens.

fuzzy on the details, but i don't think i like it.

https://dndsports.tv/

[MaxWilson]

WotC is endorsing a competitive version of D&D. 4PC vs 4PC using pregens.

fuzzy on the details, but i don't think i like it.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/10/15/dungeons-and-dragons-competitive-tournament-/

I don't know the details but it sounds reasonable. 5E players need to get used to the possibility of occasionally (gasp!) not winning.

Edit: the PvP format seems like a mistake though. For maximum fun it should be an Indiana Jones-like race to the treasure with strict time-keeping, with PvP as only an incidental feature. Betrayal at House on the Hill is a good model. Making it PvP keeps too much focus on combat instead of exploration and dungeon crawling.

The article mentions Tomb of Horrors, and that is also a good model. Tomb of Horrors is an adventure model, not a PvP arena. You win by being the best at dungeon crawling and puzzle-solving.

[Kane0]

As long as the people involved have fun.

[NaughtyTiger]

the last line is " as long as you’re having fun, you’re doing it right!"

but is it D&D?
There was much gnashing of teeth that the roleplay aspect is dwindling, and i heard complaints about 4e being too video gamey to be D&D.

[R.Shackleford]

WotC is endorsing a competitive version of D&D. 4PC vs 4PC using pregens.

fuzzy on the details, but i don't think i like it.

https://dndsports.tv/

I think this would work better as a videogame. 5e Fortnite or Paladins type set up.

[Kane0]

the last line is " as long as you’re having fun, you’re doing it right!"

but is it D&D?

...yes. 10char

[MeeposFire]

the last line is " as long as you’re having fun, you’re doing it right!"

but is it D&D?
There was much gnashing of teeth that the roleplay aspect is dwindling, and i heard complaints about 4e being too video gamey to be D&D.

Competitive D&D is actually very old school and traditional though this version of competition is not what was common back then as I understand (it was more getting through a module getting the most stuff etc).

[R.Shackleford]

the last line is " as long as you’re having fun, you’re doing it right!"

but is it D&D?
There was much gnashing of teeth that the roleplay aspect is dwindling, and i heard complaints about 4e being too video gamey to be D&D.

4e is no more videogamey than other editions. 3e was called "wanna be Diablo" after all. Also, Tower of Doom and Shadow of Mystara aren't based on 4e and those are some awesome videogames.

Just because an edition is "videogamey" doesn't make it less D&D... Heck, I think 4e has the least videogames based off it (FF 1 is essentially oldschool D&D, the videogame).

[Kane0]

On that note, I've been waiting for something like a 5e version of NWN for years now. I may have been burned on kickstarter before but damned if i'd let that one pass me by.

[R.Shackleford]

On that note, I've been waiting for something like a 5e version of NWN for years now. I may have been burned on kickstarter before but damned if i'd let that one pass me by.

Heck yeah.

Though, my dream would be to take FF XV and mesh it with 5e classes.

Damn, I love that game.

[KorvinStarmast]

On that note, I've been waiting for something like a 5e version of NWN for years now. I may have been burned on kickstarter before but damned if i'd let that one pass me by. Given that Sword Coast Legends has been pulled from the servers (or so I hear) I am wondering if they'll try that again. As to competitive D&D, it was happening in Cons back in the 70's. IIRC, it what RPGA was about when it was first formed.

[Nifft]

Given that Sword Coast Legends has been pulled from the servers (or so I hear) I am wondering if they'll try that again. As to competitive D&D, it was happening in Cons back in the 70's.

IIRC that was competitive, but it wasn't PvP.

[KorvinStarmast]

IIRC that was competitive, but it wasn't PvP.Agree with that.

[ImproperJustice]

Eh....

Role playing is a creative endeavor.

One person makes competitive PVP D&D, another makes X-Crawl, and another makes Dungeon World.

I think as many ways to branch out the hobby the better.

The only way it would be wwrong would be if it became the “only true way” to D&D.

[Nifft]

Eh....

Role playing is a creative endeavor.

One person makes competitive PVP D&D, another makes X-Crawl, and another makes Dungeon World.

I think as many ways to branch out the hobby the better.

The only way it would be wwrong would be if it became the “only true way” to D&D.

Sure I mean no kink shaming or whatever, but that's a bit of a technicality.

But D&D as a game is better at some things than other things.

D&D as a game is really bad at PvP.

[MaxWilson]

Sure I mean no kink shaming or whatever, but that's a bit of a technicality.

But D&D as a game is better at some things than other things.

D&D as a game is really bad at PvP.

Hmmm, interesting remark. What makes you say that? Class balance issues between nova classes (paladins) and at-will classes (rogues)? The awkwardness of hiding crucial tactical information from opposing players (like the Glyph of Warding you just cast in room #44, or the fact that you're hiding in room #26 waiting to surprise someone) when you're all using the same DM? Something else?

[Kane0]

Given that Sword Coast Legends has been pulled from the servers (or so I hear) I am wondering if they'll try that again. As to competitive D&D, it was happening in Cons back in the 70's. IIRC, it what RPGA was about when it was first formed.

I still have three gift copies sitting in my steam collecting dust, SCL rubbed me the wrong way with how it treated the 5e rules in the same way as Neverwinter did 4e.
I have an open wallet for something that A: is true to the ruleset like the recent PF: Kingmaker and B: comes with a competent toolset for user content so it doesn't feature on Dead Game News 18 months from release.

[R.Shackleford]

Sure I mean no kink shaming or whatever, but that's a bit of a technicality.

But D&D as a game is better at some things than other things.

D&D as a game is really bad at PvP.

5e is really bad at anything other than combat as it doesn't really have rules for exploration and social situations other than "ask you DM".

D&D can be adapted to PvP, just got to balance the classes first. One suggestion shouldn't be able to take out the fighter, rogue, and barbarian with ease.

[No brains]

Heck yeah.

Though, my dream would be to take FF XV and mesh it with 5e classes.

Damn, I love that game.

That sounds fun. I'd like to Warp Strike as an EK and be called 'The Prince of Pain!' :smallsmile:

[Sigreid]

It is proper D&D for those that want that. There are always gamers that want to test each other, and D&D has been a framework for people to make the world and game they want to play since the beginning.

[ad_hoc]

Yeah, that's a terrible idea.

At the very least it should be a comparison of going on a short adventure.

D&D is just not designed for this and there are much better alternatives out there for people who want this sort of competitive game.

I also think this will fail as the marketing ploy that it is. It's just not a good idea to present the game this way. My table just started a game with 3 brand new players, none of them would have tried it out if they saw it presented like this.

[Nifft]

Hmmm, interesting remark. What makes you say that? Class balance issues between nova classes (paladins) and at-will classes (rogues)? The awkwardness of hiding crucial tactical information from opposing players (like the Glyph of Warding you just cast in room #44, or the fact that you're hiding in room #26 waiting to surprise someone) when you're all using the same DM? Something else? Those are also good reasons, yes.


5e is really bad at anything other than combat as it doesn't really have rules for exploration and social situations other than "ask you DM". There's a difference, though.

5e D&D isn't great at social situations, but there is at least some system support. You might have a class feature which allows you to read an NPC's mind, or which allows you to magically charm or frighten an NPC. You might have skills which help you win dice contents where the DM feels that an NPC's opinion could be swayed. You might have a background feature which gives you allies.

In contrast, 5e D&D features mostly work against PvP -- monster balance isn't identical to PC balance, and monster building uses a distinct rule set.


D&D can be adapted to PvP, just got to balance the classes first. One suggestion shouldn't be able to take out the fighter, rogue, and barbarian with ease.
Sure, if you re-wrote the game to handle PvP, then the new game you wrote would handle PvP -- but it wouldn't be D&D 5e, obviously.

[Anymage]

It's designed for Twitch viewing. It requires major hacks of the existing ruleset and would get super creaky if it was played long enough for a stable meta to emerge, but those aren't the point.

And while I wouldn't want to see it become a serious product, I'm less upset about it being a visibility raising exercise on social media.

[qube]

D&D as a game is really bad at PvP.
I actually quite agree with that. (and sadly, I have experience in friends trying to run ia competation)

Compeditive D&D requires players to play with the exact same ruleset. And - as preparing tactics go - knowing that ruleset at forehand. D&D isn't set up that way - it uses a game master to lead the game, not a referee to judge the game

Setup: Minor illusion makes a 5ft cube of fake stone. Your allies know this, and during prep time, they succeed their save - giving them the ability to see right through it.

Where things go south: It'sa 5ft cube. What is the maximum height (in ft), a character can have so crouching in it make 'm completely invisible to the opponent. How long can your weapons be you carry or wield?

A DM can say "hey, that's a cool idea you guys pull, I'm going to allow it", and if he doens't know the rules 100%, ... lets be honest, you only only need a solid grasp of it to be a good DM.

A Judge has to say to make an official ruling (and probbably have to start making arbitrairy choices about weapons. Daggers, sure. Flails, OK, greatswords? no.) and needs an extremely solid grasp of all the rules, as you can't have to 'wing it' during the fight.

[Unoriginal]

It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing.


5e PvP is pretty bad, but "two teams, one dungeon, who will win?" is certainly not a new concept nor a "not D&D" one.


And no, PvP isn't bad because "one spell shut downs martials with ease". It doesn't. PvP is bad because whoever manages to land two good hits wins.

However, group vs group in a developed environment should mitigate that.

So... I feel like they're trying too hard to sell something that doesn't really warrant it, but the concept itself is not doomed to failure.

I just hope they don't go the way of the Mordenkainen's Mayhem. God dammit all that was a badly-DMed disappointment.

[Kane0]

It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing.

If its anything like Kaveman’s necro-ranchers sign me up!

[JellyPooga]

Just because an edition is "videogamey" doesn't make it less D&D... Heck, I think 4e has the least videogames based off it (FF 1 is essentially oldschool D&D, the videogame).

Just because a PnP game doesn't have many videogames based on it doesn't mean it's not "videogamey". It just means it wasn't popular enough to warrant many videogames being made based on it. Yes, AD&D and 3ed had a heap of videogames made using their respective systems, but almost universally the primary criticism of those games is that the system being used was kinda janky/clunky for a videogame.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

A lot of people enjoy it.
And a lot of people hate it.

Just ask all the player before.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, didn't D&D used to have "you must finish the dungeon before the other tables" tournaments, back in Gygax's days?

[Louro]

I've played two PvP tournaments already (deathmatch on hazardous arenas) and it was pretty balanced, and fun.

Not designed for PvP?
On the contrary, it's so simple that you barely need the DM. Actually, you only need him for hidding/invisibility, illusions and the like.

