71 réponses à ce sujet

[Basher of Glory]

I always prefered games with a clear rule-set. Alas, there weren't many besides AD&D, ROA (DSA in Germany) and GURPS (e.g. Fallout series). I love these rule-sets, because I can always check, why my character was successful or not. Thus, I knew exactly, what attribute / talent to increase, which skill to "buy" etc.

Now I wonder, how would DA:O be under the rules of the new AD&D edition?

Some thoughts:

There are many discussions about NWN 2 in regard of "missing animations", like cleave, flurry of blows and some more.
The reason - so said the programmers - lies within the short timeframe of rounds and turns. Hard to understand for me, because it seemed to work in NWN 1.
So, are these "timeframes" a reason to skip an established and somewhat reliable ruleset, to gain more "freedom" to show all the moves we want to see? As far as I can tell, all possible (battle)animations of our characters are performed properly, some of them in a really amazing way.

OTOH, I miss the inferability of my character's action. I just can guess, why (s)he takes so much damage, why (s)he misses so often, why spells are resisted and so forth; this counts of course for the contrary - success - , too.

Now, what are your opinions?

[Taleroth]

AD&D? Do you mean D&D? The last AD&D was with 2nd edition, back in late 80s, early 90s.

Licensing for D&D games currently lies with Atari, last I was aware. And the game probably could not be made without using one of the established D&D settings. Or so I suspect.

I feel that, with your primary concerns, such as inference and clarity, that DA:O has those well enough. But it also has the benefit of being made by Bioware and uses an original setting. Two things that probably could not happen if it used D&D.

That said, I want a D&D 4E game. I like many of the worlds associated with it and the classes it has.

Modifié par Taleroth, 11 décembre 2009 - 04:58 .

[Original182]

I don't want to go back to Baldur's Gate, where you need to have your mages "rest" for 8 hours to prepare your spells. It just feels too restrictive compared to Dragon Age's magic system.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Nah. I rather like DAO as is, especially by the realistic checks on magic. D and D worlds tend to be overly magiced, magic being an easy way out for anything you want. In the battle part, its also more realistic, as checks and dice rolls are not how things work in real life. There are far more factors involved in striking than mathimatical formulas.



In DAO, its pretty cut and dry why your character doesn't hit, or does, or takes damage. Far more realistic, too.

[bjdbwea]

At the very least such a game needs a properly documented rule set. There's a mod that does it now, but an official implementation would have been better.
I for one do think that DnD would've been better for the game. But it would be less action-like, and if you implement it correctly (BG > NWN), more difficult. As such, it apparently wouldn't sell on consoles. NWN 2 never made it to consoles too.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 11 décembre 2009 - 05:03 .

[TheMufflon]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Nah. I rather like DAO as is, especially by the realistic checks on magic. D and D worlds tend to be overly magiced, magic being an easy way out for anything you want. In the battle part, its also more realistic, as checks and dice rolls are not how things work in real life. There are far more factors involved in striking than mathimatical formulas.

In DAO, its pretty cut and dry why your character doesn't hit, or does, or takes damage. Far more realistic, too.

You do realize that Dragon Age also uses "die rolls" to determine success and failure, right? They just realized it was pointless to base a system using a random number generator on actual dice. Make no mistake about it, striking in Dragon Age is a mathematical formula.

[Axterix]

I think breaking free of the DnD system is fine.



Just needs better documentation in some parts and, being a new system, a bunch of work to smooth over some rough edges, balance certain things.

[TheRealIncarnal]

I'm sure that the system will get better as time goes on.



Mostly I'm just pleased that using a new system gives them the flexibility they need to do whatever they want with this game.

[Ratnix]

I don't rightly understand what you are meaning.

It kind of sounds like you want it to be turn based gameplay. Where each participant in the battle gets their turn, as per an initiative roll, and each acts in turn. Is this what you are meaning.



As far as everything else in the game goes. You have your stats, not exactly the same and D&D stats, but basically the same. You get your skills at level up and there are rolls each time you use a skill, be it opening a locked chest, disarming a trap, using a special skill in combat, even your attacks roll to see if they hit. You have stats for armor and all that. The only thing that isn't given to us is the actual numbers needed for everything. Much the same as it would actually be if you were running an D&D adventure. The DM wouldn't tell you the AC of the Mob you were fighting, and a good DM wouldn't even let you see any rolls, they would do all the rolling for you for everything, all you would do is tell them what you wanted your character to do.



