by date
Table Top versus Video Games: Part 1 - The Dice
Table Top versus Video Games: Part 1 - The Dice
| Name: | Andrew Douglas |  |
|---|---|---|
| Date Posted: | Jun 14, 2006 | |
| Rating: |  Not Rated | |
| Public: | YES | |
| Comments: | YES | |
| RSS Feed: |  or Subscribe with  . | |
| Profile Page: | View profile page for Andrew Douglas |
Blog post
This might be a bit deep for a first plan, but I posted this up on our website, theoreticalgames.com, a few minutes ago and thought I'd share. Let me know what you think!
Our upcoming game is pulling very heavily on a tabletop game we created back in the early to mid-90's. The original game had all the pre-requisites, dice, hex maps, and character information sheets-a-plenty. It was a great game, that was designed to be easy to pick up and learn and yet fun to play for battle after battle. It was a logical choice to make it into our first commercial video game, but we knew that making a fun table top game into a fun video game was going to require more than just having a great rule set. We needed to capture what made the tabletop game... well... fun.
So if I were to ask you just casually, "How important is actually rolling the dice to you?" what would your gut response be? Our team all agreed it doesn't really matter, and that appears to be a fairly common response as most tabletop conversions downplay, or remove the dice altogether. So, for our game, we quickly pushed the dice rolls behind the proverbial curtain and pretended like they didn't exist. It just works and that's all the player really cares about anyway, right? Right, but there's a catch.
I've always gone out of my way to play video games that had some sort of connection to my tabletop gaming youth. From Baldur's Gate to Risk and many games in between, and almost all of them were enjoyable, and sometimes even fun, but they never captured the joy I had of playing the game as a kid. What did they not do as well as their tabletop equivalent? It's a very hard question that I don't think has one single answer (Hence the multi-part nature of this post), but I think the role (no pun intended) of the dice is one critical failure of many of them.
The first thing that the die roll gives the player is a sense of control. It may sound completely counter intuitive, as the nature of it's design is to ALWAYS provide a random result. But every D&D adventure I had in my parent's basement involved the players shouting a rather specific number at their die and usually other players or the DM shouting a rather different and often times lower number in response. Why would we have such a universal reaction to a die roll if we didn't somehow delude ourselves in thinking that we could control it? Now, I don't know about anyone else, but every computer controlled die roll, whether it's visible to me or is happening behind the scenes has just as universally failed to make me feel like I was in control. I'm not advocating that game designers should start having users shake their mice or blow on the screen in order to simulate the sensations, but game designers do need to take seriously the question of how they make their users feel in control of the result of what is otherwise a random event, even if they aren't. Some games attempt this by providing Rock, Paper, Scissor type mini-games to mask the randomness of the game and provide some sort of input from the users, and while it's recognizing the problem, it's certainly not the ideal solution. In Baldur's Gate, for example, almost all the people I know who played the game, set the options to pause at each stage of combat, not because we could do better than the computer, or it improved our chances of success, we just wanted some human involvement instead of a sterile simulation of combat. Were we in any more control than we were before? No, but we felt like we were.
The other big advantage that tabletop games have in regards to die rolls is the physical nature of the act itself. I certainly don't have clinical or laboratory proof, but from my personal experience I can tell you that the act of throwing the dice, the anticipation of the result, and the victory dances that followed, involved some serious adrenaline and endorphin rushes. The result of those chemical injections into my blood stream was not only an addiction to the game, but also an emotional connection to the characters and armies I controlled. As I would make my last ditch rush into Australia, after crushing defeats across the globe, and as my brother inevitably took Asian and prepared for the invasion from Siam into Indonesia, we knew what the outcome would be. But when he declared his attack and I picked up my dice, none of it mattered, the game didn't matter... all I wanted my little Pacific Islander armies to do was DEFEND! And I would shout our rallying cry, "DEFEND! DEFEND!" while I rolled the dice, and I would hold my breathe in tense anticipation, and I would mourn the loss of another two armies as my brother would flick them across the board. I still think fondly of those games, more so than any of the subsequent video game battles we've waged since.