[Unoriginal]

Not designed for PvP?
On the contrary, it's so simple that you barely need the DM. Actually, you only need him for hidding/invisibility, illusions and the like.

Using a wrench to hit nails is simple, it doesn't mean it's designed for that.

[Louro]

Pointless argument. As long as it works I don't care if it was designed for something completely different.

And it works!

[Unoriginal]

Pointless argument. As long as it works I don't care if it was designed for something completely different.

And it works!

If it's pointless to you, then there is no need to say "not designed for X? On the contrary...", which implies that it is designed for it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If it's pointless to you, then there is no need to say "not designed for X? On the contrary...", which implies that it is designed for it.

You can look at D&D 3.5e.

Nobody look at the designer intention, only on what work better.

I don't think there was a better edition then it(I will need to wait some time before I will be able to grade 5e, I don't think all the parts are out yet).

[Kalashak]

It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing.


The fact that it describes itself as a 'best of 3 arena battle' and the reference to "MOBA-esque" mechanics makes me think it won't be seeing who can get through a dungeon faster and will in fact be team based PvP. Not really my cup of tea, and a few of the tweets I've read make the thoughts behind it seem kind of lame, but it's not really anything worth getting upset about.

[Pelle]

Sure, the D&D 5e combat mechanics work sufficently to run PvP. That doesn't mean that the ruleset makes for a good competetive boardgame. Too swingy, very luck based. Whoever wins initiative has a big advantage. Few meaningful player decisions, unless there's an element of resource management, and not a big nova fight.

I'm not sure here though if competetive D&D equals PvP. If it's a race to finish an adventure in the shortest time, that could work out, although it is not my cup of tea. Is it measured in real time or in-game time? Should also require the same DM to make it fair.

[Unoriginal]

You can look at D&D 3.5e.

Nobody look at the designer intention, only on what work better.

I don't see why I would have to look at that. If the argument is "design doesn't matter, only results", then it shouldn't be said as "the design is not X? On the contrary...", because the "on the contrary" address the design, not the result.

That is all I said about it.



I don't think there was a better edition then it(I will need to wait some time before I will be able to grade 5e, I don't think all the parts are out yet).

I vastly prefer 5e, for reasons I won't develop because this is not an edition war thread and shouldn't become one, but I don't see which parts are supposedly not out yet.

[Louro]

Too swingy, very luck based. Whoever wins initiative has a big advantage. Few meaningful player decisions...

Sure there are better systems to run PvP, but 5e is solid and balanced enough to make it fair.

BIG player decisions when assembling your team.

[Louro]

Bad phrasing there unoriginal. I meant that "it's not designed for" it's not an argument because only the results matter. As "on the contrary, according to results it works fine so I don't care about design"

Sorry, English is my 3rd language.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't see why I would have to look at that. If the argument is "design doesn't matter, only results", then it shouldn't be said as "the design is not X? On the contrary...", because the "on the contrary" address the design, not the result.

That is all I said about it.



I vastly prefer 5e, for reasons I won't develop because this is not an edition war thread and shouldn't become one, but I don't see which parts are supposedly not out yet.

I think I miss understand you.

I had no intantion to start an edition war, they are pointless.
I just wanted to bring in an exsemle for the first part of my replay.

[Knaight]

It seems like it would be a pretty terrible board game, but the continued existence of Monopoly demonstrates that it's still a viable commercial design space - and the suggestion that it will be MOBA like at least prevents it from falling into some of the more obvious design traps (4v4 deathmatches would be astoundingly dull).

[Louro]

Why would be 4v4 matches dull? Never been in one. Our deathmatch games with environmental/magical stuff where pretty fun. And surprisingly balanced.

[Sigreid]

Pointless argument. As long as it works I don't care if it was designed for something completely different.

And it works!

That's not what makes this pointless. What makes this argument pointless is that people who are interested in it will give it a go and maybe have a great time while people who aren't will not give it a go and be completely unaffected. There is no point labeling it bad, wrong, fun.

[Knaight]

Why would be 4v4 matches dull? Never been in one. Our deathmatch games with environmental/magical stuff where pretty fun. And surprisingly balanced.

Because it's a highly random, highly swingy system when using PCs against PCs, and as such doesn't tend to transfer well to a fundamentally different design. Also dice are almost always a sign of a bad game in board games, and the few exceptions use them differently than D&D. Different types of games lend themselves to different designs, and this particular transfer looks particularly bad.

[Armored Walrus]

That's not what makes this pointless. What makes this argument pointless is that people who are interested in it will give it a go and maybe have a great time while people who aren't will not give it a go and be completely unaffected. There is no point labeling it bad, wrong, fun.

This deserves to be repeated.

[MaxWilson]

Because it's a highly random, highly swingy system when using PCs against PCs, and as such doesn't tend to transfer well to a fundamentally different design. Also dice are almost always a sign of a bad game in board games, and the few exceptions use them differently than D&D.

*clutches Axis and Allies 2nd edition dice protectively*

No, seriously, a heavy reliance on dice is bad even in 5E. It's why abilities like Portent are overrated. The game is most fun when you're more focused on making the right decisions, not rolling the right numbers on your dice. Staying out of range of a Medusa's gaze >>> using a mirror > having +4 on your save vs petrification. Not putting your skeletons in Fireball Formation >> hoping to beat the Fireball caster's initiative. If Portent or Lucky makes or breaks your day, you're relying way too much on luck for my taste. Lucky is insurance against your inevitable mistakes, not a mainline strategy.

Dice matter in Axis & Allies, but less so than purchasing decisions, threat assessment, and movement orders. The same is true in 5E unless you crank the difficulty waaaaay up to the point where smart tactics AND luck are needed and retreat isn't an option, e.g. fighting three Young Dragons simultaneously at level seven. But playing that way doesn't give a good feeling of agency, especially the inability to retreat, and I don't know anyone who actually plays any version of D&D that way. It doesn't sound fun.

[R.Shackleford]

For anyone complaining that you would have to tweak the rules to make it fit... Well, duh.

Anytime you take one thing and and change it to another medium you have to change some rules.

However it wouldn't be a terribly hard tweak with 5e as the base rules are simple.

Heck, with so social or explorative rules to speak of, they would need to actually add those in! What a concept :). You would need to have a guidline for what the DM will/can allow and it will be nice to have some guidelines and rules instead of "screw it, ask the DM". I hate going into a game blind to what my character can do.

Also, maybe investigation will get used for searching instead of just perception.

[Millface]

I feel like it's going to be pretty clunky no matter how they do it.

If it was a race to the treasure, how do we watch that live? There's two feeds going at once with two groups and presumably two DMs. What if one DM describes things faster? What if one group just gets lucky and picks the right direction? That's not good dungeon crawling, it's 100% luck.

For PVP, how are the characters going to use subterfuge or illusion magic? Do they have to take the DM aside every time they do it and then he comes back and makes the changes on the table? If that's the case, how on earth are you going to regulate metagaming? If there's $5k on the line (at the first one, later iterations would presumably have a larger prize pool), and the Arcane Trickster takes the DM aside are you honestly going to pretend you don't know something's up? How do you monitor or referee that? I don't see how you do.

Not to mention how much RNG is involved. Landing a lucky Hold Person is worth $5,000. Fun.

It's going to be a, RNG meta fest with basically zero roleplay. Critical Role is a massive success, because yeah, I want to watch voice actors play the crap out of some neat characters for an amazing DM, but this...? This is League of Legends reduced to pen and paper. Why would you watch that?

[Knaight]

It's going to be a, RNG meta fest with basically zero roleplay. Critical Role is a massive success, because yeah, I want to watch voice actors play the crap out of some neat characters for an amazing DM, but this...? This is League of Legends reduced to pen and paper. Why would you watch that?

That's an unfair description. League of Legends is a tightly balanced system made for competitive play, involving a lot of high level strategy and near deterministic powers. It should reduce to a board game style comparatively well, for all that it would need calculation simplification.

[NaughtyTiger]

My concern is that people will show up to my FLGS expecting that, and be disappointed by the roleplay. in the end it will hurt not help.

I saw this with Adventurers League, where folks point to the famous streams and are disgusted by the drag of AL. They kill the mood during the game, and they just walk away from all D&D at the end (not just crappy).


It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing.

where are you seeing that?

The original site i posted said it was MOBA style (League of Legends like, right?)
It makes sense that If you aren't really competing against a team directly (just scoring like the other competitive games) then you wouldn't need an elimination bracket.
(i will admit drawing it out for viewer ratings is a valid reason)

[Sigreid]

My concern is that people will show up to my FLGS expecting that, and be disappointed by the roleplay. in the end it will hurt not help.

I saw this with Adventurers League, where folks point to the famous streams and are disgusted by the drag of AL. They kill the mood during the game, and they just walk away from all D&D at the end (not just crappy).



where are you seeing that?

The original site i posted said it was MOBA style (League of Legends like, right?)
It makes sense that If you aren't really competing against a team directly (just scoring like the other competitive games) then you wouldn't need an elimination bracket.
(i will admit drawing it out for viewer ratings is a valid reason)

So, when new people come you just let them know your table isn't a pvp table when you welcome them.

[Unoriginal]

My concern is that people will show up to my FLGS expecting that, and be disappointed by the roleplay. in the end it will hurt not help.

I saw this with Adventurers League, where folks point to the famous streams and are disgusted by the drag of AL. They kill the mood during the game, and they just walk away from all D&D at the end (not just crappy).

So what? People who are not interested in the game are not interested in the game. If the game doesn't meet their incorrect assumptions despite it being clearly indicated it's not normal D&D, then it's their loss. If they come and like the RP, then it's a gain for them.

It will not hurt D&D. At worse it'll be a wash, or too insignificant to be worth bothering with it.




where are you seeing that?



Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon.

Literally the first sentence.

[Contrast]

I view competitive D&D with the same bemusement I would view speed yoga. I guess you can do it but why would you when there are things much better designed for it? You're missing out on the point of the thing in order to end up with a worse version of something else.

There are plenty of tabletop games or board games which lend themselves incredibly well to competition. D&D (or RPGs more generally) is not one of them. Even if we ignore roleplaying and go for a combat fest, the playing field is never going to be level because the moment parties do different things the world is going to react differently to them and that's entirely up to the whim of the DM (and if youo have different DMs...). In terms of straight PVP, computer games seem to provide that experience in a much more streamlined and fair way.

Edit - Or to phrase my point another way, if you saw someone organising a poker event where the aim wasn't to compete and win money but instead to engage with a narrative story the organiser had set up you might justifiably ask 'wait...why are we playing poker again?'.

[Willie the Duck]

There was much gnashing of teeth that the roleplay aspect is dwindling, and i heard complaints about 4e being too video gamey to be D&D.

