333 réponses à ce sujet

[Gvaz]

To say it shorter:

I like customizing my character and party member down to the last bit possible. Loot, along with story can help the player to feel like he's progressing. I want to have the choice to gimp my character even if it's not optimal, because I want to feel like my desicions have weight to them, instead of being told what to do, what to think, how to play. Let me find these things out for myself. I want to find out that saying X is going to get me Y on my own. I want to find out that by choosing X, that a few hours later I'm in a heap of trouble and the end of the game is a drastic change rather than just "oh, well you replaced some dude in power, and he's the same ********"

This is half the fun, and by taking out elements of choice and going "you can run in the hallway, and sometimes go into a classroom, but you're not allowed to go outside" it really just takes all the challenge out of a game for me.

And at the end of the day, isn't that the reason to play a game? To challenge yourself and to make you think? I think otherwise you're just playing an interactive novel.

Modifié par GvazElite, 03 mars 2011 - 07:01 .

[Maria Caliban]

AD&D was a fine PnP game in its time. It loses some of its charm in cRPGs.

[Blackened25]

Things like wound penalties, wether dice are rolled for attributes, types of saving throws and so on are all dependent on the game you're playing, and I'd never expect any or all of those thing to appear in any particular game. Something like inventory though is pretty much vital for the fantasy rpg genre. I've run tabletop games for years, and despite the age of the player or their experience with the game, some things remain true: they expect to gain levels (or get karma, or whatever xp system the game is using) at a good clip, and they expect to at some point get cool items for their characters.
Putting aside story and roleplaying, getting nice items is one of the more compelling reasons to play any fantasy rpg, and the main reason why I'm still addicted to games like Diablo 2 and Titan Quest.
As for abstract hitpoint systems, most games use it because it allows players to keep soldiering on, despite having taken 60% damage or whatever. Casual players don't generally want to deal with bleeding or negatives, or a non-hp system. It's a shame since deadly games often feel the most rewarding, just for surviving.

[Rzepik2]

I disagree again  Rather, I agree with the premise, but I disagree with the conclusion. Fighting a lich in BGII wasn't a "dauting task for someone who's new." It's bullsh*t no matter how long you've been playing. When you win, you're not rewarded for making intelligent tactical decisions, or for having some genuinely superior strategy. You're rewarded for stocking up your casters with DIspel Magic and Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Preparations. You have to pick the right pieces to complete the puzzle
IMO better than "tactical" Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold(...). Okay, sometimes it was really complex Affliction Hex, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold (...).

Modifié par Rzepik2, 03 mars 2011 - 07:10 .

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

AD&D was a fine PnP game in its time. It loses some of its charm in cRPGs.

Any PnP game loses its charm when converted to a cRPG. The rules themselves are virtually identical, though. Baldur's Gate was an incredibly faithful adaptation of 2e rules. Those rules suck. I was a stupid teenager when I played second edtition, so I didn't know any better. With the experience of years, I can look back and say that it was rubbish.

[Kileyan]

Lumikki wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

You know, a lot of people say that the stats aren't that complicated, but let me tell you this. I had a friend who bought Origins and stopped after about 10-15 minutes cause he just didn't wanna deal with the stats. ANd he was a pretty hardcore gamer. Loves games, play them all the time.

There is some credence to Bioware's claims.

True, but how far do you lower the bar to attact that friend?

*snip*

He is a hardcore gamer, he is exceptionally good at platformers, and shooters. That doesn't mean every game should be made to attact him.

Yeah, but what about all RPG fans who would like to RPG be something else than just statical gameplay?

Do we really want games to be designed to attact that sort of player? Seriously, I don't want to play a game that is designed to attract someone who, within 15 minutes was overwhelmed by spending 3 stat points and one talent point.

C'mon, think hard about what that game would be, if it was designed to essentially attact someone who has zero interest in rpgs?

Like before, how you know they have zero interest to RPG, they did buy RPG and tryed to play it. Just because for you RPG is more statical gameplay, that doens't mean it's same for everyone. Maybe hole RPG fan area is suffering because it has allways been too statical for any player who could have liked RPG.

Why design a game like that, I could ask where is my base bulding, resource gathering and army units building. I want Dragon Ages the real time strategy game! I only half kid, I think that or even an ME spin off into another genre would be kind of cool

Yes, DA serie is more traditional than ME serie. Still most of the critism as how ME2 failed is comming from people who want ME serie to be statical RPG too. Allow different kind of RPG's or just allow the way you self liked them.

