71 réponses à ce sujet

[Squiggles1334]

No Vancian magic system? No arbitrary class-based weapon and armor restrictions? No goofy morality categories? No nosy franchise owner looking over BioWare's shoulder and calling shots on what is and isn't allowed?

Heck yeah sign me up!

[GhostMatter]

No thanks. One of the first I loved about this game is that it's not bogged down by a pen-and-paper system. Much more freedom. It's just not that kind of game.

[Hulk Hsieh]

Taking BG as an example, AD&D really doesn't provide enough in character building for fighters.

Just pump STR/DEX/CON and put * into the weapon of choice, and everything is done.

[Vaeliorin]

It might have worked okay with 4E D&D (though the game would need to be turn-based then, which is a plus in my book) but not the previous editions of D&D (which are, honestly, pretty terrible, though 3.X is at least somewhat better than the earlier editions.)



That said, the system as is in DA is just fine. I'll agree that more documentation would be nice, but other than that I have no real complaints about the system, particularly since non-casters are actually interesting and fun to play for once.

[Squiggles1334]

If I were to start a thread to debate whether or not Morrigan should be considered "Chaotic Evil," how many pages could it potentially reach before losing steam?

[Lotion Soronarr]

My beef is hte physical attributes.

In D&D you set them at the start and you get 1 point every 3-5 levels. Tehre's not much change. But you can use things from the start.



If you're a warrior with 17 STR, you cna wear any armor or wield any weapon from the start of the game. As it should be. No stupid, idiotic, moronic scaling restrictions. "Ohh...this heavy armor is made of silverite, so I need 38 STR to don it on...WTF??? I've been prancing around in massive armor for several levels already? Just how strong was I before? What the hell is this thing made of? Pure uranium? A black hole?..."

[Auraad]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Taking BG as an example, AD&D really doesn't provide enough in character building for fighters.
Just pump STR/DEX/CON and put * into the weapon of choice, and everything is done.

Well, isn't that pretty much the same here in DAO?
Just pump all points into STR, DEX and CON mayhap and take all talents/perks of "a shool" / branch (eg. swoard + board) and youre done.
Doesn't really matter ( as a fighter) which skills you take (save for combat training).

[Haplose]

AD&D? Hell no.



If you were speaking DnD 3.5 ed.... well.... I might feel tempted.



But the system is fine as it is. Well, it NEEDS much better documentation (heck, ANY official documentation).

And it would be REALLY nice if they made combat placement actually have any meaning. It's silly that you have a large, muscular fighter in massive armor standing in a doorway, but the mobs just treat him like thin air and go right through him.Largely takes away from the tactical aspect of the game. You can manage fights quite well with CC & aggro control talents, but it's not the same.

[Zenon]

Drakron wrote...

Zenon wrote...

 What I liked very much was, how Bioware adapted D&D system to a sci-fi setting in SW KotOR.

Yes, because its not as if there was a Star Wars D20 rulebook at that time .... oh wait ...

Also said D20 system was IMHO better.

In case you do not understand, 3rd Ed. D&D was build on the D20 system that Wizards of the Coast was trying to push as a basic system and WotC did created a Star Wars D20 system and even revised it at least once.

Of course that was pre-Hasbro as WotC changed after Hasbro taken over ... even if BioWare "adapted" the D20 system for KotOR its not as if that was not already done, not as if the D20 system was not designed from the start to be easy "ported" outside the D&D setting (its a modular system) and honestly I think BioWare did poorly on the job as the things that really required work (Force system) were pretty much left as "D&D spells" (Star Wars D20 have a very diferent Force system that is skill based)

I said Bioware "adapted" it, not "invented". Perhaps there was already a SW D20 rulebook published when Bioware created SW-KotOR. I don't know that exactly, because I never played Pen&Paper Sci-Fi RPGs. 

So perhaps quite a bit of the thinking on a ruleset was done by others than Bioware. Then I still stick with my opinion, that Bioware used a streamlined Ruleset with a lot less skills and using only talents and force powers, that could be useful in the game (some more, some less). I could still see instantly the D&D heritage. The weapons, character attributes, fighting rules were still based on D&D 3rd Ed, if I'm correct.

How would force powers be so much different from spells in terms of game system? Not much I'd say. But at least the Jedi didn't have to rest 8h before using a certain force a certain amount of times per day.

Concerning using D&D in general and why Bioware used it I would like to comment on that, too. D&D was/is probably until today the most famous and well known Pen&Paper RPG-system. There were already some successful AD&D based computer RPGs on the market. (Even Sci-Fi "Buck Rogers"). Players knew the system and had a less steep learning curve. (One reason obviously some people complain DA:O seems too hard, it's simply different.) Besides to create a RPG-system, that balances complexity and playability in combination with adaptability to the computer is quite some challenge. Most likely more difficult and time-consuming than licensing an existing one, which has already proven to be quite good and useful. Plus there were many D&D fans out there, who probably would enjoy a game putting the whole ruleset into smooth action. NWN was in fact the first game, that gave RPG players the best opportunity to enter the 21st century in multiplayer RPG gaming by providing not only a Toolset for own games, but also a DM-Mode for a managed party. To me NWN still is a milestone in computer game history.