Calls that the game was becoming too video-gamey started happening right after video games became a mainstream thing, and seem unrelated to what the actual rules were (and before that, it was those modern Moldvay and Mentzer versions, which were making the game too 'child-friendly'). No one can ever exactly explain how the game is becoming like a video game, nor exactly why that is a bad thing (if video games have done something in particular right, and it is transferable, then I hope P&P RPGs take note).


Hmmm, interesting remark. What makes you say that? Class balance issues between nova classes (paladins) and at-will classes (rogues)?

I know when 5e was first released, it was noted that 1:1 PvP is horribly imbalanced (a wizard can counterspell a cleric, etc.'s spells using their reaction, while simultaneously casting an offensive spell on their action, giving them a huge advantage. Non-EK fighters are pretty reliant on having a teammate get them out of a force cage, etc.). Once it becomes team-on-team, I suppose you are supposed to have an answer to anything another team of PCs might throw at you (since monsters could do the same, and NPCs are a potential encounter in normal D&D play). Monsters and PCs are built quite differently in 5e, so how a specific group plays out vs one or the other opposition will be different. But that's to be expected. I guess the lesson would be you don't build you characters/groups the same way for each kind of task.


It seems like it would be a pretty terrible board game, but the continued existence of Monopoly demonstrates that it's still a viable commercial design space - and the suggestion that it will be MOBA like at least prevents it from falling into some of the more obvious design traps (4v4 deathmatches would be astoundingly dull).

Seems like every board game that has ever sold well (Monopoly, Risk, Settlers of Catan, etc.) seems to violate some rule of 'what ought to make a good board game.' Yet they keep selling.


My concern is that people will show up to my FLGS expecting that, and be disappointed by the roleplay. in the end it will hurt not help.

Never in my gaming life has something like that not been the case. One person wants to play a straight-up module. One wants to play paladins and princesses (shorthand for rp-heavy). One thinks group-cohesion is a must have, and everyone should play good characters. Another thinks stealing from fellow party members is part of the class benefits afforded the thief character, and denying them that right is a stealth nerf. Differing expectations has always been the norm.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing.


where are you seeing that?


"Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon."
Literally the first sentence.

The first sentence doesn't say that.
It is a reasonable conclusion, except for the part with the other article said it was a MOBA.

[Willie the Duck]

The first sentence doesn't say that.

Then there might be a question of 'are we discussing the same page?'/'is that the right link?,' because the page we are seeing is: date("October 1, 2018"), title ("What is DnDSports?"), text body: ("Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon. It’s kill or be killed. ...")

What do you see?



It is a reasonable conclusion, except for the part with the other article said it was a MOBA.

All we see is "We don’t claim to have created perfect balance, nor is that our aim, as every competitive game has an element of strategy. We’re also implementing MOBA-esque mechanics such as a Pick/Ban phase to help expand the strategy." That's still pretty vague on how much the competition will directly reflect MOBA designs.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_online_battle_arena) describes MOBA as "Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), also known as action real-time strategy (ARTS), is a subgenre of strategy video games that originated as a subgenre of real-time strategy, in which a player controls a single character in a team who compete versus another team of players. The objective is to destroy the opposing team's main structure with the assistance of periodically-spawned computer-controlled units that march forward along set paths." Something tells me that all of these components will not be present. So we are really still guessing on what will be included.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like it's going to be pretty clunky no matter how they do it.

If it was a race to the treasure, how do we watch that live? There's two feeds going at once with two groups and presumably two DMs. What if one DM describes things faster? What if one group just gets lucky and picks the right direction? That's not good dungeon crawling, it's 100% luck.

Just track how long it takes them in game time to reach the treasure. It doesn't matter how long it takes in table time unless you decree that e.g. "out of combat conversations take as long in game time as in table time."

YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT. -Gary Gygax, emphasis in original

==============================


Then there might be a question of 'are we discussing the same page?'/'is that the right link?,' because the page we are seeing is: date("October 1, 2018"), title ("What is DnDSports?"), text body: ("Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon. It’s kill or be killed. ...")

What do you see?

Looks like the OP was edited with a different link. You can see the original link (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/10/15/dungeons-and-dragons-competitive-tournament-/) in my post right after the OP.

I didn't even realize the OP had been changed until I saw your post and went back to check.

[Yuki Akuma]

Man, competitive deathmatches with D&D 5e rules sound awesome. I want to play!

[MaxWilson]

Man, competitive deathmatches with D&D 5e rules sound awesome. I want to play!

We could do one now, before WotC does. :-) I hereby volunteer myself as a DM or a player, as long as the whole thing takes less than six hours on a Saturday. I'll even put up with PHB cyclic initiative rules for the sake of the one-off.

We could make 15 pregens to choose from, right here in this thread. Roll them up on 4d6k3, generate a random level between 6 and 9, and use Pick/Ban mechanics as described here (https://mobalytics.gg/blog/beginners-guide-professional-picks-and-bans/) to determine which ones get used by each time.

DM can set up a basic dungeon with lots of traps, some monsters, and a choice piece of treasure or two (say, an Elemental Gem hidden somewhere, a treasure chest guarded by a monster with a Wand of Fireballs and 10,000 gp, and a Githyanki Knight somewhere with a vorpal weapon). Somewhere in the dungeon is a MacGuffin: a 2000 lb. Stone Idol which is movable only with a pulley and a wagon. Whoever gets away with the MacGuffin wins.

If the DM is evil the Stone Idol will also turn out to be the Sacred Statue for an Eidolon, but let's pretend I didn't say that. :-)

[NaughtyTiger]

Then there might be a question of 'are we discussing the same page?'/'is that the right link?,' because the page we are seeing is: date("October 1, 2018"), title ("What is DnDSports?"), text body: ("Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon. It’s kill or be killed. ...")

What do you see?


All we see is "We don’t claim to have created perfect balance, nor is that our aim, as every competitive game has an element of strategy. We’re also implementing MOBA-esque mechanics such as a Pick/Ban phase to help expand the strategy." That's still pretty vague on how much the competition will directly reflect MOBA designs.


I am confused what you are saying.
Un said "it's not 4PC vs 4PCs locked in single combat" based on "Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon." Un provided the sentence as his source material (like he inserted a quote block of that text)

Are you saying that the ONLY interpretation of that sentence (or even the dndsport.tv page) is two teams competing it the same dungeon put not PvP?
Because I read that sentence as PvP is a very real possibility (and given brackets and tourney play a very likely possibility.)


Looks like the OP was edited with a different link.
I did change the link. But I was specifically referring to the text from the article that Un quoted. (and i quoted 2x now)

[Willie the Duck]

Are you saying that the ONLY interpretation of that sentence (or even the dndsport.tv page) is two teams competing it the same dungeon put not PvP?

Hard no. I am saying that there is no only interpretation at this point. We have a press release. That's all. Even if there's only one reasonable interpretation of the press releases, I believe that the actual result has the potential to be different.

The rest of what I said was related to your statement, "the other article said it was a MOBA." We really don't know if it is a MOBA (or how much of a MOBA), only that the are "implementing MOBA-esque mechanics." Not a huge important point, I was just pointing out the distinction.

[PracticalM]

For those saying that since roleplaying is a creative art you shouldn't have competition, I point you to the the art competitions that were part of the Olympics from 1912 and 1948, stopped partly because the artists submitting were professionals and not amateurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_competitions_at_the_Summer_Olympics

The press releases I read mentioned arena play more, but if there was a dungeon both parties were moving through, I know that I will include a Head of Vecna in my inventory list (-1 eye).

[Unoriginal]

Maybe we should just admit we don't know anything about this and move on.

[Dudewithknives]

This is a horrible and stupid idea.

1. Who makes the pregens?
- are they made with the same amount of system mastery and optimization?
- are they created to be normal characters or are they made for dungeon crawling
- people will just complain that their character is not optimized correctly.
- if they are played to be optimized then that means there will only be about 3 builds for any martial class, and only certain schools for casters.

2. How are you going to balance rests?
- The game is "supposed" to be balanced around multiple combats and multiple short rests per day, however exactly ZERO published modules, AP or any thing else is designed to use that style.
- If the game is based on who accomplises X the quickest, that means that certain combinations of rest mechanic classes are MUCH better than others. Depending on the expected length of the dungeon, certain classes are just not going to get played.

3. Do people pick their class, or is it random choice?
If it is picked, be prepared for certain classes to almost never get used.
If it is random, be prepared for some groups to autofail based on class makeup.


All this if going to do is end up with classes being rebalanced to make sure that PVP works better, which will turn things into a big MMO, which then leads to a WHOLE lot of arguing.

[MaxWilson]

I did change the link. But I was specifically referring to the text from the article that Un quoted. (and i quoted 2x now)

Well then I am confused, because in #53 Unoriginal said that "Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon" was "Literally the first sentence," and you responded,


The first sentence doesn't say that.

But that's a verbatim quote. The first sentence is exactly as Unoriginal quoted it to be. I thought you were just thinking of the wrong article, which led me to discovering that the OP had been edited, but clearly you meant something else.

===========================


The press releases I read mentioned arena play more, but if there was a dungeon both parties were moving through, I know that I will include a Head of Vecna in my inventory list (-1 eye).

We need more stories like that one. :-)

===========================


This is a horrible and stupid idea.

1. Who makes the pregens?
- are they made with the same amount of system mastery and optimization?
- are they created to be normal characters or are they made for dungeon crawling
- people will just complain that their character is not optimized correctly.
- if they are played to be optimized then that means there will only be about 3 builds for any martial class, and only certain schools for casters.

Don't pick pregens that you don't want to play. Ban pregens during the ban phase that you don't want to play against.


2. How are you going to balance rests?
- The game is "supposed" to be balanced around multiple combats and multiple short rests per day, however exactly ZERO published modules, AP or any thing else is designed to use that style.
- If the game is based on who accomplises X the quickest, that means that certain combinations of rest mechanic classes are MUCH better than others. Depending on the expected length of the dungeon, certain classes are just not going to get played.

DM can set the rules in advance; rules could be "no rests allowed" or "every time you explore a new room it takes 10 minutes; a short rest costs you 60 minutes" or something else.

Don't pick pregens that don't work for the rules that have been announced.

[KorvinStarmast]

I hereby volunteer myself as a DM or a player, as long as the whole thing takes less than six hours on a Saturday. I'll even put up with PHB cyclic initiative rules for the sake of the one-off.

We could make 15 pregens to choose from, right here in this thread. Roll them up on 4d6k3, generate a random level between 6 and 9, and use Pick/Ban mechanics as described here (https://mobalytics.gg/blog/beginners-guide-professional-picks-and-bans/) to determine which ones get used by each time. I am in, except this Saturday I'm in Vegas so TTRPG's are going to take a back seat to craps. In a casino.