For our video game to have any kind of chance for success, we must capture the physical, exhilarating seconds of combat resolution, we must allow the player to make those emotional connections to their characters and we must make them feel in control of the outcome.
-Andrew
Our upcoming game is pulling very heavily on a tabletop game we created back in the early to mid-90's. The original game had all the pre-requisites, dice, hex maps, and character information sheets-a-plenty. It was a great game, that was designed to be easy to pick up and learn and yet fun to play for battle after battle. It was a logical choice to make it into our first commercial video game, but we knew that making a fun table top game into a fun video game was going to require more than just having a great rule set. We needed to capture what made the tabletop game... well... fun.
So if I were to ask you just casually, "How important is actually rolling the dice to you?" what would your gut response be? Our team all agreed it doesn't really matter, and that appears to be a fairly common response as most tabletop conversions downplay, or remove the dice altogether. So, for our game, we quickly pushed the dice rolls behind the proverbial curtain and pretended like they didn't exist. It just works and that's all the player really cares about anyway, right? Right, but there's a catch.
I've always gone out of my way to play video games that had some sort of connection to my tabletop gaming youth. From Baldur's Gate to Risk and many games in between, and almost all of them were enjoyable, and sometimes even fun, but they never captured the joy I had of playing the game as a kid. What did they not do as well as their tabletop equivalent? It's a very hard question that I don't think has one single answer (Hence the multi-part nature of this post), but I think the role (no pun intended) of the dice is one critical failure of many of them.
The first thing that the die roll gives the player is a sense of control. It may sound completely counter intuitive, as the nature of it's design is to ALWAYS provide a random result. But every D&D adventure I had in my parent's basement involved the players shouting a rather specific number at their die and usually other players or the DM shouting a rather different and often times lower number in response. Why would we have such a universal reaction to a die roll if we didn't somehow delude ourselves in thinking that we could control it? Now, I don't know about anyone else, but every computer controlled die roll, whether it's visible to me or is happening behind the scenes has just as universally failed to make me feel like I was in control. I'm not advocating that game designers should start having users shake their mice or blow on the screen in order to simulate the sensations, but game designers do need to take seriously the question of how they make their users feel in control of the result of what is otherwise a random event, even if they aren't. Some games attempt this by providing Rock, Paper, Scissor type mini-games to mask the randomness of the game and provide some sort of input from the users, and while it's recognizing the problem, it's certainly not the ideal solution. In Baldur's Gate, for example, almost all the people I know who played the game, set the options to pause at each stage of combat, not because we could do better than the computer, or it improved our chances of success, we just wanted some human involvement instead of a sterile simulation of combat. Were we in any more control than we were before? No, but we felt like we were.
The other big advantage that tabletop games have in regards to die rolls is the physical nature of the act itself. I certainly don't have clinical or laboratory proof, but from my personal experience I can tell you that the act of throwing the dice, the anticipation of the result, and the victory dances that followed, involved some serious adrenaline and endorphin rushes. The result of those chemical injections into my blood stream was not only an addiction to the game, but also an emotional connection to the characters and armies I controlled. As I would make my last ditch rush into Australia, after crushing defeats across the globe, and as my brother inevitably took Asian and prepared for the invasion from Siam into Indonesia, we knew what the outcome would be. But when he declared his attack and I picked up my dice, none of it mattered, the game didn't matter... all I wanted my little Pacific Islander armies to do was DEFEND! And I would shout our rallying cry, "DEFEND! DEFEND!" while I rolled the dice, and I would hold my breathe in tense anticipation, and I would mourn the loss of another two armies as my brother would flick them across the board. I still think fondly of those games, more so than any of the subsequent video game battles we've waged since.
For our video game to have any kind of chance for success, we must capture the physical, exhilarating seconds of combat resolution, we must allow the player to make those emotional connections to their characters and we must make them feel in control of the outcome.
