702 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

BomimoDK wrote...

a game without a steady stream of XP would get boring because progression and sense of evolution would just not be there. Not saying that other genres are boring... but Da:O without XP... imagine the bore. no Dragon killing...

Oblivion had no steady stream of experience and it didn´t get boring (well it did, but only after I was too imba to enjoy a fight. 200% damage return + 100% spell reflection ftw:devil:)

Also, you would still level by exp from quests.


Edit: Also, there is a mod that makes leveling impossible, and while I haven´t played that way yet (hate the early levels cos of no spec yet), it seems quite well-liked by many people.

Modifié par Tirigon, 24 juillet 2010 - 01:25 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Aratham Darksight wrote...

Why the distinction?

I was about to ask the same question.

The point of a CRPG is to reproduce the experience of a tabletop RPG without the need for other people.

Perhaps initally, but the cRPG has evolved to be its own genre today. I would bet that the majority of people that have played DA have not ever played PnP.

[AlanC9]

I dunno; CRPGs don't strike me so much as something that's evolved away from PnP as something that hasn't evolved at all. It's like a museum of obsolete design.

[orpheus333]

AlanC9 wrote...

I dunno; CRPGs don't strike me so much as something that's evolved away from PnP as something that hasn't evolved at all. It's like a museum of obsolete design.

I would agree there has been a lot of innovation in PnP RPGs over the years. From storyteller to GURPS to Wushu. So many systems so many ways of playing. cRPGs are very...whats the word...old school?

[Chanegade]

I totally agree. True RPGs are not about how you kill,it's about how you accomplish your goal. Games like Deus ex or Vampire of the masquerade bloodlines did this.

[BomimoDK]

Tirigon wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...

a game without a steady stream of XP would get boring because progression and sense of evolution would just not be there. Not saying that other genres are boring... but Da:O without XP... imagine the bore. no Dragon killing...

Oblivion had no steady stream of experience and it didn´t get boring (well it did, but only after I was too imba to enjoy a fight. 200% damage return + 100% spell reflection ftw:devil:)

Also, you would still level by exp from quests.


Edit: Also, there is a mod that makes leveling impossible, and while I haven´t played that way yet (hate the early levels cos of no spec yet), it seems quite well-liked by many people.

well that's a whole differen't skill system isn't it? now, there may be a differen't scale in play but you still get stronger. even in games without XP.

my stance is that Bioware Games usually gave XP for hands on actions. that be combat, speech or quest completion. i don't want that gone because that belongs in a bioware game and quite frankly, there are thousands of games out there withoug Kill XP and some RPG's. people who want that can go play that while i get to keep my kill/interaction xp rewards.

my blunt opinion. people shouln't just jump on an old wagon and start clamoring for changes that the older guys disagree with. it's called conservatism and is usually a negative stance, but here, it's the only thing i want and it works for these games balance.

i do wish we had more feedback on things in DA:O such as just how much XP we get... not everything has to happen in the background, makes it hard to remember that it's an RPG.

[Orchomene]

Sidney wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
You can :
- kill the bandit and save the hostage 200 XP for the bandit, 500 for the hostage saved.
- kill the bandit but hostage is killed during the fight 200 XP for the bandit
- talk to the bandit to let the hostage go 500 XP for the hostage saved and bandit flees.

Yeah but this is exactly the problem.  Your goal is to save the hostage. Killing the hostage is a mission critical failure but you want to reward them killing the bandit.  If a SWAT team storms the bank, kills all 3 burglars but also all 5 hostagaes that isn't a win for the SWAT team.

In fact in your scenario why is killing bandit + saving hostage worth 700 XP while "merely" saving the hostage is worth only 500?  Was killing the bandit part of the mission?

Especially in Bioware games where any killing you do is in service of some job/quest/mission the people that sent you on that mission care about success or failure not process. In an MMO grinding away for XP might make sense but not in an objective oriented game.

Think about this in terms of real-world objectives:
You are tasked to seize a hill in the army. Do you get "partial" credit for killing a lot of bad guys or is the only thing that matters taking the hill?
Your boss wants a presentation done. Does he care how you finish said presentation, no. Is he happy if you spend a lot of time, and gain a lot of experience making copies or does he want the flippin' thing done?
In sports, do you get credit for anything other than the final score?

I think you should seperate the reward given by other protagonists and the reward given by the game/GM. Screwing up a mission is seen as a failure from the one (the NPC) that gave you the mission, but it may be a success (as a "bad guy" goal) from the one that designed the game.
XP is never a reward given by other NPCs. They give you gold, objects, reputation points, but not XP. It's the game designer that gives you the XP, someone outside of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I was about to ask the same question.