In the end there are issues related to D&D as a whole being quite bulky for a computer game. There simply are many skills, etc., which can only poorly simulated by a computer system. There are other things, a computer can do faster -- perhaps better in some instances -- than a human DM. Having made a big name in the field of CRPGs Bioware can count on their solid fan-base while undergoing the risk of creating a RPG-system on their own, which is free from unneeded bulkiness and can focus more on the strengths of having a computer doing the calculations in the background.

In fact I was genuinely surprised they decided to create/offer an unplugged version of the ruleset. Perhaps it's merchandise, or trying to prove the quality of their system. Considering how many mutations D&D has already had, some for the better, some making it worse -- which also depends on who you ask... Bioware's system will most likely be evolved from the original system used with DA:O. I'm sure the community will contribute some good and useful feedback for Bioware to make the sequel an even better game.

Sorry for the long post, but once my train of thought gained momentum...
:innocent:

[Targonis1]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Isn't the Dragon Age RPG available now, so people can see all the rules?

http://dragonage.bio...m/game/product/

[Zenon]

DeathWyrmNexus 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.

I take it that you haven't seen your characters get shield bashed despite moving ten feet away before they completed the act. Or have been hit by arrows despite moving around a corner thus they are firing through walls...

Um, it is realistic when you are in the fight but... No it isn't. One of the things I had to relearn with DA:O is that it uses a lot of D&D-ish rules in that numbers matter a lot.

The system follows a model, that while trying to provide some more or less realistic results, is very simplified compared to "real life" reality. And it should be, since it is a game, right? Here the pseudo real-time battle being actually turn-based causes these felt or viewed inconsistencies. Another example is, that my mage is still standing in battle with low health while a darkspawn is swinging an axe at him. I pause, make him drink a potion, but he is dead before the potion takes effect. I guess, that's where I tried to feed a dead man, who just didn't realize yet he already died.

When they swing, if you are there when the hit starts, you only have your defense/armor to stop the hit despite any moving you do before the hit connects. You can also use this against them too. Not really cut and dry realistically as mathematically.

IE, D&D -esque rules.

According to the ruleset it is mathematically correct. Comparing the seen animation and the actual effect makes it look physically incorrect. But in fact the current (hidden) turn-based system allows more tactics, than a real-time system.

But we are still talking about a game. In reality a broken bone or cracked skull can't be remedied in seconds by bandages either. Especially fighting the next ogre five minutes after the cure is quite far from realistic. But if your hero would have to be in the infirmary for three weeks after each time going down in a hard fight, the game would be too boring, wouldn't it? Also only getting injured when knocked-out is quite an unrealistic simplification. I'd roll for an injury each time someone scored a critical hit...

Modifié par Zenon, 15 décembre 2009 - 10:53 .

[DarkSpiral]

MERPS?
MERPS!
Even Sandal would be cowed before the evil that was the crit chart.

(edited for spelling)

Modifié par DarkSpiral, 15 décembre 2009 - 10:57 .

[Basher of Glory]

Some points were mentioned several times:

1) Shooting arrows around (many) corners
2) Characters take damage although moved away from the incomming blow
3) Characters dropping dead although they drank a health-pot

Question:
Shouldn't these issues be regarded as really silly bugs and to a lesser extent related to the rule-set?

Further, I've read several times about the (lacking) diversity of our chars. The main argument for me is, that I miss, too, the uniqueness of my builds, respectively the opportunity to build unique characters.

I ask:
Is this a question of the rule-set or more an problem of programming and implementing content?

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 15 décembre 2009 - 11:32 .

[Zenon]

DarkSpiral wrote...

MERPS?
MERPS!
Even Sandal would be cowed before the evil that was the crit chart.

(edited for spelling)

RoleMaster rulez! MERP is a compacted and simplified RM.

If Sandal has a ridiculously high defensive bonus, no Darkspawn could even bend on of his hair. Unrealistic? Hmm, if Sandal can move like Master Yoda in a lightsabre duel maybe not.

But I think RoleMaster is complex enough to call for a college class seminar to learn to master it properly. That doesn't keep me from wanting to see it in a game. But not as popular as D&D... Besides putting all of RM in one game would cause the publisher needing to add an extra disk only full of rulebooks. I can imagine the forums with topics like: Are you still reading the rules, or did you already start playing 3 weeks after purchasing the game? haha.

[Zenon]

Baher of Glory wrote...

Some points were mentioned several times:

1) Shooting arrows around (many) corners
2) Characters take damage although moved away from the incomming blow
3) Characters dropping dead although they drank a health-pot

Question:
Shouldn't these issues be regarded as really silly bugs and to a lesser extent related to the rule-set?

Further, I've read several times about the (lacking) diversity of our chars. The main argument for me is, that I miss, too, the uniqueness of my builds, respectively the opportunity to build unique characters.

I ask:
Is this a question of the rule-set or more an problem of programming and implementing content?

It's a question of how the animation and the calculated effect of an action fall apart due to time lag. The monster can't hit as fast as the dice rolls, because that would look silly. If the damage would be calculated on how the sword hits, Alistair or Sten would probably already stabbed or decapitated my mage standing behind them at least a hundred times.

A good thing is, that if my mage casts CC on a group of monsters aiming carefully also a monster gets frozen after wandering out of the aimed cone at the time the ice sprays from the hands of my mage. That makes that spell in combination with a pause function very reliable.

I think when designing a combat system, you need to keep the various consequences of different approaches in mind. The pause function works better, if your aim during the pause is accurate. The fighting is more realistic in terms of tactics, if a dice roll and virtual turn based combat is used. ME had more real-time fighting, but hardly any customization options of the NPCs. DA:O is a bit more like chess in that respect. I like both systems, and I also think that both systems are appropriate for each game.

[Realmzmaster]

LaztRezort wrote...

Havokk7 wrote...

Why was AD&D/D20 the basis for BG, IWD, KOTOR and NWN? I suspect for marketing reasons and for the reason that lots of people knew it.

Yes, and I also suspect that the previous success of the "Gold Box" games had something to do with it (made by TSR, who also owned the rights to AD&D at the time).

It should be noted that whenever a game has used D&D rules, they are heavily modified (I can't speak for 4e, since I know nothing about it).  D&D assumes there will be a real-person DM/referee who can use and throw-out whatever rules he sees fit to make for a good story.  D&D is complicated because there are so many different rules that are basically a suggestion of how to handle many conceivable actions of a player.  It's up to the referee to cherry pick and bend them to make for a fun game (it's 'role-playing,' not 'roll-playing' used to be common mantra).  "Rules Laywer" used to describe an unpleasant member of a gaming group, the bane of a referee.

In computer games, everyone is a rules lawyer, and there is no referee.

Actually the Gold Box games were made by SSI (Strategic Simulations Incorporated). SSI had a license from TSR. I agree with LaztRezort. Certain rules in D & D and other RPGs are extremely tough to implement in a computer game. Some of it is due to programming constraints, some due to design constraints and some because the rules at times contradict themselves or are do not cover the situation. (Which is why pen and paer RPGs have DMs). That is why all of the CRPG's based on D & D are modified. Yes you could probably create a CRPG that used all of the D & D rule set, but it would come out in the next century.

[Basher of Glory]

IMO D&D and true turn based works entirely satisfactory. A good example in my eyes is "Temple of the elemental evil", brought to the PC for the first time with 3.5 Edition rules by Troika Games.

With some deduction I'd say the same for "Pool of Radiance II".

Both games did not have problems to show all animations properly (with the available technology at their time), so I assume, that a true turn based setting does not conflict with time frames, right?

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 16 décembre 2009 - 01:35 .

[Realmzmaster]

The only problem with Temple of Elemental Evil and Pool of Radiance II was they were almost unplayable right out the box. The patches from Trokia and Circle of Eight made TOEE playable. TOEE was a good attempt at implementing the 3.5 rule set. Pool of Radiance II used the 3.0 rule set. The good point of each game was the turn-based combat. It would be interesting to see a game based on the 4.0 rule set. Maybe Atari will find a company that will attempt it.

[Realmzmaster]

Targonis1 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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.

Isn't the Dragon Age RPG available now, so people can see all the rules?

http://dragonage.bio...m/game/product/

Dragon Age pen and paper is available in a box set for $29.95 pre-ordered or as a pdf for $17.50. If you pre-order the box set you get the pdf version for free. The box set will have a 64 page GM guide ,a 64 page player guide, a map and three six sided dice!

[Basher of Glory]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The only problem with Temple of Elemental Evil and Pool of Radiance II was they were almost unplayable right out the box. The patches from Trokia and Circle of Eight made TOEE playable. TOEE was a good attempt at implementing the 3.5 rule set. Pool of Radiance II used the 3.0 rule set. The good point of each game was the turn-based combat. It would be interesting to see a game based on the 4.0 rule set. Maybe Atari will find a company that will attempt it.

Of course there were patches, but these made the games playable and even better, but did not change the basic principles like "turn-based".
So, the question remains:

Is a "true" implementation of d&d-rules only possible in "true" turn-based computer-RPGs?

[Realmzmaster]

Actually, even in turn based computer RPGs all of the D & D ruleset has not been implemented. All of the previous attemps BG, TOEE, POR II etc have made compromises. Given all the nuances of D & D it may not be possible. But this can also be said for many of the other pen and paper RPGs.

[Squiggles1334]

New suggestion: Make Dragon Age 2 based on the Amber Diceless system. I see absolutely no problems with that at all!