The XCOM Approach

[Martin Greywolf]

Looking at first two or three levels in DnD5, I lately came to the revelation that they are like XCOM. Well, the modern XCOM with UI that doesn't have the design of a WW2 era submarine.

You have fights where one bad turn can kill your guy.

You have half cover and full cover, and should never, ever leave it unless you are a high-AC high-HP class. In fact, you should always use that to make your enemies focus on your tanks at these levels - that sorcerer is squishy, but has like 17 AC and disadvantage to attack , prone behind the sarcophagus, better swing at AC 13 fighter in front of me.

You can even fall prone, something which gives ranged characters more options than XCOM did.

You can debuff your enemies - by knocking them down.

Getting caught in the open WILL kill you.

You have overwatch in preparing an action and shooting the first poor sod that comes in around that corner - hell, with social skills, you can probably taunt them into doing just that.

You even have consumables like grenades or rocket launcher in form of spells - although XCOM has better ones as they don't miss.

If you take the XCOM lessons and play according to them - always scout, do not leave cover ever, exploit overwatch - you can make low level combat a whole lot less swingy, especially for casters. Some DMs will probably rage at you for "exploiting the system", though.

[Willie the Duck]

If one wants to view it that way, you can certainly find parallels. I recall someone saying that they didn't really like 5e, they just played it as an XCOM-like challenge, and I kind of thought it like those people that say they only listen to Nickelback 'ironically.' I'm certainly not sure that 5e is more XCOM-like than other editions. The 'squishies' certainly are a lot less squishy than some other editions. Regardless, yes in general most characters will really get chewed up by 3-4 level-appropriate baddies unloading on them in the same turn. Also agree that there are debuffs, and rest-recoverable resources have a similar usage to grenades.

Regarding "DMs will probably rage at you for 'exploiting the system', though." -- that may be the charge levelled, but I think the issue at hand is that it's moving the game into a different playstyle (and perhaps forcing their hand to follow suite). There are many levels of gentlemen's agreements that may or may not be in effect -- for instance, the enemies not rushing past the front line to chew up the casters, despite the rules giving woefully little disincentive (the zone of control/turning-your-back-on-an-enemy-to-focus-on-another rules are anemic at best). If the PCs start playing tactically smart, the opposition might have to as well, and honestly that probably makes life worse for the casters (although the likely DM complaint actual-reason is that they then have to make the effort to play strategically as well, and they have a lot more combatants to keep track of).

[HappyDaze]

I think it's the players that will have issues if the monsters regularly utilize these tactics.

[MaxWilson]

If one wants to view it that way, you can certainly find parallels. I recall someone saying that they didn't really like 5e, they just played it as an XCOM-like challenge

One of my hobbies is rewriting 5E into an XCOM- and Bard's Tale-inspired CRPG. Git repo here: https://github.com/MaxWilson/ShiningSword

I have no desire to do this to AD&D because AD&D is very much a TTRPG (despite how fun the Gold Box games are, they don't really resemble playing AD&D much at all), but 5E is 90% of the way to a CRPG already. Everything is already codified with action economy costs and technicalities and die mechanics and predefined powers, to the point where I find it annoying to run and want to offload 90% of the DMing onto the computer.

I want the ability to just say, "you step forward into the crypt and find yourself surrounded by mummies," and tell the computer "add 2d6 mummies and 3d6 shadows in random locations around the party, and make the shadows pre-hidden" and then just monitor the combat until it's over while I the DM focus on the big picture including why the conflict is happening, what logically happens next and how the players are enjoying the game. I don't need to be distracted by tracking HP and initiative order and where every mummy and PC is on the battlemat and who each mummy is currently attacking--so I want a CRPG for DMing multi-person scenarios as well as for XCOM-like single player games.

I'm also interested in running no-person scenarios, e.g. machine learning to improve monster AI, or optimization to show which builds and tactics have the best success rates against a given monster mix, or how many Flameskulls is a good challenge for an 8th level party who will have to face at least two more encounters that day. That kind of analysis wouldn't be interesting in AD&D, but in 5E you can meaningfully talk about builds and DPR and mostly-context-free tactics.

