340 réponses à ce sujet

[Shady314]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
Yes, I'm trolling

Ok thank you.

As for 'ditched' I mean the system they used in ME1 is no longer present, it was completely removed and a new system put in. Which funnily enough is actually what the term means in this context.

But not what the word SYSTEM means. The combat system has not been completely removed. One of its mechanics was altered.

No, it's how they all become generic.

And difference for the sake of difference is no better.

Just because two games have the same game genre doesn't mean they have to emulate each other in every aspect of the game. Difference isn't a bad thing, it leads to...oh what's the term...creativity.

And your afraid ME and GOW will emulate each other in EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME. How can I not assume you are trolling when you spout this nonsense?

Try paying attention. Things like location-based damage, being able to upgrade your weapon so as to personalise it etc - these things are IMPROVEMENTS to the original system, and I think they're a great idea. Other things like ammo clips (oh sorry, heatsinks) and skill-based ammo are examples of ditching the ME1 system and are bad ideas. As for cooldown being unfun - that's your personal opinion. I thought it was a great mechanic

? I called them ammo clips. I don't really care one way or the other what people want to call them. A rose by any other name. Either way it's an "ammo" mechanic. Same as heat cooldown in ME. It is hilarious to listen to you rant about the "innovation" ME introduced with ONE mechanic which was nothing more than an alteration of of the basic ammo mechanic found in all shooters. Which btw has had weapons that had overheating.

My opinion yes but it was one shared by reviewers and a substantial amount of posters after ME1 was released. Also one that Bioware apparently also agreed with and decided to change.

That's my point though - I'm not suggesting the whole thing gets ported over into ME2. I'm simply saying that it should have been streamlined and improved rather than changing the whole thing, which I'll add even goes against the codex and universe Bioware developed for ME.

As always with you whiners you don't have a single actual suggestion for how to improve the mechanic without replacing it. Bioware couldn't find one and I doubt you will come up with one either. The overheating mechanic was stupid and on Insanity it was totally broken. Sometimes when something is truly flawed it is better and easier to replace it than attempt to "improve" it. The ME combat system especially the overheating was crap. How do you improve crap? You don't. You flush it down the toilet.

As for it going against the Codex I truly do not give a ****. Gameplay and fun is more important to how I spend my money than a paragraph in a menu.

[Terror_K]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Can you explain to me exactly what's more complex about Mass Effect, than Gears of War? 0_o

Only then can I answer your question.

...
...
...

You're kidding, right?

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and missing a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

I truly think you are rightfully ****ing with us at this point... as you are missing the basic concept of the problem here.

If you play as an "elite" Grey Warden, whom back story informs you that you have gone thru years of dedicated weapons training, and are responsible for leading an army and are personally responsible for slaughtering a million orcs by your sword/axe.. but the moment the player gets a hold of this "elite" warrior and he suddenly can't hit a dead horse for the life of him, despite standing on top of it...

THE GAME DOESN'T"T NEED TO TURN INTO A ****ING HACK AND SLASH, THE ****ING GUY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO AS ****ING ADVERTISED BY HIS ****ING BACK STORY!

Sorry, but it just seems to me that people have more of the problem with the backstory than they do with the way the combat was designed here. As if the back story is the real problem.

[Murmillos]

Darth_Shizz wrote...



Woah now. That's not correct Murm. It wouldn't work regardless

lol.. sorry. I've been trying to tell him that for the past .. 6 months now, and thats the first time he's asked that question as a responce. Its like, we finally got a pulse out of the corpse. I got a little excited.



No no.. I really love RPGs. I have no problem with the whole hero-to-zero mechanics most RPG's put us thru. From some poor farmer who's never picked up anything heavier then a rake, to then swinging a sword around gutting open rats for gold coins and slowly upward to epic dragons or .. what have you.



Sure the stat based starting aiming penalty was a bit too overt, but if Shepard was Private Shepard whom NEVER seen combat, then yes, the system would have worked. I've heard some stories from those over seas, whom get fresh recruits who get 100% shooting at the target range, but when it comes to the **** storm from their first actual firefight, are lucky to hit their target. They get better quickly, but point is.. new soldiers (not all, but a good number) with no combat experience are prone to being bad. ME1 level 1 bad.