Here is my roll from Anydice (https://anydice.com/program/ff1).
10, 15, 11, 12, 8, 15

[Dudewithknives]

For people to watch online to be entertained as competitors who want to be there compete, whatever floats your boat. I won't be there.

For an on purpose thing of a regular campaign that I'm playing, heck no.

My main issue is when they change things for essentially PVE to balance out PVP, the moment that happens I am gone, again.
I already quit 5e for about a year over stupid decisions and game mechanics and only came back because I have a deep love of Warforged and I think they did an amazing job with them.

Honestly as soon as Pathfinder 2ed comes out I wont care what they do in 5e anyway but that is a while off and has a few HUGE issues to fix.

[NaughtyTiger]

Well then I am confused, because in #53 Unoriginal said that "Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon" was "Literally the first sentence," and you responded, the first sentence doesn't say that.
But that's a verbatim quote.

I do see the confusion. "that" was ambiguous.

The sentence "Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon" doesn't say "It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing."

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly as soon as Pathfinder 2ed comes out I wont care what they do in 5e anyway but that is a while off and has a few HUGE issues to fix. Are you in the playtest?

[MaxWilson]

I do see the confusion. "that" was ambiguous.

The sentence "Imagine if two parties fighting for opposite sides found themselves in the same dungeon" doesn't say "It's not a 4 PCs vs 4 PCs locked in a single combat, it's two groups of adventurers in the same dungeon and competing."

Okay, agreed. It's hard to tell exactly what they intend to do.


I am in, except this Saturday I'm in Vegas so TTRPG's are going to take a back seat to craps. In a casino.

Here is my roll from Anydice (https://anydice.com/program/ff1).
10, 15, 11, 12, 8, 15

Awesome, you're in! Are you going to write up a pregen with those stats (level 6-9) when you get time?

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay, agreed. It's hard to tell exactly what they intend to do.



Awesome, you're in! Are you going to write up a pregen with those stats (level 6-9) when you get time?

Sure, I can put one together, how about level 8?

[KOLE]

...comes with a competent toolset for user content so it doesn't feature on Dead Game News 18 months from release.

I appreciate the Ross Scott reference.

[Dudewithknives]

Are you in the playtest?

Yes, I have either playtested or helped work on just bout every major table top game in the least 15 years.

Shadowrun 4e and 5e
Dresden Lives
Pretty much everything NWOD, thanks to being friends with some of the writers.
Pathfinder 2e
DND5e
L5R2e
Begrudgingly dragged through Exalted 2e despite the fact I hate that setting.

Not to derail but P2e Has great potential and based mechanics except for the one core mechanic they are trying to push through of +10 is crit, -10 crit fail. That does not even close to work mathmatically and not sure how they even got to playtest with it.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, I can put one together, how about level 8?

I like a bit of variety, so I'd suggest rolling d4+5 for level (6-9), since the Ban/Pick system will weed out overpowered PCs anyway, but if you prefer to just pick level 8 I think that's fine too.

Here's a Google doc for pregens: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IuOIRCn0AkMLFATRU3tRLc3umw8ncelWXhrBjbc4ppw/edit?usp=sharing

I'll add a couple of pregens myself. Looks like I'll make...

[roll, roll] a character with 13 14 11 12 11 14, level 6, and...
[roll, roll] another with 11 15 17 13 15 15 and level 7.

I'll have them up in the Google doc momentarily.

==========================


Not to derail but P2e Has great potential and based mechanics except for the one core mechanic they are trying to push through of +10 is crit, -10 crit fail. That does not even close to work mathmatically and not sure how they even got to playtest with it.

It may not work in a linear, d20 system, but it works pretty well in bell-curve-shaped systems like GURPS. I've used it before and liked it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I like a bit of variety, so I'd suggest rolling d4+5 for level (6-9), since the Ban/Pick system will weed out overpowered PCs anyway, but if you prefer to just pick level 8 I think that's fine too.

Here's a Google doc for pregens: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IuOIRCn0AkMLFATRU3tRLc3umw8ncelWXhrBjbc4ppw/edit?usp=sharing

I'll add a couple of pregens myself. Looks like I'll make...

[roll, roll] a character with 13 14 11 12 11 14, level 6, and...
[roll, roll] another with 11 15 17 13 15 15 and level 7. I'll make it 8 ... will take a few.

[Vorpalchicken]

I wonder how well the DMs will know the system. I would expect perfect mastery for something like this but I find about 90 percent of the GMs on roll20 get something wrong and about 80 per cent don't know how stealth and invisibility work.

[Unoriginal]

Sure, I can put one together, how about level 8?

Eh, it sounds fun. I would almost try joining this game.

[Millface]

I'm still just over here wondering how they're going to regulate Metagaming and who's going to take something with so much RNG seriously.

Sure, you've got games like Magic: The Gathering that have some RNG involved, but you get to build your deck at least, presumably with the intent on reducing that RNG as much as possible with the cards available.

$5,000 because your team rolled a couple 20s and the opposing team bombed a key save? Like... why?

I'd maybe understand it if everyone had point buy and the same amount of gear and each team had to build their "deck" so to speak, by creating characters for the brawl. This way, you could end up with some real creativity at least. A meta, picks and counterpicks for common multiclasses and team comps. Imagine a Magic tournament where you could only play with pregen decks. Deck building and teching is a huge part of the skill... Yeah, there's common decks, but it's usually the creative tweaks made based on the current meta that win big.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm still just over here wondering how they're going to regulate Metagaming and who's going to take something with so much RNG seriously. Given that I'm going to Vegas this weekend, I find this dislike of RNG a little funny. Also, a similar game to M:TG (Hearthstone) has a good bit of RNG and yet somehow we play it and have good fun. yes, you build your decks to tip the odds to your favor/flex.
Cheers.

[Millface]

Given that I'm going to Vegas this weekend, I find this dislike of RNG a little funny. Also, a similar game to M:TG (Hearthstone) has a good bit of RNG and yet somehow we play it and have good fun. yes, you build your decks to tip the odds to your favor/flex.
Cheers.

Exactly, if the teams could create whatever characters they wanted I'd be in. I'd still worry about Metagaming, but I'd at least be more open to the concept. You can absolutely brew up some characters who don't depend as much on RNG, just like in a card game. Hearthstone is one of the more RNG-ey of the games of its ilk, I don't have numbers but I'd be interested comparing Twitch views for Hearthstone vs. Magic: The Gathering.

The appeal to children and children's easy access to Twitch could make competitive RNG more of a thing, I suppose.

Vegas is different :smallbiggrin: there's no competitive slot machine tournaments (at least none that are popular, if it does exist: weird). Poker, on the other hand, is far less RNG than it seems on the surface, and thus is televised, at least.

In general, the less RNG and more skill-based something is, the more people generally tune into it. That's why the Superbowl is the most watched television event of the year and Poker is on ESPN 42. And why streamers like Ninja make like $1m/month playing Fortnite (and being incredibly good at it) while Hearthstone streamers don't get anywhere near that.

[Armored Walrus]

It's possible WOTC isn't expecting Super Bowl-sized audiences.

[Millface]

It's possible WOTC isn't expecting Super Bowl-sized audiences.

I would certainly hope not. The competitive potential of D&D isn't great as it is, and the way they're planning on running it seems to make it even less so than it could be. It's my opinion that it isn't going to view well. Like... at all. But hey, I'll try it once!

[Dudewithknives]

I would certainly hope not. The competitive potential of D&D isn't great as it is, and the way they're planning on running it seems to make it even less so than it could be. It's my opinion that it isn't going to view well. Like... at all. But hey, I'll try it once!

I am just wondering who in the boardroom came up with this idea and thought it would fly without the people there that actually play and work on the game waving it off?

This is a horrble idea, there is no market for this. It is just a mine field of complaining waiting to happen.

When totally random dice rolls pull a win much more than skill, that just makes people that lose whine about bad rolls.

I could build a dwarf rogue abjurer who had a greatsword and fought in plate vs captain optimized super paladin but if the dice roll garbage for him, who cares.

That is not a competitive game, that is broadcasting yatzee.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's why the Superbowl is the most watched television event of the year and Poker is on ESPN 42. And why streamers like Ninja make like $1m/month playing Fortnite (and being incredibly good at it) while Hearthstone streamers don't get anywhere near that. The RNG to a Superbowl is figuring out which ref to bet.

[Millface]

I am just wondering who in the boardroom came up with this idea and thought it would fly without the people there that actually play and work on the game waving it off?

This is a horrble idea, there is no market for this. It is just a mine field of complaining waiting to happen.

When totally random dice rolls pull a win much more than skill, that just makes people that lose whine about bad rolls.

I could build a dwarf rogue abjurer who had a greatsword and fought in plate vs captain optimized super paladin but if the dice roll garbage for him, who cares.

That is not a competitive game, that is broadcasting yatzee.

From the format they're using, it doesn't look like they're going all in. More like a "hey, maybe it'll be better than it sounds, may as well try it, if it hits big then great."

They're buying a $1 lottery ticket, essentially.

Even still, I'm not sure how they plan on monetizing it. The idea behind E-Sports is to get people in. A few friends watched league of legends being cast one night and I actually sort of got into it with them rooting and cheering and I downloaded the game. I was garbage at it and uninstalled, but still, it can work. Games like MTG encourage you to buy and buy and buy so you think you can have a shot at being a Pro (you just need the right cards, right?)

This...? Critical Role is a MUCH better format to show someone who has no idea what D&D is and convince them to buy into the game. This is going to be a bunch of dudes rolling dice around a table. I LOVE D&D and I doubt I'll enjoy this with pregen PCs, what's someone who's never seen D&D going to think?

But, I mean, hey, if somehow it is super popular then tell me where to get recruited for a team.

[Sigreid]

Finally followed the link and now I really don't know why anyone is freaking out. Read the whole thing and they have a best of 3 arena tournament each week for 4 weeks with 4 teams of 4 players. Lose your best of 3 you don't get to go to the next round. Looks like they already have their teams selected, which probably means they are going to have their players already selected as well. What they are promoting is not really any different than watching an Overwatch tournament on YouTube. Don't see how or why it would affect anything.

[Millface]

Finally followed the link and now I really don't know why anyone is freaking out. Read the whole thing and they have a best of 3 arena tournament each week for 4 weeks with 4 teams of 4 players. Lose your best of 3 you don't get to go to the next round. Looks like they already have their teams selected, which probably means they are going to have their players already selected as well. What they are promoting is not really any different than watching an Overwatch tournament on YouTube. Don't see how or why it would affect anything.

