184 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

I want all of the non-combat skills back. They belong in an rpg. Not everything about an rpg is about getting better at killing stuff.

[RedWulfi]

Without it, the game is too easy.
I actually like it when I don't always succeed in convincing someone. Not everyone is a yes man.

[AbsoluteApril]

Nrieh wrote...

Yes, please. Non-combat "social" skills andor stat check roll. Cunning, I suppose, since we have no cahrisma, and strenght - for intimidate. Same as you had a stat check against lockpick in DA2 - if you consider original diplomacy-charm system too complex.

But let MY stats and skills decide - whether I can trick a templar, NOT having or not having Varric in a party. Yes, I like Varric, and he was kinda Hawke's "outsource" Coercion during the game (same as we can consider Aveline "outsource" intimidate. But I'd prefer to do things on my own.

Let charming and clever rogue discuss things, let ****** berserk warrior deal with it showing his muscles and chewing his shield. THAT was an essential part of RP, you know. To have options in resolving problems. Steal the key, persuade to give a key, intimidate, kill everyone and take it from dead body.

MotA took a slight step in that direction (compared to original DA2) offering "stealth" vs "breaking in" strategy. I'd love to have more variety in playstyles.

nice post.
I miss the coercion skills (and dialogue/options available for cunning, survival). I like rolling a diplo character that tries to talk his/her way out of fights if possible. I don't want the 'persuade' to guarantee success but roll the dice and it's a strong possibility depending on how much was put into that skill. And as mentioned, it changes the way you build, perhaps your rogue can't pick all the locks but has a silver tongue because you have to sacrafice one skill to put those points elsewhere. good stuff right there.

[Lithuasil]

Rawgrim wrote...

I want all of the non-combat skills back. They belong in an rpg. Not everything about an rpg is about getting better at killing stuff.

No Rpg is about Skillstats. They were a poor substitute from the start, and they'll always be. Roleplaying significantly improves the less numbers are involved.

[Vandicus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I want all of the non-combat skills back. They belong in an rpg. Not everything about an rpg is about getting better at killing stuff.

No Rpg is about Skillstats. They were a poor substitute from the start, and they'll always be. Roleplaying significantly improves the less numbers are involved.

You stray perilously close to the Stormwind fallacy when claiming that roleplaying quality has an inverse relationship with the complexity of the system. Now I don't want to get into a debate about what is roleplaying, but I would like to say that I think that roleplaying is done separately from the system being employed. The system is a guideline allowing determination of results(to prevent the old "I hit you" "No you didn't, I dodged" argument).

[Lithuasil]

Vandicus wrote...

You stray perilously close to the Stormwind fallacy when claiming that roleplaying quality has an inverse relationship with the complexity of the system. Now I don't want to get into a debate about what is roleplaying, but I would like to say that I think that roleplaying is done separately from the system being employed. The system is a guideline allowing determination of results(to prevent the old "I hit you" "No you didn't, I dodged" argument).

For Pen and Paper roleplaying, the bolded part is true, and unfortunately we'll never quite going to be rid of that. But with videogames, things are different. The first CRpgs used the same rulesets, not because they enhanced roleplaying, or because they were a good idea. They used them, because technology, back in the day, was unable to sufficiently simulate anything more sophisticated.
But we've passed that point. We passed it years ago. We are more then able to simulate a swordfight, spellcasting or whatever action, combat and noncombat you might want to perform. There is absolutely no reason to cling to the old clutches we no longer need, other then nostalgia-blindness or lazyness.

[NRieh]

For Pen and Paper roleplaying, the bolded part is true, and unfortunately we'll never quite going to be rid of that. But with videogames, things are different. The first CRpgs used the same rulesets, not because they enhanced roleplaying, or because they were a good idea. They used them, because technology, back in the day, was unable to sufficiently simulate anything more sophisticated. But we've passed that point. We passed it years ago. We are more then able to simulate a swordfight, spellcasting or whatever action, combat and noncombat you might want to perform.

What a hell are you talking about? You see numbers in your char****? Armor, constitution. crit, hit....Numbers flying away while in combat?...

All those are SAME checks that we used to make with dices - only difference is that we have no idea now how exactly numbers are count and performed, what hit do you need to 100% penetrate Meridith armor, what exact resistances has Arishok etc.

But non-combat checks were removed totally in DA2 (exept for lockpick). I see not a single reason why all sorts of Hawkes use same dialogue options with same results. Diplo-Witty-angry is PURE cosmetics, that does not change things. Because they bring same results. For what I know, you can't fail mission because you chose angry reply and you'll get same outcome with only exeption for +/- companion affection.

