235 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

As for the number one tip in that game to make life alot easier for you.

Makes sure all of your group has missle weapons (bow, xbow or sling) and make sure you get off your free round of shots or two as the enemy closes in. Then requip melee weapons. this makes a huge difference in the long run.

[Seagloom]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Thankyou for this answer. It's a good one and illuminates parts which could well do with it.

My opinion is the opposite: The actual mechanics are irrelevant. That is actually a detail which IMO hasn't been explored enough. The one thing which is relevant is the role-playing. That's the fundamental reason why many of us are playing these games. The fact that many other games include mechanical elements which are similar or same as "RPG-elements" may make them "RPGs", as current stolen label terminology goes, but it doesn't make them role-playing games. If you don't understand the difference, I suppose I'll have to write many, many more words, but I kinda hope you would?

I play other games. All sorts. First person shooters for instance. Like CoD, for instance. I belong to the much scorned "CoD-crowd". I'm fine with people playing and liking other sorts of games. Any kind of game. I likely have played them myself. I'm not fine with that some people think role-playing games should not be, and instead be turned into the same tired ol' bash-the-baddies-collect-the-glowing-jewels-whittle-down-the-Boss-next-level game-paradigm as almost everything else. And incidently, that particular game is one I'm thoroughly tired of.

Really. But you're right, I shouldn't put people down by claiming what they enjoy today (and since the ancient beginnings of videogaming, since it's still the same game) is false or trash. - But i don't!
What I do is to point out the fact that some games are not role-playing games!  It is a fact that they don't offer that. They may be called RPGs, but that doesn't really help, does it? If the essential experience is missing?

There are also other essentially different experiences to have in games, you know.
The role-playing experience is one. The model-railroader experience is another. Empire-building another. Bridge-building simulation another. And so it goes on... Or should...

I try not to get into these "what is an RPG?" debates as I do not believe there is an objective answer to get behind. I consider a game with certain mechanics as an "RPG" for simplicity's sake over anything else.

Technically yes, I play these games to explore a character of my making in a fictional setting. I want to guide their actions and define who they are. I don't think having dice rolls, leveling, attributes, and inventories are a necessity for that. In my opinion the further technology advances, the less relevance those facilitators become. Fights that used to be resolved by dice can now be played out in realtime, ect. The old method works for PnP because PnP's limitations necessitate them.

That said, I can enjoy those mechanics for their own sake. And there are situations where having them can help. Such as if I want to play a character is who is not skilled in a certain area. I can build them that way through stat and/or skill choices. Whereas in a game without those mechanics, I would need to act out those deficiencies in a game that will not recognize anything not explicitly coded into its rules or physics.

There is nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But I do not trust myself to always stay in character when crap hits the fan. For example, if I played a character with severe arachnophobia, could I trust myself to freak out if a spider showed up during a firefight? Or would the gamer in me feel compelled to go for the win anyway, because that's what I've been conditioned to do from years of gaming? In a tabletop game I can expect the story to continue if I role-play my character. In a video game, they will just die.

Eh, I'm getting lost in a tangent here...

In short, I think the RPG genre is in a state of transition and difficult to quantify without descending into label hell (CRPG, JRPG, Action-RPG, ect...). As a result I stick to the one definition I'm comfortable with whenever I'm drawn into this topic of discussion. On the other hand, I don't think that's the only thing an RPG can or necessarily should be, so I don't fervently defend that definition as the end all be all.

I rather not see every genre evolve in the same direction, but I also think some crossover is inevitable. Is it a good thing a or bad thing? I don't know. I think there is something to be said for perserving certain genres as they were, as not everyone appreciates the same sort of games. I also think developers should feel free to experiment and push the boundaries of what we understand these experiences to be like.

Ideally everyone should find something they can enjoy. Hence why I threw money at Obsidian's PE Kickstarter--a decidedly retro title by all accounts.

However, at the end of the day I just enjoy playing games. Sometimes it feels like so many folks around me are so wrapped up in getting exactly what they want, that they can't appreciate the good bits to be found in what's right in front of them. Ultimately we're all players of some stripe. On some level, we all share common ground. So while I can understand a person pursuing a desired experience, I think we as a community and audience tend to get mired in details that while valuable, are not, or at least should not be all important.

Think that's the last I'll write on this as it's going waaay off topic now, and I'm not positive I'm making any sense. >.<

Modifié par Seagloom, 28 novembre 2013 - 09:31 .

[Seagloom]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I think BG is pretty accessible, but I may not be a terribly good judge of that, today. And of course, I haven't tried this new re-issue yet, but the original BG did feature a tutorial, and that was all I needed to start off.
And yes, of course BG is antiquated. But what I would mean with that, is the gameplay mechanics. ...But those live on in so called "RPGs". Somewhat changed maybe, modified, but still the same.

I also think the point was a bit different. The point of this thread, I mean. That the criticism attacked perceived 'flaws' which actually are features, part of the role-playing experience. The reviewer obviously thinks he's playing a different kind of game. Mindless and lazy is a fair assessment I think.