Like I said, I don't really understand what you are wanting.

Personally I don't have a problem not knowing all the mathematical equations behind everything. And while turn based combat is ok, I don't feel it is really necessary here. It is more than possible to pause the game after each action, or at least very close to stopping it at the end of every "turn"

[Basher of Glory]

@ Ratnix



I'm not sure, if you adressed me with your post. Nevertheless, I try to explain, what I "want":



First of all I wanted to know other opinions.

I am content with the game mechanics as they are. Turnbased is fine as it was in BG and NWN (although it was "hidden" by a seemingly real time combat) but not a necessity to make a good RPG.



As someone pointed out, DA:O uses dice, too, although in another way than in D&D. My wish to have a bit more of transparency does not necessarily mean, that I consider the game "half-baked" or "dumbed down".



Example: I'm invited for dinner. It is delicious but the host does not have my favourite beverage in stock. Sad, but this won't make the dinner itself less delicious.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

TheMufflon wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Nah. I rather like DAO as is, especially by the realistic checks on magic. D and D worlds tend to be overly magiced, magic being an easy way out for anything you want. In the battle part, its also more realistic, as checks and dice rolls are not how things work in real life. There are far more factors involved in striking than mathimatical formulas.

In DAO, its pretty cut and dry why your character doesn't hit, or does, or takes damage. Far more realistic, too.

You do realize that Dragon Age also uses "die rolls" to determine success and failure, right? They just realized it was pointless to base a system using a random number generator on actual dice. Make no mistake about it, striking in Dragon Age is a mathematical formula.

Not in the same way, though. Skills and such do not have a "1d14" chance for damage type things. Naturally, as a computer game, there is certain mathematics involved, because that's how computers operate. However, there seems to be alot more "chance" and randomness involved than say, in games like BG and NWN.

[Mikinori]

I've always liked the old D&D rules but I don't mind the switch to the new rules. I do have two issues with the current implementation, though:



1) Spells and abilities tooltips don't give a good enough idea of what kind of damage we can expect from a skill so the only way to find out is by trial and error. I'd like the tooltips to give an idea of what kind of damage can be expected. Of course, after a few play-throughs I'll probably have a pretty good idea of the numbers for all skills but at the moment and since I first started, I've been finding that lacking.



2) I feel the specializations in DA:O leave a bit to be desired when compared to previous games based on D&D rules. I like how customizable the base classes are with so many skills but I'm a little disappointed that each specialization only brings four skills.



Beside those two issues, I think they did an amazing job overall with the game and combat mechanics so I don't really miss the old rules so much.

[LaztRezort]

Mikinori wrote...

I've always liked the old D&D rules but I don't mind the switch to the new rules. I do have two issues with the current implementation, though:

1) Spells and abilities tooltips don't give a good enough idea of what kind of damage we can expect from a skill so the only way to find out is by trial and error. I'd like the tooltips to give an idea of what kind of damage can be expected. Of course, after a few play-throughs I'll probably have a pretty good idea of the numbers for all skills but at the moment and since I first started, I've been finding that lacking.

2) I feel the specializations in DA:O leave a bit to be desired when compared to previous games based on D&D rules. I like how customizable the base classes are with so many skills but I'm a little disappointed that each specialization only brings four skills.

Beside those two issues, I think they did an amazing job overall with the game and combat mechanics so I don't really miss the old rules so much.

I agree with both points.  However, if you are on PC, there is a fine mod available that takes of #1 (mostly -- it is a WIP).  I think it's called "Detailed Tooltips" and is available on this site.

I'd add that I am also glad to get away from the D&D settings, as well.  Too much magic and monsters.  How many freakin' creatures does a world need?  And when wishes and cure-all spells are available, it kind of makes plot points difficult to accept.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem is that Hasbro owners of Wizards of the Coast have a deal with Atari for the D & D ruleset. Bioware had to come up with a different system. Most of the systems they could have used have to be licensed. Bioware could have used Tunnels & Trolls, Fantasy Trip (forerunner to Gurps, if they could find the owner, Steve Jackson created both, but Fantasy Trip is owned by Metagaming), Runequest etc. Instead Bioware decided to created their own system which they could control. It uses the basic roleplaying principles, but tries not to infringe on anyone's copyright. So there is no published ruleset unless Bioware wishes to publish it.

[T1l]

I applaud Bioware for stepping out into their own IP; and from their point of view it's probably better because then they can manipulate the rules as they see fit. Bioware isn't bound to a second or third party for approval. That being said, I really do prefer the rules set down by D&D. 4th Ed. is a bit of a mess, but 3.5 was great.

Decades of refinement have lead to a solid product with D&D, and Bioware probably would have saved a lot of time in the development process just copy/pasting with D&D rules. What they loose, however, is creative freedom.

[T-Kay]

At least the D&D ruleset makes your characters transparent. I dislike the "depending on your resistance you "might" be able to resist this type of spell". Or "higher attack makes it easier to hit your target". It's so vague.

[Emryc]

I actually like the current system, and I have few problems with the apparent 'vagueness'. It makes more sense.



Then again, I hate math. I am a biased man.

[T-Kay]

You just contradicted yourself. Whatever floats your boat though. There will always be people liking one thing better than another.



I'm betting they thought the D&D system was to complex to be used for this game. In the end though we get a number of stats that really don't tell us anything specific.

[Xandurpein]

T-Kay wrote...

I'm betting they thought the D&D system was to complex to be used for this game. In the end though we get a number of stats that really don't tell us anything specific.

I think it has not much with the complexity of D&D to do, rather the fact that they own it all themselves, can change it as they like and do not have to pay royalties to Hasbro or have Hasbro interfere with their work.

[T-Kay]

Yeah BioWare is cheap ass like that. The whole game reeks of cheapness.

[Auraad]

Here is the ultimate truth ... ok, my truth at least



D&D rules ware not well suited for any computer game - too complex.

However, they should have told this story in a world which is already known to us and thus they could have concentrated more on fine tuning the story, game mechanics and graphics. This story is not so special so that a completely new world is absolutely mandatory ...

[DaneWolf]

I don't think would be better. AD&D Is a great ruleset but better?? No. Is it worse... No... It's great both ways!!

[gotthammer]

I prefer WFRP. Would be nice if they used that (or something similar)...I mean, the current edition is being published by the same company as the ones working on the Dragon Age pen-and-paper RPG, right?



On a somewhat related note: anyone see the DA pen-and-paper RPG yet? How's the system?

[Mordaedil]

T-Kay wrote...

Yeah BioWare is cheap ass like that. The whole game reeks of cheapness.

Yeah, creating your own work from the bottom up is way more cheap than defining the setting you already help build into mainstream and add complexities to parts where the game world was completely shallow and depthless before they tackled it.

It's like they didn't have to do any of that. <_<

[Zenon]

I think it's not the complexity of the rules. Computers can calculater faster complex situations than a person. Proven by a computer winning against the world champion at chess.



But the D&D system offered IMHO so many skills and spells, that were only seldomly useful and didn't add to my game experience. What I liked very much was, how Bioware adapted D&D system to a sci-fi setting in SW KotOR. This was already streamlined to fit to the setting.



Also I was never a fan of the D&D philosophy concerning magic, especially with the classic wizard and cleric needing to choose spells in advance of the adventure. In fact I was so happy to have a sorcerer introduced, which felt much more like my idea of a good spellcasting class.



While the moral system of D&D is quite detailed, it has it's limits. The strongest limit being IMHO of this "good" and "evil" usually being treated as absolute values across the whole universe. Keeping track of individual opinions of companions and the gameworld using a kind of reputation system is more complex, but also very much more realistic. Especially when having different companions approving or disapproving the same deed according to the NPC's opinions.



Bioware made a system, which could have been a bit more complex in some instances. Probably there is more complexity hiding behind the colorful icons of the skills than meets the eye. It's also very good, that Bioware put much thought into skills having some use or meaning in the game. At the same time most skills and talents, (sorry to mix those terms up, since DA "talents" would be called "skills" in D&D for example) are only combat related. On the other hand, I guess combat needs more attention skill-wise than conversation, where most depends on the player in combination with some skills/traits of the player character.



To make the long story short, I feel the complete D&D system would have been too bulky for DA:O with such a huge array of classes, tons of hardly useful talents and skills, which don't make much of a difference in the end. Quite likely Bioware is going to evolve and refine the current system with future releases, but to me the foundation is quite solid and serves the game well.