[Pleh]

Funny thing is most of these tactics were applicable to 3.5 as well, but the thing that keeps them relevant is Bounded Accuracy.

In 3.5, these tactics kind of stopped being relevant once casters truly startes coming online around level 5ish and they died off completely around 10th level when even the crappier martials grew powerful enough they didn't care anymore.

[firelistener]

I think it's the players that will have issues if the monsters regularly utilize these tactics.

Same here. I have a group of players that's all played tons of video games and should have a fairly good grasp of the tactics and statistics that work well in 5e. But I still end up having to play enemies that make tactical errors all the time. My usual plays are:


Have enemies split attacks between players instead of focusing.
Move past players to provoke attacks of opportunity.
Don't bother with cover.
Use Dash action to get right next to players rather than slowly closing distance with Dodge action.



It's usually just enough for the players to not die horribly. They tend to wipe every time they just bust doors down and go in guns blazing because they like playing squishy classes, like rogue or sorcerer, but play like they're barbarians.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think it's the players that will have issues if the monsters regularly utilize these tactics.

sharpshooter/spell sniper ask what's cover?

[Willie the Duck]

Everything is already codified with action economy costs and technicalities and die mechanics and predefined powers, to the point where I find it annoying to run and want to offload 90% of the DMing onto the computer.

Okay, yep, I see that. There definitely is less required-DM-adjudication in the combat scenarios.

[Pleh]

sharpshooter/spell sniper ask what's cover?

Doesn't ignore Full Cover, but your point is taken. There are placed where you can duck in and out of full cover between actions.

[MaxWilson]

Okay, yep, I see that. There definitely is less required-DM-adjudication in the combat scenarios.

Plus, the rules are written in a way that is easier for computers to understand than humans. There's an old computer joke about the "GOTO" instruction and the (joke) "COME FROM" instruction which works the opposite way:


10 COMEFROM 40
20 INPUT "WHAT IS YOUR NAME? "; A$
30 PRINT "HELLO, "; A$
40 REM

It's a joke because of course it's impossible for humans to read once the program gets to a certain size. And yet this is exactly how D&D rules are written. For example:


10 $roll = d20
20 $roll = $roll + $relevantModifier
30 if $roll >= $target.AC goto 50
REM It was a miss
40 return
50 $dmg = rollDamage()
60 $target.HP -= $dmg
REM It was a hit
70 return
80 COME FROM 10 if target.$Lucky
90 if $target.spendsLucky target.$Lucky -= 1 else return
100 $roll = min($roll, d20)
110 return
120 COME FROM 10 if anyone.LoreBard
130 if $loreBard.HasReaction && $loreBard.spendsCuttingWords $loreBard.inspiration -= 1 else return
140 $loreBard.SpendReaction
150 if $attacker.canBeCharmed and $attacker.within(60 feet, $target) $roll -= d($loreBard.dieSize)
160 return
... etc.

5E's way is to give a very simple core logic loop (lines 10-70 for an attack) but there's a metric ton of hidden cases lurking invisibly in the weeds. Did you remember to ask the wild sorcerer to roll a wild surge when he cast the spell? The die roll on that attack was a 19 and the target was under Hexblade's Curse, did you remember to make it a critical? Did you remember to give the Hexblade a GWM bonus attack for that critical? Did you remember to give an extra die of damage on the critical because he's also a Barbarian? Did you remember to roll concentration when the Fireball detonated, to see if the Hexblade would lose concentration on Hex?

Humans are terrible at executing this kind of logic. We just can't hold all of the special cases in our heads at once. Computers are excellent at it though, to the point of never making a mistake as long as the rules are written clearly.

[Nifft]

sharpshooter/spell sniper ask what's cover?

Purely beneficial to those players, is what Cover is.

We use it, they lose it.

Win/win.

[Tanarii]

Looking at first two or three levels in DnD5, I lately came to the revelation that they are like XCOM. Well, the modern XCOM with UI that doesn't have the design of a WW2 era submarine.
Did it improve with the 2010s games? Because after Deep, both Ui and gameplay took a turn for the worse.

I can see that it might have, Firaxis games makes some pretty solid stuff.

[MaxWilson]

Did it improve with the 2010s games? Because after Deep, both Ui and gameplay took a turn for the worse.