The conversation had kind of moved from whether or not they should, to whether or not anyone will actually watch it.

Considering the atmosphere, I'd compare it more to watching a CCG tournament on youtube than something flashy and animated like Overwatch.

[Sigreid]

The conversation had kind of moved from whether or not they should, to whether or not anyone will actually watch it.

Considering the atmosphere, I'd compare it more to watching a CCG tournament on youtube than something flashy and animated like Overwatch.

Yeah, sounds boring.

[Milo v3]

PvP D&D, but without roleplaying or character creation, in the edition that has the least amount of focus on interesting tactical combat.... Yeah doesn't sound like the most brilliant idea.

[Willie the Duck]

PvP D&D, but without roleplaying or character creation, in the edition that has the least amount of focus on interesting tactical combat.... Yeah doesn't sound like the most brilliant idea.

The least out of which? All editions?

[Kane0]

With rocket tag and swinginess and metagaming being the biggest bugbears i'd be interested to see how they addess those, especially initiative.

Perhaps a variant of side initiative? Everybody rolls and the side with the highest result (individual or total?) nominates one PC to go, then they alternate back and forth until all 8 have had a turn and there is a reroll for each round. With how fast combats usually are and the deathmatch sort of setup I doubt you'd need to roll more than 5 rounds worth of init.

[MaxWilson]

The least out of which? All editions?

All post-TSR editions?

[Milo v3]

The least out of which? All editions?

3e on onward definitely. I can see people arguing about pre-3e as well based on how you define interesting combat.

[qube]

No, seriously, a heavy reliance on dice is bad even in 5E. It's why abilities like Portent are overrated. The game is most fun when you're more focused on making the right decisions, not rolling the right numbers on your dice. Staying out of range of a Medusa's gaze >>> using a mirror > having +4 on your save vs petrification. Not putting your skeletons in Fireball Formation >> hoping to beat the Fireball caster's initiative. If Portent or Lucky makes or breaks your day, you're relying way too much on luck for my taste. Lucky is insurance against your inevitable mistakes, not a mainline strategy.

"Luck is the last dying wish of those who wanna believe that winning can happen by accident,
sweat on the other hand is for those who know it's a choice"
-- Nike commercial

[Willie the Duck]

3e on onward definitely. I can see people arguing about pre-3e as well based on how you define interesting combat.

Yeah, I was wondering if you were thinking of 3/4/5. A lot of what made or broke combat in much of the TSR era were things like which side came with more troops, at fuller health, and in what tactical position, most of which are things you can do in any edition. Which was kind of the point at the time--combat was what you avoided if possible until you had an unassailable advantage (or the Magic User decided it was time to pull out a 'we win spell' like Sleep at low levels).

I don't know if I would call 3e's tactical combat 'interesting.' There were a lot of false choices, and then the 1-2 good choices your character build (and building was where 3e shines) made into optimal decisions. Still, 5e is definitely tactical mostly at the 'do I use my expendable resource this round?' level, again barring things that can happen in any edition (because they are DM gatekept).

[Ganymede]

While there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of competitive D&D, I do see two problems with it.

For one, it seems beyond bizarre that the D&D competition in the OP would completely ignore two-thirds of the pillars of the game. If it doesn't include the exploration and interaction pillars, is it even D&D anymore?

Secondly, D&D isn't really built for tight tournament play. The game itself is incredibly swingy and so many big moments often hinge on the outcome of what is essentially a coin flip. In that sense, it feels a lot like competitive War, the card game.

[MaxWilson]

I don't know if I would call 3e's tactical combat 'interesting.' There were a lot of false choices, and then the 1-2 good choices your character build (and building was where 3e shines) made into optimal decisions. Still, 5e is definitely tactical mostly at the 'do I use my expendable resource this round?' level, again barring things that can happen in any edition (because they are DM gatekept).

5E tactics are more than just resource usage timing. In addition to "which spell should I concentrate on," there's also a bunch of at-will stuff you can do (Disarm, Dodge, Grapple, Shove, strew cantrips, close/spike doors, Disengage/Dash behind a chokepoint/allies, improvised actions to e.g. silence an enemy spellcaster, seek partial or total cover, manipulate lighting, Help, Hide, move to exploit difficult terrain) in addition to the logistical stuff you can do pre combat like scouting and looking for good ground. Not to mention the additional options you can build into your character with feats and class powers, like Instinctive Charm or Mobile or Mage Slayer.

The interesting complexity of combat, even without resource usage, is why I'm still interested in 5E. It would make a great basis for an XCOM clone. I wouldn't do that to AD&D because TSR D&D is all about exploration, which computer games stink at, but there isn't much (5%) I do as a 5E DM during a 5E combat that couldn't be offloaded onto a computer. Sure, the game would get 5% simpler and you'd no longer be able to stop and negotiate a limited surrender from a Mexican standoff position, but 95% the time it would be exactly like any other combat-oriented murderhobo game.

5E would make a good computer game. Better than the Gold Box games, because 5E was designed around mechanistic combat.

[Nifft]

5E would make a good computer game. Better than the Gold Box games, because 5E was designed around mechanistic combat.

Nah, any recent D&D editions (5e / 4e / 3.5e) would be a nightmare as a UI, because it has interrupts & reactions.

Right up until 3.0e, the game is pretty easy to handle for a computer: characters do stuff on their turn, and then after that they just get one thing (attacks of opportunity) which can be easily coded to auto-trigger. Contingency spells have conditions; they can also auto-trigger, without any human interaction.

1e / 2e / 3.0e are all much simpler in terms of tactical interactions. Early 3.5e is also simple, but it didn't stay that way -- Immediate spells, Counter maneuvers, and similar effects all broke the simplicity which had made 2e the gold standard for video games.

[MaxWilson]

Nah, any recent D&D editions (5e / 4e / 3.5e) would be a nightmare as a UI, because it has interrupts & reactions.

That's not hard to accommodate. Let them toggle between opportunity attacks, Shield, and Counterspell. It's no different for a computer than a live DM: in both cases you're trying not to interrupt game flow.

If you really, really want to you could prompt on every possible opportunity attack, "do you want to attack?" A computer makes that easier than doing it in your head but it's still best to just have them set a policy instead of interrupting flow.

Seriously people. In what universe are human beings EVER better than computers at dealing with interrupts?

[Willie the Duck]

5E tactics are more than just resource usage timing. In addition to "which spell should I concentrate on," there's also a bunch of at-will stuff you can do (Disarm, Dodge, Grapple, Shove, strew cantrips, close/spike doors, Disengage/Dash behind a chokepoint/allies, improvised actions to e.g. silence an enemy spellcaster, seek partial or total cover, manipulate lighting, Help, Hide, move to exploit difficult terrain) in addition to the logistical stuff you can do pre combat like scouting and looking for good ground. Not to mention the additional options you can build into your character with feats and class powers, like Instinctive Charm or Mobile or Mage Slayer.

The interesting complexity of combat, even without resource usage, is why I'm still interested in 5E.

Yeah, I should have clarified with a 'relatively.' 5e is not 4e. And when you open up your comparison to other RPGs (or not just RPGs) other than D&D, 5e is definitely middle of the pack.


Seriously people. In what universe are human beings EVER better than computers at dealing with interrupts?

Who are you talking to that you think contradicted this?

[Knaight]

Seriously people. In what universe are human beings EVER better than computers at dealing with interrupts?

When the interrupts in question are all situational options that immediately emerge to be given to humans. In an all human system the people involved can watch each other for subtle reactions indicating interrupts, give tiny signals, and generally communicate in a sophisticated manner (by comparison to computer-human interactions, not other human-human interactions).

It's basically exactly the wrong kind of interrupts for a computer-human system in a game. Real time action systems interacting with each other? That computers are great for.

[Nifft]

That's not hard to accommodate. Let them toggle between opportunity attacks, Shield, and Counterspell. It's no different for a computer than a live DM: in both cases you're trying not to interrupt game flow. Wrong, because a human DM can see the non-verbal communication of the player who wants to interrupt, and accommodate that player.

The computer CANNOT do that (yet), so it must either query for optional human interrupts at every possible interrupt point, or turn the game into a twitchy timing-based interrupt arcade-style game ("interrupt the casting animation to break the spell!" i.e. arcade boss / 2e wizard).


If you really, really want to you could prompt on every possible opportunity attack, "do you want to attack?" Yep, that's the problem -- that would be utter garbage as a gaming experience.

Now expand that experience of utter garbage to include more prompts, for Interrupt spells and Counter maneuvers and so forth.


Seriously people. In what universe are human beings EVER better than computers at dealing with interrupts? Nope, wrong question. This is the universe where human beings are much better than computers at dealing with interrupts, therefore the transition from a human DM to a computer IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.

[MaxWilson]

When the interrupts in question are all situational options that immediately emerge to be given to humans. In an all human system the people involved can watch each other for subtle reactions indicating interrupts, give tiny signals, and generally communicate in a sophisticated manner (by comparison to computer-human interactions, not other human-human interactions).

It's basically exactly the wrong kind of interrupts for a computer-human system in a game. Real time action systems interacting with each other? That computers are great for.

I'm not following your argument. Maybe I should ask for more detail on your perspective. Here's a question: how do reactions play out in your experience? Take this scenario:

DM: Three now-bloated stirges detach themselves from the stricken Rubywand, now woozy from loss of blood, and the Annis Hag cackles and casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem and his horse Mounty for [roll, roll] 26 points of damage! Sir Caneghem, you can reduce that to 13 with a successful Dex save, DC 14.

Sir Caneghem: [roll] Made it! [roll] Mounty isn't so lucky, he takes 13 points of damage too despite my protection (from Mounted Combatant). [writes down 13 points of damage for self and Mounty]

DM: Elmo, you're still surrounded by stirges and you haven't acted yet. What do you do?

Rubywand could have opted to make an opportunity attack on the retreating stirges, or she could have Counterspelled the Lightning Bolt, or Sir Caneghem could have cast Absorb Elements to protect himself and Mounty, but none of them opted to do so. How, in your experience, would things have been different if they HAD chosen to take these actions? And how would the resolution you describe be in any way easier for a human to deal with than a computer? (Computers never overlook opportunities, and they never lose track of what they were doing before they got interrupted, and they never forget if you've already used your reaction this round.)

======================================


The computer CANNOT do that (yet), so it must either query for optional human interrupts at every possible interrupt point, or turn the game into a twitchy timing-based interrupt arcade-style game ("interrupt the casting animation to break the spell!" i.e. arcade boss / 2e wizard).

