143 réponses à ce sujet

[Anomaly-]

Filament wrote...
Are you suggesting the PC's crafting should be superior to what a dedicated craftsman could do?

Yes, or at least that the PC will be more skilled at using that which he/she creates. This is mainly to combat the problem I quoted Laidlaw mentioning in my first post about people designating a character they don't use to be the crafter and just leaving them behind all the time. It stands to reason that my Rogue specializing in poison making will be able to make more effective use of them, as well as creating incentive to keep them in the party if I really plan to incorporate a combat approach that focuses on that.

Admittedly, it is probably more applicable to consumables. Just because I made a sword doesn't mean I can use it more effectively than an experienced swordsman.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 13 avril 2012 - 12:48 .

[Meris]

Filament wrote...

I didn't imply it should be inferior either, though I would think realistically it probably should be if you're an adventurer first and foremost, not a craftsman.

Adventurers aren't bone-heads. Quite the contrary, they should be very dedicated to their unordinary and dangerous job and should have to carry skills outside sword waving.

Zevran is a assassin who complements his swordplay and stealth with poison making. My Warden stocked on traps and grenades whenever on cities and honed his learned skills at trap making whenever at camp. Another of my Wardens continued to experiement with what potion making her tutors at the tower taught her.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

Neither are skilled craftsmen. So explain again why adventurers' crafting skills should be superior?

I'm with Filament on this one.  Master craftsmen should be better at crafting.

But the PC still has an incentive to do the crafting himself, because it's cheaper.

[Meris]

Meris wrote...

Filament wrote...

I didn't
imply it should be inferior either, though I would think realistically
it probably should be if you're an adventurer first and foremost, not a
craftsman.

Adventurers aren't bone-heads.

Neither are skilled craftsmen. So explain again why adventurers' crafting skills should be superior?

Superior to the average crafter who works in a small community and must rely on what he does? Why simply because the adventurer not only may make as much as wares over the decades, but he also travels - accruing experience from many different places, cultures, peoples and traditions - and also gets to see his wares at work on a daily basis.

A Warden, for an instance, did not have a gameplay mechanic where he himself creates a formula. Rather he learns from the likes of dalish craftsmen, dwarven smithys, antivan crows, ferelden circle mages and so on. He pools all this knowledge and traditions into his work - and works every day to ensure that he outlives his enemies in the next. A Warden who relies on poison to to kill his enemies should be as dedicated to poison making than the 'skilled craftmen' of the antivan crows and the like - which makes him, eventually, a Master Poison Maker.

The greatest craftmen, including NPCs, are, in my eyes, adventurers EDIT or at least travellers. The only Master Craftmen I know of from DA:O, as a example, are Master Wade and the Glavonak brothers. And they all travelled to Amaranthine, not to the needs of their usual and more easily appeased customers, but to serve the Grey Wardens and the Arling of Amaranthine against darkspawn. In Wade's case, it was also a search for exotic materials that would actually prove him a challenge.

Modifié par Meris, 13 avril 2012 - 01:32 .

[Anomaly-]

Filament wrote...
There could be mechanics in place to make someone with the skill better at related skills, sure. In DAO you needed to have a point in poison making to use poisons and bombs, they could bring that back. Or you could need a point in trap making to use traps, etc.

According to Laidlaw, it was a problem in DA:O, and that's why I offered the solution. What he's probably talking about is the fact that only the first rank of the skill is required to use an item of any rank. The character you keep in camp with max skill level isn't making any meaningful sacrifice while everyone else with the basic skill uses their creations.

That's about as far as I could see that going though. Otherwise you're basically making my playstyle pointless in favor of your own.

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

[Anomaly-]

Meris wrote...
Superior to the average crafter who works in a small community and must rely on what he does? Why simply because the adventurer not only may make as much as wares over the decades, but he also travels - accruing experience from many different places, cultures, peoples and traditions - and also gets to see his wares at work on a daily basis.

Yeah, I think if you invest heavily enough, you should be able to surpass at least the average craftsman. After all, you can surpass the combat skill of the average soldier, despite the fact you're an adventurer and they do nothing but train in combat.

You can still have NPCs with great skill levels you can never reach, if the story justifies it.

[Meris]

Or, instead of higher ranks opening way for better versions of basic craftables, you could have a system where higher ranks of crafting open way for different craftables or allow for more reliability on these more advanced items. The reward of investing on the knowledge of poison making is a wider hand of strategies via poisons (and presumably explosives); while keeping more basic and/or moderate knowledge still allows you to do more basic jobs well. After all, if you're not putting points into advanced poison making for advanced poisons, odds are your're putting points somewhere else that allows similar gains.

[Anomaly-]

Filament wrote...
Well, if the solution to the problem you mentioned is to make it so you need the same rank in the skill of the item you're using, that would defeat the point entirely of having a craftsman make items for you. You wouldn't be able to use them without having the necessary skill anyway. If they make it so that there's a chance of poisoning yourself, say, 15%, which goes down to 10%, 5%, and 0% at higher ranks, that could work. Or for traps, a chance of setting off the trap yourself. Things like that.

