402 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

You know what I want?
Stats replaced by player control, more roleplaying, and for RPGs to be able to compete with the rest of the market.
Every RPG "fanatic" I have spoken to with here, is against removing dialogue stats and RPG stats not controlling shooter elements.

If you think that RPGs are not about roleplaying and player control, but stats and simulated combat, then I will thank you for publically showing the problem with the RPG fan base.

(yes, I split up the post cause they're dealing with different items)

I disagree with your assesment of rpgs, and I disagree with you appearantly feeling a need to make veiled insults towards people that disagree with you in this topic.

Stats, both combat and noncombat, are a tool the player uses to guide him/her in playing the character.

When sitting and playing pen&paper versions, you have a gamemaster (GM) to handle rules and the story. This GM is also the guy that tells you if you are playing out of character and forces you back on the path of your character if you stray from it. Case in point: You are playing a dimwitted non-savant character that never paid attention in school, yet you tell the gamemaster that your character starts arguing mathematical philosophy with a non-player character, using information that the player knows, but the character never had a chance of knowing. The gamemaster steps in, tells the player to get a grip, and the game picks up with the player having his character make a more reasonable (for that character) argument.

When playing computer roleplaying games, the computer is the gamemaster. It's the computers job to handle all the rules, but also to enforce the players to stick in character when they are trying to move out of it. This means, in the previous example transfered to a computerscreen, that when getting options for what you want your character to talk about, you should never get the option that would have been out of character. Thus you are restricted to dialogue choices that fit your characters ability to communicate.

What you are asking for, is not roleplaying, but playerplaying. And then we are back at random generic shooter where the action and screenplay is the focus, instead of the characters.

This is just one example, to show you what is wrong with your point of view. It should, however, be said that this is not the only case that could exist. So in case you didn't fully understand it before, I'll gladly state it again:

Stats are a tool to help players play the role of their characters.

In pen and paper system, the GM enforces that the player plays 'in character'.
In computer systems, the computer enforces that the player plays 'in character'.

It's as simple as that.

[Phaedon]

Ahglock wrote...
More stats don't limit you in any way more than picking the class "limits" you, or putting points into drone and ignoring ai hacking limits you.  Stats that make you persuasive define how persuasive you are, which is less limiting than the system where there is no stats and every character is idenitcal in that regard.  There are good and bad ways to handle the various situations of games with stats or not having stats.  But in situations that will be common enough stats free you more than not having stats does.  With stats you have the option to be good, bad, average in certain areas.  

Exactly, while I support stats in things that the player can't control (in that case, their restrictive role is good, as it is the only way to achieve the proper result), in things that the player can control, such as dialogue, they are nothingn but limits. Your character is significantly more shallow, and the facets that you can add to their personality are few to none.

Without stats Shepard is always good, unless it is dancing.  I see more freedom in the option to be bad.  

Absolutely not. How good Shepard is is defined by the player's skill.

[Phaedon]

Also, FO3/NV has stat based shooting? Other than VATS, no.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:37 .

[tonnactus]

darknoon5 wrote...


So basically weapons didn't matter,

Why does it matter,if a weapon is different or you make a weapon works different through mods and ammo,when in the end the result is the same?

[Da Mecca]

The Gun stat determined your damage with the weapon/

[Phaedon]

Da Mecca wrote...

The Gun stat determined your damage with the weapon/

And I had no problem with that. As long as it didn't restrict my shooting.

[tonnactus]

If this thread makes something clear,its that a lot of posters her dont know the difference between adventures and rpgs.

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...


So basically weapons didn't matter,

Why does it matter,if a weapon is different or you make a weapon works different through mods and ammo,when in the end the result is the same?

1. Weapons are more diverse (unlike ME1)
2. Modding makes them even more diverse, especially if it has visual effects.

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...


So basically weapons didn't matter,

Why does it matter,if a weapon is different or you make a weapon works different through mods and ammo,when in the end the result is the same?

So you're saying that the weapons in ME1 might as well not have existed, and that there just should've been mods?
--
Yeah, I think ME2 did it better

[Phaedon]

tonnactus wrote...

If this thread makes something clear,its that a lot of posters her dont know the difference between adventures and rpgs.

Oh and for the record, point and click adventures are conventional adventures.
LA Noire is still an adventure, just in case you will want to complain about that in the future.,

[tonnactus]

Phaedon wrote...

Also, FO3/NV has stat based shooting? Other than VATS, no.

You obviously dont know what you are talking about.The points someone spent in weapon skills decide how many damage someone dealt with in and outside of vats.

[lazuli]

tonnactus wrote...

If this thread makes something clear,its that a lot of posters her dont know the difference between adventures and rpgs.

Or that a lot of posters have different ideas about what is truly needed to classify a game as an RPG.

[Phaedon]

lazuli wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

If this thread makes something clear,its that a lot of posters her dont know the difference between adventures and rpgs.