I can see that it might have, Firaxis games makes some pretty solid stuff.

Do the Firaxis games still have destructible terrain and neverending hordes of new recruits to replace the old recruits that got killed by Chryssalids?

[Tanarii]

Do the Firaxis games still have destructible terrain and neverending hordes of new recruits to replace the old recruits that got killed by Chryssalids?
Speaking of things D&D needs ...

Actually, it used to have the second one. But for some reason people didn't enjoy it. Crazy fools.

[Willie the Duck]

Plus, the rules are written in a way that is easier for computers to understand than humans. There's an old computer joke about the "GOTO" instruction and the (joke) "COME FROM" instruction which works the opposite way:
<the code>

I'm familiar, and now I'm nostalgic for pounding out line numbered programs on an old amber screen 286. :smallbiggrin:


5E's way is to give a very simple core logic loop (lines 10-70 for an attack) but there's a metric ton of hidden cases lurking invisibly in the weeds. Did you remember to ask the wild sorcerer to roll a wild surge when he cast the spell? The die roll on that attack was a 19 and the target was under Hexblade's Curse, did you remember to make it a critical? Did you remember to give the Hexblade a GWM bonus attack for that critical? Did you remember to give an extra die of damage on the critical because he's also a Barbarian? Did you remember to roll concentration when the Fireball detonated, to see if the Hexblade would lose concentration on Hex?

Humans are terrible at executing this kind of logic. We just can't hold all of the special cases in our heads at once. Computers are excellent at it though, to the point of never making a mistake as long as the rules are written clearly.

Certainly with the lack of required adjudication, 5e works better than some. Not my cup of tea (when I code for fun, it's mostly as service to statistical analysis), but I can see the appeal. I'd think a less exception-based game than D&D would be a better candidate for the challenge. Or something like Hero System where there are huge numbers of exceptions, but you can micronize various checks (say, compare whether attack effect is choke and whether target has life support:does not breath, and turn it into a macro you can throw onto all the attack power checks).

[Xervous]

Do the Firaxis games still have destructible terrain and neverending hordes of new recruits to replace the old recruits that got killed by Chryssalids?

Having not played the second recent installment my observations are on the 2012 game.

Yes, terrain is destructible and while your recruits have stormtrooper accuracy they surpass major league pitchers, being able to unfailingly ricochet grenades off vans, roofs and through windows to land on a sectoid’s pinky finger, obliterating the cover for three aliens while your shotgunner sits mere inches away from the blast comfortably in full cover behind the fridge.

While chrysalids don’t occur all that frequently at first there is a nice span of time where they will chew up your squad if you are ill prepared to deal with them. They don’t have a monopoly on obliterating your troops with a stray glance.

And then there’s the joy of losing the game on the second turn of Insane because your first move revealed nine sectoids!

[LudicSavant]

Do the Firaxis games still have destructible terrain and neverending hordes of new recruits to replace the old recruits that got killed by Chryssalids?

XCOM 1 and 2: Yes.
XCOM: Chimera Squad: You have specific characters with personality and story roles rather than randomly generated people. Still destructible terrain though.

[MaxWilson]

Certainly with the lack of required adjudication, 5e works better than some. Not my cup of tea (when I code for fun, it's mostly as service to statistical analysis), but I can see the appeal. I'd think a less exception-based game than D&D would be a better candidate for the challenge. Or something like Hero System where there are huge numbers of exceptions, but you can micronize various checks (say, compare whether attack effect is choke and whether target has life support:does not breath, and turn it into a macro you can throw onto all the attack power checks).

Why though? Computers are AWESOME at executing exception-based programming (not in the C++ sense of exceptions), much better than humans. 5E is basically just aspect-oriented programming.

Computers have zero problem handling COME FROM.

Yes, you do need a DSL to actually write D&D rules in an idiomatic way, because computer languages deliberately don't support COME FROM natively. Working out that DSL is something I'm working on.

I don't see a significant difference between 5e and the way you describe HERO. In 5E it's more like "if the target's HP are reduced to zero, but it doesn't kill them outright, and they're a half-orc, and they haven't already used this ability yet today, prompt the player whether they want to go down to 1 HP instead." Either way it's some code which needs to get stuck into the middle of every instance where they take damage.