I think the article did say it well, that not everyone likes the old school RPG, even if they are interested about RPG. They are trying to make RPG more fun those who aren't interested statical gameplay in RPG's so much. How ever, I'm not sure do people understand difference between statical gameplay and customation. As for OP message as killing same kind of easy enemies one after other, isn't so fun. I ques I agree, variety is allways better.

I'm really not being glib, exactly what do you envision doing in a RPG game of your dreams, in between all the cutscenes and dialog choices?

I mean.........is there combat, is combat even needed at all, or if combat exists is it just abstracted by the game as win or lose by your previous choices?

When I read your posts about what you want in a game, I can't help but think you want more of a Heavy Rain style game, where you mostly direct the cutscenes and watch a movie unfold with no gameplay between the full motion video.


Nothing wrong with that, I didn't play Heavy Rain, but it was a fun game to watch my friend play.

[silentassassin264]

Bioware's problem with the game was not the combat/stats, it was the god awful pacing. For a team with such talented writers, they did a horrible job of story progression. Once you get out of Flemeth's hut, you are given all the main quest and an open world and basically told "Here is you laundry list. Do this stuff." That turns people away and keeps people from finishing because it creates tedium. Going through the deep roads wouldn't have been boring as crap if the story was unfolding as you go through them instead of having the objective already in your journal and you are just killing a bunch of stuff in your way. That was the problem. When you give someone an objective list of stuff that will only move the plot forward in a predictable manner once you finish all those plots, it makes the game a chore to playthrough. It doesn't matter how good the combat is or how accessible it is if the story progression is stuck in a doldrum for 20 hours straight.

Modifié par silentassassin264, 03 mars 2011 - 07:26 .

[Blackened25]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Radwar wrote...

It depends where you feel your complexity relies. Take the spells in Baldur's Gate for example, fight a high level mage, lich or even a dragon is an incredibly daunting task for someone who's new. It's far easier to kill a mage or dragon in Dragon Age for example. And that's what I liked, the challenge. It might have taken me three hours to kill Firkraag in my first playthrough, but wow was I proud of myself when I did. Completing the Baldur's Gate series is the most satisfied I've ever been of completing an RPG. The most sad aswell, like after reading an incredible book.

I disagree again Rather, I agree with the premise, but I disagree with the conclusion. Fighting a lich in BGII wasn't a "dauting task for someone who's new." It's bullsh*t no matter how long you've been playing. When you win, you're not rewarded for making intelligent tactical decisions, or for having some genuinely superior strategy. You're rewarded for stocking up your casters with DIspel Magic and Ruby Ray of Reversal. That's not fun for me. Fun for me is setting up synergistic combos between my classes, having my party work together beyond "wizards dispel, fighters auto-attack." There's a lot more stuff going on in a good Dragon Age battle than in a Bladur's Gate battle. I don't blame this on anything BioWare did with the game. I blame it on AD&D being a sh*tty game.

I don't think I'm capabale of writing a post that references the Infinity Engine without mentioning how awful AD&D is

Nah, Ad&d 2nd ed was a great system, it has a certain charm that I don't think any game system has today. What it sounds like you're complaining about was high level d&d. I'd say high level d&d under any sytem or variation of the rules is less than fun, for a number of reasons, though it depends more on the dm who's running it. I will say though that it's much more fun to battle and win against an actual challenge using your wits and the full range of your inventory and abilities than to just find 3 skills that work well together and use them over and over again.

[Radwar]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Radwar wrote...

It depends where you feel your complexity relies. Take the spells in Baldur's Gate for example, fight a high level mage, lich or even a dragon is an incredibly daunting task for someone who's new. It's far easier to kill a mage or dragon in Dragon Age for example. And that's what I liked, the challenge. It might have taken me three hours to kill Firkraag in my first playthrough, but wow was I proud of myself when I did. Completing the Baldur's Gate series is the most satisfied I've ever been of completing an RPG. The most sad aswell, like after reading an incredible book.