Not only is that a false dichotomy (there are other UXes you could offer, such as asking for a policy or allowing retroactive reactions) but you haven't demonstrated that this it is in any way different for humans. Either you allow retroactive reactions (in person or on the computer), or you don't and you have to declare your reaction before the DM (or computer) proceeds with a resolution. Either you must act in real time or not. The "twitchy time-based" requirement is not a function of your interface to the DM--it's strictly a function of your group's tolerance for retconning.


Yep, that's the problem -- that would be utter garbage as a gaming experience.

Now expand that experience of utter garbage to include more prompts, for Interrupt spells and Counter maneuvers and so forth.

And it is equally garbage at the table. There's a reason the DM in the example above didn't stop to ask Rubywand, "Do you want to make an opportunity attack against any of the stirges? Do you want to Counterspell the spell the hag is casting?" Interrupting flow is not fun, and that's as true at the table as it is at a computer.

Keeping flow despite the potential for interrupts isn't a computer-related problem. It's a metagame problem. But computers are better than your brain at implementing some of the solutions to the problem, not least because they multitask so well.

[Knaight]

Rubywand could have opted to make an opportunity attack on the retreating stirges, or she could have Counterspelled the Lightning Bolt, or Sir Caneghem could have cast Absorb Elements to protect himself and Mounty, but none of them opted to do so. How, in your experience, would things have been different if they HAD chosen to take these actions? And how would the resolution you describe be in any way easier for a human to deal with than a computer? (Computers never overlook opportunities, and they never lose track of what they were doing before they got interrupted, and they never forget if you've already used your reaction this round.)

Sure - and if any of them were doing any of this they'd signal you. In a face to face game that signal is a tiny twitch of face muscles, maybe a gesture, and is generally likely subconscious (also it generally can be slower because the time afforded for a person reading a description before it gets tedious is a whole lot higher than the time afforded for a computer playing an animation). For a computer you'd need either an interrupt button or a break in the action that offers a response, both of which are fairly obnoxious.

There's also the small matter of how human description is so much more linguistically sophisticated than what computers can do, and how adapting description in real time to short term pseudo-retcons works smoothly, where doing that with computer animations or vastly less sophisticated computer text just looks stupid.

[Nifft]

I'm not following your argument. Maybe I should ask for more detail on your perspective. Here's a question: how do reactions play out in your experience? Take this scenario:

DM: Three now-bloated stirges detach themselves from the stricken Rubywand, now woozy from loss of blood, and the Annis Hag cackles and casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem and his horse Mounty for [roll, roll] 26 points of damage! Sir Caneghem, you can reduce that to 13 with a successful Dex save, DC 14.

Sir Caneghem: [roll] Made it! [roll] Mounty isn't so lucky, he takes 13 points of damage too despite my protection (from Mounted Combatant). [writes down 13 points of damage for self and Mounty]

DM: Elmo, you're still surrounded by stirges and you haven't acted yet. What do you do?

Rubywand could have opted to make an opportunity attack on the retreating stirges, or she could have Counterspelled the Lightning Bolt, or Sir Caneghem could have cast Absorb Elements to protect himself and Mounty, but none of them opted to do so. How, in your experience, would things have been different if they HAD chosen to take these actions? And how would the resolution you describe be in any way easier for a human to deal with than a computer? (Computers never overlook opportunities, and they never lose track of what they were doing before they got interrupted, and they never forget if you've already used your reaction this round.)
The fact that you can type out how the scenario would go at the table, and that you naturally do so, shows me that you understand face-to-face communication is vastly more expressive than computer-game interface interactions.

Show me the exact same scenario, with the exact same interrupt opportunities, but this time it's a computer game. Show us what the interface would look like, and tell us how the user would indicate passing over or acting upon an interrupt opportunity.

Do that and you'll have a valid argument.

But right now all you're saying is that you cannot imagine a computer being able to do what the tabletop experience easily does. And that's exactly my point.




Not only is that a false dichotomy (there are other UXes you could offer, such as asking for a policy or allowing retroactive reactions) but you haven't demonstrated that this it is in any way different for humans. Either you allow retroactive reactions (in person or on the computer), or you don't and you have to declare your reaction before the DM (or computer) proceeds with a resolution. Either you must act in real time or not. The "twitchy time-based" requirement is not a function of your interface to the DM--it's strictly a function of your group's tolerance for retconning. Retroactive reactions means information is leaked. That's a reduction in complexity -- some D&D mechanics are balanced by what information you have at the time you make the decision to use the resource. Some trigger when you're hit, some trigger when you've taken damage, some trigger when you're attacked. Each means something different.

You're now saying you would simplify the game because poor little computer can't handle the complexity that the tabletop easily does. Score one more for my argument.




And it is equally garbage at the table. There's a reason the DM in the example above didn't stop to ask Rubywand, "Do you want to make an opportunity attack against any of the stirges? Do you want to Counterspell the spell the hag is casting?" Interrupting flow is not fun, and that's as true at the table as it is at a computer.

Keeping flow despite the potential for interrupts isn't a computer-related problem. It's a metagame problem. But computers are better than your brain at implementing some of the solutions to the problem, not least because they multitask so well. No, you're missing the point: the DM didn't need to interrupt because the DM has a massive information channel staring him in the face. Literally staring him in the face, because the information channel is the expressions and non-verbal cues from all the other players. He doesn't need to interrupt the flow because he has a source of information which the computer game cannot (yet) ingest.

Interrupts work great at the table because the thing you're confused about -- the "equally garbage" thing -- isn't actually a problem at the table, because humans are good at detecting when another human wants to cut into the conversation.


3.5e / 4e / 5e are games which leverage human face-to-face communication, and that same focus means they'd be worse video games (or harder to implement).

[MaxWilson]

Sure - and if any of them were doing any of this they'd signal you. In a face to face game that signal is a tiny twitch of face muscles, maybe a gesture, and is generally likely subconscious (also it generally can be slower because the time afforded for a person reading a description before it gets tedious is a whole lot higher than the time afforded for a computer playing an animation). For a computer you'd need either an interrupt button or a break in the action that offers a response, both of which are fairly obnoxious.

I'm still not clear on exactly what you think this would look like or where the signal would come. Would it be something like this:

DM: ...the hag casts a spell... [pause while players digest this]... Rubywand, you have something to say?
Rubywand: I want to Counterspell it!

Obviously the DM can't just say, "the hag casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem and Mounty" like before because Rubywand can't decide to Counterspell quickly enough to interrupt the DM before he says "Lightning Bolt" and gives away information that a Counterspeller wouldn't have (under Xanathar's rules anyway, if he is using them). A pause is required. Do you see a way for the DM to do things that doesn't require "a break in the action"? What does this look like in your imagination?


There's also the small matter of how human description is so much more linguistically sophisticated than what computers can do, and how adapting description in real time to short term pseudo-retcons works smoothly, where doing that with computer animations or vastly less sophisticated computer text just looks stupid.

If you present your version of the hypothetical scenario then we can talk about whether linguistic sophistication has anything at all to do with making interrupts easier to handle smoothly. Prima facie it seems orthogonal.

[Knaight]

I'm still not clear on exactly what you think this would look like or where the signal would come. Would it be something like this:

DM: ...the hag casts a spell... [pause while players digest this]... Rubywand, you have something to say?
Rubywand: I want to Counterspell it!
Sure, where that pause is probably a split second, because the DM just saw Rubywand's face move slightly in a way that suggests they're about to have input.


If you present your version of the hypothetical scenario then we can talk about whether linguistic sophistication has anything at all to do with making interrupts easier to handle smoothly. Prima facie it seems orthogonal.
You've seen the retcon approach at least once, I'm sure. You've also seen the DM adjust their narrative to smoothly work in said retcon. That smooth adjustment? That's what I'm talking about, and that's what computers can't do.

[Envyus]

I feel the need to point out two things.

First is that while this looks to be PvP, it going to be happening in a dungeon with other monsters. Also the Pre Gens are not going to be level 1. As well this is group vs group, not 1 on 1. Which tends to work much much better for D&D PvP.

Second is that this is not actually Wizards of the Coasts Idea. Wizards are not running this, funding this, or even really promoting it. This is all D&D Beyond and Encounter Roleplay's idea. They just have the licence.

Anyway, there is nothing innately bad about this idea, it all depends on how it is done. It's not something that really catches my interest however, but I am willing to give it a chance.

[R.Shackleford]

You know, you could set this up big brother style.

Have X people.

Each session they are given a task.

Each go about the task on their own or as part of a mini group or whatever. When someone does a task, the DM takes them into a different room, does thr task, then comes back to the other room.

Someone gets immunity at the end of the session.

Players vote out one of the players.

Said player voted out get to help the DM run the next sessions (like, roll dice or whatever) if they want. Or help pick out what enemies, traps, or scenarios will happen. DM has final say and won't tell anyone what they pick until it is announced.

In between sessions, you may retrain your character a bit. One or two level based options. Skills. But your race and class stays the same.

This would either be fun or completely stupid.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, where that pause is probably a split second, because the DM just saw Rubywand's face move slightly in a way that suggests they're about to have input.

[shrugs] Fine, then you can have the computer pause there for a second too, waiting for input. (If a keystroke or screen touch or spoken word is detected, wait until the player finishes giving the command.) I don't think pausing there leads to a good experience compared to the alternatives, but there's nothing there that makes computers worse than humans at waiting for input--and a computer will never forget to wait because it's busy thinking through the hag's next moves.

And let's not pretend that the DM would never overlook Rubywand's player's facial expressions in that split second--you'll still probably need a retcon fallback option where the DM says "...Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem for--" and Rubywand says, "Wait! I want to Counterspell!"


You've seen the retcon approach at least once, I'm sure. You've also seen the DM adjust their narrative to smoothly work in said retcon. That smooth adjustment? That's what I'm talking about, and that's what computers can't do.

I disagree. To whatever extent the computer has a narrative in the first place ("the hag casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem for 36 points of damage!") it has no problems retroactively adjusting the narrative ("the hag casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem but is Counterspelled by Rubywand!"). To put it differently: there's nothing I would do in this situation as DM that I can't do by proxy by writing a computer program to do it for me.

[Knaight]

[shrugs] Fine, then you can have the computer pause there for a second too, waiting for input. (If a keystroke or screen touch or spoken word is detected, wait until the player finishes giving the command.) I don't think pausing there leads to a good experience compared to the alternatives, but there's nothing there that makes computers worse than humans at waiting for input--and a computer will never forget to wait because it's busy thinking through the hag's next moves.

And let's not pretend that the DM would never overlook Rubywand's player's facial expressions in that split second--you'll still probably need a retcon fallback option where the DM says "...Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem for--" and Rubywand says, "Wait! I want to Counterspell!"