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Can you explain to me exactly what's more complex about Mass Effect, than Gears of War? 0_o

Only then can I answer your question.

...
...
...

You're kidding, right?

Did it look as if I was? I'm serious. Which non-story aspect of the game was more complex than GoW? Sorry to say it, but I don't really see dumping points into overpowered skills and receiving plenty of vendor trash as being incredibly complex...at least not from an input and feedback perspective.

[Terror_K]

Shady314 wrote...

? I called them ammo clips. I don't really care one way or the other what people want to call them. A rose by any other name. Either way it's an "ammo" mechanic. Same as heat cooldown in ME. It is hilarious to listen to you rant about the "innovation" ME introduced with ONE mechanic which was nothing more than an alteration of of the basic ammo mechanic found in all shooters. Which btw has had weapons that had overheating.

My opinion yes but it was one shared by reviewers and a substantial amount of posters after ME1 was released. Also one that Bioware apparently also agreed with and decided to change.

Sorry, but I don't recall many people complaining about the overheat system. In fact, I recall lots of people thanking it and commenting how they liked that they didn't have to worry about ammo and deal with that aspect. I also recall a few reviewers and members of the gaming media expressing some concern and disappointment about first learning of the new "ammo" system too.

As for it going against the Codex I truly do not give a ****. Gameplay and fun is more important to how I spend my money than a paragraph in a menu.

Yeah, well... there are some of us who are not just fans of the game but also of the Mass Effect universe beyond that. Many people felt that the original game's shortcomings were easily overlooked because of the great Mass Effect universe BioWare had created in fact. So there are some of us out there who definitely think that lore and canon are more than a tad important, and without it the game is rather pointless, no matter how BioWare decides to design it.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Shady314 wrote...

As always with you whiners you don't have a single actual suggestion for how to improve the mechanic without replacing it. Bioware couldn't find one and I doubt you will come up with one either. The overheating mechanic was stupid and on Insanity it was totally broken. Sometimes when something is truly flawed it is better and easier to replace it than attempt to "improve" it. The ME combat system especially the overheating was crap. How do you improve crap? You don't. You flush it down the toilet.

As for it going against the Codex I truly do not give a ****. Gameplay and fun is more important to how I spend my money than a paragraph in a menu.

Because of course everyone who disagrees with you is a whiner and/or a troll. <_<

The overheating system being 'crap' is your opinion, not a fact. I liked it and I'm sure many others did too. Improvements can be done and I already said that I agree with some combat improvements. In terms of overheating I really don't see a problem. I wouldn't be too dubious about the ammo clips.heat sinks feature either IF there was an overheating backup. That way there would have been a blend of the two systems and it even makes sense! Weapons still overheat, but portable heatsinks have been developed to instantly cool the weapon. Going from overheating to 'can only cool with with replacable heat sinks' doesn't make sense.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Can you explain to me exactly what's more complex about Mass Effect, than Gears of War? 0_o

Only then can I answer your question.

...
...
...

You're kidding, right?

No, that's a legitimate question. Gears of War has much more complex combat than ME1. ME1's combat distilled in to "activate immunity and run in to enemy fire wasting them all" or "activate CCs and kill enemies while they can't attack back". I would call that the antithesis of complex combat.

[Shady314]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
...
...
...
You're kidding, right?
[/quote]
If it's so simple then answer the question. I'd like to know too. Graphically and gameplay wise GOW is plenty complex.
Sure it's story, dialogue and characters are laughable but did you just mean ME had a more complex story?

[quote]Murmillos wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Sorry, but it just seems to me that people have more of the problem with the backstory than they do with the way the combat was designed here. As if the back story is the real problem.[/quote]
It is exacerbating a problem RPGs have had for a long time that is becoming worse as graphical fidelity rises and combat becomes less abstract. It can be overcome though.