I didn't find it terribly accessible when first playing it in '99. I wouldn't say it was beyond my ken, but it definitely wasn't pick up and play. Traipsing around Candlekeep taught me how to use the interface well enough. What it didn't do was explain the nuances of combat. Now, I'll openly admit that was partly my fault. I tried to read the manual, didn't understand it all, and decided to charge into the game anyway. I just didn't think it was that inituitive as a result of utilizing D&D rules.

My experience with Fallout was very different. It was all simply broken down into seven stats and percentages I could easily follow. Its language was simply plainer.

That said, while I can fault myself for being lazy and impatient back then, I don't think I can do that to a modern player today. Back then I usually did read manuals cover to cover, as it's what one had to do to understand a game.

In any case, yes, I think the review could have been better. The reviewer shows a clear bias and ignorance. So in terms of professionalism, I think it's a failure as it's not as impartial as it could be.

Then again, I can also see the review's value from another perspective. That of a person dipping their toes into the waters of RPGs past; finding them altogether too alien, and as a result, unenjoyable. I think that potential outcome is understandable. Regrettable, as I'd like to see more folks get into games I enjoy, but understandable. How that review is seen depends on who it's for, I guess.

[Cyonan]

So I've actually been playing through some older games that I never got around to in the past. Since the Enhanced Edition is currently on sale on Steam, I figured I would check that out.

First, running through the tutorial with a pre-made character I found it was pretty solid, showing you the basics of the interface and letting you get in a bit of combat. It didn't get into any advanced tactics but it doesn't need to. That's the sort of thing I'll work out on my own, although I suppose I might run into some mechanic later on that I feel should have been tossed into the tutorial.

The character creation screen though is where I start to see what they're talking about. If I'm being perfectly honest, somebody who hasn't seen D&D rules is going to be completely confused by what the hell a saving throw, THAC0, or 2D6 means.

As somebody who doesn't play D&D but has played other games using the rule set, I don't have a very in depth knowledge of the system but I can get by.

I'm fine with a game wanting to use the D&D rule set, but I do believe it should have a point of criticism against it if it doesn't bother explaining what anything means. I don't think it's very good game design to expect the player to have played an entirely different game to understand how yours works, or else have Google open for the entire game.

[Jestina]

Since the majority of the people that bought the game were also p&p gamers, there's no need for hand holding. The game wasn't exactly designed with you here today, gone tomorrow gamers in mind.

I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

[addiction21]

Jestina wrote...


I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Ya, that makes a gamer a gamer....

[Jestina]

addiction21 wrote...

Jestina wrote...
I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Ya, that makes a gamer a gamer....

It means you care enough about the hobby to do some freaking research. The system was in use from at least the mid-80's up to 2000. A simple Google search and you can find out the game uses 2nd ed. AD&D rules. It's not that hard.

[TheRealJayDee]

Jestina wrote...

Since the majority of the people that bought the game were also p&p gamers, there's no need for hand holding. The game wasn't exactly designed with you here today, gone tomorrow gamers in mind.

I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

I've been playing P&P RPGs for about 16 years now, never any D&D before 3rd edition though. Whenever I started playing some of the AD&D CRPGs I was completely lost about the THAC0 system, and that hasn't changed til today. Still not sure if it's because the system itself is unintuitive or just because it doesn't really compute with any of my experiences.

I actually really dislike the AD&D system from my experiences with it, and it's one of the reasons I never really got into most of the classic CRPGs, the exception being Planescape: Torment. 

So yeah, I think you need to take this now... *hands over Gamer Badge* 

[OdanUrr]

Jestina wrote...

I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

[Cyonan]

Jestina wrote...

Since the majority of the people that bought the game were also p&p gamers, there's no need for hand holding. The game wasn't exactly designed with you here today, gone tomorrow gamers in mind.

I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Yes, how dare I suggest that a game explain its own mechanics.

Obviously things have so much less hand holding when the new player(after all, we apparently can't call these people gamers now due to them not knowing some random terminology from a pen and paper game) is left completely in the dark as to what any of the terms you are using means unless they quit the game and go play something else instead first or look it up on Google and have somebody else do the exact same thing I suggested the game should be doing.

Never mind that this has absolutely nothing to do with actual hand holding, this must be stamped out immediately!

[Il Divo]

Cyonan wrote...

Jestina wrote...

Since the majority of the people that bought the game were also p&p gamers, there's no need for hand holding. The game wasn't exactly designed with you here today, gone tomorrow gamers in mind.

I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Yes, how dare I suggest that a game explain its own mechanics.

Obviously things have so much less hand holding when the new player(after all, we apparently can't call these people gamers now due to them not knowing some random terminology from a pen and paper game) is left completely in the dark as to what any of the terms you are using means unless they quit the game and go play something else instead first or look it up on Google and have somebody else do the exact same thing I suggested the game should be doing.

Never mind that this has absolutely nothing to do with actual hand holding, this must be stamped out immediately!

Pretty much this. Some people have an overly inflated opinion of themselves unfortunately.

[Il Divo]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

I've been playing P&P RPGs for about 16 years now, never any D&D before 3rd edition though. Whenever I started playing some of the AD&D CRPGs I was completely lost about the THAC0 system, and that hasn't changed til today. Still not sure if it's because the system itself is unintuitive or just because it doesn't really compute with any of my experiences.