The computer doesn't know when to wait for input though - that's the difference. The DM is imperfect, sure, but the computer literally can't do this at all, which means that you either always get that delay or need an interrupt option a little less unconscious. On top of that the interrupt is just so much more obnoxious with the computer doing it. The expected pace of interaction is different, entirely reasonably.

[MaxWilson]

The computer doesn't know when to wait for input though - that's the difference.

Neither did I until you told me what you wanted. In the original scenario I said it the way I would run it at the table, "hag casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem and Mounty," no pause between "casts" and "Lightning Bolt." Now that I know what you expect I could conform to your expectations either in person or via computer interface. The computer adds no extra difficulty, and in fact it reduces the difficulty.


The DM is imperfect, sure, but the computer literally can't do this at all

The people who keep saying this obviously aren't very good at writing computer programs.


which means that you either always get that delay or need an interrupt option a little less unconscious.

Or pick a different options, like policy setting or retconning, both of which also work just as well or better via computer as in person.


On top of that the interrupt is just so much more obnoxious with the computer doing it. The expected pace of interaction is different, entirely reasonably.

That's obviously subjective. If everyone shared your pace preference, obviously no one would ever use Roll20, which follows the same pace despite being driven by a human being. (Or a dog, or a Turing-complete AI--there's no way to know for sure who's really running your Roll20 game. :-))

[Knaight]

The people who keep saying this obviously aren't very good at writing computer programs.

Really? You're saying that the computer can watch your face in real time for tiny changes in expression that signal that you have contributions to make? Considering the sad state of facial recognition this seems unlikely - theoretically possible with good enough sensors, powerful enough processors, and sophisticated enough machine learning, sure, but at current technology levels? I'm not buying it.

As for Roll20 I return to my point on expected pace of interaction. That operates at the expected human pace, which allows for far more generous timing than what gets rapidly tedious in a computer game. That's not to say that a computer couldn't do this at all, merely that the systems have all been ill suited and the resulting games would likely be pretty bad, particularly by comparison to games already there that are actually built for a computer and take advantage of what computers are good at. Which, getting back to the earliest post on this derail (which we should probably call pretty soon) I'd actually include exploration at, albeit a different sort.

[MaxWilson]

Really? You're saying that the computer can watch your face in real time for tiny changes in expression that signal that you have contributions to make?

You're moving the goalposts. The claim I was responding to was, "The computer doesn't know when to wait for input though - that's the difference. The DM is imperfect, sure, but the computer literally can't do this at all..."

If you meant, "The computer can't read facial expressions at all--that's the difference," I'll shrug, ask you to illustrate why that's the crucial point when it comes to dealing with interrupts and excpetions, and listen to what you have to say.


As for Roll20 I return to my point on expected pace of interaction. That operates at the expected human pace, which allows for far more generous timing than what gets rapidly tedious in a computer game. That's not to say that a computer couldn't do this at all, merely that the systems have all been ill suited and the resulting games would likely be pretty bad, particularly by comparison to games already there that are actually built for a computer and take advantage of what computers are good at. Which, getting back to the earliest post on this derail (which we should probably call pretty soon) I'd actually include exploration at, albeit a different sort.

I think the sentence in bold is our crucial point of disagreement. It's not really about pacing and interrupts at all--you've acknowledged that already right here. It's about whether or not you'd enjoy a computer version of 5E. From my perspective, 5E is already so combat-focused, gamist, and CAS-oriented that it's practically a computer game already. The old Gold Box computer games lost 80-90% of what AD&D was about in their translation down to computer games; I think 5E would lose maybe 20%. To put it another way: Bard's Tale Remastered Trilogy (https://www.reddit.com/r/BardsTale/comments/97nlum/trilogy_remastered_quick_unsorted_observations/) came out a couple of years ago, and I just discovered it, and I have had a lot of fun playing it--but I think I would have maybe 80-200% more fun if the chargen and combats were built on top of 5E instead of the Bard's Tale classes/combat mechanics.

Computer games are rubbage at exploration-oriented simulationist CAW, and 5E is merely mediocre at exploration-oriented simulationist CAW (requires the DM to practically write the whole game from scratch, using very little of 5E). But computer games and 5E are both pretty good at combat-oriented gamist CAS. In that kind of game I can even put up with things I would hate in a TTRPG, like monsters appearing at point-blank range out of nowhere. (I'm aware that some posters on these forums do just that in their TTRPG CAS games. I don't share their enjoyment of that kind of thing.)

[Knaight]

You're moving the goalposts. The claim I was responding to was, "The computer doesn't know when to wait for input though - that's the difference. The DM is imperfect, sure, but the computer literally can't do this at all..."

If you meant, "The computer can't read facial expressions at all--that's the difference," I'll shrug, ask you to illustrate why that's the crucial point when it comes to dealing with interrupts and excpetions, and listen to what you have to say.

I see the misunderstanding. My point is that the waiting gap for input, in a face to face game, only exists when created provisionally in response to an indicator, and the provisional nature of said waiting gap is part of the reason the flow works. The human DM can tell when to wait - a computer can't. There are ways around it, but they're all clunky by comparison to what the human DM can do.

[Nifft]

I see the misunderstanding. My point is that the waiting gap for input, in a face to face game, only exists when created provisionally in response to an indicator, and the provisional nature of said waiting gap is part of the reason the flow works. The human DM can tell when to wait - a computer can't. There are ways around it, but they're all clunky by comparison to what the human DM can do. Yeah, it's been said a few ways so far.

Human face-to-face communication allows a lot of out-of-band information to be transmitted.

Human non-verbal communication cues allow humans to handle poll for interrupts in a way that is simply unavailable to computers (currently), and this information comes from a HUGE data-pipe which is also unavailable to computers (currently).


The people who keep saying this obviously aren't very good at writing computer programs.
You were asked upthread to show us what a good program would look like, and you failed to deliver.

How about you show us what a good interface would look like, before insulting others?

[MaxWilson]

I see the misunderstanding. My point is that the waiting gap for input, in a face to face game, only exists when created provisionally in response to an indicator, and the provisional nature of said waiting gap is part of the reason the flow works. The human DM can tell when to wait - a computer can't. There are ways around it, but they're all clunky by comparison to what the human DM can do.

I'll address this below with Nifft's comments.


Yeah, it's been said a few ways so far.

Human face-to-face communication allows a lot of out-of-band information to be transmitted.

Human non-verbal communication cues allow humans to handle poll for interrupts in a way that is simply unavailable to computers (currently), and this information comes from a HUGE data-pipe which is also unavailable to computers (currently).

I remain unpersuaded, but that may be because I'm unusually bad at recognizing or reading faces--perhaps I lack understanding of the full width of the data pipe you guys have access to. If you can tell from body language whether Rubywand needs you to pause between the words "casts" and "Lightning Bolt" in order to decide whether to Counterspell... my hat is off to you.

Regardless, as a 5E DM I can't do that, in person or via computer, so to me the two modes of play are exactly the same here: if I'm going to poll for player input, it has to come via explicit communication, like Rubywand saying "I want to Counterspell!" or tapping the her smart phone's screen or raising her hand or whatever.


You were asked upthread to show us what a good program would look like, and you failed to deliver.

I don't remember seeing any such post. Link please?


How about you show us what a good interface would look like, before insulting others?

You're shifting the burden of proof here (from "computers categorically cannot deal with interrupts" to "can you make an interface which persuades me to play your game?"), but I'll pretend you're just asking me to elaborate on my point.

An interface that I personally would find good and fun would be a combination of policies and optional interrupts. I don't personally enjoy the Xanathar's rules on Counterspelling, so assume for the sake of argument that you can know before Counterspell what the spell is and who the targets are, but not how much damage would be rolled or who would make their saves. The experience I'd like for a fully-automated 5E Bard's Tale adaptation is this:



[B]DM [computerized text appearing at a comfortable reading rate]: the stirges detach from Rubywand [stirges move] and the Annis Hag cackles and casts Lightning Bolt at Sir Caneghem and his horse Mounty... [an animation begins to play and the hag moves while Sir Caneghem and Mounty blink red, and a counter starts counting down from 3 to 0]

Player: [hits spacebar] [the counter pauses and a prompt says, "Counterspell Lightning Bolt? Y/N"] [player hits "Y" key on keyboard]

DM [computerized text]: Rubywand successfully Counterspells! [Rubywand animates briefly, hag ceases her animation, Sir Caneghem and Mounty are no longer flashing red]

[play continues]

That's how I'd want to run it at the table anyway, so there is zero downside to simply automating it. Always ask yourself, "Why haven't you automated that yet?"

[Nifft]

I don't remember seeing any such post. Link please? Here you go:

The fact that you can type out how the scenario would go at the table, and that you naturally do so, shows me that you understand face-to-face communication is vastly more expressive than computer-game interface interactions.

Show me the exact same scenario, with the exact same interrupt opportunities, but this time it's a computer game. Show us what the interface would look like, and tell us how the user would indicate passing over or acting upon an interrupt opportunity.

Do that and you'll have a valid argument.

But right now all you're saying is that you cannot imagine a computer being able to do what the tabletop experience easily does. And that's exactly my point.

== == ==


You're shifting the burden of proof here (from "computers categorically cannot deal with interrupts" No, that's not at all what anybody is saying. That's just plain wrong.

If that's what you think someone is arguing, then we're reading different languages.

What computers can't do is offer possible interrupt opportunities in a non-invasive ways, nor can they reliably perceive out-of-band communication from the human player(s). They also suck at retroactive interrupts, but that's a separate issue.

[MaxWilson]

Here you go:

Apologies. I apparently missed that post entirely. I'll edit this post with a response to it sometime soon. (Edit: Done.) I think I mostly responded to it above (what you were asking for in the quote in #118 is what I supplied already in #117) but I'll go back and read the whole post.


The fact that you can type out how the scenario would go at the table, and that you naturally do so, shows me that you understand face-to-face communication is vastly more expressive than computer-game interface interactions.

Er, no. That was a scenario without interrupts. I was asking Knaight to show me how the scenario would go at the table if you added interrupts. The scenario I described would play out identically on a computer and in person, but I was expecting Knaight to modify the scenario to show how looking for nonverbal cues would alter the gameflow. At minimum I expected him to add a pause between "casts" and "Lightning Bolt" so the player can decide if she wanted to Counterspell.


Show me the exact same scenario, with the exact same interrupt opportunities, but this time it's a computer game. Show us what the interface would look like, and tell us how the user would indicate passing over or acting upon an interrupt opportunity.

Do that and you'll have a valid argument.

Okay, I think I did this in #117. Yes, I do have a valid argument.