In the PnP RPG Mutants and Masterminds 2e for example characters by default start at a power level that puts them far above most mortals and that's just from the beginning. Exalted is another example. If you are going to give us a character that is meant to be an elite badass the character does need to actually be an elite badass from the start. The ME system was not compatible with their backstory.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

The overheating system being 'crap' is your opinion,

Along with the opinion of every sane person as well as the bioware devs.

In the beginning of the game it was obtrusive and made you keep your eyes on your heat meter instead of focusing on the combat and towards the end of the game it was something you could ignore entirely, meaning you had infinite ammo with no reprecussions.

They already somewhat preserved the heat mechanics lore of the first game through its ME2 implimentation.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...



Sorry, but it just seems to me that people have more of the problem with the backstory than they do with the way the combat was designed here. As if the back story is the real problem.

That's what I'm telling you, the the mechanics did not jive with the back story. So either the back story or the mechanics needed to change. If ME1 started with Private Shepard with no combat experience, the stat based aiming just might have made sense (but it still was a bit to overt in the penalty department).



They could have kept the stat based aiming (if the didn't make it suck so much at first) with ME2, as given his healing/lazarus project was interrupted by the attack. But they written that his new arms are fully ready to go and he can hit where he aims.

[Darth_Shizz]

Murmillos wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Woah now. That's not correct Murm. It wouldn't work regardless

lol.. sorry. I've been trying to tell him that for the past .. 6 months now, and thats the first time he's asked that question as a responce. Its like, we finally got a pulse out of the corpse. I got a little excited.

No no.. I really love RPGs. I have no problem with the whole hero-to-zero mechanics most RPG's put us thru. From some poor farmer who's never picked up anything heavier then a rake, to then swinging a sword around gutting open rats for gold coins and slowly upward to epic dragons or .. what have you.

Sure the stat based starting aiming penalty was a bit too overt, but if Shepard was Private Shepard whom NEVER seen combat, then yes, the system would have worked. I've heard some stories from those over seas, whom get fresh recruits who get 100% shooting at the target range, but when it comes to the **** storm from their first actual firefight, are lucky to hit their target. They get better quickly, but point is.. new soldiers (not all, but a good number) with no combat experience are prone to being bad. ME1 level 1 bad.

I agree totally. If I'm honest, I enjoy the same (as is probably obvious through my registered copy of DAO). The real thing that adds insult to injury when it comes to ME. It's not the fact that to begin with, shep is unable to hit the broad side of a barn door. It's that 10 levels later, stats become more or less worthless in terms of shooting. 30 levels later, health becomes a moot point. Then add 20 levels and pop the difficulty up to insanity, and battles become either a war of attrition between Immunity spamming Shepards V Immunity spamming Krogans, or a giggle-fest of swirling enemies caused by biotic spamming...biotics. This is my real problem with the game mechanics as is. It's not challenging, nor is it complex. Not as if I'm expecting it to change 100% (that feeling of power should be in an rpg), but as far as I'm concerned, actually changing up the gunplay will at least remedy this somewhat.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

Different isn't better or worse. Well, in the case of ME2 I'll bet it's better. IMO the best game series are the ones that aren't afraid to take chances and change their formula. Metroid's a good example, and I look forward to them FINALLY changing 3D Zelda for the first time since OoT in the new game. Okay, I LOVE the heck out of ME1, but the inventory was SUCH a pain! I'd have to manage that thing for like half an hour every 1 story or 2-3 side missions. They COULD have made improvements to it, like grouping items by category, but it would only have helped the problem a little bit. I applaud them for grabbing the bull by the horns and making some changes.



Now the Mako I will miss, though. But I always got out of it to fight for more EXP. And I WON'T miss the patches of terrain that were nearly impossible to get around in that I had to search through to find minerals and other oddities. Love that Mako shirt, too.

[Terror_K]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Can you explain to me exactly what's more complex about Mass Effect, than Gears of War? 0_o

Only then can I answer your question.

...
...
...

You're kidding, right?