I actually really dislike the AD&D system from my experiences with it, and it's one of the reasons I never really got into most of the classic CRPGs, the exception being Planescape: Torment. 

Planescape: Torment was my one exception as well. But I think it's also because the characters/writing were strong enough to carry the entire experience. The same cannot be said for Baldur's Gate 1, which has an extremely bland plot/companion interaction.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 novembre 2013 - 12:38 .

[Seagloom]

THAC0 = To Hit Armor Class 0 (zero).

One of the best things WotC did when they took over D&D and put out 3e was change it so better hit chances went *up* instead of down. XD Grognards complained about Base Attack Bonus and the changes to Armor Class, but the result was a system with the same function that was much easier to explain. Ditto with replacing those extraneous saving throw types with Fortitude, Reflex, and Will.

Nowadays I'm about as big a tabletop nerd as one gets, and I still dislike THAC0.

Modifié par Seagloom, 29 novembre 2013 - 12:46 .

[Il Divo]

Since we're jumping on the 3.0 bandwagon, I also much enjoyed the addition of feats, which added an extra layer to the bland autoattack fest which your typical fighter was involved with.

[Seagloom]

Definitely. Feats made casters more interesting to play too. 3e also brought with it the sorcerer--my favorite D&D class then and now. I could finally play a mage that could cast what they knew when they felt like it. Good times.

Full disclosure: much as I like the Baldur's Gate games + expansions, I still rate NWN higher whenever asked what my favorite BioWare games are. The rule changes were part of that. >.>

Modifié par Seagloom, 29 novembre 2013 - 12:55 .

[Jestina]

The rules didn't need to be simpler. People just need to stop being lazy. The problem was that with the coming of card games, the hobby got an influx of casual gamers that didn't want to be bothered with anything more complex than 1+1. AD&D doesn't use anything beyond simple mathematics skills. If I were introducing a new person to RPG's then I would go with something like Star Wars from GDW(not the atrocious WOTC version) then bring them into D&D. Paranoia was another system that was easy to grasp and it was a comical setting.

[addiction21]

Jestina wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Jestina wrote...
I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Ya, that makes a gamer a gamer....

It means you care enough about the hobby to do some freaking research. The system was in use from at least the mid-80's up to 2000. A simple Google search and you can find out the game uses 2nd ed. AD&D rules. It's not that hard.

And here I thought being a gamer meant loving games not having to stop playing a game to google and research how to play games.

If to play a game you need to do research on how to play the game then that game has failed.

Anyway everyone knows ToEE is the only real D&D game.

[OdanUrr]

addiction21 wrote...

Anyway everyone knows ToEE is the only real D&D game.

I think that's the only D&D game I ever played.

[Il Divo]

Seagloom wrote...

Definitely. Feats made casters more interesting to play too. 3e also brought with it the sorcerer--my favorite D&D class then and now. I could finally play a mage that could cast what they knew when they felt like it. Good times.

Full disclosure: much as I like the Baldur's Gate games + expansions, I still rate NWN higher whenever asked what my favorite BioWare games are. The rule changes were part of that. >.>

Agreed.

At the end of the day, I could nitpick any individual 2.0 mechanic, but if I were to give an overall assessment of why I find it lacking (and accepting 3.0 has its own problems), it's a lack of variety and customization post character-creation.

I feel like, mainly with regard to melee characters, once I've created the character there's very little additional customization to the leveling process. Attributes don't ever increase, there is no feat system to consider, skills were limited to the Thief, etc. I liked having finer control over my character's abilities as I gained levels.

[Il Divo]

addiction21 wrote...

Jestina wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Jestina wrote...
I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Ya, that makes a gamer a gamer....

It means you care enough about the hobby to do some freaking research. The system was in use from at least the mid-80's up to 2000. A simple Google search and you can find out the game uses 2nd ed. AD&D rules. It's not that hard.

And here I thought being a gamer meant loving games not having to stop playing a game to google and research how to play games.

If to play a game you need to do research on how to play the game then that game has failed.

Anyway everyone knows ToEE is the only real D&D game.

It makes about as much sense as Star Wars needing a 10 minute opening crawl before the actual movie starts. It defies the purpose of the experience.

[Il Divo]

Jestina wrote...

The rules didn't need to be simpler.

The rules didn't need to be simpler, they just needed to be fun. The simple truth is, some people think DnD 2.0 blows. No arguments to simplicity vs. complexity needed. Baldur's Gate masquerades as complex by hiding its mechanics from the player, not by actually being difficult.

[spirosz]

addiction21 wrote...

Jestina wrote...


I would ROFL at some supposed gamer that doesn't know what THACO is.

Ya, that makes a gamer a gamer....

[Jestina]

addiction21 wrote...
If to play a game you need to do research on how to play the game then that game has failed.

 You do realize that when this game came out, every gamer knew AD&D? Duh. There was no need for holding hands back then because we all knew 2nd. edition rules. If you're interested in a remake of a classic AD&D game, then get off your lazy butt and read up on AD&D rules.