332 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Without gravity, life, the universe and the meaning of everything would be 22, not 42.

All joking aside, without gravity, particles would not be attracted each other in a manner where stars, planets or most of anything would form. So life and matter in the universe would cease to exist as we know it today.

So its kind of a big deal.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 16 août 2012 - 09:39 .

[MichaelStuart]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Without gravity, life, the universe and the meaning of everything would be 22, not 42.

All joking aside, without gravity, particles would not be attracted each other in a manner where stars, planets or most of anything would form. So life and matter in the universe would cease to exist as we know it today.

So its kind of a big deal.

I agree about gravity beening a big deal, I'm mostly being metaphorical.

[Realmzmaster]

No system is going to get rid of numbers especially in a rpg. The basic language of the computer boils down to numbers. That is what a computer understands best. The system can be simplified. The system can be hidden from the player. I prefer to see how the universe (mechanics) works. Both can be accommodated in the game. Simply give a log that shows the roll of the dice that can be turned on or off. If no log then the manual should document the mechanics, even if it has to be downloaded as a supplement. Better yet give both.

Not everyone cares about how the universe works they simply want to play in it. Some want to see how the universe works. Why hide that information?

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I have never really wondered how gravity works,

Exactly my point.  But it still does its job and you can still work with it.

Similarly, you don't need to know how stabbing things is able to make you better at magic, as long as you know how to work within that system.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I have never really wondered how gravity works,

Exactly my point.  But it still does its job and you can still work with it.

Similarly, you don't need to know how stabbing things is able to make you better at magic, as long as you know how to work within that system.

Buts its the system I have the problem with.
The systems rewards repetive tasks, by giving experience, which levels you up, which are needed to advance the game. 
All this does is test player patience instead of player skill, and more importantly, it distracts from the actual Role Playing.

[Blastback]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But myself and others have been playing them the same while players like Sylvius the Mad and Cstaf been forced to play them differently.

Because the games haven't demanded my playstyle, but they have allowed it.

My playstyle is the tabletop playstyle.  I think we can all agree that tabletop roleplaying games are roleplaying games.  So any playstyle that doesn't work there isn't something roleplaying games need to support in order to be counted as roleplaying games.

Does your playstyle, which you used in both DAO and DA2, work in tabletop games?  If not, then it isn't relevant to the discussion of what constitutes roleplaying.

I always found that tabletop games get in the way of the actual role playing

It depends on the group.  I play with various people.  My personal style is to play extremely loose with the rules, with somewhat minimal combat and an empahisis on characters and interaction.  My closest friends do the same.  But the more reliable gamers I know are much more stat and mechanic based.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

The systems rewards repetive tasks, by giving experience, which levels you up, which are needed to advance the game.

Are they?  If there's some aspect of the game you don't like (the repetitive tasks), then don't do that part.  And most current CRPGs have fully scaled content, so there's no advantage gained by levelling up at all.

I think that's a mistake, but it's how th games are currently made.  Right now, there's nothing to be gained at all from grinding in these games.  So if you don't want to grind, don't grind.

All this does is test player patience instead of player skill

1. Patience is a skill.

2. Player skill shouldn't matter anyway.

If either of those things is true, your point is defeated.

and more importantly, it distracts from the actual Role Playing.

If you're focused on the roleplaying, I don't see how the mechanics would distract you unless they actually prevented roleplaying (as, for example, DA2's paraphrase system does).

When I'm roleplaying, roleplaying is the only thing that concerns me.  it drives every decision - even mechanical ones.  If my character wouldn't go out of his way to kill goblins, then I don't have him go out of his way to kill goblins.  I don't understand why any roleplayer would behave differently.

Make in-character decisions only, and these problems go away.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

The systems rewards repetive tasks, by giving experience, which levels you up, which are needed to advance the game.

Are they?  If there's some aspect of the game you don't like (the repetitive tasks), then don't do that part.  And most current CRPGs have fully scaled content, so there's no advantage gained by levelling up at all.

I think that's a mistake, but it's how th games are currently made.  Right now, there's nothing to be gained at all from grinding in these games.  So if you don't want to grind, don't grind.

All this does is test player patience instead of player skill

1. Patience is a skill.

2. Player skill shouldn't matter anyway.

If either of those things is true, your point is defeated.

and more importantly, it distracts from the actual Role Playing.

If you're focused on the roleplaying, I don't see how the mechanics would distract you unless they actually prevented roleplaying (as, for example, DA2's paraphrase system does).