XCOM 1 and 2: Yes.
XCOM: Chimera Squad: You have specific characters with personality and story roles rather than randomly generated people. Still destructible terrain though.

Heh. That makes Chimera Squad an ironic name.

Thanks to this thread I spent several hours yesterday playing XCOM: UFO Defense.

[LudicSavant]

Heh. That makes Chimera Squad an ironic name. It's called Chimera Squad because it's a unit made up of all the alien species and humans. Their motto translates to "diversity is our strength."

[MaxWilson]

It's called Chimera Squad because it's a unit made up of all the alien species and humans. Their motto translates to "diversity is our strength."

I still totally want to steal the name for a squad of initially-interchangeable expendables in my XCOM: UFO Defense game, or a 5E game.

[Composer99]

Thanks to this thread I purchased and downloaded XCOM and XCOM 2. Thankfully they were on sale.

Sonewhat apropos of the topic, this reminds me of my favourite strategy to survive early Baldur's Gate, which was to kite and shoot.

More apropos of the topic, not letting opponents hit you, either by denying them the ability to close to melee or get clean shots at range, seems to me to be a solid strategy for the PCs and monsters alike.

[Willie the Duck]

Why though? Computers are AWESOME at executing exception-based programming (not in the C++ sense of exceptions), much better than humans. 5E is basically just aspect-oriented programming.

I guess I'm just thinking about having to think about every spell, feat, class/race feature, monster feature, and so on in the game, and attach a rider to near every kind of check to ascertain whether said thing is in effect and whether it is pertinent. How well computers are at the task wasn't really part of my thinking. It is looking at hundreds to thousands of moving parts and applying them to vastly different conditions (which are often not resolved using the same mechanic).


I don't see a significant difference between 5e and the way you describe HERO. In 5E it's more like "if the target's HP are reduced to zero, but it doesn't kill them outright, and they're a half-orc, and they haven't already used this ability yet today, prompt the player whether they want to go down to 1 HP instead." Either way it's some code which needs to get stuck into the middle of every instance where they take damage.

Each feature works in a different way (obviously not true, but often in different ways). Even stuff as superficially similar as the luck feat and diviner special ability work in a mechanically distinct way. Much of (again, just an example) Hero System work in a very similar fashion (the damage from the 'flash' special power does seconds of not being able to use a given sense, but otherwise works the same is physical damage). Mind you, I'm aware that the complexity is probably part of the enjoyability of the challenge.


Sonewhat apropos of the topic, this reminds me of my favourite strategy to survive early Baldur's Gate, which was to kite and shoot.

Well, therein lies the second challenge for a video game programmer -- creating a decent game AI. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

I guess I'm just thinking about having to think about every spell, feat, class/race feature, monster feature, and so on in the game, and attach a rider to near every kind of check to ascertain whether said thing is in effect and whether it is pertinent. How well computers are at the task wasn't really part of my thinking. It is looking at hundreds to thousands of moving parts and applying them to vastly different conditions (which are often not resolved using the same mechanic).

This is exactly why it ought to be computerized--for a human it's hundreds of thousands of moving parts, but if your DSL maps directly to D&D rules then it's just hundreds of independent rules. Each rule in the rulebook turns into a corresponding computer rule, and the computer essentially compiles the hundreds of rules into hundreds of thousands of moving parts automatically. (In reality it's more like function composition than compilation.)


Each feature works in a different way (obviously not true, but often in different ways). Even stuff as superficially similar as the luck feat and diviner special ability work in a mechanically distinct way. Much of (again, just an example) Hero System work in a very similar fashion (the damage from the 'flash' special power does seconds of not being able to use a given sense, but otherwise works the same is physical damage). Mind you, I'm aware that the complexity is probably part of the enjoyability of the challenge.

Yep, finding a DSL which lets you concisely express arbitrarily complex rules is indeed a challenge. I haven't solved it for everything yet, although I have solved it for the specific example you give (Lucky vs. Diviner).


Well, therein lies the second challenge for a video game programmer -- creating a decent game AI. :smalltongue:

You're not wrong.