Did it look as if I was? I'm serious. Which non-story aspect of the game was more complex than GoW? Sorry to say it, but I don't really see dumping points into overpowered skills and receiving plenty of vendor trash as being incredibly complex...at least not from an input and feedback perspective.

What, so you don't think having a statistical RPG system behind the game is more complex than Gears of War? I mean, sure... it doesn't require as much planning and thinking as most RPG's, but it's got more depth than simply running around and shooting things and perhaps doing the odd overly simplistic puzzle here and there (like not walking in the shadows, shooting a boss in a certain fashion, etc.).

And if anything, ME2's skills seem even more overpowered and over-the-top. ME1 had small increases with each point, while ME2 seems to be going to an instant gratification system where every point boosts the skill massively.

I have to say, I find it oddly ironic that whenever those who have faults complain that Mass Effect 2 is not losing deep RPG elements that those on the other side keep bringing up the fact that they seem to feel the original game didn't really have many in the first place. And then they find it odd that we feel that we're getting less... 

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Shady314 wrote...

? I called them ammo clips. I don't really care one way or the other what people want to call them. A rose by any other name. Either way it's an "ammo" mechanic. Same as heat cooldown in ME. It is hilarious to listen to you rant about the "innovation" ME introduced with ONE mechanic which was nothing more than an alteration of of the basic ammo mechanic found in all shooters. Which btw has had weapons that had overheating.

My opinion yes but it was one shared by reviewers and a substantial amount of posters after ME1 was released. Also one that Bioware apparently also agreed with and decided to change.

Sorry, but I don't recall many people complaining about the overheat system. In fact, I recall lots of people thanking it and commenting how they liked that they didn't have to worry about ammo and deal with that aspect. I also recall a few reviewers and members of the gaming media expressing some concern and disappointment about first learning of the new "ammo" system too.

As for it going against the Codex I truly do not give a ****. Gameplay and fun is more important to how I spend my money than a paragraph in a menu.

Yeah, well... there are some of us who are not just fans of the game but also of the Mass Effect universe beyond that. Many people felt that the original game's shortcomings were easily overlooked because of the great Mass Effect universe BioWare had created in fact. So there are some of us out there who definitely think that lore and canon are more than a tad important, and without it the game is rather pointless, no matter how BioWare decides to design it.

i agree with you on this one, Terror - the new "ammo system" is crap and unneeded - the original system was perfectly fine - you can make combat better by better design - better combat mechanics (which they've implemented), better enemies, better level design etc, arbitrary limits don't improve anything.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:16 .

[DarthReavus]

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Can you explain to me exactly what's more complex about Mass Effect, than Gears of War? 0_o

Only then can I answer your question.

...
...
...

You're kidding, right?

Did it look as if I was? I'm serious. Which non-story aspect of the game was more complex than GoW? Sorry to say it, but I don't really see dumping points into overpowered skills and receiving plenty of vendor trash as being incredibly complex...at least not from an input and feedback perspective.

What, so you don't think having a statistical RPG system behind the game is more complex than Gears of War? I mean, sure... it doesn't require as much planning and thinking as most RPG's, but it's got more depth than simply running around and shooting things and perhaps doing the odd overly simplistic puzzle here and there (like not walking in the shadows, shooting a boss in a certain fashion, etc.).

And if anything, ME2's skills seem even more overpowered and over-the-top. ME1 had small increases with each point, while ME2 seems to be going to an instant gratification system where every point boosts the skill massively.

I have to say, I find it oddly ironic that whenever those who have faults complain that Mass Effect 2 is not losing deep RPG elements that those on the other side keep bringing up the fact that they seem to feel the original game didn't really have many in the first place. And then they find it odd that we feel that we're getting less... 

Look, statistical aiming is great if you've got a pencil and paper and roll a few dice but it's terrible in a video game!  Considering it's cross-genre hybrid nature, ME should never have relied on stat based aiming in the first place.  Removing it is a blessing for ME2 in my opinion.  Stat based aiming is something of a relic in video games.  You cited the KotOR system earlier as something you'd prefer.  That system is six years old, it's antiquated in the modern gaming world. 