You don't like the idea of checks? Like just giving [charm] and [persuade] options with autopass? Oh how good for immersion - 40+str\\const warrior with 10 cunning passes [charm] check...

That's why I will consider BEST RPG (and MMORPG) NWN1. It took best of all existing systems, making things simple enough for those who do not need complex stuff and leaving A LOT of opportunities to others. And no, by NWN1 I do not mean "official" module. I mean a VIDEOGAME that allows you to play RPGs (with both scripted and live events).

[Lithuasil]

Nrieh wrote...

What a hell are you talking about? You see numbers in your char****? Armor, constitution. crit, hit....Numbers flying away while in combat?...

All those are SAME checks that we used to make with dices - only difference is that we have no idea now how exactly numbers are count and performed, what hit do you need to 100% penetrate Meridith armor, what exact resistances has Arishok etc.  

Those are exactly the kind of numbers I want to do away with. The kind of numbers that we no longer need, because we *could* be fully capable of simulating a hit with a sword, whether it hits an armored or unarmored target etc... we can do all that.

And as I said earlier in the thread - DA2 wasn't perfect in that regard. It was better then gainig a percentage chance to mind-trick people nonetheless. Still, far from perfect, as a perfect system would offer much more options and require the player to pay attention to find the most persuasive one.

[Pelle6666]

Or add renegade/paragon options like in me!

[Sidney]

Please no to coercion or charm. Like there's some school for that stuff, "Vinny the Fish teaches you how to knee cap guys in 3 minutes or less!".

I'd rather have the coercion or charm be about the dialog you select - and picking the right approaches to it- as opposed to having a [Coercion] tag sitting in front of an option and having the brain dead pick that one option.

[Salaya]

Sidney wrote...

Please no to coercion or charm. Like there's some school for that stuff

Maybe the same school that teaches how to swing broad swords as feathers. Or the same that helps people to survive direct impact fire balls without a scratch. Or, maybe, the same school that taught Hawke how to make bodies explode with a dagger.

In terms of credibility, I'm afraid coercion is far more belivable than the imaginative fighting skills of all our characters.

[Lithuasil]

Salaya wrote...

In terms of credibility, I'm afraid coercion is far more belivable than the imaginative fighting skills of all our characters.

So other things need fixing too. What kind of logic is "Other things are broken, so we might as well break this one too"?

[Vandicus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Salaya wrote...

In terms of credibility, I'm afraid coercion is far more belivable than the imaginative fighting skills of all our characters.

So other things need fixing too. What kind of logic is "Other things are broken, so we might as well break this one too"?

Exactly. This kind of thinking is what leads to Starchild. Well, biotics and the Reapers are space magic and meaningless technobabble, so might as well put that in the ending!

[NRieh]

The kind of numbers that we no longer need, because we *could* be fully capable of simulating a hit with a sword, whether it hits an armored or unarmored target etc... we can do all that.

No, I don't get it. At all.

HOW are you going to "simulate" anything without numbers, I wonder (in case you are going to use comp or console for that)? Discard all numbers and make hits that always hit any kind of armors and persuades that always work? And what's the point then? Why not make PC also immortal, and able to walk on waters and see through walls(beacuse who need those dumb map restrictions, that only distract us from True RolePlay)?..

May be I simply can not understand you. Could you try to explain?

[Salaya]

Lithuasil wrote...

...

So other things need fixing too. What kind of logic is "Other things are broken, so we might as well break this one too"?

You are assuming that I think both things are broken.

What I say is that both things are not belivable. That is not a bad thing; the question is, why criticize coercion as not belivable but accept the unbelivability of the rest? The mere premise of a fantasy world with magic is completely unbelivable.

You don't like coercion? Ok, thats perfectly reasonable. But do not give reasons that fall by its own weight.

[Lithuasil]

Nrieh wrote...

The kind of numbers that we no longer need, because we *could* be fully capable of simulating a hit with a sword, whether it hits an armored or unarmored target etc... we can do all that.

No, I don't get it. At all.

HOW are you going to "simulate" anything without numbers, I wonder (in case you are going to use comp or console for that)? Discard all numbers and make hits that always hit any kind of armors and persuades that always work? And what's the point then? Why not make PC also immortal, and able to walk on waters and see through walls(beacuse who need those dumb map restrictions, that only distract us from True RolePlay)?..