The point of a CRPG is to reproduce the experience of a tabletop RPG without the need for other people.

Perhaps initally, but the cRPG has evolved to be its own genre today. I would bet that the majority of people that have played DA have not ever played PnP.

Probabaly not.  The lack of need for other participants might make the CRPG the superior format.

There are some important features of tabletop RPGs that serve CRPG gameplay very well, even if they're not made explicit.  AlanC9 mentioned in another thread that one of the positive features of earlier D&D editions was that the learning of skills and abilities was assumed to take place during downtime (and downtime wasn't typically played out).  So, if your character was travelling from one town to another, and that took 2 weeks, aside from a single random encounter that two weeks passed without incident, and in an instant at the gaming table.  So, when next the character gained a level, and selected some skill he'd never practised during gameplay, it was assumed that he'd done so during all that downtime (plus all the other extensive downtime - an adventuring career would often last 20 years or more).

CRPG gameplay can also benefit from some activities taking place off-screen.  I know you don't think any cations taht aren't portrayed on-screen actually occur, but that was explicitly a feature of the genre in the tabletop era.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 juillet 2010 - 05:12 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There are some important features of tabletop RPGs that serve CRPG gameplay very well, even if they're not made explicit.  AlanC9 mentioned in another thread that one of the positive features of earlier D&D editions was that the learning of skills and abilities was assumed to take place during downtime (and downtime wasn't typically played out).  So, if your character was travelling from one town to another, and that took 2 weeks, aside from a single random encounter that two weeks passed without incident, and in an instant at the gaming table.  So, when next the character gained a level, and selected some skill he'd never practised during gameplay, it was assumed that he'd done so during all that downtime (plus all the other extensive downtime - an adventuring career would often last 20 years or more).

I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. To me, tabletop RPGs are an entirely different experience than cRPGs because they are dynamic as run by the players and DM. There is effectively nothing which could be unforseen, and the DM can always (as I understand it) adapt to the experiences and choices of the players even when they deviate from the DMs scripted storyline.

To be honest, I'd like to play PnP at least once, but I have never even come close to encountering people with the same taste in video-games as I have, much less someone who is legitimately interested in tabletop. 

CRPG gameplay can also benefit from some activities taking place off-screen.  I know you don't think any cations taht aren't portrayed on-screen actually occur, but that was explicitly a feature of the genre in the tabletop era.

To me, action taking place off-screen removes control of my character. For me to appreciate a PnP learning scenario as above, I would need very specific information on what can and cannot occur during so-called downtime, and a recognition in the world as a whole that time is actively passing at the rate at which is being described (so for example that I learned a new spell while leveling, and that I studied for five weeks while moving from Redcliffe to Denerim).

Probabaly not.  The lack of need for other participants might make the
CRPG the superior format.

I'm not so sure I would say that a CRPG is superior. To an extent, I can appreciate and am drawn to the PnP creative dynamic element, at least in potential. To create a character however I wish, and be entirely in control of them within a dynamic story-world, that sounds like great fun.

I know you approah cRPGs like this, but to me, the medium is just too restrictive for that to be possible. That's why I'd like to try PnP at least once.

Modifié par In Exile, 24 juillet 2010 - 06:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. To me, tabletop RPGs are an entirely different experience than cRPGs because they are dynamic as run by the players and DM. There is effectively nothing which could be unforseen, and the DM can always (as I understand it) adapt to the experiences and choices of the players even when they deviate from the DMs scripted storyline.

That's true to some degree, but realistically the DM will only have prepared the areas he expects to use.  He won't have populated other regions with encounters or worked out exactly who the characters in those areas are.  He can adapt his prepared material somewhat and just use it anyway, but there comes a point where you need to go where the DM wants you to go if you don't want to be subjected to generic random content.

So there's always some give-and-take between the players and DM.  The players need to go generally where the DM suggests, but the DM also needs to provide good motives for the players' characters to go there.  This second part is certainly one major advantage of tabletop gaming, as a good DM can tailor an adventure specifically to suit the participating party.  He knows who the characters are, so he can ensure that the adventure will be one in which all the characters will want to take part (thus avoiding the problem in some CRPGs where the reasonable option for some characters is to flee the setting entirely and become a farmer, but the game simply doesn't allow that.  A tabletop game would be designed such that that was never the reasonable option.

To me, action taking place off-screen removes control of my character.

And to me, it gives me greater control because I'm far less constrained by the writers when I'm off-screen.

For me to appreciate a PnP learning scenario as above, I would need very specific information on what can and cannot occur during so-called downtime

A detailed ruleset should do that, but CPRGs are less and less likely to include one of those.