Or that a lot of posters have different ideas about what is truly needed to classify a game as an RPG.

Oh well, I thought that the first two letters of the acronym make it kinda obvious. Apparently I was wrong. 

[Phaedon]

For the record, I support more stats on things that the player can't control. Not just for the sake of stats, but for actual roleplaying and progression.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:45 .

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

For the record, I support more stats on things that the player can't control. Not just for the sake of stats, but for actual roleplaying and progression.

As long as you neglect stats on the other stuff, you are neglecting roleplaying.

Roleplaying is not about what you would do in a given situation, but what the character you are playing, with all his/her character limitations would do in that situation.

For theoretical example: If you're playing a character that never held a wepaon inhis hands before, and your shooter skills makes him a crack shot in action sequences, then you aren't really playing the role of the guy that never used a weapon before, are you?

Stats needs to affect stuff you can have control on too, in order to enforce players being in role. Sure, give them multiple ways to deal with it, thereby allowing them to choose, within character, how to deal situations; but enforce that options that would be out of character aren't available to that particular character.

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...

Ahglock wrote...
More stats don't limit you in any way more than picking the class "limits" you, or putting points into drone and ignoring ai hacking limits you.  Stats that make you persuasive define how persuasive you are, which is less limiting than the system where there is no stats and every character is idenitcal in that regard.  There are good and bad ways to handle the various situations of games with stats or not having stats.  But in situations that will be common enough stats free you more than not having stats does.  With stats you have the option to be good, bad, average in certain areas.  

Exactly, while I support stats in things that the player can't control (in that case, their restrictive role is good, as it is the only way to achieve the proper result), in things that the player can control, such as dialogue, they are nothingn but limits. Your character is significantly more shallow, and the facets that you can add to their personality are few to none.

Without stats Shepard is always good, unless it is dancing.  I see more freedom in the option to be bad.  

Absolutely not. How good Shepard is is defined by the player's skill.

Sorry if I am not understanding you exactly, this is a bit of a muddled subject.  

But, without a skill I think you are more shallow in conversation though.  I think ME1 and 2 did conversations wrong with greying out optiions, but skills in themselves I don't have a problem with.  I think it makes for a deeper character if you have the option to choose any conversation line, but your characters skill in convincing others determines the impact.  Pick your favorite orator, have me read one of his speaches and have him/her read the same speach, who do you think will be more persuasive?  It isn't just the words that make a person persuasive, but how they are said.  Stats help you define that level of success.  No stats, and it is a win or lose button every time in the same conversation.  To me that is more limiting, what if I want my shepard to know what to say, but suck at saying it?  You can't really do that without stats.  

And how good a player is is defined largly by shepard and not the players skill.  How long pull keeps you afloat is not based on my skill but on shepards attributes for a combat example. Right now outsiode the 2 hacking mini-games all tests are determined by stats to some degree.(even thoose are effected by upgrades)  Conversation, how big is your renegade bar, combat where did you put your points.  Now your accuracy in combat is determined by the player, but it is a shooter/rpg hybrid so that is how it should be.  I think they could have had more stats helping on the damage end though either trhough active skills like AR from ME2 carnage from ME1 or passives.  But picking the red option or blue option really isn't player skill IMO, heck most of the options lead to the same result red or blue just  being a bit cooler.  I don;t really see much in the way of player skill there.  

Having read your thread on this, I see how you would like player skill to have a role.  But I still would want skills, because I think without the stats I am more limited because I always am the same orator, I just have different options in what I say which determines reactions.  I think more freedom is gained when success is in part determined by what you choose to say(being nice wokrs on Tali for example), but also the level of skill you say it with.  So some sheps may not be smooth, others might be.  I might even have rare people react poorly to smooth talkers, since they had bad experiences with that type of person.  

Modifié par Ahglock, 08 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[Phaedon]

@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[AlanC9]

Murmillos wrote...

Walker White wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Here is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

Not all of us "old schollers" were dissatisfied with them. Maybe those of you who stayed strictly adhered to the D&D rule set of the time with zero creativity stayed unhappy. But within our group of players; if something just didn't seem right, make sense or was just flat out silly or frustrating, we change it - and trust me, even the simple changes made a world of difference. Somedays I think we had more fun making up new rules; then playing the damn game - but that was us.

So you weren't dissatisfied with the rules because you changed them? OK, but then I'm not sure you and Walker have a real disagreement. You changed the rules, and he got better rules. What's the difference?

[Murmillos]

Phaedon wrote...

For the record, I support more stats on things that the player can't control. Not just for the sake of stats, but for actual roleplaying and progression.

Ok. what about status that don't hinder player control, but provide addtional bonus to the player in which further develops is role and style of play?
And if that isn't your bag, then what status would you wouldn't mind seeing? the role/aspect it controls?