May be I simply can not understand you. Could you try to explain?

Imagine you're piloting the game from a ferst person perspective - (I know, I know, actually seeing an RPG through the eyes of the protagonist, INCONCEIVABLE!!!1).
You see your hands, holding a bladed weapon. Upon the click of the mouse, your character strikes, while the angle of your strike is dependend on you you move the mouse while clicking.
Now, if there happens to be an object in the way of that blow, you hit it. If that object is a person, and they're wearing an armor/shield:
-you do a little damage to the shield, if you happen to hit the shield
-you do a little damage to the armor, and damage depending on your weapons weight if you happen to hit hard armor
-you do damage depenting on the weapon if you hit an unprotected area
-you do a lot of damage if you hit a vital/exceptionally painful area
(Damage, of course, rather then draining a universal healthbar, damages that particular limp, with consequences accordingly)

Is that an impossible to grasp concept? Because, that's kinda how swordfights work in reality. 

[Mr Fixit]

Lithuasil wrote...


Imagine you're piloting the game from a ferst person perspective - (I know, I know, actually seeing an RPG through the eyes of the protagonist, INCONCEIVABLE!!!1).
You see your hands, holding a bladed weapon. Upon the click of the mouse, your character strikes, while the angle of your strike is dependend on you you move the mouse while clicking.
Now, if there happens to be an object in the way of that blow, you hit it. If that object is a person, and they're wearing an armor/shield:
-you do a little damage to the shield, if you happen to hit the shield
-you do a little damage to the armor, and damage depending on your weapons weight if you happen to hit hard armor
-you do damage depenting on the weapon if you hit an unprotected area
-you do a lot of damage if you hit a vital/exceptionally painful area
(Damage, of course, rather then draining a universal healthbar, damages that particular limp, with consequences accordingly)

Is that an impossible to grasp concept? Because, that's kinda how swordfights work in reality. 

Which would turn it into a twitch game essentially, with player skill being the only thing that matters. No thanks.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:08 .

[Vandicus]

Salaya wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

...

So other things need fixing too. What kind of logic is "Other things are broken, so we might as well break this one too"?

You are assuming that I think both things are broken.

What I say is that both things are not belivable. That is not a bad thing; the question is, why criticize coercion as not belivable but accept the unbelivability of the rest? The mere premise of a fantasy world with magic is completely unbelivable.

You don't like coercion? Ok, thats perfectly reasonable. But do not give reasons that fall by its own weight.

Mind control diplomacy/coercion is terrible(premise). All options that our characters are able to perform in conversations in a CRPG are limited(fact). There is no reason that I can see why attempting to persuade or coerce a person should be limited by some sort've allocation. The existence of the skill point options only limits conversation options for people who don't put in those points. The existence of skill point options for coerce and diplomacy tend to lead a CRPG down the path of making the decision of the NPC be based on a die roll(arbitrary) or a simple stat check(mind control) rather than the line of argument used. 

For example:

Dice Roll
PC(diplomacy): "Give me your stuff." (natural 20)
King: "Well since you asked so nicely, I suppose it would be alright to make you king and give you the contents of the royal treasury."

PC(diplomacy): "It would clearly be beneficial to both parties if they worked together to increase their profit margins." (natural 1)
Businessman 1: "Are you some kind of nutjob?"
Businessman 2:"What the hell is your problem?"

Success and failure independent of line of argumentation is arbitrary and adds nothing.

Flat Stat/skill point checks in CRPGs arbitrarily punish players who take them and players who don't take them. Since the maximum number of dialogue options is always the same, to arbitrarily restrict lines of argumentation punishes the combat capability(or crafting capability if the skill points are separated) of players who do take the skill, and arbitrarily keeps players who don't take them from making logical points to NPCs.

[Mr Fixit]

I never liked 'auto-win' buttons, which all those blue/red/whatever-coloured 'special' options amount to.

[Lithuasil]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Which would turn it into a twitch game essentially, with player skill being the only thing that matters. No thanks.

So either you're suggesting that "tactical" rpgs do not require any skill, or that sheer dumb luck is a better way to determine success then player skill. 

[NRieh]

Is that an impossible to grasp concept? Because, that's kinda how swordfights work in reality.

That's one of the most....wired things I've met on BSN.

"in reality" you don't have hitpoints (to begin with), you know. And weapons do not have damage parameters. Its IMPOSSIBLE to implemend those into ANY kind of game, because ANY kind of game is a MODEL. No matter if you see it first-person, 3/4 or from top (as RTS).