Ok, I get what you're saying now. That's why I suggested that the character's effectiveness go up with increased skill level, that way nothing is stopping other characters from using your creations, they just won't be as effective with them. And as they shouldn't be, because you making a meaningful sacrifice means they will be better at other things. I also had another reason for making that suggestion, which I didn't explicitly state in the original post. It bothered me that damage of poisons and traps and such didn't scale in any way. Your weapon damage scales as your character becomes more skilled and/or stronger, but those things were static. It created a lopsided balance where they were highly effective early on and negligible later. The issue with healing potions could at least be solved by having them heal a % amount instead of a flat value.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
snip

As I stated almost everything you want is what the old games based on D & D mechanics gave. I know because I played the same games and want many of the same things and as you know was shot down on several occassions for mentioning it.

[Chromie]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...

Besides what Sylvius said about character personality, it seems pointless mechanically to even have an inventory limit when it becomes less and less of an issue to manage it.

Agreed. I've said they should get rid of inventory for years now, but getting rid of inventory limit would also be a good move.

/facepalm 

Well sounds like you just want the DA game to be incredibly casual. I didn't like it in Jade Empire I didn't like it in Mass Effect 2/3 and I would hope Bioware has more sense than that.

[Maria Caliban]

Anomaly- wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Agreed. I've said they should get rid of inventory for years now, but getting rid of inventory limit would also be a good move.

Another aspect of gameplay completely gone? It's clear we're just not going to see eye to eye on this.

Just out of curiosity, why do you play these games?

I gathered we wouldn't be seeing eye-to-eye when I read the thread title.

Because I enjoy them.

[Anomaly-]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I gathered we wouldn't be seeing eye-to-eye when I read the thread title.

Good call, but I would have hoped to achieve some kind of compromise. That doesn't seem likely, at this point.

Because I enjoy them.

And more specifically, what do you enjoy about them?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
snip

As I stated almost everything you want is what the old games based on D & D mechanics gave. I know because I played the same games and want many of the same things and as you know was shot down on several occassions for mentioning it.

As I see it, BioWare almost got it right when they made Baldur's Date, and they've mostly been heading in the wrong direction ever since.

There have been significant improvements in some areas since BG - NWN's inventory, for example, was vastly better than BG's, but that improvement was given back in KotOR and we've had nothing but list inventories ever since - but overall there's a steady downward trend.

Honestly, if BioWare weren't the only developer offering real-time with pause combat, I'd have left already.

[Maria Caliban]

Anomaly- wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I gathered we wouldn't be seeing eye-to-eye when I read the thread title.

Good call, but I would have hoped to achieve some kind of compromise. That doesn't seem likely, at this point.

Because I enjoy them.

And more specifically, what do you enjoy about them?

Depends on the game. I enjoy Dibalo, Torchlight, The Elder Scrolls, Kingdoms of Amalur, Fallout, The Witcher, Deus Ex, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect, but what I enjoy about them differs from game to game.

For Dragon Age, I'd say that what I enjoy most would be the companions, romance, and story.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[Pzykozis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

Eh? I don't really understand your question if something is not fun it's not fun, I won't be all masochistic about it. Maybe a fundamental discord between non-rp'ers and rp'ers? I;m the latter for the record. The character doesn't exist in so much as the character is me to whatever extent.

I think you meant former.

When I roleplay, I have the character do what the character wants to do.  Ultimately I'm responsible for having created that preference, but once created it no longer matters whether I enjoy doing it.

I can see how choices defining differences between PCs is good for replayability and the like but, I don't see how inventory factors in to it, you have to handicap yourself by refusing to pick up loot on the grounds that it makes this character different from another.. that just doesn't really make sense to me.

You're not handicapping yourself, you're playing your character.  If your character's behaviour is such that he would leave the loot behind, then you should leave the loot behind.  If your next character's behaviour is different, then play him differently.

D'oh that'll teach me for posting so late.

Yeah see for me I play games to have fun (which is a variable thing of course) so I struggle to really understand the idea of setting up a situation whereby I'd do something I didn't want to do. Now if on the other hand inventory was kind of more realistic in that you can't really carry much at all, and so it was a question of maybe dropping your crude weapon and picking up a fallen enemies weapon and maybe unstrapping vambraces and taking new ones from a corpse or something that I could get behind, because in that case your inventory is actually a part of your PC, your choices are directly informing the playstyle beyond simply needing cash and so therefore picking up everything and selling it.

I guess that it comes down to me not really seeing refusing to take something that is readily available and has no drawback as a real choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pzykozis wrote...

D'oh that'll teach me for posting so late.

Yeah see for me I play games to have fun (which is a variable thing of course) so I struggle to really understand the idea of setting up a situation whereby I'd do something I didn't want to do.

We all play games to have fun.  But what each of us finds fun is different.

What I find fun is creating a character and setting him loose in the world to see what he'll do.  After character creation is over, I effectively no longer get to make any decisions.  My character makes all of the decisions, and I enjoy watching to see what sort of consequences arise.  What are his opinions of the companions?  Does he win friends and influence people?  Does he fail and die?

My role, after character creation, is simply to act as a proxy for my character.