Your arguments comes across as "I know I don't like that but I let you know what I do like when I come across it."

[Epic777]

Without stats Shepard is always good, unless it is dancing.  I see more freedom in the option to be bad.  

I would agree if Sheaprd was the blank slate you get in RPGs such as the Elderscrolls or Fallout. However Sheapard is a elite soldier from the get go, meaning in matters of combat (s)he better demonstrate the skills his/her training and reputation demand. 

Modifié par Epic777, 08 mai 2011 - 09:02 .

[AlanC9]

Ahglock wrote...
But, without a skill I think you are more shallow in conversation though.  I think ME1 and 2 did conversations wrong with greying out optiions, but skills in themselves I don't have a problem with.  I think it makes for a deeper character if you have the option to choose any conversation line, but your characters skill in convincing others determines the impact.  Pick your favorite orator, have me read one of his speaches and have him/her read the same speach, who do you think will be more persuasive?  It isn't just the words that make a person persuasive, but how they are said.  Stats help you define that level of success.  No stats, and it is a win or lose button every time in the same conversation.  To me that is more limiting, what if I want my shepard to know what to say, but suck at saying it?  You can't really do that without stats.  

Implementing this right would require two different VOs for Shepard when you pick a persuade option -- one where he has the skill he needs, and the other where he does not. I can see why Bio didn't go that route.

[Phaedon]

@Ahglock

In both of your first two paragraphs, I think that you are forgetting a key point.

In WRPGs, the protagonist and the player are essentially the same thing. The protagonist is the role that the player plays as well as creates constantly until the end of the game. If the player can't act as a smooth talker, I don't see how her/his role could. Every game has a learning could, which the player adapts too.

Think of it.
Why can't a commando like Shepard shoot anything with a pistol. Because s/he isn't experienced with it. I find that a bit hard to believe, but anyway... Instead of practising more with the pistol, and eventually getting more experience and skill with it, what does he do? He can shoot with any other weapon, and still gain the same XP that can be assigned to the pistol skill. How does that make sense? Instead, the player will practice with the gun and learn how to use it. Anyway, I should go. Have a good night, I enjoyed debating with you.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

@Salsa If a player has already been established, then that's a JRPG, not a WRPG.

Wtf?

That's your response?

Established characters means it's an entire different genre of games???

I can't believe I even got suckered into debating with you when you start throwing around random stuff like that...

I see now this is pointless. I guess I should be thankfull in some way to show me so clearly how pointless debating rpgs with you is

Consider me out of this waste of time

[Murmillos]

AlanC9 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Walker White wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Here is a humble suggestion related to an "old school" RPG point allocation system; you know, your intelligence, dexterity, charm & charisma.

Why do we have to continue to be bound to a collection of stats that us old schoolers weren't even happy with in the 80s?  Somedays I feel as if all the RPG lessons we learned in the 80s and early 90s were forgotten.

Not all of us "old schollers" were dissatisfied with them. Maybe those of you who stayed strictly adhered to the D&D rule set of the time with zero creativity stayed unhappy. But within our group of players; if something just didn't seem right, make sense or was just flat out silly or frustrating, we change it - and trust me, even the simple changes made a world of difference. Somedays I think we had more fun making up new rules; then playing the damn game - but that was us.

So you weren't dissatisfied with the rules because you changed them? OK, but then I'm not sure you and Walker have a real disagreement. You changed the rules, and he got better rules. What's the difference?

If looking at the D&D rule set, it was structured as best as it could be - that you could pick any two people out of the world, the two of them could walk into a room and know how to play the game.  And just not two people, any number of random strangers.  But thats just what it was, a rule set too which all common players would agree to play with.  Not that all those rules made sense, worked well or what have you, but that it was a common ground base rule set.

But if you have a close nit of friends whom don't need to rely on the common set of ground rules to work with other people, then you can change the rules to your liking, our "Calvin Ball" as you could call it. Could we just take our rules and play with other D&D members?  Not with out major conflict of which rules we changed or ignored; but because we didn't - it didn't matter to us.  Our Circle, Our Rules, Our Game.

[Ahglock]

Phaedon wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

The Gun stat determined your damage with the weapon/

And I had no problem with that. As long as it didn't restrict my shooting.

I think given the view and player aiming this is by far the better route than to hit rolls.  To hit rolls might work in a GTA style aiming where you click on the target and the character shoots.  But, when the player aims and misses due to hidden math it leads to frustration and wonder for why you even bother aiming.  But you can basicaly have the same effect by changing the damage done per hit based on the skill.  All the are doing is really reversing the D&D model where to hit was varaible by skill but damage was basically not skill dependent for the most part(yeah weapon specialization etc. i know)  People in all genres are used ot the idea of a hit point bar so they are fine with hitting but not instantly killing, it is the perfect aim but missing that bothers people.