How are you gloing to count "little damage"? 5 little damages= one "big damage"?

Computer does not work with " little damages". It works with numbers, variables and algorithms.

If weapon type= X AND strength stat=Y AND hit stat=Z AND armor stat=Q Damage=(X*1.5Y)/Z -Q (all variables and formulas are fictional and are given as an abstract example).


Even if you will not see any numbers at all - they won't magically disappear. That's nonsense. You can choose any other DHAC system, but even simpliest one will still operate with numbers (but have even less sense). Like Random true/false=hit/miss.

[Lithuasil]

So you're going with "it still takes numbers to calculate hits, it's in code"? Really?

I rest my case.

[Aulis Vaara]

@Lithuasil: he does have a point. You still need a model, any model is just numbers. Which is incidentally also true for real life, but the amount of number crunching can't ever be matched by a computer. Furthermore, any system that's too realistic becomes either too hard to play, or just plain not fun.

Vandicus wrote...

There is no reason that I can see why attempting to persuade or coerce a person should be limited by some sort've allocation.

Body language. And that IS something you can learn.

In any case, I'm entirely pro non-combat skills. An RPG is more than just killing things.

Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:43 .

[NRieh]

So you're going with "it still takes numbers to calculate hits, it's in code"? Really?

I rest my case.

You said you know way to "simulate real fight" without numbers and stats.

I'm telling you, that it's impossible.
Unless we consider that hits are either always hit or randomly hit-miss. Even if you won't have any visible charsheets and stast at all - it would definetely not mean that you're "emulating real life sword fight without numbers". It would only mean - you have no idea how stuff is calculated.

It's either algorithm (that IS a system based on variables and numbers), "always win" button or "random win" button (as an extra option).Nothing else I'm aware of(as an ex-LARPer, RPer and coder). If you had something much different on your mind - you could not explain it, sorry. Bringing "real life fights" did not make it any better.

But you could try again, if you wish so. I'm sure BW would be glad to get an idea for revolutionary gameplay.

[Salaya]

Vandicus wrote...

...

Mind control diplomacy/coercion is terrible(premise). All options that our characters are able to perform in conversations in a CRPG are limited(fact). There is no reason that I can see why attempting to persuade or coerce a person should be limited by some sort've allocation. The existence of the skill point options only limits conversation options for people who don't put in those points. The existence of skill point options for coerce and diplomacy tend to lead a CRPG down the path of making the decision of the NPC be based on a die roll(arbitrary) or a simple stat check(mind control) rather than the line of argument used. 

For example:

[...]

Success and failure independent of line of argumentation is arbitrary and adds nothing.

Flat Stat/skill point checks in CRPGs arbitrarily punish players who take them and players who don't take them. Since the maximum number of dialogue options is always the same, to arbitrarily restrict lines of argumentation punishes the combat capability(or crafting capability if the skill points are separated) of players who do take the skill, and arbitrarily keeps players who don't take them from making logical points to NPCs.

Note that english is not my language, so I probably misunderstood some parts of your nice post.

That said, I've never advocated that skill system should come back "as it was" from Origins. What I'm saying is that it needs to to come back in some sort of system as relevant as the growing talents/spells system. How the dice rolls and numbers should work to reflect that system is perfectlly improvable.

There is a lot of room to improve the skill. For example, as I said earlier, adding a "persuade" dialog branch to coercitive PCs that gives lots of arguments and possible ways to obtain the desired objective, not just by one line. By upgrading the skill, those arguments could get improvements in the rolls or simply reduce the number of "completely" broken arguments so the player could make decisions easier. This way, interaction and skill point allocation keeps coherent.

There is no reason that I can see why attempting to persuade or coerce a person should be limited by some sort've allocation.

If persuading people, or having diplomacy talents, is considered a skill, its perfectly reasonable to assume that anyone could get more or less experienced or talented with it. An allocation reflects this fact pretty clearly.

Success and failure independent of line of argumentation is arbitrary and adds nothing.

I'm not sure if I undertsand you. There are lines of dialog more useful than others; even in Origins, some arguments tagged as [pesuade] were more effective than others. If you are trying to persuade someone, is perfectly reasonable that various lines of argumentation come to your mind; if you have the right skill, some of them, even being inferior to others may end to result in success. But likely, it wont be the case; but, in any of these instances, the line of dialog/argument is not independent from its probability to succeed.