When I'm roleplaying, roleplaying is the only thing that concerns me.  it drives every decision - even mechanical ones.  If my character wouldn't go out of his way to kill goblins, then I don't have him go out of his way to kill goblins.  I don't understand why any roleplayer would behave differently.

Make in-character decisions only, and these problems go away.

To your first point about level scaling.
A overlooked problem with level scaling is that of you don't level your character properly, you can end up making the game extremely difficult.
The problem is that games scales to level, but not stats. I could be level a million, but if I only have a hundred points in health, I'm going to end up kill quickly.
So, point being, there may not be a advantage, there is certainly is a disadvantage to not leveling.

To your second point
First, I will admit that patience can be thought of as a skill.
Second, I reject the premise that character skill should be the only skill that matters. Any character skill or weakness should affect the way the players control the character, not determine outcome.
The Player character is just the players avatar and should be treated as such.

To you third point
As I've said above, leveling can't be ignored without consequence.
As such I can't ignore those goblins without it effecting the games difficulty.
It's hard for for my to role play when I'm getting killed alot.
Yes, I can always just change the difficultly to something easyer, but than I the problem of the game being too easy, which to me is worse than being too hard.
Note:I should point out that alot of RPGs make combat difficult, if not impossable to avoid, but thats more a problem of bad game design.

[Pasquale1234]

MichaelStuart wrote...
To your first point about level scaling.
A overlooked problem with level scaling is that of you don't level your character properly, you can end up making the game extremely difficult.
The problem is that games scales to level, but not stats. I could be level a million, but if I only have a hundred points in health, I'm going to end up kill quickly.
So, point being, there may not be a advantage, there is certainly is a disadvantage to not leveling.

If the game scales to level, you should be able to play the entire game at level 1.

If you do level up but don't build properly, that's on you.  The DA games have an auto-level feature that will invest the points for you, so you don't have to bother about it if that is your preference.

The point that Sylvius was trying to make (at least my interpretation of it) is that you don't have to grind your way to level up if you don't enjoy that aspect of the game.

Second, I reject the premise that character skill should be the only skill that matters. Any character skill or weakness should affect the way the players control the character, not determine outcome.
The Player character is just the players avatar and should be treated as such.

In some action games, perhaps, but not in an RPG.

The most fundamental aspect of RPGs is that they use character stats and dice-roll calculations to determine the outcome of anything you try to do in the game.  That has nothing to do with the player's skills.

Many role-players draw distinct lines between the player and the character.

The player can choose to optimize the character's build in a variety of different ways, depending on the type of character you are working with in any given playthrough.  You can build-in certain weaknesses and then try to overcome them via strategy, create a build that is very strong in certain aspects, or create a more balanced, jack of all trades build.  In most RPGs, you have that latitude.

Or you can ignore leveling-up altogether.  Your choice.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 17 août 2012 - 02:00 .

[MichaelStuart]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
To your first point about level scaling.
A overlooked problem with level scaling is that of you don't level your character properly, you can end up making the game extremely difficult.
The problem is that games scales to level, but not stats. I could be level a million, but if I only have a hundred points in health, I'm going to end up kill quickly.
So, point being, there may not be a advantage, there is certainly is a disadvantage to not leveling.

If the game scales to level, you should be able to play the entire game at level 1.

If you do level up but don't build properly, that's on you.  The DA games have an auto-level feature that will invest the points for you, so you don't have to bother about it if that is your preference.

The point that Sylvius was trying to make (at least my interpretation of it) is that you don't have to grind your way to level up if you don't enjoy that aspect of the game.

Second, I reject the premise that character skill should be the only skill that matters. Any character skill or weakness should affect the way the players control the character, not determine outcome.
The Player character is just the players avatar and should be treated as such.

In some action games, perhaps, but not in an RPG.

The most fundamental aspect of RPGs is that they use character stats and dice-roll calculations to determine the outcome of anything you try to do in the game.  That has nothing to do with the player's skills.

Many role-players draw distinct lines between the player and the character.

The player can choose to optimize the character's build in a variety of different ways, depending on the type of character you are working with in any given playthrough.  You can build-in certain weaknesses and then try to overcome them via strategy, create a build that is very strong in certain aspects, or create a more balanced, jack of all trades build.  In most RPGs, you have that latitude.

Or you can ignore leveling-up altogether.  Your choice.

First, I always found the atuo-level to be the worst way to level a character. They always come out weaker than when I do it.
I can't ignore leveling up, when doing so makes the game harder.

Second, I reject the notion that stats and dice is fundamental to Role Playing Games.
To me, role playing is about playing a character and I no more need the rules for a tabletop wargame to do so,as you need the rules for a action game. All we need is a imagination.

[Pasquale1234]

MichaelStuart wrote...
First, I always found the atuo-level to be the worst way to level a character. They always come out weaker than when I do it.
I can't ignore leveling up, when doing so makes the game harder.

How does it make the game harder if every encounter is scaled to your level?

If you never level up, you should be able to play the entire game at level 1, and all of the encounters will be scaled for a level 1 character.

Second, I reject the notion that stats and dice is fundamental to Role Playing Games.
To me, role playing is about playing a character and I no more need the rules for a tabletop wargame to do so,as you need the rules for a action game. All we need is a imagination.

Every game needs to provide an interface, some way for you to interact with it, some way for it to determine outcomes.  A pure action game reacts to the inputs it receives from controllers.  It seems to me that you are advocating for an action game, not an RPG.

RPGs exist as a framework to enable playing a character that is not you.  So it uses stats to represent the character, and calculations to determine outcomes based on those stats.  If a game does not allow me to role-play a character with skills and abilities that are different from my own, then it is not a role-playing game, but a me simulator.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 17 août 2012 - 04:06 .

[MichaelStuart]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
First, I always found the atuo-level to be the worst way to level a character. They always come out weaker than when I do it.
I can't ignore leveling up, when doing so makes the game harder.

How does it make the game harder if every encounter is scaled to your level?

If you never level up, you should be able to play the entire game at level 1, and all of the encounters will be scaled for a level 1 character.

Second, I reject the notion that stats and dice is fundamental to Role Playing Games.
To me, role playing is about playing a character and I no more need the rules for a tabletop wargame to do so,as you need the rules for a action game. All we need is a imagination.

Every game needs to provide an interface, some way for you to interact with it, some way for it to determine outcomes.  A pure action game reacts to the inputs it receives from controllers.  It seems to me that you are advocating for an action game, not an RPG.

RPGs exist as a framework to enable playing a character that is not you.  So it uses stats to represent the character, and calculations to determine outcomes based on those stats.  If a game does not allow me to role-play a character with skills and abilities that are different from my own, then it is not a role-playing game, but a me simulator.

First, the game gets harder because the eneimes get better have stats and abilities, this wouldn't be that big of a problem, but often you need the stats and abilities to fight them on even ground. 
Ultamitely, this is only a problem because the developers didn't brother to balance the end game for low levels.

Second, Its clear we very different opinions about what constitutes a RPG.
To me it RPGs are about the player interacting with the game, how it you control your chaaracter is secondary.
I do prefer action control system, as I believe it gives the player better and more immersive control over there character.

[Pasquale1234]

MichaelStuart wrote...
First, the game gets harder because the eneimes get better have stats and abilities

Not if they're properly level scaled.

To me it RPGs are about the player interacting with the game, how it you control your chaaracter is secondary.

And to me an RPG involves putting a character in a game world / setting.  A character with his/her own unique personality, interests, goals, and skills that may or may not be related to mine.  A character that is distinct from me and does not need me to have razor-sharp twitch reflexes in order to become a master swordsman.

As for control, you seem to want direct control, not stat-based control.

I do prefer action control system, as I believe it gives the player better and more immersive control over there character.

Kind of what I've been saying all along.  You want an action game more than an RPG.

[Realmzmaster]

The purpose of an crpg is that it allows a gamer to build and roleplay a character that is not him or her. I want to be able to build a character who could be the direct opposite of what I am. For example I may see myself as a highly intelligent individual who is a weak in strength, but I want to play a character with low intelligence who has great strength. While I may be able to solve a puzzle, the character I am playing should not be able to solve that puzzle unless it is extremely simple. The system will tell me that my character is too stupid to solve the puzzle.

Likewise I may not be able to bash down a door, but the character is able to bash it down. Some play the main character as themselves. I play the main character as some who is not me.

For example I have played many different types of Hawkes and wardens none of which are me. That is the essence of a role playing game. I play me everyday. I do not need to play me in a game.

As I have stated the player skill should have no bearing on character skill in a crpg. If you are playing an action game or an action game with rpg elements then yes player skill may matter.

That is why DA2 with its realtime with pause is far as wish to go concerning action. The Witcher 2 remains unopened on my shelf (It was a gift) because it relies to much on player twitch skills and Skyrim will not be bought.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

To me it RPGs are about the player interacting with the game, how it you control your chaaracter is secondary.

No, that's what other kinds of games are.  Roleplaying games are about roleplaying.  They're about you controlling your character.  How you control your character is secondary, as long as you're able to control your character in accordance with his character design.

I do prefer action control system, as I believe it gives the player better and more immersive control over there character.

I strongly oppose all action combat, because I think it breaks the game.  if the player cannot control his character well, then he cannot necessarily control it in accordance with that character's design.

Action combat is a complete non-starter for me.  No game with action combat will win my custom.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

That is why DA2 with its realtime with pause is far as wish to go concerning action. The Witcher 2 remains unopened on my shelf (It was a gift) because it relies to much on player twitch skills and Skyrim will not be bought.

Skyrim's allowance of extreme-range archery is what makes it playable for me.  If I can climb a nearby mountain and snipe every single bandit out of an adjacent fortress, then the action-ness of combat no longer matters.

But I can understand your firm line in the sand.

[MichaelStuart]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
First, the game gets harder because the eneimes get better have stats and abilities

Not if they're properly level scaled.

To me it RPGs are about the player interacting with the game, how it you control your chaaracter is secondary.

And to me an RPG involves putting a character in a game world / setting.  A character with his/her own unique personality, interests, goals, and skills that may or may not be related to mine.  A character that is distinct from me and does not need me to have razor-sharp twitch reflexes in order to become a master swordsman.

As for control, you seem to want direct control, not stat-based control.

I do prefer action control system, as I believe it gives the player better and more immersive control over there character.

Kind of what I've been saying all along.  You want an action game more than an RPG.

What I want is a fully interactive world and story to explore, without the repetitiveness of dice and stat gameplay.

[Pasquale1234]

MichaelStuart wrote...
What I want is a fully interactive world and story to explore, without the repetitiveness of dice and stat gameplay.

How is action combat less repetitive than stat-based combat?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I fail to see how The Witcher's click-fest isn't the most repetitive combat this side of Diablo (another game I loathe).

My idea of mindless fun is turn-based strategy games. Roleplaying is a more cerebral endeavour, and there I prefer no action combat for reasons of coherence, but if I just want to plauy a game to relax then I'd almost always choose a turn-based strategy game.

Frantic action isn't fun. Nothing frantic is fun. Frantic action is the antithesis of fun. Fractic action is stressful. I really don't like it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

What I want is a fully interactive world and story to explore,

A lot of us want that.  The difference is whether we see it as a world for us to explore, or a world for our characters to explore.

Player-centric players often favour action combat, because it engages them more.  Character-centric players tend to oppose action combat, because it creates a barrier between them and their characters.

[MichaelStuart]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
What I want is a fully interactive world and story to explore, without the repetitiveness of dice and stat gameplay.

How is action combat less repetitive than stat-based combat?

Not counting that stat based combat needs dice rolling, which in my opinion slows combat to a painful degree, mostly it's because enemies in action based combat move around more while trying different attacks, while enemies in stat based combat tend to stay in one place, doing the same basic attack with the ocasional special you can see coming from a mile away.

I will admit that due to my dislike of stat based combat, it probably just seems repetitive.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My idea of mindless fun is turn-based strategy games. Roleplaying is a more cerebral endeavour, and there I prefer no action combat for reasons of coherence, but if I just want to plauy a game to relax then I'd almost always choose a turn-based strategy game.

Frantic action isn't fun. Nothing frantic is fun. Frantic action is the antithesis of fun. Fractic action is stressful. I really don't like it.

My recent outings with newer RTS titles are proving a bit too frenetic for my tastes.  When you have generations that had game controllers in their tiny little paws before they could talk - well, the expectations have changed exponentially.

So I'm thinking it might be time to dust off my old copies of Civ, Alpha Centauri, MOO, and the like.  If you have any other favorite titles, I'd appreciate the recommendation.

ETA:

MichaelStuart wrote...
I will admit that due to my dislike of stat based combat, it probably just seems repetitive.

That's cool.  We don't all like the same things.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 17 août 2012 - 07:37 .

[Realmzmaster]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...
What I want is a fully interactive world and story to explore, without the repetitiveness of dice and stat gameplay.

How is action combat less repetitive than stat-based combat?

It is not. I think since MichaelStuart likes player control of the character because it seems less repetitive. MichaelStuart is actively involved in the attacking, dodging etc by pressing the necessary buttons. Those reactions relie on his skill and not the character's skill. The point is that all combat can become repetitive. This is why good crpgs break up the repetitiveness by allowing quests to be solved in ways other than combat.

For example Isabela gets rid of Castillon by blackmailing him with the slavery documents. Or if you hand Isabela over to the Qunari along with the tome the Qunari quietly leave.

[Pasquale1234]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The point is that all combat can become repetitive. This is why good crpgs break up the repetitiveness by allowing quests to be solved in ways other than combat.

For example Isabela gets rid of Castillon by blackmailing him with the slavery documents. Or if you hand Isabela over to the Qunari along with the tome the Qunari quietly leave.

Yeah, I love opportunities to resolve things in different ways.  I really miss some of the skills from DAO, like Coercion.  They added a lot of role-playing flavor for me.

[Wozearly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Personally, I don't think there's a harsh cut-off between player skill and character skill. As long as one doesn't contradict the other outright, there's no issue with having both be part of the equation.

THIS is something that does bother me. IIRC Morrowind was a game where I could straight up hit someone with a bow, but whether or not I did damage was based on my character's skill which was just confusing and frustrating IMO.

Just wanted to respond on this point and pick up on some of the things that have been said over the last couple of pages...

I would agree that Morrowind's first-person "You aimed correctly, but missed / did no damage because your skill is too low" would seem counterintuitive, if you're used to games where correctly aiming with the mouse is the key determinant of hitting the target.

But substitute it into DA:O's third person. If I click to autotarget someone and I start missing a lot because my attack skill is low and they're hefting a shield, that must logically seem confusing and frustrating. I did the correct thing, I aimed at the enemy and targeted them, why is my character not hitting them?

One of the reasons I like Morrowind's approach is that it forcibly divorces the ability for a player to compensate for mediocre character stats by relying on their own skill as a player. If you want to be a good archer, that should be primarily about building your character's skills in archery, not practicing your own mouse movements so that you can instead put the points into a category where your own skill cannot influence the outcome (e.g. successes with potion crafting).

I don't see that the epitome of this is a game that plays itself with no player input. The goal of this type of approach would not be to remove player input, but to remove the effect of player skill providing a positive or negative impact on their character's success.

As examples, the introduction of pause mechanics removes the benefit of twitch skills leading to success in combat - instead, the benefit of building twitch skills / having twitch skills is the option to potentially use them to move through combat at a faster pace. DA and ME both benefitted from this.

If the player's intelligence is to be modelled, then puzzles in-game need to become more reliant on the character's ability to solve it rather than the player's. So faced with a logic puzzle, the fact that the player knows the way to solve it is irrelevant. If the character is simply too dumb to figure it out, and lacks companions or others to do so, that way is barred. If its a case of "pick the correct multi-choice answer" then the options woul all be incorrect, potentially humorously so (see Fallout).

The player could still be rewarded for finding alternative ways to progress, or have alternative ways to get benefits by the use of other skills (e.g. the sword you can only pull from the stone with 20+ strength - eat that smarty pants). The aim in this instance is to reward specialisation and/or diversity (puzzles could require more than one skill, with lower thresholds for both). The angle is about rewarding player choices and trying to ensure that different builds genuinely play differently outside of combat as well as inside of combat. Doesn't hurt for feelings of player agency (I chose the skills, look at the impact) or replay value either.

If you wanted to model 'wisdom' in terms of tactical understanding, there are various insidious ways you could do this. In the DA setting, you could remove the ability for your own character (or other characters) to trigger cross-class combos. You could limit the number of abilities they would have the option of using at any given time by locking the length of the action bar. You could limit the number of tactical options that could be set up for use by companions.


This is a different tack to the way that Bioware (and, to be fair, most of the RPG industry) is evolving, as the concept is to reward player choices and intentionally remove player skill from the equation, whilst accepting that removing player intelligence from the equation is neither entirely possible, nor necessarily desirable.

The current general direction of travel is more of a fusion of applying RPG mechanics to augment player skill or to enable a sense of character development over time. Very rarely do the mechanics intentionally restrict and/or frustrate the player trying to do something their character is no good at. Generally if the character isn't good at something, that's either made non-critical or locked out entirely and placed into a different class type - such as rogues not being able to tote shields or heavy armour, warriors not being able to use ranged weapons, mages being incapable of learning melee combat, no-one having a coercion skill, etc.

This approach can work well for people who value the blend of action and RPG elements, because it ensures that player skill remains directly rewarded, and if you got it right then so did your character.

Interestingly, there are two current RPG franchises that don't use this approach, and opt for something much closer to the angle of removing player agency via direct skill (though certainly not entirely). They have relatively unrestricted class development that starts in one place, but can be morphed into another one if you're willing to spend the time doing so and overcoming the constraints of being downright rubbish at something for a while because your character is rubbish at it.

For the record those franchises are Fallout and The Elder Scrolls, and between them they've fielded 4 out of the top 6 titles for RPG sales in recent years (Fable takes the remaining 2).

Modifié par Wozearly, 17 août 2012 - 07:45 .