But right now all you're saying is that you cannot imagine a computer being able to do what the tabletop experience easily does. And that's exactly my point.

But the scenario I described was already suitable for automation. I was asking Knaight to modify it into something unsuitable for automation. So far I haven't seen anyone do so.


Retroactive reactions means information is leaked. That's a reduction in complexity -- some D&D mechanics are balanced by what information you have at the time you make the decision to use the resource. Some trigger when you're hit, some trigger when you've taken damage, some trigger when you're attacked. Each means something different.

You're now saying you would simplify the game because poor little computer can't handle the complexity that the tabletop easily does. Score one more for my argument.

What? No. You missed the point completely. I'm saying I the DM sometimes simplify the game for the sake of gameflow and the players. On a computer this wouldn't be necessary so frequently, but I'd still probably build in the capability unless it was a fully-automated game like a Bards Tale adaptation, because DMs need the capability to make ad hoc modifications to game state. There's nothing about retconning or ad hoc modifications that precludes automation. On the contrary, automation makes retconning easier.


No, you're missing the point: the DM didn't need to interrupt because the DM has a massive information channel staring him in the face. Literally staring him in the face, because the information channel is the expressions and non-verbal cues from all the other players. He doesn't need to interrupt the flow because he has a source of information which the computer game cannot (yet) ingest.

Already addressed. Maybe you guys are picking up on information that I don't have access to. I rely on explicit communication, and automating can only help (animations are higher bandwidth than words). Also, a computer never forgets to pause for input, like I do when I'm concentrating on getting inside the monster's head, so retroactive action declarations are less necessary (therefore fewer information leaks and a better play experience for the players).


Interrupts work great at the table because the thing you're confused about -- the "equally garbage" thing -- isn't actually a problem at the table, because humans are good at detecting when another human wants to cut into the conversation.

So, how would the Rubywand scenario play out at your table? Please modify it as appropriate to show how the DM knows Rubywand isn't going to make an opportunity attack or Counterspell, and Sir Caneghem isn't going to Absorb Elements. Do the exact same words get spoken as in my original scenario? Do you add any pauses while players think?

Humans are good at indicating to computers when they want to cut into the conversation. But computers are not good at detecting when humans need time to decide whether they are going to cut into the conversation a few seconds from now, vs. just moving on immediately. Neither am I. Until this thread I never knew that anyone else might think they are.

[GreyBlack]

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea, but only because of how classes are balanced and designed. You're not going to see any spellcasters because Paladins are going to be extremely prevalent due to their bonuses to saving throws. In fact, paladins will be immensely prevalent period because they're just an extremely strong class. Second might be something like life cleric due to the heavy armor proficiency, but this would be paired with paladin or equivalent most likely.

This is just me spitballing. Spellcasting will be capable of some amazing stuff but it will all be taken up in the spells that affect the environment and/or making sure you have a spell that can target your opponents weak save. Like intelligence.

[gloryblaze]

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea, but only because of how classes are balanced and designed. You're not going to see any spellcasters because Paladins are going to be extremely prevalent due to their bonuses to saving throws. In fact, paladins will be immensely prevalent period because they're just an extremely strong class. Second might be something like life cleric due to the heavy armor proficiency, but this would be paired with paladin or equivalent most likely.

This is just me spitballing. Spellcasting will be capable of some amazing stuff but it will all be taken up in the spells that affect the environment and/or making sure you have a spell that can target your opponents weak save. Like intelligence.

Because it uses pregens and a pick/ban system, it's likely that we'll actually see no paladins at all, if we assume paladins are overpowered - both sides will ban paladin, and it's unlikely that there will be more than 2 paladin pregens in a pool of 15 pregens meant to encompass all 12 classes.

Not to say that this is a brilliant idea, by any means. But this one critique may not actually be a problem.

[Dudewithknives]

Because it uses pregens and a pick/ban system, it's likely that we'll actually see no paladins at all, if we assume paladins are overpowered - both sides will ban paladin, and it's unlikely that there will be more than 2 paladin pregens in a pool of 15 pregens meant to encompass all 12 classes.

Not to say that this is a brilliant idea, by any means. But this one critique may not actually be a problem.

The biggest problem will be moon druids just turning into a tiny animal of some kind and just ignoring everything, or comeone casting invisibility and stealthing through things and ignoring encounters.

I would not call the idea "wrong" I would just call it very stupid and almost impossible to impliment.

[gloryblaze]

The biggest problem will be moon druids just turning into a tiny animal of some kind and just ignoring everything, or comeone casting invisibility and stealthing through things and ignoring encounters.

I would not call the idea "wrong" I would just call it very stupid and almost impossible to impliment.

I mean, it's also possible that the only Druid is a land Druid, or that the character sheet lists all the animals the Druid has seen before and none of them are Tiny. Or that none of the caster pregens have Invisibility. Or maybe some of them do, but all of the caster pregens also have See Invisibility. A huge component in how well this will go is how the pregens are made and how they interact with each other.

[Dudewithknives]

I mean, it's also possible that the only Druid is a land Druid, or that the character sheet lists all the animals the Druid has seen before and none of them are Tiny. Or that none of the caster pregens have Invisibility. Or maybe some of them do, but all of the caster pregens also have See Invisibility. A huge component in how well this will go is how the pregens are made and how they interact with each other.

If that is the case then people will just complain that the characters are not made correctly.

As I said, this whole concept is a stupid plan that is not worth the time they are spending on it.

Fix the problems the game currently out has before you try to get a whole new market for it.

[Envyus]

D&Dsports just had a name change to RPGsports. Looks like they needed to clarify that WotC was not affiliated with them.

[opaopajr]

Those old adventure modules that had ridiculous tricks & traps & monster odds? They were from game convention tournament modules back in the day. They later became published... and accidentally taken at face value. :smalltongue: ... and this game convention tournament idea also help give rise to Organized Play.

We've already seen what competitive D&D brought to the hobby. :smallyuk: I don't feel it was good. Now they want to try again? Well, who knows maybe a bad idea repeated can one day change its outcome... :smallwink: or was that the definition of insanity?

Let WotC do as they please. I am not the market for such toys as these. :smallcool:

[Nifft]

We've already seen what competitive D&D brought to the hobby. :smallyuk: I don't feel it was good. Now they want to try again? It was fun, but only as a sometimes food.

Much like how we might enjoy playing PARANOIA occasionally, but we wouldn't want that kind of virtually arbitrary insta-kill insanity for a long-term game.


Well, who knows maybe a bad idea repeated can one day change its outcome... :smallwink: or was that the definition of insanity? Sounds like the definition of practice.

[MaxWilson]

You were asked upthread to show us what a good program would look like, and you failed to deliver.

How about you show us what a good interface would look like, before insulting others?

Done in #119 and #117. Still waiting for an acknowledgment.

Edit: several hours later, still waiting. Context reminder: I previously wrote,



The DM is imperfect, sure, but the computer literally can't do this at all

The people who keep saying this obviously aren't very good at writing computer programs.


And you took offense to this, Nifft, apparently believing that a good UX for this scenario is impossible to design. You said that if I could outline a good UX then you'd admit I have a valid argument. I did so in moderate detail. QED: people who say it can't be done aren't very good at writing computer programs.

[Envyus]

Fix the problems the game currently out has before you try to get a whole new market for it.



Let WotC do as they please. I am not the market for such toys as these. :smallcool:

WotC is not involved with this.

[KorvinStarmast]

Here's a Google doc for pregens: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IuOIRCn0AkMLFATRU3tRLc3umw8ncelWXhrBjbc4ppw/edit?usp=sharing

. OK, finally got my char in there. Wood Elf, Monk, way of Shadows.

[Nifft]

Done in #119 and #117. Still waiting for an acknowledgment.

Edit: several hours later, still waiting. Context reminder: I previously wrote, Calm down, son. You'll be just as wrong whenever your post got a response, or even if it didn't.



And you took offense to this, Nifft, apparently believing that a good UX for this scenario is impossible to design. Why pretend other people got offended just because you were wrong about something on the internet? This seems like an unhelpful escalation.

And why lie about what I actually said? That's never going to help -- the posts are right here in this thread. They're easy to quote. I'll quote the context below.



You said that if I could outline a good UX then you'd admit I have a valid argument. I did so in moderate detail. QED: people who say it can't be done aren't very good at writing computer programs.

The relevant bits of what I said was:

Wrong, because a human DM can see the non-verbal communication of the player who wants to interrupt, and accommodate that player.

The computer CANNOT do that (yet), so it must either query for optional human interrupts at every possible interrupt point, or turn the game into a twitchy timing-based interrupt arcade-style game ("interrupt the casting animation to break the spell!" i.e. arcade boss / 2e wizard).
You've done nothing but talk about turning the game into a twitchy race-to-respond at every possible interrupt point, which is BOTH of the things that I said were bad UI.

It's not impossible to make a game which is just as good as human -- in fact it's pretty obvious how to do this: just get video processing up to the point that computer gesture & facial recognition are on par with a human -- but it's not currently available, since nobody has actually done it yet. There might be other ways, but they'd require intelligence and creativity to implement, and since they haven't happened yet I can only assume the other ways aren't trivial.

You could have had a valid point if you'd done anything that wasn't obviously bad, and called out as obviously bad right from the start.

Zero points for UI design, negative ten points for not reading.

[MaxWilson]

And why lie about what I actually said? That's never going to help -- the posts are right here in this thread. They're easy to quote. I'll quote the context below.

Excuse me? Here's the relevant quote:


The fact that you can type out how the scenario would go at the table, and that you naturally do so, shows me that you understand face-to-face communication is vastly more expressive than computer-game interface interactions.

Show me the exact same scenario, with the exact same interrupt opportunities, but this time it's a computer game. Show us what the interface would look like, and tell us how the user would indicate passing over or acting upon an interrupt opportunity.

Do that and you'll have a valid argument.

You've ignored every attempt I made to have an actual conversation, refused to answer my questions, and now you're hurling false accusations. Clearly you're not someone I want to be around. Welcome to my ignore list.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, Nifft, giving up that conversation and ignoring it is the only winning move here.

I know it's hard, but wasting time and energy on it is not worth it.

[Nifft]

Honestly, Nifft, giving up that conversation and ignoring it is the only winning move here.

I know it's hard, but wasting time and energy on it is not worth it. You're probably right. Moot point now, though, since the other party has rage-quit.


Sometimes I wonder if this sort of experience (where a dishonest debater is misrepresenting arguments, ignoring facts, and then at the end "gets away with it" by acting offended) is the "broken windows" of our post-truth socio-political environment.

[opaopajr]

WotC is not involved with this.

Then they've made a decision wise beyond their years. :smalltongue: