132 réponses à ce sujet

[Gunderic]

Melness wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

But then the ability to move the character out of the way still bases on my cunning and reaction speed and not the character's. Easily leading to nonsensical situations where a guy with no agility whatsoever routinely leaps out of the way like the best, most agile rogues.

That sort of extremism can be used for a lot of nonsensical beliefs as well.

Isometric view? Is your character flying?

...

What did you say? Its hard to place friendly fire AoEs without the isometric view? Well, sucks to be your character then.

And please, you're saying you need high cunning to realize the Ogre will throw a stone at you? And you need high agility to try and move, not leap or jump or teleport, out of the way?

You're not roleplaying an adventurer with negative points in intelligence, wisdom, cunning or whatever. You're playing a living and breathing human being with some sort of preservation instinct.

EDIT: Lastly and most importantly:

Not everyone is a hardcore roleplayer. If you, as a dedicated roleplayer, feels a given character (say, Bethany) lacks the agility to run (because I know few people can do this) and the cunning to perceive obvious threats, then perhaps you don't have to do anything and just let her die. This sort of choice is rather interesting for roleplaying, don't you think?

That's kind of different. I don't tell my character to 'fly' in isometric view. I tell my character to 'run' or 'walk' when I'm clicking somewhere. And whether or not I visibly use an AoE spell in the area of a monster, doesn't mean my character will hit it, since that can also depend on the game's mechanics.

[Melness]

Gunderic wrote...

Melness wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

But then the ability to move the character out of the way still bases on my cunning and reaction speed and not the character's. Easily leading to nonsensical situations where a guy with no agility whatsoever routinely leaps out of the way like the best, most agile rogues.

That sort of extremism can be used for a lot of nonsensical beliefs as well.

Isometric view? Is your character flying?

...

What did you say? Its hard to place friendly fire AoEs without the isometric view? Well, sucks to be your character then.

And please, you're saying you need high cunning to realize the Ogre will throw a stone at you? And you need high agility to try and move, not leap or jump or teleport, out of the way?

You're not roleplaying an adventurer with negative points in intelligence, wisdom, cunning or whatever. You're playing a living and breathing human being with some sort of preservation instinct.

EDIT: Lastly and most importantly:

Not everyone is a hardcore roleplayer. If you, as a dedicated roleplayer, feels a given character (say, Bethany) lacks the agility to run (because I know few people can do this) and the cunning to perceive obvious threats, then perhaps you don't have to do anything and just let her die. This sort of choice is rather interesting for roleplaying, don't you think?

That's kind of different. I don't tell my character to 'fly' in isometric view. I tell my character to 'run' or 'walk' when I'm clicking somewhere. And whether or not I visibly use an AoE spell in the area of a monster, doesn't mean my character will hit it, since that can also depend on the game's mechanics.

If I, as a player, shouldn't be able to tell my character to move when under obvious life threats from an Ogre throwing a giant rock, simply because said character lack stats, then I, as a player, shouldn't be able to tell my character to cast a fireball spell in point A by use of the isometric view.

Tmp's logic about the character's perception of the battlefield is an indirect attack on the isometric view and I'd go as far as to say that its a defense of DA2 becoming a first person game, because only then will the player's game be in line with the character's perception of the world.

On the same vein I could say that pausing the game short of a time alteration spell makes no sense, my character shouldn't have time to think about his actions! Or even worse, time to aim his AoE spells.

And so on.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:12 .

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

That sort of extremism can be used for a lot of nonsensical beliefs as well.

Isometric view? Is your character flying?

That's apples and oranges, especially when the game never shows the action from the point of view of any character at all.

And please, you're saying you need high cunning to realize the Ogre will throw a stone at you? And you need high agility to try and move, not leap or jump or teleport, out of the way?

You need some level of it to determine who is going to wind up as the target. What level is supposed to be sufficient? What level is supposed to make it guaranteed? What if your character doesn't have that level?

And yes, you do need some level of agility to dodge fast moving projectiles, otherwise we'd all do it perfectly 100% of the time, and games like dodgeball wouldn't even bother to include the cases of getting hit as part of the gameplay.

Not everyone is a hardcore roleplayer.

This is fine, and not every game is an rpg. But when i do play one, i expect it to utilize the basic concepts, much like i expect not being allowed to use my hands when i play association football (unless i'm the goalkeeper, obv)

And if/when i do want to play a game where my skills matter, there's plenty of action-rpgs for that.

[xkg]

I don't want any action-y gameplay in cRPGs games. There is a separate genre for that - called Action Adventures. If you're looking for action try that genre instead.

As for RNG. Random numbers / dice rolls are necessary for any decent combat mechanics imo.
I am primarily strategy player (both board & computer). I have seen a few games based only on attributes comparison but the results of such mechanics are often very poor.

For example - let's look at boxing fights. Have you ever seen stronger/better boxer knocked out by some weakling thanks to a lucky punch ? Something like that would be impossible in a game without any random rolls/checks.

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

If I, as a player, shouldn't be able to tell my character to move when under obvious life threats from an Ogre throwing a giant rock, simply because said character lack stats, then I, as a player, shouldn't be able to tell my character to cast a fireball spell in point A by use of the isometric view.

Again, apples and oranges. The isometric view is simply one of possible ways to handle something that doesn't even exist from the character's point of view -- and that's the player interaction with the game UI.

Plain put, you need to have some way to tell the game where the intended "point A" that's supposed to be spell target is. Isometric view happens to allow to do that effectively.

Similarly, features like pause etc are there to accommodate for aspects which don't affect the characters -- like a need of the player to visit the bathroom, e.g. Or to switch control between the characters which also isn't part of the game world, but is part of telling the game your intentions.

[Melness]

That's apples and oranges, especially when the game never shows the action from the point of view of any character at all.

Of course they aren't since both the isometric view deals and your 'maybe the character doesn't have 20 cunning required to see realize he's the next target' both deal with perception. By use of the isometric view, what your character does gain a level of perception that shouldn't be avaiable to him.

Short of becoming a first person game, the player's perception of the battlefield will always be superior to that of a character. And if I can't move MageWarden away from the AoE attack before it lands, then I can't pretend MageWarden saw through the wall and casted Inferno on the enemy because he isn't flying and odds are he lacks the 'cunning' required to analyze the battlefield so quickly and so well.

You need some level of it to determine who is going to wind up as the target. What level is supposed to be sufficient? What level is supposed to make it guaranteed? What if your character doesn't have that level?

Look.

There's an eight foot tall monster, picking a rock and looking at you, obviously preparing to throw it at you.

If you, as a player and according to the rules of most RPGs out there a level 1 commoner and you can notice the ogre will throw the rock at Bethany, I think Bethany isn't half as stupid enough to not realize that.

And yes, you do need some level of agility to dodge fast moving projectiles, otherwise we'd all do it perfectly 100% of the time, and games like dodgeball wouldn't even bother to include the cases of getting hit as part of the gameplay.

As said, you aren't dodging because dodging is left for the dice roll. You're moving (obviously walking speed) out of the way pre-emptively.

I don't want any action-y gameplay in cRPGs games. There is a separate genre for that - called Action Adventures. If you're looking for action try that genre instead.

In Dragon Age: Origins, my MageWarden once moved behind a wall for cover. Are you sure you're in the right genre? Perhaps you want a turn based Jrpg instead, its mostly numbers in there.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:26 .

[Gunderic]

Melness wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Melness wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

But then the ability to move the character out of the way still bases on my cunning and reaction speed and not the character's. Easily leading to nonsensical situations where a guy with no agility whatsoever routinely leaps out of the way like the best, most agile rogues.

That sort of extremism can be used for a lot of nonsensical beliefs as well.

Isometric view? Is your character flying?

...

What did you say? Its hard to place friendly fire AoEs without the isometric view? Well, sucks to be your character then.

And please, you're saying you need high cunning to realize the Ogre will throw a stone at you? And you need high agility to try and move, not leap or jump or teleport, out of the way?

You're not roleplaying an adventurer with negative points in intelligence, wisdom, cunning or whatever. You're playing a living and breathing human being with some sort of preservation instinct.

EDIT: Lastly and most importantly:

Not everyone is a hardcore roleplayer. If you, as a dedicated roleplayer, feels a given character (say, Bethany) lacks the agility to run (because I know few people can do this) and the cunning to perceive obvious threats, then perhaps you don't have to do anything and just let her die. This sort of choice is rather interesting for roleplaying, don't you think?

That's kind of different. I don't tell my character to 'fly' in isometric view. I tell my character to 'run' or 'walk' when I'm clicking somewhere. And whether or not I visibly use an AoE spell in the area of a monster, doesn't mean my character will hit it, since that can also depend on the game's mechanics.

If I, as a player, shouldn't be able to tell my character to move when under obvious life threats from an Ogre throwing a giant rock, simply because said character lack stats, then I, as a player, shouldn't be able to tell my character to cast a fireball spell in point A by use of the isometric view.

Tmp's logic about the character's perception of the battlefield is an indirect attack on the isometric view and I'd go as far as to say that its a defense of DA2 becoming a first person game, because only then will the player's game be in line with the character's perception of the world.

On the same vein I could say that pausing the game short of a time alteration spell makes no sense, my character shouldn't have time to think about his actions! Or even worse, time to aim his AoE spells.

And so on.

Usually RPG's allow you to perform basic actions regardless of stats (picking light stuff up, seeing the obvious unless you're blinded, etc.).

If, let's say, he's throwing something from behind you and, regardless of whether or not you can move the in-game representation of your character, your character may not be able to 'dodge' it, that remains a valid debate. My metagaming knowledge doesn't directly affect the character's skill in this scenario, he will not 'dodge' the giant or anything regardless of whether or not you are able to move in real-time. And neither does me clicking a monster with an AoE spell mean that I will hit my target; it could turn into a complete disaster.

There's a difference between letting the player be aware of metagaming knowledge, which is inevitable (you might as well remove your stats sheet, and that of the monster's, since you probably wouldn't be able to normally tell for sure if you can kill that guy, or apply a numerical value to how fast you are in any way), and directly influencing your character's in-game abilities with your own reaction speed, knowledge, metagaming reasoning (i.e. my character simply was able to dodge that dude's giant because I pressed A) or whatever.

[Melness]

and directly influencing your character's in-game abilities with your own reaction speed, knowledge, metagaming reasoning (i.e. my character simply was able to dodge that dude's giant because I pressed A) or whatever.

Question, what is 'metagaming reasoning' for you?

[Gunderic]

Melness wrote...

That's apples and oranges, especially when the game never shows the action from the point of view of any character at all.

Of course they aren't since both the isometric view deals and your 'maybe the character doesn't have 20 cunning required to see realize he's the next target' both deal with perception. By use of the isometric view, what your character does gain a level of perception that shouldn't be avaiable to him.

Short of becoming a first person game, the player's perception of the battlefield will always be superior to that of a character. And if I can't move MageWarden away from the AoE attack before it lands, then I can't pretend MageWarden saw through the wall and casted Inferno on the enemy because he isn't flying and odds are he lacks the 'cunning' required to analyze the battlefield so quickly and so well.

You need some level of it to determine who is going to wind up as the target. What level is supposed to be sufficient? What level is supposed to make it guaranteed? What if your character doesn't have that level?

Look.

There's an eight foot tall monster, picking a rock and looking at you, obviously preparing to throw it at you.

If you, as a player and according to the rules of most RPGs out there a level 1 commoner and you can notice the ogre will throw the rock at Bethany, I think Bethany isn't half as stupid enough to not realize that.

And yes, you do need some level of agility to dodge fast moving projectiles, otherwise we'd all do it perfectly 100% of the time, and games like dodgeball wouldn't even bother to include the cases of getting hit as part of the gameplay.

As said, you aren't dodging because dodging is left for the dice roll. You're moving (obviously walking speed) out of the way pre-emptively.

'Moving' is an irrelevant stat here since it doesn't help you dodge rocks. 

[Gunderic]

Melness wrote...

and directly influencing your character's in-game abilities with your own reaction speed, knowledge, metagaming reasoning (i.e. my character simply was able to dodge that dude's giant because I pressed A) or whatever.

Question, what is 'metagaming reasoning' for you?

Brackets...

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

Look.

There's an eight foot tall monster, picking a rock and looking at you, obviously preparing to throw it at you.

If you, as a player and according to the rules of most RPGs out there a level 1 commoner and you can notice the ogre will throw the rock at Bethany, I think Bethany isn't half as stupid enough to not realize that.

As said, you aren't dodging because dodging is left for the dice roll. You're moving (obviously walking speed) out of the way pre-emptively.

Explain then to me, why this idea doesn't actually work in practice, and moving at the walking speed doesn't allow you to avoid getting hit 100% of the time when playing dodgeball? When you see the other player aiming at you, and you can pre-emptively walk, and that's all it's supposed to take, is it not?

[Melness]

Gunderic wrote...

Melness wrote...

and directly influencing your character's in-game abilities with your own reaction speed, knowledge, metagaming reasoning (i.e. my character simply was able to dodge that dude's giant because I pressed A) or whatever.

Question, what is 'metagaming reasoning' for you?

Brackets...

Brackets, as in, the UI?

tmp7704 wrote...

Explain then to me, why this idea doesn't actually work in practice, and moving at the walking speed doesn't allow you to avoid getting hit 100% of the time when playing dodgeball? When you see the other player aiming at you, and you can pre-emptively walk, and that's all it's supposed to take, is it not?

You're confusing the player's input with the character's ability. The former is left for the player to do, the latter is left for the RNG god.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:32 .

[Gunderic]

Melness wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Melness wrote...

and directly influencing your character's in-game abilities with your own reaction speed, knowledge, metagaming reasoning (i.e. my character simply was able to dodge that dude's giant because I pressed A) or whatever.

Question, what is 'metagaming reasoning' for you?

Brackets...

Brackets, as in, the UI?

Paranthesis...

[Melness]

Paranthesis...

I asked for a general definition of what you consider 'metagaming knowledge', not an example.

[Gunderic]

Melness wrote...

Paranthesis...

I asked for a general definition of what you consider 'metagaming knowledge', not an example.

Anything the player character isn't supposed to know...

And yes, obviously that knowledge affects the game in some way, especially in a video game where you can push the reload button, but that happens in an indirect fashion. Not like in your example where your character 'dodges' by virtue of moving (obviously, if he doesn't get hit, that means he dodged anyway).

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

You're confusing the player's input with the character's ability.

No, you are ignoring the intelligence of the other character, the attacker is also a factor -- it's their ability to realize that throwing a projectile at a spot where they see a character that's moving isn't going to result in the hit, and adjusting their aim accordingly. That's why effective dodging involves certain levels of skills.

There shouldn't simply be a need for player input when it  comes to dodging boulders. Nor should it affect the outcome -- much like there's no need for such input where it comes to trying to avoid individual weapon attacks or arrows. It's automated (for convenience) character behaviour tied to their attributes, and that's just to avoid the necessity for you to repeatedly issue the command "i try to avoid the incoming attack" every time your character(s) get attacked.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:40 .

[Melness]

Gunderic wrote...

Melness wrote...

Paranthesis...

I asked for a general definition of what you consider 'metagaming knowledge', not an example.

Anything the player character isn't supposed to know...

And for everything to be perfect, the player shouldn't be able to act on anything the player character isn't supposed to know right?

And as such, the UI shouldn't support anything that is outside a character's percetion of time and space. We shouldn't be able to tell our characters to move out of the way and when casting spells, the camera should become first person from the caster's point of view. By that logic, the isometric view, rather anything outside of first person is immersion breaking and counter-roleplaying.

Videogames aren't supposed to be movies or books like Squarenix's 'not really interactive but kinda' console animes. That's why you choose what abilities a character has instead of a preset list of abiltiies, that's why set up tactics, why you choose their clothes, why you do anything you want. That's why you play instead of watch. That's the reason for a gameplay and story segregation, because short of it either its a game without peer or it isn't a game.

More action elements (but not just action elements, like DA2 did) makes a good game. I won't deny it may hurt the roleplaying experience of a few, but there has always been a segregation that protects roleplaying (such as, you know that wolf you summoned in the Deep Roads must have come from somewhere other than the Roads themselves or out of thin air, because you're a roleplayer, you've seen that sort of thing 'immersion breaking sin' for more than 20 years). But I'm playing a Crpg, if all I wanted was roleplaying I'd be larping or in theatrics class. I want to play, I want to have input outside of the RNG god.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:49 .

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

More action elements (but not just action elements, like DA2 did) makes a good game.

More action elements make more of an action game. This doesn't make a game either better or worse by itself -- it just means the game may appeal to different group of players as a result.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:49 .

[Melness]

tmp7704 wrote...

Melness wrote...

More action elements (but not just action elements, like DA2 did) makes a good game.

More action elements make more of an action game. This doesn't make a game either better or worse by itself -- it just means the game may appeal to different group of players as a result.

And what I'm trying to understand, as per the topic's name, is how this 'neglected' playerbase can call a game with crappy tabletop emulation* (Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins) as a deeper strategical experience than anything with some degree of action elements but still very tied to chance emulation via 'dice rolls' (Dragon Age 2).

I never entered the roleplay debate (in the OP) because its a very personal thing, its opening a can of worms and people disagree about it a lot. A LOT.

*Tabletop RPG manages to have every single of its mechanics tied to dice-rolls, but you can do virtually anything in there. Tabletop manages to simulate real life action (depends on player imagination?) while still leaving a degree of chance and still keeping everything in-character. That's remarkable.

CRPGs can only hope to get to that level. Any attempt at emulate every single action to dice-rolls will both limit player agency, something I've come to expect from JRPGs, and allow for a very shallow combat system. Simply because the more things left to chance, the less creative a player can be.

Furthermore, if only one character belongs to the player to write/create/direct (Charname), then the player shouldn't have much input about anything outside of Charname's universe. For an instance, the player shouldn't be given perception of the game that goes beyond what Charname can see (3rd person camera and the isometric view), even worse if you give the player opportunity to order Charname to do things with information provided by that metagaming camera.

I'm not proposing an end to dice-rolls, no that would be madness, way beyond what Dragon Age 2 is. All I'm saying is that I'm happy for a hybrid, though contradictory, system. Where the player has agency despite what the character of the story, and where there's character limiting the player's agency. The combat has become more strategic (though not outside of Nightmare**) without breaking the story's character at all.

**One, if not the, most important tactical aspect of Dragon Age Origins (or most party-based RPGs out there) is positioning. Positioning to make do with friendly fire, to survive enemy ranged attacks and what else. Allowing for more actiony elements  allows for more player agency and better combat. Taking out friendly fire, however, does the contrary, which is why the game can be too easy outside of Nightmare.

Again, in this thread I wasn't concerned for impacts on the roleplaying experience, again its left for the individual to decide. The gameplay and story segregation is something I've lived with in every CRPG for a really long time, and I can't say I mind if another layer is added. Simply because ignoring that layer is even easier than all the other layers that plagued CRPGs for years. And I'm sure neither I or you three are alone in this issue.

But never think any playerbase is homogenous, you can have people who agree with you in most points disagree in this one, or another.

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

And what I'm trying to understand, as per the topic's name, is how this 'neglected' playerbase can call a game with crappy tabletop emulation* (Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins) as a deeper strategical experience than anything with some degree of action elements but still very tied to chance emulation via 'dice rolls' (Dragon Age 2).

Well, you asked how the RNG can provide a better strategic depth and were provided a possible answer on the previous page, i believe. As per the topic's name, indeed.

The action elements directly reduce that aspect -- as, like in this particular example, an action of avoiding attack becomes "a manual dodge or, and only if that fails, the skill-based chance". Thus the resulting experience has the less of strategic depth the more manually skilled the player happens to be themselves. Because the more skilled the player, the less likely it becomes they ever have to consider anything goes in unexpected manner that'd require some extra (pre)planning.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 décembre 2011 - 08:26 .

[xkg]

Melness wrote...
 Allowing for more actiony elements  allows for more player agency and better combat.

Dunno about that. I prefer turn based combat in general so any "actiony elements" are making it worse not better.

In games like Silent Storm, Jagged Alliance etc... everything is based on rolls - attacks, dodges, skills checks and so on. There is no action at all in these games.

So it's a matter of preferences. You can't say "more actiony elements" == "better combat". It is for you, but not for everyone.

Arguing over this is pointless.

[Melness]

tmp7704 wrote...

Melness wrote...

And what I'm trying to understand, as per the topic's name, is how this 'neglected' playerbase can call a game with crappy tabletop emulation* (Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins) as a deeper strategical experience than anything with some degree of action elements but still very tied to chance emulation via 'dice rolls' (Dragon Age 2).

Well, you asked how the RNG can provide a better strategic depth and were provided a possible answer on the previous page, i believe. As per the topic's name, indeed.

The action elements directly reduce that aspect -- as, like in this particular example, an action of avoiding attack becomes "a manual dodge or, and only if that fails, the skill-based chance". Thus the resulting experience has the less of strategic depth the more manually skilled the player happens to be themselves. Because the more skilled the player, the less likely it becomes they ever have to consider anything goes in unexpected manner that'd require some extra (pre)planning.

That much I understand and I should have elaborated further. What strategic depht is provided by having less player agency, that is, by having excessive ties to dice-rolls without the creative potential of a tabletop rpg?

xkg wrote...

Melness wrote...
 Allowing for more actiony elements  allows for more player agency and better combat.

Dunno about that. I prefer turn based combat in general so any "actiony elements" are making it worse not better.

But Dragon Age: Origins isn't turn-based combat.

Well, I must go. Trying another mega-mod installation for BG. Perhaps this time I won't screw up.

Modifié par Melness, 05 décembre 2011 - 08:38 .

[tmp7704]

Melness wrote...

That much I understand and I should have elaborated further. What strategic depht is provided by having less player agency, that is, by having excessive ties to dice-rolls without the creative potential of a tabletop rpg?

To copy and paste from the previous page, the dice rolls introduce "the element of uncertainty, which can force you to plan for multiple scenarios and react to the situation as it develops."

The creative potential of the tabletop rpg is a nice thing, but even within the limitations of computer game there's more strategic depth to "my character swings at the enemy and either hits him, in which case A or misses him in which case B" than to "i swing at the enemy and hit him". Or to "my character tries to get out of way of incoming boulder and succeeds in which case A, or fails in which case B" than "i move out of the way of incoming boulder".

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 décembre 2011 - 08:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Melness wrote...

What I'm saying is that one of the good things about Dragon Age II's combat is that it increased player agency. Positioning, Dragon Age Origin's most important tactical element, gained more functions since, as an example, you can skilfully evade an Ogre's stone toss.

And yet many people interpret that as less tactical depht, claiming that true party based rpgs should be about dice-rolls and stat stacking only.

How would you suggest the game be coded to allow the Ogre to throw his stone ahead of moving targets?

Stat-driven combat is, and always will be, an abstraction.

The problem with replacing that abstraction with real-time twitch-based mechanics is that much of the nuance of combat is lost.

Yes, I would agree that the visual representation of attacks that land far from your character is a problem, but it's an aesthetic one.  There's no problem with the underlying combat mechanic.  Perhaps this could be fixed by having each discrete attack event take less time.

This move toward real-time twitch-based combat is short-sighted.  The traditional stat-driven design was done that way for a reason, and that reason hasn't gone away.  That the ability of the designers to show those combat events on screen has failed to live up to the same standards doesn't mean we should change the mecahics to suit the sub-optimal animation.  That's fixing the wrong thing.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem I have with more actiony parts in a cRPG is that it limits the audience. If part of the cRPG becomes more dependent on how fast I can push a button that limits accessibility.

Chess is a game that stimulates thinking and planning about strategy (along with GO, Xangqi and others). In chess if two players of the same skill level meet the outcome (if each plays perfectly) will be a draw. The only way a player wins is if the other player makes a mistake. Chess has armies of equal strength that is not the case in most battles.

The greatest military strategists know that chance plays a part in any battle plan. The idea behind strategy is to minimize the effect of chance, but it cannot remove it.

The best strategists plan for the what-if by gathering the best information, but effects like weather can ruin the best laid plans.

Dice rolls add that uncertainty. If you have a certain cunning level in DA2 a character is guaranteed to be able to open certain chests. Opening a chest is is totally dependent on cunning which is an oversimplification ( the game is assuming that the player has the skill to open locks because the character is a rogue. DAO required a certain cunning and mechanical skill level.) There is no chance of failure, which is unrealistic.)

Dodging an incoming boulder should be based on the character's dexterity, but more importantly does the character see it coming. If the character does not see it coming then it is an automatic hit no matter what dexterity the character has. You cannot dodge what you did not see.
If the character is warned of the incoming missile and told to duck or dodge then chance must play a part.

Also the size of the boulder and the speed at which it is thrown must be taken into account. The bigger the boulder the more area it can affect, so the companion may still be in the area of effect. The faster it is thrown the less chance a companion should have to dodge.  Also, when a boulder is thrown pieces break off and can hit the companion damaging the companion. A boulder does not always stay intact. In fact it can be like a grenade.

If the strength of the creature is such that it can throw a massive boulder at great velocity then the chance of dodging should be reduced. A character with a forty dexterity has a greater chance of dodging than a player with a ten in dexterity, but it still must be based on the other factors.

Dice rolls add uncertainty which adds a touch of realism.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 05 décembre 2011 - 10:12 .