Going back six years is not the answer, the answer is to move forward and in sci-fi shooter RPGs to me that means moving away from stat based shooting and into the realms of TPS shooting.  I love all forms of RPG which includes pencil and paper D&D and Dragon Age.  Stat based combat works in those formats but I don't think it cuts the mustard with ME or the modern sci-fi RPG in general, except when it comes to things like biotic and tech powers or in the case of Star Wars, Force powers.  When it comes to shooting, stats should be kept well away and give the player the ability to directly control what they hit and where they hit by using their own eyes.

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

I have to say, I find it oddly ironic that whenever those who have faults complain that Mass Effect 2 is not losing deep RPG elements that those on the other side keep bringing up the fact that they seem to feel the original game didn't really have many in the first place. And then they find it odd that we feel that we're getting less... 

No-one is really complaining that it didn't have many RPG elements to begin with. Combat however, was questionable. BW went for a stats-based system, because "logic" dictates this is what  would appeal to the average BW/RPG fan. Fair enough. Problem being, it wasn't implemented in any particularly complex or rewarding fashion. You dumped points into skills. This quickly alleviated aiming issues. ME became a shooter (combat-wise), except with unimpressive AI, lack of satisfying animations, or any real feedback from the weapons you were firing. I.E. the combat aspect of the game was sub-par, both from the perspective of a shooter, and from an RPG.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I feel ME2 is a radical different game from ME1. And that is odd, because it should be the second part of a trilogy. That not only means that the story should be a continuation, but the gameplay shouldn't be totally alien. I don't have high expectations for both the story part and the gameplay part, but I will give it a shot one last time. I doubt it, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

[akintu]

I got about halfway through this thread and something made Planescape: Torment pop into my head.



That game is one of my all time greatest games of any genre. Its right at the top as far as RPGs go. However, many of the RPG elements in that game were "dumbed down." Your character and squad always look the same, regardless of armor. There are fewer classes than commonly found (Fighter, Mage, Thief). Fewer weapons (Knife, Axe, Mace? maybe just knives and axes). Its a brilliant game, but much of the statistical complexity, as compared to something like Baldur's Gate, is not there. And it works out brilliantly!



Just had to mention that. Gonna go finish up this thread

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry, but I don't recall many people complaining about the overheat system.

So why do you think something has to complained about or there is no reason for it to change.

Maybe the devs didn't like the system, maybe they realized that they couldn't balance the game with it still intact, or maybe the system just didn't mesh well in either the shooter or RPG aspect of Mass Effect.

Just because something isn't complained about, and just only tolerable because it gets the job done with out getting in the way of being broken, doesn't mean that the developers can't improve on it with another system which they feel will improve the game experience over all.

I'm all for developers being unique and trying new things, but they also realize and know that having a unique system just to be unique doesn't work in the grand scheme of things isn't always the best way to go either.

Modifié par Murmillos, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:26 .

[Terror_K]

[quote]DarthReavus wrote...

Look, statistical aiming is great if you've got a pencil and paper and roll a few dice but it's terrible in a video game!  Considering it's cross-genre hybrid nature, ME should never have relied on stat based aiming in the first place.  Removing it is a blessing for ME2 in my opinion.  Stat based aiming is something of a relic in video games.  You cited the KotOR system earlier as something you'd prefer.  That system is six years old, it's antiquated in the modern gaming world. [/quote]

Wait... so you're saying that they shouldn't go with a six year old system and instead should go for one that basically harkens back to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom? That seems a bit backwards.

And then there's the fact I don't agree that everything has to be "with it" and fit into the "modern gaming world" either. A good game is a good game, and KotOR recieved pretty much universal praise, and I don't think I've ever heard anybody put down its system EVER.