[Riona45]

In Exile wrote...


I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. To me, tabletop RPGs are an entirely different experience than cRPGs because they are dynamic as run by the players and DM. There is effectively nothing which could be unforseen, and the DM can always (as I understand it) adapt to the experiences and choices of the players even when they deviate from the DMs scripted storyline.

The DM may not even have a scripted storyline, at least not nearly to the extent that a CRPG would.  I know at least one of my DMs has a rough idea of what will happen for each game, but he doesn't necessarily plan out the story in advance.

I would agree that tabletop RPGs are a different beast and that CRPGs can simulate them only roughly.  Having a human DM makes a huge, huge difference.

[Riona45]

In Exile wrote...

To me, action taking place off-screen removes control of my character. For me to appreciate a PnP learning scenario as above, I would need very specific information on what can and cannot occur during so-called downtime, and a recognition in the world as a whole that time is actively passing at the rate at which is being described (so for example that I learned a new spell while leveling, and that I studied for five weeks while moving from Redcliffe to Denerim).

Depends on the DM, really.  One DM I have has it where every few levels we gain, or if we want to take a prestige class, we have to find someone who can give us some training.  This isn't too hard, but we do have to roleplay it to an extent.  Time does pass in the world while we are training. 

[Blakes 7]

If the game could give you the opportunity to indicate your motivation per quest path
ie lying/tricking someone or straight up finding the treasure then xp could we rewarded based on the criteria the player has specified. Would give players proper reward for role-playing if the "given" quest success was a mission success.

Modifié par Blakes 7, 24 juillet 2010 - 07:09 .

[Sidney]

andyr1986 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I dunno; CRPGs don't strike me so much as something that's evolved away from PnP as something that hasn't evolved at all. It's like a museum of obsolete design.

I would agree there has been a lot of innovation in PnP RPGs over the years. From storyteller to GURPS to Wushu. So many systems so many ways of playing. cRPGs are very...whats the word...old school?

You see some of why in all these threads, anything that doesn't rigidly adhere to the Gospel According to Baldur's Gate is heretical to so many people.

Watching RPG fans run away from something like Mass Effcect 2 reminds me of watching punks flee from London Calling.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's true to some degree, but realistically the DM will only have prepared the areas he expects to use.  He won't have populated other regions with encounters or worked out exactly who the characters in those areas are.  He can adapt his prepared material somewhat and just use it anyway, but there comes a point where you need to go where the DM wants you to go if you don't want to be subjected to generic random content.

Indeed. I've always felt that Bio games are much more like my PnP games than, say, a Bethesda game is. We always had a relatively structured experience, and this was as much due to the players as to the GM. Though I've also played with some loose cannons in my day.

Qualifying what I said earlier, there are some things CRPGs do that PnP games don't. I can't think of any PnP equivalent of "zone mowing," for instance. Thing is, I personally don't like most of those aspects of CRPGs, so I don't think of them.

[Sidney]

Orchomene wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
You can :
- kill the bandit and save the hostage 200 XP for the bandit, 500 for the hostage saved.
- kill the bandit but hostage is killed during the fight 200 XP for the bandit
- talk to the bandit to let the hostage go 500 XP for the hostage saved and bandit flees.

Yeah but this is exactly the problem.  Your goal is to save the hostage. Killing the hostage is a mission critical failure but you want to reward them killing the bandit.  If a SWAT team storms the bank, kills all 3 burglars but also all 5 hostagaes that isn't a win for the SWAT team.

In fact in your scenario why is killing bandit + saving hostage worth 700 XP while "merely" saving the hostage is worth only 500?  Was killing the bandit part of the mission?

Especially in Bioware games where any killing you do is in service of some job/quest/mission the people that sent you on that mission care about success or failure not process. In an MMO grinding away for XP might make sense but not in an objective oriented game.

Think about this in terms of real-world objectives:
You are tasked to seize a hill in the army. Do you get "partial" credit for killing a lot of bad guys or is the only thing that matters taking the hill?
Your boss wants a presentation done. Does he care how you finish said presentation, no. Is he happy if you spend a lot of time, and gain a lot of experience making copies or does he want the flippin' thing done?
In sports, do you get credit for anything other than the final score?

I think you should seperate the reward given by other protagonists and the reward given by the game/GM. Screwing up a mission is seen as a failure from the one (the NPC) that gave you the mission, but it may be a success (as a "bad guy" goal) from the one that designed the game.
XP is never a reward given by other NPCs. They give you gold, objects, reputation points, but not XP. It's the game designer that gives you the XP, someone outside of the game.

Yes but what they are rewarding is accomplish game task. There's no reason to reward the "bandit killing" more highly than "hostage saving".