I disagree again Rather, I agree with the premise, but I disagree with the conclusion. Fighting a lich in BGII wasn't a "dauting task for someone who's new." It's bullsh*t no matter how long you've been playing. When you win, you're not rewarded for making intelligent tactical decisions, or for having some genuinely superior strategy. You're rewarded for stocking up your casters with DIspel Magic and Ruby Ray of Reversal. That's not fun for me. Fun for me is setting up synergistic combos between my classes, having my party work together beyond "wizards dispel, fighters auto-attack." There's a lot more stuff going on in a good Dragon Age battle than in a Bladur's Gate battle. I don't blame this on anything BioWare did with the game. I blame it on AD&D being a sh*tty game.

I don't think I'm capabale of writing a post that references the Infinity Engine without mentioning how awful AD&D is

Heh, I disagree  Especially remembering the number of posts I've seen of people having problems defeating their first dragon or Kangaxx for example on the old Bioware boards (It did have an incredible amount of spells & I found it a bit daunting having to know which ones were the best for each situation in those types of fights at first, especially since I've never played AD&D). Of course now I can defeat Firkraag in 30 seconds. But my fights in BG were alot more memorable than DAO, that's for sure. So let's agree to disagree then.
Although I'll agree with you on the AD&D wasn't the best ruleset you could go with, that's why I commend Bioware for such a great job they did with the BG series.

[Felfenix]

Maria Caliban wrote...

What about those of us who bought and played previous BioWare games religiously and like that BioWare continues to try to innovate instead of doing the same thing over and over?

What about we hardcore RPG fans who *don't* just play BioWare RPGs? Who play Oblivion, Dues Ex, World of Warcraft, the Witcher, Drankensang, Divinity II, Fallout: NV, and Dragon Age: Origins? Those of us who say, "Okay, Dragon Age: Origins was wonderful in some areas, but weaker than other RPGs I've played in other areas?"

What about we hardcore RPG fans who are *also* shooter, adventure, and RTS fans? Those of us who don't like RPG conventions simply because they are the conventions of the genre.

Wonderfully stated.

[Yrkoon]

Vaeliorin wrote...
  Regardless, dice rolling is a poor means of determining stats (and HP) because it causes serious imbalances between characters, making encounter balance difficult to impossible, and makes players who rolled poorly unhappy when their characters can't compete with those who rolled very well.

Hmm...  I'd have to think on that some more, but at first thought, I'm not sure I agree.  What makes dice rolling so perfect for  Role Playing   (at least in games like D&D) is   that it represents fate or chance or  "act of god" or whatever you want to call it.     And  Good Stories, Unique stories are made from that. 

Let me explain.  In traditional, Pen & Paper  you didn't sit down and say:  "ok, I'm gonna roll myself a Strength-based Barbarian!".  No, what you did is you rolled the dice for all your stats, and  then when you were done,  those stats would determine what class your character can be.  So, for example if you rolled up a character with  6 strength,  10 dexterity  and 18 Intelligence, you are not going to be a fighter, or a rogue or  even a  monk.    You're gonna be a mage.  A bookworm type.   Now I don't know about you, but letting the fates decide  what my character is... and then me doing my best to role play that character, and striving to make him an overachiever and a hero is  what I loved most about the entire system.

A point buy system kinda takes some of that away.    With point buy, your characters can now be just like  thousands of  other player characters,  all starting off the same, with exactly the  same number of HPs, and all having  maxed out their primary stat to 18 so that their  character  does exactly the same damage as everyone else's.  So what you end up with is  a   " everything is fair"  factory designed to mass produce generic, cookie cutter Characters.  Gone completely is that wonderful element of chance.

And that's not the spirit of classic  Role Playing.  It's something else.  It's what happens when Role Playing meets computers.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 mars 2011 - 07:26 .

[mesmerizedish]

Blackened25 wrote...

Nah, Ad&d 2nd ed was a great system, it has a certain charm that I don't think any game system has today. What it sounds like you're complaining about was high level d&d. I'd say high level d&d under any sytem or variation of the rules is less than fun, for a number of reasons, though it depends more on the dm who's running it. I will say though that it's much more fun to battle and win against an actual challenge using your wits and the full range of your inventory and abilities than to just find 3 skills that work well together and use them over and over again.

What I'm complaining about in the post you're quoting is Baldur's Gate II, especially fights against high-level mages.

I genuinely loathe 2e AD&D at any level at all. I think that (*gasp*) 4e is the best they've made yet, though, just like ME2, I think they over-compensated when they took the nerf bat to the system. 4e has plenty of issues, but I can't say that I can look at it and think "This is just incredibly stupid," like I can with 2e and 3e.

[Radwar]

Rzepik2 wrote...