To me simplifying things into basic and modern shooter elements is not a step forward, because I don't consider the TPS to be a terribly innovative or deep style of game for the most part. It just happens to be a current popular trend amongst the game-playing crowd these days. And this is coming from somebody whose favourite game of all time is the original Unreal Tournament, and somebody who owns games like Gears of War, the Hitman titles, Call of Duty 4, Team Fortress 2, etc.[/quote]

[Shady314]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
Because of course everyone who disagrees with you is a whiner and/or a troll. <_<

They are? Kewl I did not know that. I feel very superior to everyone now. Suddenly I realize what you are talking about. All these X-box 13 year olds and EA have forced Bioware to ruin ME and turn it into a GOW clone.

The overheating system being 'crap' is your opinion, not a fact.

For the millionth time I know this and have not once stated otherwise. But my opinion is one shared by Reviewers, many others who voiced their opinions on the ME forums when ME first released and other gaming boards, and most importantly BIOWARE. That's what gives it weight. Not that it's MY opinion.

I liked it and I'm sure many others did too.

Find them. People that LIKED ME1 combat are in the minority and that IS a fact. You can find people that tolerated it. Like me. But anyone that actually LIKED it? Good luck.

Improvements can be done and I already said that I agree with some combat improvements. In terms of overheating I really don't see a problem.

You mean you don't see a problem with the idea or it's implementation in ME1? Combat winds up losing much urgency, fun and intelligence. Ammo forces you to place your shots (as does location based damage so having both is even better). Reloads force you to consider your timing. Reloading synergizes well with cover. Hiding behind cover and slamming in another clip is exciting because it involves action. Passive cooling was boring because you hid behind cover and waited. It makes shooting too similar to using tech/biotic powers. You shoot, gun overheats, you wait for it to cooldown. Throw a biotic/tech power, wait for it to cooldown/recharge. Shooting needs to be it's own thing not a weird imitation of the "magic" system. 

ME especially screwed up in it's implelementation. On harder difficulty you cannot do enough damage before your gun overheats to kill enemies. You practically need NG+ to be able to play Insanity. You can place some of the blame on Immunity for this. It was possible through top tier equipment and mods to eliminate the overheat mechanic. As mentioned this was mandatory on Insanity. Sabotage was infuriating especially if you were playing a Soldier and not in a challenging and thus fun sort of way. That's just off the top of my head. 

A better question is what does it add? Well it was pretty different. I can't think of anything else to say about it.
What did it add for you that was so wonderful? Not worrying about ammo? You should have to worry about things like that. Combat should be tense. Combat is tense in DA:O but not in ME. How did Bioware mess up so bad they failed to create tension in a shooter game but pulled it off in an old school RPG?! I dunno.

I wouldn't be too dubious about the ammo clips.heat sinks feature either IF there was an overheating backup. That way there would have been a blend of the two systems and it even makes sense! Weapons still overheat, but portable heatsinks have been developed to instantly cool the weapon. Going from overheating to 'can only cool with with replacable heat sinks' doesn't make sense.

Make sense based on what? Forget the ****ing codex to a GAME. It is a paragraph in a menu. This is rule ZERO **** right here. If you play PnP RPGs you know what I mean.

Your idea only works if we have heatsinks and not ammo. I think we have ammo.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Wait... so you're saying that they shouldn't go with a six year old system and instead should go for one that basically harkens back to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom?

Wait.. Doom was a TPS with cover mechanics?  Wow.. I must be losing my mind.

[Darth_Shizz]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Wait... so you're saying that they shouldn't go with a six year old system and instead should go for one that basically harkens back to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom?

Wait.. Doom was a TPS with cover mechanics?  Wow.. I must be losing my mind.

Snake?? SNAAAAAKKKEEEE?!?!?!

*da-da da-da-da....DAH DAH DAH!!!*

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:31 .

[Jebel Krong]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Wait... so you're saying that they shouldn't go with a six year old system and instead should go for one that basically harkens back to Wolfenstein 3D and Doom?

Wait.. Doom was a TPS with cover mechanics?  Wow.. I must be losing my mind.

eh? how is going to a system which mimics actual reality in terms of aiming (i.e. you physically have to aim your gun to shoot someone yourself), "harkening" back to anything (instead of some arbitrary dice-rolling skill point system which has no basis in reality but some arbitrary arcane game-mechanic, instead)?