XP for grinding makes some sense in MMO and even something like Oblivion/FO3 where you are just off killing for really no good reason but in the Bioware games by and large you can't kill for no reason. You can only show up to save refeuges if you are asked to save the refugues. Saving them is what you are being asked to do both by the game and by the NPC's. Killing is a by product of that.

I think this also depends on how you look at XP. If you think XP are something sort of tangible - you are learning by doing by killing your foes - or if you just view it as a 100% game mechanism that really has no relation to any individual act. In my case I'm in the latter camp because no matter how much sword killing I do I can toss my "levels" into bows, lock picking or whatever I want. The act of getting XP has no relation to the act of spending so I doin't feel connected to the aquisition part of things.

[Orchomene]

I don't think Bioware games are the closest I've seen to PnP, maybe more Troika games and Obsidian games. But it may be a matter of what you have experienced in tabletop. Having played a lot of different kind of RPGs (but mostly AD&D 2e edition and Vampire), I can't really agree with the sentence :

Watching RPG fans run away from something like Mass Effcect 2 reminds me of watching punks flee from London Calling.

. Just because ME2 is so far from what I'm expecting in terms of freedom of play. There is not a single part of ME2 where you have the choice on how you will deal with the situation. You have small choices that don't change many things (sparing the life of someone), but not really on what your character do. With a main character voice acting, it's even worse. I do feel in an action adventure game, not an RPG. Ok, there are some RPG mechanics, but not sensible.

I played tabletop rpgs with well trained DMs (i.e. trained by players) that had hard days following the players mind and adapting the event occurences. They do generally have a base idea of potential storyline we could follow, but we had always had many choices. That's like having multiple scenarii ready and depending of whose player is currently asking for the others to help him/her do something.

If someone wants to try tabletop, there may be clubs in your neighborhood, or sometimes just asking retailers of PnP games may help find other players.

[AlanC9]

Orchomene wrote...

I don't think Bioware games are the closest I've seen to PnP, maybe more Troika games and Obsidian games. But it may be a matter of what you have experienced in tabletop.

Come to think of it., ToEE was very much like how a bad DM would have run the module.

[Orchomene]

For Troika, I thought more about Bloodlines and Arcanum. But ToEE in itslef in essentially a dungeon crawler, far from being the most interesting aspect of RPGs (to my taste, at least).

[Sidney]

Orchomene wrote...

Just because ME2 is so far from what I'm expecting in terms of freedom of play. There is not a single part of ME2 where you have the choice on how you will deal with the situation. You have small choices that don't change many things (sparing the life of someone), but not really on what your character do. With a main character voice acting, it's even worse. I do feel in an action adventure game, not an RPG. Ok, there are some RPG mechanics, but not sensible.

...and what does have choices then? People bleat this about ME2 but there's no choice in DAO in that same sense. You ARE a Warden, you WILL kill the archdemon.

ME2 has plenty of choices. Is klling or not killing the renegade Salarian scientist a choice? How is that any more or less a choice than killing Zathrian? How is chasing Za'eed's nemesis vs saving the workers and more or less of a choice than your Conner vs Mom choice in DAO.

[triggerhappy456]

Haexpane wrote...

triggerhappy456 wrote...

oblivions way of levelling was very good, but couldnt work in dragon age origins
and the idea of this is that talking to people should grant as much experience as killing people?
experience which is then used to make your character a better and stronger fighter?

Yep, that's what the "Story matters, everything else is trash" crowd wants.   They'd be happy with removing combat altogether and turning DA2 into the Sims4 with swords :innocent:

sims would be alot better if you could make your guys fight to the death
and are people sort of arguing for a mass effect 2 system then?
because in that you would get experience for the loyalty quests with no combat, and it was a exp for finishing missions, not per kill
that was a system which worked well in mass effect, but these forums are already filled with people screaming about how stuff is already been changed in da2, and now people are suggesting this?

[Tirigon]

Sidney wrote...

...and what does have choices then? People bleat this about ME2 but there's no choice in DAO in that same sense. You ARE a Warden, you WILL kill the archdemon.

ME2 has plenty of choices. Is klling or not killing the renegade Salarian scientist a choice? How is that any more or less a choice than killing Zathrian? How is chasing Za'eed's nemesis vs saving the workers and more or less of a choice than your Conner vs Mom choice in DAO.

But ME sucks because it feel boring.

DAO doesn´t. That´ßs the difference.

[Chuvvy]

Sidney wrote...
Za'eed's nemesis vs saving the workers and more or less of a choice than your Conner vs Mom choice in DAO.

Who's Za'eed? I know a Zaeed, but I don't know a Za'eed.