I disagree again  Rather, I agree with the premise, but I disagree with the conclusion. Fighting a lich in BGII wasn't a "dauting task for someone who's new." It's bullsh*t no matter how long you've been playing. When you win, you're not rewarded for making intelligent tactical decisions, or for having some genuinely superior strategy. You're rewarded for stocking up your casters with DIspel Magic and Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Preparations. You have to pick the right pieces to complete the puzzle
IMO better than "tactical" Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold(...). Okay, sometimes it was really complex Affliction Hex, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold (...).

Yeah, you're so right on this one.

[AlanC9]

Radwar wrote...
It depends where you feel your complexity relies. Take the spells in Baldur's Gate for example, fight a high level mage, lich or even a dragon is an incredibly daunting task for someone who's new. It's far easier to kill a mage or dragon in Dragon Age for example. And that's what I liked, the challenge. It might have taken me three hours to kill Firkraag in my first playthrough, but wow was I proud of myself when I did. Completing the Baldur's Gate series is the most satisfied I've ever been of completing an RPG. The most sad aswell, like after reading an incredible book.

Hmmm... I have a tough time appreciating being new at BG these days, but my impression of BG is that a lot of the difficulty came from all the noise in the system. It's a huge spellbook, sure, but there isn't all that much you need to know out of it, and most of that's covered in the loadscreens if you pay attention to them. Dispel Invisibility (etc.) -> Pierce Magic (etc.)->Breach takes out mages' defenses, dragons have fear so you need to block that, red dragons breathe fire, Chaotic Commands blocks many save-or-screwed abilities... mqake your party able to do these things and you're fine, most of the time.

There's a class of games that are easy to master but hard to learn, and I think D&D is a member of that class.

[mesmerizedish]

Radwar wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

I disagree again  Rather, I agree with the premise, but I disagree with the conclusion. Fighting a lich in BGII wasn't a "dauting task for someone who's new." It's bullsh*t no matter how long you've been playing. When you win, you're not rewarded for making intelligent tactical decisions, or for having some genuinely superior strategy. You're rewarded for stocking up your casters with DIspel Magic and Ruby Ray of Reversal.

Preparations. You have to pick the right pieces to complete the puzzle
IMO better than "tactical" Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold(...). Okay, sometimes it was really complex Affliction Hex, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold, Cone of Cold (...).

Yeah, you're so right on this one.

Totally, and I from what I've played of DAII, they seem to be taking it in a much more tactical and strategic direction. DAII does have the best RPG combat I've ever played.

[Maria Caliban]

Blackened25 wrote...

I've run tabletop games for years, and despite the age of the player or their experience with the game, some things remain true: they expect to gain levels (or get karma, or whatever xp system the game is using) at a good clip, and they expect to at some point get cool items for their characters.

That has less to do with your players and more to do with you.

Start a game of Vampire: the Requiem.

Tell your players their sire is a multimillionaire and they live in a penthouse, own yachts, drive expensive foreign cars, and walk around in five hundred dollar Armani suits and dresses.

Do you think your players will go, "Well, I'm rich already, so my PC spends the night sitting in front of a TV the size of a wall?"

No. They won't.

Start a game of Exalted: Dragon-blooded

Tell your players they're Princes of the Earth with a palace, a nation at their command, spirits to do their bidding, and treasury full of magical armor and artifacts.

Do you think your players will say, "Well, I already have a Grand Daklave of Slaying. I guess my guy will spend the day in his harem and grow fat."

If your players lust after loot and money, it's simply because you've trained them to do so.

Try power, territory, and respect. Players will desire that just as much as that +2 shortsword, if not more.

[Blackened25]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Blackened25 wrote...

Nah, Ad&d 2nd ed was a great system, it has a certain charm that I don't think any game system has today. What it sounds like you're complaining about was high level d&d. I'd say high level d&d under any sytem or variation of the rules is less than fun, for a number of reasons, though it depends more on the dm who's running it. I will say though that it's much more fun to battle and win against an actual challenge using your wits and the full range of your inventory and abilities than to just find 3 skills that work well together and use them over and over again.

What I'm complaining about in the post you're quoting is Baldur's Gate II, especially fights against high-level mages.

I genuinely loathe 2e AD&D at any level at all. I think that (*gasp*) 4e is the best they've made yet, though, just like ME2, I think they over-compensated when they took the nerf bat to the system. 4e has plenty of issues, but I can't say that I can look at it and think "This is just incredibly stupid," like I can with 2e and 3e.