-Andrew
Recent Blog Posts
| List: | 03/03/07 - Cooperative Control: Hello Whirled! 01/27/07 - Torque X - Break through/Break down 01/20/07 - Online multiplayer on the brain 01/06/07 - My Bogle moving to Torque X 09/06/06 - Alpha and Dragon*Con 08/14/06 - My Bogle Sculpture 07/24/06 - My Bōgle: Rules Rules Rules 07/21/06 - Funniest Game Ever? |
|---|
Submit your own resources!| Aaron E (Jun 14, 2006 at 17:43 GMT) |
| DavidRM (Jun 14, 2006 at 18:00 GMT) |
But I think that your examples point more to the social interaction you get from a tabletop board game than from any particular game mechanic. So I wouldn't raise your d20 on too high a pedestal...
-David
| Andrew Douglas (Jun 14, 2006 at 18:01 GMT) |
Enjoy!
-Andrew
Edited on Jun 14, 2006 18:02 GMT
| Alex Swanson (Jun 14, 2006 at 18:03 GMT) |
| Andrew Douglas (Jun 14, 2006 at 18:09 GMT) |
| Andrew Douglas (Jun 14, 2006 at 18:18 GMT) |
| Dennis Harrington (Jun 14, 2006 at 18:34 GMT) |
I don't play D&D anymore but I've been into tabletop (as well as video game) wargaming stuff all of my life and I'm currently working on a video game conversion of an old pencil and paper game. I do think one of the most important elements to convey the spirit of the original game is to get the "feel" right.
In my game, the way you move the units around it very closely tied to the original pencil and paper method. So even though the mechanic is different (you're obviously using a mouse instead of a pencil) the feeling of control (and slight lack thereof) is very much present. So far, I find that adding this simple mechanic makes the game infinitely more engaging. Even though the AI isn't finished yet, I find that it's very enjoyable to just move my units around the map because it just "feels" good. I literally have to force myself to stop playing around with it and get back to programming. ;)
So yeah, my vote would be to suggest that you expose as many of the decision-making elements to the user as possible until it doesn't "feel" right or that you've crossed some imaginary line.
| Andrew Douglas (Jun 14, 2006 at 19:06 GMT) |
The map itself, as you can see in the screenshot, has moved away from hexes and instead is more of a "chinese checkers" board, which I think is both less jarring when they are displayed and more accessible to people who don't do wargaming. I was considering doing a part 3 article on maps and movement, but like you said - it comes down to trial and error to get the feel right.
-Andrew
Edited on Jun 14, 2006 19:13 GMT
| Dennis Harrington (Jun 14, 2006 at 20:07 GMT) |
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?s=fde7f36c32868d2b125f3e64e4393643&act=module&module=gallery&cmd=sc&cat=19
Edit: I couldn't get the link to work. I thought I could use HTML tags but I guess not. So you need to copy and paste the URL.
Edited on Jun 14, 2006 20:11 GMT
| Andrew Douglas (Jun 14, 2006 at 20:36 GMT) |
Basically you use square brackets instead of greater than/less than but you need to know the key words like URL, IMAGE, CODE and QUOTE. So this should work: www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?automodule=gallery&cmd=sc&cat=19
Anyway, that's amazingly simliar to what we had in mind (though they use ink instead of pencil, that's really splitting hairs).. Thanks for the link!
-Andrew
| Joshua Dallman (Jun 15, 2006 at 00:56 GMT) |
there was a booth at gdc of a company merging the two, making a table INTO a game with a computer
and I'm under NDA not to say much more but suffice to say they're not the only ones pursuing it (think big)
| Gareth Davies (Jun 15, 2006 at 10:41 GMT) |
If I was doing an online pen and paper rpg port i'd be very tempted to add that kind of "mini-game" just to try and restore some of the bizarre connection people have to dice in table top.
| Andrew Douglas (Jun 15, 2006 at 12:58 GMT) |
-Andrew
| Robert Norris (Jun 22, 2006 at 13:05 GMT) |
You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.