4e is fine, and i enjoy it, but yep they removed support in that system for just about everything that doesn't happen in a combat. The charm with 3rd was the sheer aount of options it gives you to make a character your way, and the same with 2nd edition if you use skills and powers. But to each their own, each group is so different in how it approaches things.

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That has less to do with your players and more to do with you.

Start a game of Vampire: the Requiem.

Tell your players their sire is a multimillionaire and they live in a penthouse, own yachts, drive expensive foreign cars, and walk around in five hundred dollar Armani suits and dresses.

Do you think your players will go, "Well, I'm rich already, so my PC spends the night sitting in front of a TV the size of a wall?"

No. They won't.

Start a game of Exalted: Dragon-blooded

Tell your players they're Princes of the Earth with a palace, a nation at their command, spirits to do their bidding, and treasury full of magical armor and artifacts.

Do you think your players will say, "Well, I already have a Grand Daklave of Slaying. I guess my guy will spend the day in his harem and grow fat."

If your players lust after loot and money, it's simply because you've trained them to do so.

Try power, territory, and respect. Players will desire that just as much as that +2 shortsword, if not more.

I wish I had more GMs who thought like you in my area

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 03 mars 2011 - 07:30 .

[Radwar]

AlanC9 wrote...


Hmmm... I have a tough time appreciating being new at BG these days, but my impression of BG is that a lot of the difficulty came from all the noise in the system. It's a huge spellbook, sure, but there isn't all that much you need to know out of it, and most of that's covered in the loadscreens if you pay attention to them. Dispel Invisibility (etc.) -> Pierce Magic (etc.)->Breach takes out mages' defenses, dragons have fear so you need to block that, red dragons breathe fire, Chaotic Commands blocks many save-or-screwed abilities... mqake your party able to do these things and you're fine, most of the time.

There's a class of games that are easy to master but hard to learn, and I think D&D is a member of that class.

It helps alot when you've played BG1 first since it's easier and alot less spells to learn. It was alot harder playing BG the first time if you started with BG2 (especially if you had never played AD&D before like me). I admit, the lower the number of armor you have being better was a bit confusing at first.

[Lumikki]

Kileyan wrote...

I'm really not being glib, exactly what do you envision doing in a RPG game of your dreams, in between all the cutscenes and dialog choices?

For my vision of RPG is about role-playing. Not statical gameplay to find optimal character by using calc sheets to crush numbers.

When I read your posts about what you want in a game, I can't help but think you want more of a Heavy Rain style game, where you mostly direct the cutscenes and watch a movie unfold with no gameplay between the full motion video.

Nothing wrong with that, I didn't play Heavy Rain, but it was a fun game to watch my friend play.

I would have liked to play "Heavy Rain", but I play games only on PC, not on consoles. But yeah, for me it's story and also about ability do what you like as make choises. Combat can be in RPG or be without it, it makes no difference, it's all about story where player play's role.

Now DA2 style may not be my taste, but I don't say it's not fine RPG to someone.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 mars 2011 - 07:32 .

[Maria Caliban]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I think that (*gasp*) 4e is the best they've made yet...

I like 4e more than any other DnD. I wouldn't call it the best as its skill system is boring and the skill challenges feel tacked on.

[Radwar]

Lumikki wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

I'm really not being glib, exactly what do you envision doing in a RPG game of your dreams, in between all the cutscenes and dialog choices?

For my vision of RPG is about role-playing. Not statical gameplay to find optimal character by using calc sheets to crush numbers.

When I read your posts about what you want in a game, I can't help but think you want more of a Heavy Rain style game, where you mostly direct the cutscenes and watch a movie unfold with no gameplay between the full motion video.

Nothing wrong with that, I didn't play Heavy Rain, but it was a fun game to watch my friend play.

I would have liked to play "Heavy Rain", but I play games only on PC, not on consoles. But yeah, for me it's story and also about ability do what you like as make choises. Combat can be in RPG or be without it, it makes no difference, it's all about story where player playes role.

Actually, an RPG without combat is called an Adventure Game. The King's Quest Series & Monkey Island comes to mind. Although you'll want to play the word game of what "RPG" actually stands for, RPG's in games as far as I remember has always had combat in it.

Modifié par Radwar, 03 mars 2011 - 07:35 .

[Blackened25]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Blackened25 wrote...

I've run tabletop games for years, and despite the age of the player or their experience with the game, some things remain true: they expect to gain levels (or get karma, or whatever xp system the game is using) at a good clip, and they expect to at some point get cool items for their characters.

That has less to do with your players and more to do with you.

Start a game of Vampire: the Requiem.

Tell your players their sire is a multimillionaire and they live in a penthouse, own yachts, drive expensive foreign cars, and walk around in five hundred dollar Armani suits and dresses.

Do you think your players will go, "Well, I'm rich already, so my PC spends the night sitting in front of a TV the size of a wall?"

No. They won't.

Start a game of Exalted: Dragon-blooded

Tell your players they're Princes of the Earth with a palace, a nation at their command, spirits to do their bidding, and treasury full of magical armor and artifacts.

Do you think your players will say, "Well, I already have a Grand Daklave of Slaying. I guess my guy will spend the day in his harem and grow fat."

If your players lust after loot and money, it's simply because you've trained them to do so.

Try power, territory, and respect. Players will desire that just as much as that +2 shortsword, if not more.

Oh I agree with you completely on that, and I wasn't trying to say that all my players want are items and treasure. Most of our fantasy campagins usually feature players gaining titles, building kingdoms, etc. These are all longterm goals that are great to attain. But it's great to get that first +1 long sword. Especially if it's not called a +1 longsword, it's actually King Doug the Third's sword, which he used to fell the orcish general, etc.
The type of game where players start with everything though is, in my experience, not good for longterm campaigns. It makes for a great short term game. The thing that makes games the most fun for me is the striving and the trying to improve yourself. If you start out with it all, there's no chance for that. This could be a failing of mine, and if so i'll own up to it. Every dm has their blind spot, that type of game that they just have trouble running. That's not to say I haven't had players start out as nobility and so on, but the more you give a player to start, the less drive they usually have to keep going.
*Edit*
Thinking about it though, maybe next time I will start them out with success, and see what they do with it. It would make an interest experiment, if nothing else.

Modifié par Blackened25, 03 mars 2011 - 07:38 .

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I think that (*gasp*) 4e is the best they've made yet...

I like 4e more than any other DnD. I wouldn't call it the best as its skill system is boring and the skill challenges feel tacked on.

Its skill system is better than 3e's. And if you like it more than any other, then how is it not the best? I don't think it's the best RPG ever, just the best D&D. I'd have to say that WoD is the game system that I admire the most. I think it's fun, it's flexible, it doesn't focus an inordinate amount of attention on combat, and it's simple yet deep. I only wish it had a more rigid advancement system. That's not because I think character levels have any tangible benefit to a game. I'm just more comfortable with it. I also had a really bad experience in an Exalted game where two of the other players brought old characters that had all sorts of **** on 'em. You wouldn't bring a 15th level D&D character to a 1st level campaign, but you couldn't immediately tell that these Exalted characters were way out of the rest of our league. It wasn't fun.

Blackened25 wrote...

4e is fine, and i enjoy it, but yep
they removed support in that system for just about everything that
doesn't happen in a combat. The charm with 3rd was the sheer aount of
options it gives you to make a character your way, and the same with 2nd
edition if you use skills and powers. But to each their own, each group
is so different in how it approaches things.

Right, that's what I don't like about 4e. I agree with you and 3e, but I think its complexity doesn't actually achieve anything good. Skill points are stupid. I have x points per level, and I have to distribute them among twenty or thirty skills, gahh. It's needlessly convoluted. 2e didn't even HAVE skills. The only classes that had something similar were rogues (thieves and bards), and the only classes that had any abilities were casters. If you're not a spellcaster, your combat is autoattacking, over and over, simply because you didn't have any other options. And the spell memorization/spells per day system is just the most inane game mechanic I've ever played.

That's what I like about Origins (and DAII). Within any combat encounter, every single class has a sufficiently broad array of options on any given turn. A mage can cast any of these spells, a rogue or warrior can use any of these talents. No matter what, you have options, and those options work with the options of other classes.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 03 mars 2011 - 07:38 .

[Lumikki]

Radwar wrote...

Actually, an RPG without combat is called an Adventure Game. The King's Quest Series & Monkey Island comes to mind.

Here is Seed mmorpg, made by role-players for role-players. Doesn't exist anymore, but it did not have combat at all.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 mars 2011 - 07:38 .